I'm wondering from which mainstream Mitch is speaking. Is it the
mainstream of Reagan conservatism then? (That's fine, tiresome, but
fine). Is Mitch wowing us with conservative newspeak as a man of the
people? (That's typical). Is discussing the ideology of prospective
CD3 candidates off topic as Mitch suggests? (No, it is not). Mitch
writes a very confused and disorganized post with the usual modus
operandi of celebrating Reagan's budget busting deficits to crush
European Communism and ignoring what the doctrine of limited
government has wrought on our nation's economy domestically; deficits
do matter and you can't conduct government finance like a shell game
or Ponzi scheme for the benefit of the the military industrial
complex for too long or things fall apart. If an economy booms in the
woods, but you didn't benefit from your labor that brought it about,
did it really happen? For most of us, it did not and all the newspeak
that Mitch can lay on us will not change the fact that we have been
parasitized for the dubious benefit of the folks who *have* reaped
the benefits; folks like Mitch act as the anticoagulant introduced by
leeches to ease the flow of a blood meal.
Bring on your Poles and N. Dakotans, Mitch, if you can get the former
travel visas from Dubya's Administration to come to Minnesota (gotta
stay on topic), but don't be surprised if you find them all more
partial to American democracy than the sick Conservative fusionist
empire that has made us pariahs around the civilized world. If our
founding principles mean nothing to Republicans here--as suggested in
the way they were used by Reagan as Saddam Hussein used the Qur'an or
as perverted or discarded by the present Administration--they mean
less than nothing globally. Revolution is something that happens with
every U.S. election and Mitch's Reagan Revolution was not delayed
here; it was beaten back in a non-partisan fashion by people with
good old fashioned Minnesota common sense. As I said, CD3 is not
going to elect anyone with the credentials preferred by Mitch by a
majority because such a candidate can only sneak in by a plurality
(Bachmann got a majority in the Sixth by the skin or her teeth over a
weak DFLer and an IP candidate who showed up; 0.06% less than her
total and, voila, plurality. Kline got his majority because he ran
against a bit of a goof). Anyways, all the Polish Americans and N.
Dakotans whom I know here are reasonably nonviolent and unlikely to
beat me "to a pulp" for my politics; the notion that any American
would is Mitch newspeak.
Sing about unicorns if you like, Mitch, and maidens and dragons as
well, but the joke's on you because your revolution is dying; from
your no tax pledges to your two by four wielding state party chair,
you're paving the way to a Democratic controlled state government.
You're all like a worn out 78 skipping all over the place at all your
favorite licks that no one else wants to listen to anymore. We want a
functioning democratic government back again, and very few
Republicans in office know how that is done. The Repubican party
spent too much time purging those, like Ramstad, willing to get the
job done; you just plumb wore them down and out and Minnesota is on
to you all now. You're all burnt toast, ready for the ash can.
I look forward to Mitch's next clip and distortion of the positions
of others here on the forum, but his blog is a place to which no one
should subject themselves. Sorry if anyone but Mitch was offended by
the "conservative nutcase" label; I should have just said 'delusional
conservative'. ;-)
"They shall guard Thy fame and adore Thy name; Thou shalt be their
Northern Star!"--from our state song, "Hail! Minnesota"
On Sep 18, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Mitch Berg wrote:
> I live in the Fourth, so I have some research to do.
> And I've been doing it.
>
> Via my *other* blog, "True North" - a
> first-principles-based center-right blog that covers
> Minnesota politics - I've been talking with some
> people in the Third. The district seems to share
> something with the very dissimilar Fourth District; a
> fairly clueless leadership.
>
> The Third District's GOP establishment is scared stiff
> at the thought of trying to run anyone that isn't
> relentlessly status-quo; they are holdovers from the
> "IR" days, when "Republicans" were panicky at the
> thought of being seen to rock the boat over things
> like "principles" and other such impedimenta. Between
> Ramstad, Frenzel, and Clark McGregor before him, the
> Third District has had "moderate" Republican reps
> since *1961*.
>
> In the meantime, while the district does have some
> swing-y, "purple" areas, much of the Third has
> redistricted to encompass some of the best,
> conservative Republican territory in the state; the
> West Metro and western exurbs.
>
> The 3CD leadership is paralyzed and lost in a time
> warp, in a world where Arne Carlson is still a viable
> governor and Gerald Ford is a conservative; their
> district has passed them by.
>
> The "conventional wisdom" is telling conventional
> people that the Third should stick with a RINO.
>
> Who knows? While I ability to predict is documentably
> better than average, I'm no clairvoyant. But I think
> events will play out very differently; this could be a
> GREAT time to run a conservative in the Third. Thank
> goodness.
>
> --- Bill Kahn <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps a conservative nut case can
>> still win a
>> plurality
>
> If a conservative orders a pizza in the woods, and
> Bill Kahn doesn't hear him, is he still a "nutcase?"
>
> Thanks, Bill. My dose of history filtered by
> crypto-marxist dogma is filled for the day.
>
>> I hope
>> that most folks realize that what Mitch's "Reagan
>> Revolution" gave us
>
> Not really a Minnesota topic; I'll refer you to my
> Polish friends, or the people from near where I grew
> up who no longer share their land with missile silos,
> for debunquement. Those who don't beat you to a pulp
> will have words for you ;-)
>
>> I sincerely hope that moderation is
>> not the key to
>> winning the Third and that someone will capture this
>> seat based on
>> the good that government can do
>
> Also on how cute unicorns are, and the wonders of
> thought power.
>
> On Sep 17, 2007, at 4:47 PM, marc hugunin wrote:
>
>>> Both are right. The more moderate candidate wins.
Rest of post
>
> Well, I guess that settles it, then!
>
> Ask Jim Knoblach.
>
> Mitch Berg
> Speaking from the mainstream,
> The Midway