Rep. Shelley Moore Capito picked up a National Rifle Association endorsement in the race for U.S. Senate in West Virginia, the gun rights group announced Wednesday. [More]Because even though they're spending big bucks to branch out into other issues, guess which one is not included.
Hey, as long as the illusion is being maintained...
14 comments:
FNRA. I'm sick of this crap. I'll be donating to her opponent and to Rove's handpicked prick RINO Sullivan who defeated true conservative Joe Miller in Alaska.
If the NRA, Rove, and Norquisling wanted conservatives to help "Republicans" take back the senate, they shouldn't have torpedoed all the real Republicans in the primaries.
The enemy in your command post is vastly more damaging than the open enemy on the other side of the wire.
Anon,
So you'd rather support a (D) who has not made a public statement on immigration either way, which could lose a (R) vote in the Senate, which could result in an Obama SCOTUS appointment as well as the numbers to pass an Obama immigration package, because the NRA supported the winner in the (R) primary *after* the primary?
That doesn't pencil out, it's burning down the house cause you don't like the drapes in *one* window.
And the Miller analogy is asinine, Joe.could.not.win the general election here in Alaska. Alaska is not "conservative" enough on social issues to elect him. He proved that by beaten by Murkowski as a write-in and his public profile and baggage have not improved since then.
Matthew - you did a good job in your three paragraph reply to Anon. But you missed one point: "The enemy in your command post is vastly more damaging than the open enemy on the other side of the wire."
I'm in Anon's camp, here. Since Reagan, how many Republicans have voted to reduce the usurpation - across the board - of the Bill of Rights? They keep getting re-elected too, right? My favorite is "arm ISIL" (or whatever name they go by today) McCain. Great "Maverick" Republican. And he keeps getting reelected. Now, he's groomed Flake to be Mini-McCain.
Your position is EXACTLY what RINOs are relying on. "We'll burn the house down SLOWER than the Democrat candidate."
Should be a RINO campaign slogan.
Faux to wit: "My opponent opines that (he/she) will destroy your rights at a greater pace than shall I."
In sum: "The Democrat in this election wants to grant amnesty to everyone who managed to illegally sneak across the border within the last 15 years. I propose that we only allow the children who were illegally brought across by family to become citizens, and their families can then become citizens at a later date."
My view, FWIW, is that the frogs are already boiling, and talking only about the taste of the water.
Yet no third party is viable. We've weathered 6 years of Obama/Democrat rule.
Yeah - it will be painful if the Prozis maintain or gain power. But, IMO, that's what it's gonna take to wake up the "pull the Republican lever" voters. If they're not on your side, why, exactly would you trust them? Do you like that Patriot Act, and all the other usurpation of rights that have come from Republican majorities? I don't. If people suffer quickly and rise to the occasion to remedy the situation, I calculate that as a win. Besides, it's actually possible to pass a law that invalidates a previous law. What I garner from your post, is, in reality, you have so little faith in Republicans actually undoing the tyranny foisted upon us, and which may be heaped upon is i spades, that you're willing to vote in caricatures of Liberty defending politicians, because you believe there's either little, or no, hope for the majority of Republicans to undo or fix tyrannical laws. Thus, support of the slippery slope of a ponderous march towards never ending tyranny.
All I hear from the mainstream, entrenched, good-ole-boy Republicans, is that they want to destroy people who believe like I (and perhaps Anon) do - and paint us with the pernicious "Tea Bagger" brush.
It appears that neither I, nor Anon, will continue to vote for the purported lesser of two evils. Have to agree to disagree, here.
Best to ya, Matthew. I hope it ends well, but hold little hope.
Dear Matthew,
I considered your comment thoroughly, decided it was a bunch of dishonest nonsense and you're shilling for Sullivan & Rove, so I went ahead and donated $1000 against Sullivan. I'll be doing the same against some other RINOs, although my main donations will be in support of real Republicans like Steve King and Lou Barletta. If my irrational donations upset you, break open your check book and pencil them out.
Your tired clichés don't work on folks who've been immunized by years of betrayals by the Quislings you support.
For example, Obama's already had anti-American appointments. The Republicans and the NRA could've easily stopped them, but they didn't even try. Lindsey Graham and other "A" rated Senators kept their phony A grades after they salivated all over Soto & Kagan. Same thing for anti-gun Obamacare, which the NRA could've easily stopped, had it called in the chips on just one of those phony A ratings.
You're misrepresenting Sullivan, and Miller's viability.
According to NumbersUSA, Sullivan is for amnesty and is weak on all other border issues. He refused to pledge not to support amnesty as a Senator. Clearly a waterboy for the Chamber of Commerce, which is why the open immigration crowd stuffed his campaign with millions of dollars.
Meanwhile Sullivan told erstwhile chumps like you what they wanted to hear about "border security", tossing the same lines as McCain, Graham, and nearly all Democrats. "Oh Baby, you know I care about you. I won't ___ in your mouth, I promise."
With Senators like Sullivan, Rove & the Dems will win the immigration long game anyway. They won't do anything to stop the subversion of our most fundamental national defenses -- our borders and immigration controls. The sponsored invasion will continue, and Obama will get away with high crimes and misdemeanors. Within 20 years, they have demographic lockdown in every state, which means it's over anyway unless bold action is taken to reverse the invasion and save the Republic, which Sullivan's obviously not going to do.
Miller's defeat had nothing to do with being unelectable or Alaskans not being socially conservative enough. He was simply buried in blizzards of special interest money.
If Miller was so unelectable, how did he win a Republican primary against incumbent Murkowski with extremely little money?
After the wake up call, the RINO establishment got busy and showered her with money and vote fraud.
It's like what happened after Brat won in VA. Rove & Co was overconfident, but they got busy after that and there were no other major upsets; almost no other real Republicans slipped through the cracks. The Quislings spent tens of millions defeating real Republicans in the primaries, money that could've been used to elect them in the generals.
In this latest primary, similar to 2010, Miller raised only $360k against Rove's millions. Rove and his special interest Quislings sucked all the financial oxygen out of the state, and Sullivan's budget was an order of magnitude larger.
If Sullivan was so popular, why did he have to pay $87 per vote? Miller, otoh, was surging into close striking distance on a shoestring budget.
Had Republicans gotten behind the real Republican with a couple hundred thousand more dollars and a little earlier support, he would've creamed Sullivan and gone on to beat Begich. I'll never forget Sarah Palin waiting to endorse Miller until it was too late. She's lost my respect forever.
Bottom line. If you think real Republicans have no choice but to sit in the water and boil, think again. I don't give a crap whether you like it or not.
Anyone who thinks a primary win means anything in the general, with Millers baggage and Alaska's true libertarian, NOT SoCon, leanings is delusional.
Miller lost against a squishy RINO by write-in *before* his star had faded. He had no chance this year.
Enjoy the fantasy lend you live in. In the real world victory is incremental. "All or nothing" will get you nothing when you start with a losing hand.
Whatever you say, shill. Another grand says you voted for Murky in 2010.
You're tip top on strawman arguments, non-sequiturs, ad hominem, and other forms of sleazy, weakminded, wussy evasion that avoid addressing inconvenient facts.
For example, the fact that your Rove-Bloomberg-RINO-Chamberboy Sullivan had to pay nearly $100 per vote to beat the real Republican, who spent almost nothing.
From VDare.com: "Dan Sullivan has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign cash from numerous big-monied pro-amnesty donors, including Paul Singer’s Friends for an American Majority, John McCain’s America First PAC, and Lindsey Graham’s Fund for America’s Future. He is also backed with independent expenditures from Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and the US Chamber of Commerce. [All] favor amnesty for illegals."
Miller surged double digits in two weeks with almost no money and got 32% to Sullivan's 40%. It cost him a fraction per vote of what it did Rove's RINO Sullivan. Which means that dollar for dollar money spent on Miller is high payoff and in the general would've gone far. If he'd had some real money behind him, as he would've if he were the only R candidate in the general, he could've won. Doesn't mean he would've, but it's an indicator that he could've.
The reason you can talk out of your bunghole with any plausibility here, the one really convenient *fact*, is that we'll never know for sure, because phony Republican "prag" geniuses like you do whatever they can to defeat your real enemy: The true, loyal, Republican conservative.
You insist on having RINO Chamberboys "win" the primaries even if it guarantees that the USA will forever go the way of California within 20 years whether or not the Rs take the Senate.
Which is why your Quisling heroes like Rove, Bloomberg, Norquist, and the "U.S." Chamber spent hundreds of millions against real Tea Party Republicans in the primaries, guys like McDaniel, money that could've gone into electing real Rs in the general. They know that if RINOs continue to dominate the Republican Party, then the invasion, occupation & takeover will not be reversed, the native-born citizenry's voting control of the USA will be irrevocably overwhelmed in the next 5 years, and the Dem-ographic long game is assured.
That Dem-ographic coup d'état long game is their priority, that's why they need Sullivans and Cochrans to win, and you're helping ensure it.
Since you're here, you must have read GOA's and Codrea's warning, which make it abundantly clear that if the invasion isn't halted and reversed, gun rights are toast. The only hope of reversing it is getting some Republican Senators with courage elected. So you can't claim to be pro-gun if you're sabotaging the campaigns of the Republicans who fit that bill, and no one fit it better than Miller.
Must be frustrating to help Rove wreck the Tea Party, to bet we'll all continue to be good little frogs in the pot with Attwater-by-Prag syndrome, and then some "delusional" conservative refuses to be rational, and can still donate $1000 against your candidate. Maybe you should petition your representatives to put a stop to that.
Maybe that's why it's so important for a phony pro-gun RINO shill to try to quash it.
Mighty bold words, insults, and allegations from someone too cowardly to use their real name.
Oh, since it doesn't show, my name is Matthew Carberry. I've lived in Anchorage my whole life and have been backing my positions on gun rights, civil rights and politics for a couple decades now on multiple public forums and venues.
I don't hide behind "proxy servers" and screen names because I figure if there are "lists" and you are *really* a threat to the government they already know who you are; and they, local, state and Feds, damn sure know who I am. All they need is google.
And I voted for Joe over Lisa last time, because he was a better choice than the RINO. I'm voting for Dan this time because I served under him as a Marine and, even though I don't agree with his positions in all ways, I'm a libertarian, I believe in winning the long game, not holding out for absolute purity and losing it all over and over again. I don't blindly follow anyone, much less the idiots at the RNC, I make my own informed choices and put my money and my name where my mouth is.
So take your paid shill allegations and pick an orifice, you anonymous coward.
I don't care what your name is, it's irrelevant, I don't want to know it, and I'm going to forget it as soon as I can. Giving out your name doesn't make your points any more valid, hide your evasion, mean you're not a shill, address any facts or issues. You've been posting as if you were a shill, troll, apologist, or a prag who's not a sophisticated as he imagines. XYZ is as XYZ does, whether paid & directed or a volunteer on your own initiative.
Name or no name, evasion of issues by handwaving, smokescreen etc, is cowardly and sleazy. This site and millions of others accommodate anonymity for good reasons.
I mean, really, anyone who vigorously disagrees with you anonymously is a coward, even if they posted first, and it had nothing to do with you, and they're replying to *your* unsolicited attack? Nice try.
Anonymity has been variously a right, privilege or ability which many millions have wisely employed on the internet and elsewhere. I hope it survives in political venues. If you think you need a name besides anon, feel free to use Publius. Otherwise, take a hike, baby.
In most cases anonymity is not cowardly, it's prudence. Putting your name down on a blog isn't necessarily bravery, it can be an indication of stupidity or naiveté. Can also be used as intimidation, a vibe I'm starting to get from you. And it's consistent with an evasion MO.
I posted anonymously per the rules of this site. My post did not address you. You attacked me under a partial name, labeled my comment "asinine", etc. Thus, YOU opened the door to a harsh reply, which now you're complaining about.
Then you upped the ante to "delusional", etc.
Then you threw out your name, which no one asked for or wanted. That's your choice, but it doesn't buy you the right to demand I relinquish the anonymity option already established, or to impugn me if I don't.
I never used the word "paid". So take your smokescreen outrage and your allegation that I alleged you were a "paid" shill and use it for a bung.
For as much as I don't want to know your name or anything else about you, it makes some more sense with the "libertarian" Marine scenario. Maybe explains why you're evading the issues of destruction of the Republic, subversion of national defense, and mass gun confiscation, by way of suicidal immigration policy, subversion of borders and immigration controls, de facto and de jure amnesty, invasion, occupation, and coup d'état.
Open immigration, invasion, "sanctuary" and amnesty are the most damaging forms of socialist theft and treason being perpetrated on the USA. If you're a True Believer open-border neo"libertarian", then your policies are ... undermining the existence of the Republic and the Constitution ... anti-gun ... anti-American ... and socialist ... and you're too narrow- or closed-minded or arrogant to recognize or admit it.
Guys like Sullivan are ensuring the inexorable destruction of the USA, from within our own camp, on the frog plan, even more surely and devastatingly than the open enemy such as Obama is doing. When enemy action is done openly, it's easier to recognize and resist. When the subversion is done or enabled gradually
from within one's own tent, it's very likely to never be fully recognized let alone effectively resisted and reversed, whether it's done by outright collaboration, passive-aggression, or omission, or stupidity.
I'm willing to depersonalize and discuss issues objectively if you calm yourself, back off the ad hominem, drop the thuggish implied intimidation, and stop running away from issues.
Spare me the high horse.
Joe Miller is not electable, full stop. That was the key point I made in my first post. For pointing out that mathematical fact I was accused of all sorts of unsavory motives and lambasted with all sorts of insulting titles.
I'm unfamiliar with a definition of shill, a plant to support a salesman or grifter, that doesn't include, explicitly or implicitly, the idea that they are paid or compensated in some form, as a person who supports without recompense is simply a "supporter." So "shill" is by definition an insult, an accusation of corruption.
And if you want to claim philosophical kinship with Publius you might start by not accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a "Rove-ian" and either complicit with, or ignorant of, your contrived causative chain between supporting an actually electable candidate and the "fall of the Republic."
If you don't want to support Sullivan, fine. But to actively work against him, is to trade slowly raising the water temp (again, an unproven assertion) and throwing gas on the flames to hasten the destruction.
I am fully aware of reality, I am aware of all, and disagree with many, of the actions of the RNC. I don't actually support open borders, but enjoy the taste of that strawman in your mouth.
What gets my dander up is people who start with a false premise, an almost fanatical premise, that their unelectable "ideologically pure" candidates could win if it weren't for those "saboteurs and wreckers", those "stabs in the back."
That train of thought leads nowhere but madness and tyranny.
And your reply to my original post was not insulting at all, I suppose? Look, I'll accept my share of the blame for escalating, if you accept yours.
You're just repeating yourself with the establishment smear about Miller being unelectable. Repeating the establishment smear does not constitute proof or even reasoning, but it does serve to avoid reasoning and addressing arguments on the table.
Neither does following it up with the words like Period. Full Stop. The unelectable smear is a convenient self-fulfilling misrep, as is the murky allegation of "baggage". As if Sullivan doesn't have any baggage.
He actually did beat an incumbent senator in a primary with hardly any funding, a huge feat. So what if she "won" a write-in campaign with fraud and unlawful election activity. So what if the corrupt establishment pulled out the stops to make sure Miller lost. So what if she directly outspent him nearly 3-1 plus massive independent expenditures from the establishment.
None of this is proves your claim that he's unelectable. Indeed, it's evidence to the contrary, that with significant funding, and absent the establishment smears, he'd be highly electable. It's evidence that the establishment, with fraud and vast amounts of money, can make sure real Tea Party candidates are not elected, and work to render them permanently "unelectable", with help from folks like you who propagate their smears. The same folks who took out McDaniel in Mississippi lavished your pal Sullivan with millions. That's all that happened here.
As to your claim to not support open borders. No one in the RNC or the Rove camp officially supports open borders, open immigration, invasion, occupation etc. But they effectively do. They all give lip service to "securing the border", and usually "securing" it "first" - code for amnesty. Even most Democrats claim to oppose open borders.
I've explained at length why I donated to Sullivan's opponent. Your continued attack is just repetition serving to avoid those points.
The prag strategy you bash me with to elect Sullivan has been in place for decades, it has been pushed by the Atwaters and the Roves and many others to ensure the hegemony of the establishment, and folks like you pick up on it and spread it. THAT strategy has led us nowhere but to madness and tyranny. Look around. We have a "security state" that would make the Sovs extremely jealous, and guys like Sullivan built it. We're on the verge of losing the USA to hard irreversible invasion demographics, if it's not lost already, which is likely. And guys like Sullivan and his financial backers ensured that.
And you don't want me to jump out of the pot? You don't want me to oppose the guys in our own tent who are more responsible than the open enemy for getting us where we are today? Tough.
The ONLY chance to take back the USA is electing true Republicans. That won't happen if we play the Atwater Rove game.
BTW, since you're a "Libertarian", what business is of yours whom Republicans support or donate to? Being a bit of an infiltrator aren't you? Real Republicans will thank you to stay out of our affairs.
Small "l", registered Republican. Real Republican, not social con. Minimal gov't, maximum civil rights, no reverse authoritarianism in social issues.
I do apologize for the tone. We'll have to just disagree whether supporting Dems and cutting our own throat fast in the hopes we can do a 180 right before thevcliff is a better option than slowing the decline until we can sway public opinion back to true principles of liberty.
We'll also have to disagree about Dan in particular, at least until he's elected and proves one of us right or wrong.
I'm not supporting Democrats. I'm opposing RINO traitors. Big difference. There isn't a single pro-gun Dem in the USA as far as I'm concerned. Nor is anyone pro-gun who is for amnesty or over-immigration (RINOs).
But again, the enemy in your own command post is vastly more damaging than the Democrat, even if the RINO pretends to be your pal, as all traitors do. Getting the enemy out of the command post is immensely more important than "winning" the Senate with folks who are ensuring the loss of the USA. Whatever kind of tricks Sullivan, Rove & Company pulled to get the AIP off the ballot leaves me no choice but to donate to the last man standing other than Sullivan. I sure wasn't going to donate to an open-border L. That would've been even worse than D as far as border treason goes, but it's obviously worse for Sullivan & Rove if I donate D than AIP. They can blame themselves for leaving me no choice.
It's not cutting your own throat. It's the Sullivans & Roves who are cutting our throats, and drastic measures must be taken to stop them. It's critically important for Republican voters and apparatchiks to know that real Republicans will not tolerate the corruption and sabotage of our party, and we will do what we must to make that corruption and sabotage fail. Not just staying home, but even donating to Democrats if that's the only alternative. The USA is guaranteed screwed if we don't set the R party straight, and zero chance if we don't. The only chance of that happening is if the Rove strategy fails and Republicans realize that RINOs are losers, and "winning" with RINOs isn't really winning anything except in name only. In fact, it ensures the intermediate term defeat. I'd say long term, but it isn't anymore.
Post a Comment