Tuesday was such an exciting day for me. The kids stayed home from school, so I got to send my 17 year old son to do errands. I finally got to go vote, even if there was more to vote against, than there was to vote “for,” I still cherish the gift we have here in America to go vote for our Representation. To really top off the day, I had the honor of attending the Governor’s Party at the Westin Inn in Atlanta. There were MANY candidates holding parties there.
Just for some background information, back in 2004 I had the time of my life on the campaign trail as the campaign manager for retired US Army Lt Colonel, Doug McKittrick, in his bid for the GA State House of Representatives. When you are on the campaign trail, you see many of the same faces (candidates and their supporters) over and over again. You also get to know them all pretty well.
I gained many friends, but also learned some disheartening truths. One of the people I had gotten to learn a bit about was Tom Price. We had always gotten along on the campaign trail, but then again, he wanted my vote. Personally, I didn’t really like Tom; he seemed a bit too greasy for my liking. Cold and calculated. A typical BS politician. Even some (NOT ALL) of his staff were a tad snotty.
Last year, I heard an Atlanta morning talk show host railing on Tom Price. I have had the chance to meet this host, and we had emailed each other a few times. I emailed him and blasted him, defending Tom on his efforts to pass a bill requiring that Congressmen put their names next to their earmarks. Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see earmarks stopped, but I tried to give Tom credit for not letting grass grow under his feet for his first term as our Congressman.
In the last few months, Tom has insisted on proving my initial thoughts on him to be correct, but Tuesday night, he left me no doubt whatsoever. Tom has refused to answer any of my letters or calls in the last year. Tom has been exceptionally cruel to anyone who bothers to voice any disapproval on the behavior of Congress, or confront him with facts on the issues. In fact, his venom seems to more palpable towards frustrated conservatives than towards his buddies in Washington DC.
With ALL this in mind, I still realize that in the political world, we can disagree without being hateful or bitter. We can have honest debate, take our praise where we can get it and roll with the punches when they come too. I have had knock-down drag-outs (in the verbal sense) with many of my elected officials, but we have always parted ways with a hand shake. In fact, after our bantering I have offered my help to some of them, and they have called on me for help as well. The point being is that we are all a community, passionate about our convictions. We should be proud to fight for those convictions, but never proud to act in a un-statesman-like manner.
So off I went. I went to see Tom…… I walked into his designated room to say hello. When I saw Tom, he was talking to 2 or 3 people, so I politely stood off to the side, awaiting my turn. He turned to me with a big grin, said hello, and stuck out his hand. I shook his hand and said, “Hi Tom. How are you doing? You remember me; I’m the crazy red-head from Acworth, now I’m with Control Congress.”
He YANKED his hand away, stepped backwards and blurted out, “Control Congress is NOT Republican.”
I grinned from ear to ear, pitched my voice up a notch or two and answered, “Of course not, we are conservative. You should try it!” With that, Tom turned his back to me and proceeded to shake hands with……..uh, no one was there….He was frantically looking for another hand to shake and someone else to talk to. The rest of the night, my smile was bigger and brighter than I could have imagined! This was truly the HIGHLIGHT of my night!
You know you are doing something right when you are a conservative - and an incumbent Republican Congressman, in a Republican stronghold district, is this rattled by the mere mention of your radio show/web site. The best gift was his words. (to paraphrase) “YOU are NO Republican.”
So go ahead, Tom. Keep bashing your base. It is a BRILLIANT strategy. It is working so well for you and your buddies in DC. When the troops come home, I hope you tell them how hard you worked to make sure those crazy conservatives didn’t show up to support the Republicans on election day. Continue with your refusal to accept any criticism. I mean, personal accountability is just crazy “conservative speak.” Join Lizzy Dole in her state of denial, “It’s not MY Fault.”
Comments (17)
I am extremely disturbed by President Bush in his latest ploy for a legacy. He appears to be delighted to work with the new commie Democrat leadership in the pursuit of a legacy (à la President Clinton). Now that he doesn't have all those pesky conservatives obstructing him, he surely expects to open the borders to billions more illegal aliens and terrorists. Yahoo!
Darlin', you need to begin the construction of a list of good conservative candidates for 2008. Think about it. I will try again today to get my link to the Hub working.
Posted by Right Wing Nut Job | November 11, 2006 12:43 PM
Posted on November 11, 2006 12:43
I ALWAYS SUSPECTED LIZZY WAS A RINO!
With senators like her, NO WONDER NOTHING CONSERVATIVE GOT PASSED!
Posted by Sensei Ern | November 13, 2006 11:29 AM
Posted on November 13, 2006 11:29
Sensei:
Yes, indeed. Lizzy is the poster chick for censorship and gun control - two hallmarks of liberal totalitarianism.
So, why would they name her to chair the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee? Back when George Allen was running it, things went splendidly. But I guess the leftists hate dissent amoungst themselves (even when they agree?) - just ask Sen. Joe Lieberman.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
Posted by Right Wing Nut Job | November 14, 2006 11:37 AM
Posted on November 14, 2006 11:37
In the 80s (I'm asking because I was about 10 years old at the time) I know that Tipper Gore was big on censorship, but the movement was a coalition that included conservatives as I understand it. The prize in my collection (besides the investigative report my mother stared in after contacting the news station about the albums on my Christmas list) is a video of Frank Zappa on Crossfire that featured a rabbid conservative columnist from the Washington Times, and they went at it pretty good through two segments.
The thing that confused me about politics growing up was how the conservatives around me could be so libertarian about things like being told to wear a seatbelt or register their gun, yet the complete opposite in terms of the first ammendment. Vietnam was talked about every now and then, with the blame for us losing falling on the war protestors and the solution was to outlaw such activity while the nation was at war.
I know that the phenomenon here is not exclusive to the right or the left, but your point about censorship being a liberal thing struck me as wildly off base.
(eeevil - didn't notice your site on the list of links on Control Congress until today. Keep writing!)
Posted by Al Swearengen | November 28, 2006 8:24 PM
Posted on November 28, 2006 20:24
Al:
I personally believe that "imposed censorship" is a liberal aspect. Let me clarify my comment with two points.
First, all those in favor of strong censorship being mandated somehow have the crazy notion that they will be the ones doing the censoring (or despots of their own ilk). By your example, how would you feel about letting Frank Zappa do the censoring (or Moon Unit or Dweezil in his absence)? What about letting Larry Flynt decide what makes acceptable movies or Mikey Moore censor our press? Marilyn Manson or your favorite imam could be in charge of Freedom of Religion issues. Yet, to many, letting Lizzy Dole or Pat Robertson make the calls seem equally ludicrous.
Second, the concept of censorship supports a fundamentally liberal process. That is, we will suppress the individual freedom and responsibilty for the good of the whole. Please understand that we each have right and left tendencies, depending on specifics. For example, I cringe at the concept of for-profit hospitals; I believe these should be run by churches, universities, or local governments. Delving more deeply into this thought, I point out that holistic social constructs (e.g. communism) do exist and work very well indeed. But all successful ones have one thing in common: they are voluntary. Monestaries, convents, communes, and cults provide for the benefit of the whole (by decree) over the individual. What this means to censorship, in my opinion, is that the process of censorship is great, but that it must be voluntarily subscribed by the target audience. The Legion of Decency is a good example wherein a certain religious laity would agree to accept the recommendations of a censoring body. Most private organizations have similar operations, albeit on a smaller scale.
I welcome differing opinions and viewpoints. Thank you, Al, for raising this issue. The above is my story for now, anyway.
Posted by Right Wing Nut Job | November 29, 2006 10:42 AM
Posted on November 29, 2006 10:42
Don't we find in history that hard right governments have tended favored censorship as well though? A brief jaunt through Europe during the inquisition or even in our own history (Lynn, MA), it was the idea that words could envoke evil and capsize the entire ship if nothing was done about it.
That was the crux of the argument in the 80s, that the children were going to be victims in the end if the government didn't assign someone to decide what was acceptable and what wasn't. The choice vs. involuntary induction into a social order explaination you present, I get that, but don't necessarily agree that it's a comparison of apples and apples.
The labeling of censorship...or rather, the compartmentalizing of it into a strict cubbyhole like 'liberal totalitarianism' is much too restrictive in my opinion.
Philosophy...applying the tools at my disposal right now (12 hours of chasing around twin 16 month olds, bit worn down), the tendency for a governing authority to restrict public content involves abstract concepts like power and fear, which encapsulate greed, piety, control, best interests, etc.
Do you disagree with that analysis? Because from there I can take power and fear and assume that such a thing is possible in every form of government from democracy on down to totalitarianism, and either a liberal or a conservative (and a moderate afraid of losing power, throwing a bone out to the massess who are concerned about women's collars not being high enough or something) could be in the captain's chair at that time.
My simplistic dissent prompted a heady response, so I had fun thinking about this one, nice to meet you friend!
Posted by Al Swearengen | November 30, 2006 9:01 PM
Posted on November 30, 2006 21:01
Al:
I agree totally with your analysis. Where we are differing is our specific definition of liberalism. I heartily recommend the website Moral-Politics for a better understanding of my position. Being cynical, opinionated, and far to the right of conservative, I find myself in the lower right hand corner of this matrix. I suggest that you take the long test. They will not send you anything or distribute your name. This is my favorite Matrix analysis (although there are many others). By this matrix, censorship is a matter of moral rules, upward on the matrix, rather than right-to-left. So, I really believe we agree on the concepts, just not on the labels. It is the Authoritarian nature of more governmental control (whether that control is secular or religious). It is also why I agree with friends like Neal Boortz and Burt Pretlusky on many issues (e.g. gun-control), but disagree on many others (e.g. abortion).
Furthermore, this explains why the Republicans were hurt so badly in the last election - because they moved upward on the matrix (more toward control and censorship), not because they moved rightward or leftward - although RINOs may be either upward (like Lizzy) or leftward (like Chaffee).
Anyway, I have enjoyed our discourse immensely. God Bless you and keep your powder dry.
Posted by Right Wing Nut Job | December 1, 2006 12:32 PM
Posted on December 1, 2006 12:32
Nice site. Thanks.
free teen sex movie
Posted by free teen sex movie | February 17, 2007 8:21 PM
Posted on February 17, 2007 20:21
Very good site. Thank you!!!
teen anal sex
Posted by teen anal sex | February 17, 2007 9:59 PM
Posted on February 17, 2007 21:59
Cool site. Thank you:-)
teen group sex
Posted by teen group sex | February 18, 2007 1:15 AM
Posted on February 18, 2007 01:15
Cool site. Thank you:-)
teen group sex
Posted by teen group sex | February 18, 2007 1:16 AM
Posted on February 18, 2007 01:16
Very good site. Thanks!
teen sex
Posted by teen sex | February 18, 2007 6:08 AM
Posted on February 18, 2007 06:08
Very good site. Thanks!
teen sex
Posted by teen sex | February 18, 2007 6:08 AM
Posted on February 18, 2007 06:08
Good site. Thanks.
teen sex movie
Posted by teen sex movie | February 18, 2007 9:04 AM
Posted on February 18, 2007 09:04
Good site. Thanks.
teen sex movie
Posted by teen sex movie | February 18, 2007 9:05 AM
Posted on February 18, 2007 09:05
Cool site. Thanks.
hydrocodone abuse
Posted by hydrocodone 10 325 | March 4, 2007 2:59 AM
Posted on March 4, 2007 02:59
Cool site. Thank you:-)
hydrocodone without prescription
Posted by prescription hydrocodone | March 11, 2007 2:48 PM
Posted on March 11, 2007 14:48