Redstate

How apropos, Barney Frank licking fireants.

Keep these people away from any jobs that are actually important.

Liberal Democrats are light years ahead of the GOP in terms of the use of their netroots.  It's really disturbing.

Maybe Blunt's staff think he's actually the next incarnation of Kim Jong Il.

She could have been funny, she could have neatly deflected the comment, but the condescension and anger speaks volumes.

When Members of Congress gather on Feb. 2 to make their selection for Majority Leader, they need to make sure that they have a clear head!  

Most of them, unfortunately, have forgotten what it is they do in Washington, DC and why we sent them there in the first place.  Too many Republican House Members seem bent on preserving power as opposed to governing and legislating with a conservative bent.  

A vote for Roy Blunt is a vote to continue on this trend and is surely a sign that there are worse things to come for Republicans.  

In the wake of the Abramoff corruption investigations, which are ongoing mind you, Republicans would be smart to make a shift back toward their roots of reform.  

Most reform candidates ran on a platform of cleaning up DC and making it run more efficient, getting the job done without costing taxpayers so much money, of improving service, term limits, etc...  The only thing that appears to be the stance now is "how do we preserve power".

That's a startling trend and one that needs to be reversed immediately.  

On February 2, House Republicans should focus on governing and winning in November and not just maintaining power and vote for either Boehner or Shaddeg, but send Roy Blunt out to the pasture with Tom DeLay.  

Your analogy of picking fights with conservative radio hosts in the 1990's. It seems that the MSM and the Democrats are not the only ones who have failed to catch on to just how important the new media is.

  You would think that after Bloggers brought down

Dan Rathers, and the Harriet Miers nomination that they would have more sense.

I think her comments are refreshing, why shouldn't she respond to the bloggers in such a fashion?  

You guys think you should be able to publicly criticize a Congressman and expect no response?  Don't you want to be taken seriously?

In all honesty, if you want to join a fight, you should be ready to take a punch or two.  Blogs are all about democratization, aren't they?

The main problem is, the response was stupid and juvenile and didn't actually make any sense.  The second problem is, it's poor strategy - better to ignore a hostile blogger.

The bizarre plagiarized bit about the fire ants. The comment would be strange enough even if it wasn't plagiarized. Randomly pasting in sentences from reference materials is probably not the greatest idea.

You are arguably correct, but look where it's gotten them:  In the pocket of Kos and even further removed from the wants of most voters, probably even most Democratic voters.

I dont think I've seen RS do this good a smear job on democrats who deserve it. Roy must really be close to closing things up to see post like this- or as Han Solo would say "Boy, must of hit pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up."

I am still looking for relevent arguments from post regarding Blunt within the past few weeks. There have been relevent ones, but not here.

I really wonder what kind of horse you have in this race. Instead of defeating them on the merrits of an argument we get a post like this. If you dont support Roy, then post why and give us good, solid reasoning - not vitrol - which is somthing I would expect to read on a left wing blog but not here.

So give me a reason to vote for Shadegg instead of posting gossip. That would further your cause a little more with at least some of your readership.

thanks!

So give me a reason to vote for Shadegg instead of posting gossip.

I thought you had said you lurked here for a while? There have been stories on the front page about why Shadegg would be a good ML. How about you do a little research before you ask for everything to be done for you?

To get a job as a spokesperson for a Congressman?  Use colorful quotes from Yahoo?  Wow, 7 years of Harvard down the drain.

I'm a lock!!!

Expect to hear that a great deal over the next year - at least until Mr. Blunt becomes the House Minority leader, that is.  Ugh.  Speaker Pelosi - Lord help us all.

Please tell me we could do better than Majority Leader Blunt but are choosing not to in order to make the 2006 House elections closer than they need be.  Please tell me that's why we're going through this painful application of the Peter Principle on the national political stage - it's a mass conspiracy to get better ratings for Fox News - it's all the doing of The Rove.  Something, anything.  Please.

On the "substance": Smart move - ticking off your activists in an unctuous, smarmy way when simple humor, or perhaps just a chuckle, would have sufficed.  What leadership, what an inspiration.  Makes me want to pick-up my signs and start doing stand-outs or pick-up my check-book and start writing checks.  After all, they've accomplished the whole "reigning in the federal government" bit, right?  Mission Accomplished, eh?

I honestly hope these GOPers hit their knees every single night and thank the Almighty for providing them with the shrill, unhinged, unfocussed, leaderless, idealess, brainless opposition that is the modern Democrat Party.  

Foley, Dickie, Rosty and Company would clean this gang's clocks.

You don't want the blogosphere being an echo chamber for your party...

You want it analyzing your policy. At least if you believe in the supremacy of your ideals. Which I do.

so much crying about "getting the love" and showing proper respect to the almight here!!

whaahhhh!

maybe instead of being so ridiculously petty you could actually focus you effort in getting members to actually support shadegg??

after the venom many have been spewing - he can't take a hit back?  please.

Dale is a big boy, why the whining?

Much easier to get a key position on Blunt's staff if you happen to be married to this guy.

Pretty easy to see how committed Blunt is to cleaning up the caucus, huh?

I think it's fairly obvious.  They want Blunt to win, and the best way to make that happen is to ignore the story or pass it off as an inter-familial squabble.  I actually wish right now that I was a member of the Washington press corps.

Accoring to the

Rocky Mountain News;

Rep. Tom Tancredo and more than three dozen members of his Immigration Reform Caucus have backed Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., as House majority leader.

Their support has helped Blunt build the largest list of declared endorsements in the three-way contest against Reps. John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz.

Still, the race to replace Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, is considered unpredictable heading into the Feb. 2 vote. Shadegg was a late entry into the race and, in past leadership elections, early endorsements have not always translated into votes on the secret ballot.

Tancredo, R-Littleton, is the first of Colorado's four Republican members to make a public endorsement. Blunt, the acting majority leader, won Tancredo's early support because of his role shepherding tough border-control legislation through the House in December.

how in touch with the conservative grassroots are we here?

I used to think that red state was the heart and soul of the movement, but I question that now.

seems some decided to come out hard and strong for pence or shadegg early and now have ginned up a lot of personal attacks and ugliness.  attacking member's wives??  attacking staff and spouses???

the junk flying here is all personal and petty.  

funny thing is that it doesnt seem like many are listening to the iron fisted calls to action and nasty charges.

maybe we're getting a bit too "inside the beltway" and elitist here??  maybe the rest of the party and of the movement just doesnt see things your way.  and thats what makes it so infuriating, huh??  just a thought  :)

Humor for seriousness.  You can read the transcript of Shadegg's call over at TTLB, and there is nobody more grassroots than I am, since I did that transcription.  I may make a few jokes after I've done the work, but I think that's perfectly fine.  

show how very movement "street" you are...

keepin' it real for sure.

proving my point.  always beware of the "no one is more...than I argument."  tell tale sign of being a bit aloof, if not out of  touch...

that said, read the transcipt and, nice work.

But you're right.  I have no street cred.  I was also the secretary to the dean of DePaul's law school, and there's nothing less credible than that on your resume or on the street right now, trust me.  :)

The NY-Bos-Wash Axis of Elitism, crushing H------ M----, the people's darling, for not having an Ivy League degree. How did that work out, anyway?

of advice.

You're being a total ass without the credibility to back it up.

Your schtick might be amusing some places. Not here. Lay off it or you're gone.

Huh?

Where do you get this?

No one attacked Blunt's spokesperson. Criticizing her statement (which was petty) hardly constitutes an attack. Neither is pointing out Blunt's continuing connection to Abramoff an attack.

Blunt as Majority Leader is an endorsement of a congress that seeks the benefit of K Street, not constituents. If this is what you want our caucus to represent, then just say so, whydontcha?

But being smart or creative about it...now that's a standard worth aspiring to.

And I think you're arguably correct about the scope.  Liberals scream about what they call the "right-wing noise machine" all the time, mostly because of their visceral hatred for people like Rush Limbaugh and David Horowitz and Ann Coulter, the AEI and Heritage.  But their institutions are really much better funded and not only backed with private money, they're also subsidized by taxpayers.  If you really go through the list at places like Activist Cash or Discover the Networks it doesn't take long to realize that their funding is not only more sophisticated, it skirts the bounds of U.S. tax laws very precisely.  Have a look, for example, at the Tides Foundation.

Liberal efforts are consolidated through the media.  Until yesterday (and perhaps still tonight) the Washington Post was running the ads for the Center for Campus Progress (alitosamerica.com) which is a leftwing offshoot of the CAP thinktank.  Scroll down to see the site credits.

Their media presentations are orders of magnitude more developed than anything Republicans have done.  Cindy Sheehan had Parker Blackstone and Fenton Communications at her disposal.  John Kerry had one of Steven Spielberg's proteges.

You're right -- Republicans have nothing to compare with this kind of persuasion.  When Hollywood is in your pocket, everything is possible in terms of shaping opinion.

But I've come around to a different view of this, partially because of the Horserace Blogger's take on Hillary:  The Democrats are reaching the point that everyone realizes they're manipulating opinions, images, and emotions behind the scenes.  I don't think we necessarily want to follow their example.  

I would, however, enjoy a Republican Musician Jam Session to make some clips for ads in the 2006 campaign.  I am not a professional advertiser, opinion-shaper, or media consultant, but that strikes me as being a lot of fun!

"The spokesperson for Rep. Blunt who criticizes Dale--and bloggers in general--is Jessica Boulanger. Which is curious, because...

Jessica Boulanger is a former aide to. . .wait for it. . .Tom DeLay!

She's married to Todd Boulanger who is. . .wait for it. . .a lobbyist!"

seems kind of personal to me and seems like an attack.   same with the shots taken about blunt's wife.  these arent signs of a high minded policy debate about the direction of the party.

how is raising that out of bounds or lacking in credibility?  

Actually, I think the blogs on the right are making fools of themselves on this one. But devouring our own seems to be a habit in the GOP.

I'm seeing a lot of blogs calling for Shadegg, yet the readers never chime in to agree. Why do you think that is?

Read more about the Tides Foundation here.  I can give a hint to some RedStaters:  Anything with the word "Heinz" in it not associated directly with ketchup is controlled by Teresa.

Dale and Co's attacks were "cribbed" from...no wait for it...

Fired Up Missouri...which is...wait for it...

a liberal blog run by...wait for it...roy temple a democratic operative...who used to be...wait for it...the chief of staff to gov carnahan.

yep.  conservatives are attacking other conservatives with "cribbed" oppo research attacks from liberal blogs run by liberal operatives...

a sad state of affairs indeed.

what would Reagan say?

mention that it wasn't on redstate, eh?

a congress that seeks the benefit of K Street, not constituents

Don't go overboard with this. People hire lobbyists on every side of every issue. That's because there are constituents on every side of every issue. Positing a unified "K Street" that is always arrayed against the interests of homogenized "constituents" is drivel. Don't fall for it.

The fact is, CongressCritters need lobbyists. No human could possibly master the details of every subject that comes before Congress. Talking to different lobbyists about a bill is how a Critter makes sure he's not getting snookered into voting for something that sounds high-minded but in fact is the Disney Corporation trying to slip one by Critters who don't really understand the entertainment business.

But here's a deal: go ahead and tell the nice people which Member you work for and let them judge the truth of your comments.

Fair?

If the danger issue is congressmen with incestuous connections to K Street and particularly to Abramoff (and it is), Blunt's close associations are all directly on point.

Congresscritters need lobbyists, and lobbyists need Congresscritters.

But it's the "Who works for who?" question that has me stumped.

Franks asked for it.  It was an appropriate retort and I am awaiting his response.  If This thread is the best reply to her that the Blogosphere can come up with then we're in trouble...

This Saturday in the morning at a conservative conference being put on by students here at Georgetown. Hopefully his speech will serve as a nice tune up for the true excitement, a speech by Jonah Goldberg and Georgetown continuing its hot streak by dismantling the wounded Cincinnati Bearcats. It'll be interesting to see what Blunt has to say. Here's the website for more information-http://www.tbgd.org/home.html

It's not always easy to take time away from the Hill to go hang with groups like this - but he deserves the credit for doing so.

For putting on a conservative conference.

And Go Hoyas!

A thousand ughs, each covered in fire ants.

I guess this explains the enthusiasm for Shadegg.

Any idea who has custody and control of the ballot box?

You could do as he suggested.

I refuse to vote or support someone who is running a smear campaign and that's about all I've seen here.

We want Republican Party Leadership to be principled, civilised politicians so we need to give them a Principled, Civilised Base to please.  We aren't the ReThuglicans we are being painted to be, are we?

Dale's site?

of chutzpah to describe any campaign here as a smear.

But I wonder whether he'll be treated the same way Al Gonzales was, with the turned backs and the black hoods.  Somewhere along the line liberals started appropriating Ben Franklin, but really they should be thinking more of "healthy, wealthy and wise" and going to bed a little earlier, IMHO.

Remember, though: once you've been around leftists for a while, it doesn't surprise you that they take anything out of context to use to advance their cause.  What they call their moral priniciples are the ultimate consideration.  

BTW the WaPo has nixed the photo of the Georgetown law students turning their back on Gonzales as of right now.  It's still available on Google if anyone wants to see it.

Necessarily, for Georgetown law students.  They didn't turn their back on Janet Reno when Elian Gonzalez was a different story.  What's up with those Georgetown kids?  Has something gotten into them?  Do they hate that name, or what?

Good point davenport. I agree. The blogsphere is excellent for hammering out ideas and opresearch, etc.. but I dont think it is a balanced enough medium yet to become any sort of an echo chamber.

Dont believe me? Look at what has happened to the dems with moveon.org or dailykos. Tell me that was the mainstream of the dems. It wasnt at one time, but it now is - unfortunately for this nation.

yes, that gives us a chance to expand the base - but any time you have a radical organization classified as main stream anything, that is not good for a nation.

I said in recent weeks. There are some very good post over at NRO and in the beginning of the leadership race there were some good articles about Shadegg.. but the last couple of weeks ideas are not being advanced.

Instead of straight up intellectual discussion why I should support Shadegg, we get into drivel about Roy and how his staff are not kissing our toes in the blogsphere.

I think its great that Shadegg did enter the race. I believe it allows discussion on all parties behalf and pushes forward a conservative agenda which may not have been in play before. (especially on fiscal matters)

I believe for that effort to be successful we must keep to issues which are relevant - and for information on why I personally should call my congressman and ask them to support Shadegg.

Thats just me, though. This is probably why politics is not my calling in life. lol. I tend to want to stick to discussing issues.

Red State's take on the majority leaders race a couple weeks ago was great.  There was a lot of inspired passion and positive energy for Pence, then shortly after for Shadegg.  However, the tone I've seen in the last week or so has not been pretty.  Mocking Blunt's spokesperson? Making not-so-subtle jabs at his wife?  Why are we doing this to our own side?

I totally agree with the sentiment that blogs are highly effective in proving the supremacy of our ideas through analyzing policy.  When it comes to the core ideas, principles and policies of Republicans, Shadegg, Boehner and Blunt really aren't that far  apart.  If Shadegg wins, fantastic.  But if Blunt wins we need to be prepared to support him and help further advance the Consevative agenda.  When the MSM sees us attacking our own with this kind of nonsense, we start to lose our credibility as a voice that can defend the supremacy of our ideas and make legitimate and relevant analysis of public policy issues.  

that while I dont think that it is helpful to make that as a center piece of why you may or may not want to vote for someone.. that in the current political climate that connections to abrahmoff are a legitimate topic.

I dont buy into the personal attacks bit and I dont think it advances what we need to be talking about (it just enhances msm talking points)..

Discussing those connections are fair game. I would hope that Roy would make things a little more clear about his dedication to reform.

That said, though, for the discussion to solely be centered around someone's personal life (or who's who's spouse) does nothing for the conservative movment. Lets talk issues and try to move the agenda forward.

Speaking of.. I dont think I've seen a thread here recently comparing who would advance what cause. Maybe a chart.

If you guys really want to focus on issues, I would love to see somthing on that order.

very true topnotch. nice to see dem talking points in action on a conservative blog, eh?

I find this comment enlightening. As a Dem, I don't feel the need to support Nancy Pelosi to further an agenda. I don't feel the need to support her, personally, at all.

I wonder if this is a result of being in the minority or a good example why that's the case.

It's a good example of one reason you are the minority.  Dems have totally destroyed themselves from within, and can never seem to unify the factions of their party.  But in recent years the Republicans have been so succesful because the factions of the party win or lose their arguments on the merits of issues, not personal attacks, and then the whole party unites behind their leaders and their agreed upon ideals.  It shows the strength of the party, and swing voters and independent voters are drawn to strength.

you are the money man marty.

why do you think sKerry lost the election? all he could do is spew attack rhetoric. he couldnt give the country a straight answer if his life counted on it.

the same is true here. we need a good, healthy discussion of ideas to advance our agenda - for whom ever is our leader.

 the factions of the party win or lose their arguments on the merits of issues, not personal attacks,

Certainly the Congressional leadership has been good at rounding up the votes it needs and enforcing party loyalty, but I think I'd need to see more evidence that the GOP's internal debates are won or lost by the quality of the winning side's argument.

Again, I would not make this case about how the Dems ran the Congress back in the day, either.

The K-street project has been getting a lot of bad press, and I'll admit it was a dangerous proposition, but it made a certain sense at the time. When Republicans were elected, the lobbyists were by and large Democrat oriented lobbyists. If, as another poster has noted, Congress critters are dependent on lobbyists for information, then it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to be depending on Dems for their info. So replacing them with GOP lobbyists makes sense.

Granted, reducing the size and scope of government is the only way to ensure neither Congess criters nor lobbyists can impact any of us much, but let's not lose sight of why so many GOP critters supported the Project.

I'm sure he was quite happy to get the "hit".

OTOH, the point of this article is that the spokeswoman was an idiot to give it.

There's a difference between enemies and opponents.  Enemies are always on teh other team, opponents are currently on the other team.  Win or lose thsi time, there are other days when Dale and Blunt will be on the same side.  Think Blunt's goign to get much help from Dale in the future?  Think he's going to get as much as he would if his spokeswoman had been smart enough to keep her mouth shut?

Then there's that plural part.  What kind of Republican official attacks, even indirectly, all conservative bloggers?

An idiot.

I'd love to read a well thought out, biting reply.  This is exactly the kind of argument I would like to witness and/or participate in real-time...

A campaign is saying more about what is wrong with the opponent thanthey are what is Right about their candidate, it's a smear.  Sorry, but every other Blunt/Shadegg/other competitor thread here is, or devolves into, about what is wrong with the other candidates.  I have to dig to find out what is so great about Shadegg and even Then I have to dig through the Blunt sucks comments inside the thread that is Supposedly about Shadegg and why everyone loves him.

Sorry, but "Vote for Shadegg because Blunt is slimy!" is not a campaign I will support.

It's been there all along.