So, what did Mr. Kolbe support? Well, Jim Kolbe was 1 of only 6 Republicans in Congress to vote against the ban on partial-birth abortion. He was a huge supporter of abortion. He also hid language in a bill that allowed gay lovers of foreigners and diplomats to use their sam-sex partners to seek asylum and immigration recognition. Jim Kolbe was also the open-borders genius who wrote Bush’s amnesty plan. So, what did he oppose? Well, he wouldn’t support Republicans who ran to replace him after he retired because they were opposed to gay marriage. He was Dede Scozzafava before Scozzafava was. The list on Jim Kolbe goes on & on.

Obviously, this new guy might not support the same things, but Congress does change people. Kolbe didn’t even start off as “so bad.” He just got progressively worse as he became more entrenched into power. So, what are Matthew Berry’s feelings about “Don’t ask; Don’t Tell”? What are his feelings about allowing people who think they are gay to adopt children? What are his feelings about so-called “gay marriage”? And how much will those feelings change overtime if he holds conservative positions on these things?

There are reasons why the “Tea Party” movement became so powerful. And part of that is because voters saw that those who were being pushed on us as “our best” candidates were so flawed and represented things that were dead wrong. The “homosexual agenda” is dead wrong!

Voting against a person who conducts him or herself in such a manner is absolutely justified. Homosexual conduct goes against the very nature of man given to him by God. Now, I don’t live in Virginia, so this race does not affect me. And I am no fan of Jim Moran who is an absolute idiot. But saying that someone just “happens to be gay” is a page right out of the liberal playbook. I would write someone else or find another candidate before either of these choices became acceptable.

I know the left loves their narrative, but you guys could at least try to use one with a basis in fact.

* Yes, I know someone will dig up a comment on some never read blog somewhere that says unpatriotic, but relevance is the key.

Moe Lane

PS: “Model.citizen@yahoo.com” Cute. Alas, some of us actually listen to Alice Cooper.

http://new.music.yahoo.com/alice-cooper/tracks/model-citizen–2061240

Next post.

“Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., said: “The seven million Muslim-Americans living in the US are an integral part of American society. Our country is a melting pot of different cultures and beliefs. This diversity is a strength, not a weakness. Bringing more Muslim-Americans into the political process is a goal, not something to be avoided.”

How do you feel about that, especially after recent events?

Thanks!

In truth, I tend to agree with you. Sure, some of his policies are socialist inspired but the truth is that America has been a mixed economy for as long as there has been a stable and prosperous middle class and what you really see all over the Internet are alleged conservatives calling everyone that’s not conservative, Socialists, Communists, fascists, totalitarian, or dictator interchangably and sometimes all together as if it ever makes actual sense.

This is an area where I think, as you say, we sell ourselves short because we’re not as good at it. We should be arguing on the basis of what these bills are ACTUALLY going to do instead of just crying out the scariest word we can find.

It has it’s place but I fear sometimes it might hurt us in the end. As I said, consistency. How can we be upset that Moran questioned our patriotism when we call and have called people that oppose us anti-American and any other scary word we can find ad infinitum?

But I fear I may he treading on thin ground here. I’m just so worried about all this stuff and I know how important trying to defeat it is that I want to air out some of the things I think about that I worry about hurting us in the long run. The MSM shows what they want and people do remember. Even if we wish they wouldn’t.

In short, I was saying that in the end, discussion of the various allegations of “racism” or “unpatriotism” or what say you are fruitless because of the obvious ambiguities surrounding politicians, and because of the simple fact that you, as a voter, don’t know them. Moreover, whenever conservatives get into the namecalling game, liberals win: we’re not very good at it, and we are at a disadvantage to begin with, as a result of an unfair and biased arbiter (MSM).

Therefore, rather than try to win on a subjective level, where progressives have natural advantages, we should try to frame issues objectively. As an example, instead of calling Dems “unpatriotic” or “socialist”, we should show the effects of their actions (“the bill that Senator X voted for will have the effect of increasing the budget by 200%”).

Hopefully, that clarified my position a bit.

Basically, I can be an idiot, and I didn’t really get what you were saying there.

Maybe you could elaborate. My curiosities and questions are honest and open to all.

Thanks.

I’m of the view that, generally speaking, showing the results of progressive policy is more effective, because it is more objective. Conservatism has always been at its best with objective truth and statement, and is out of place in the post-modernist world that liberals tend to prefer (note how often their calls to arms rely on emotion, and not substance).

Sometimes when I really think on it I start to going in circles. A lot on our side seem to get really upset when the credentials as “Real Americans” are questioned by those that oppose us.

But I do remember, as much as I’d like to block it out, us doing the same thing under Bush and many, all over Internet comment forums on the Internet, still doing so today.

I wonder sometimes if it cheapens our complaints like the one this post pointed out, when we say that you can’t just do that to us, say we’re Un-American, because many of us, myself included, have used that line of attack on others many times in the past and today.

Makes me feel like, again, consistency is a powerful political tool. Inconsistency could hurt us.

Any thoughts? Our ultimate goal should be victory with as few setbacks and self-caused harm as possible, no?