Hateful Abortion Rhetoric Dooms
Buck’s Candidacy as Tea Party Opts
for Historic Losing Third-Party Role
Told you so, told you so, told you so. And now Ken Buck is proving it in spades. Cheer up, Ken, you can always serve as the perfect "RUBE," the quintessential "Radically Ugly Bad Example." Buck who's hijacked the good TEA Party name for the purpose of expressing his old-fashioned ultra-right-wing narrow-mindedness has given the progressive Dems all the ammunition needed to say not only, "Ken Buck, too extreme for Colorado" in their political ads . . . but to use him as the national poster boy for political incompetence. Nice job, idiot!
Oh, how the principled have fallen . . . . Back in early March, 2009, this thing, this entity, this apparently blessed concept of the TEA Party came around and Rajjpuut was jumping in ecstasy. At last, something sensible conservatives could get behind! Something that once understood, the whole universe of logical people in the whole country could love and could use to put the country back on the right track, back in line with the Founding Fathers' noblest dreams -- a true haven for conservative Republicans, Democrats, Independents and Libertarians (like Rajjpuut himself). Then again the TEA (Taxed Enough Already or is it Taken Enough Abuse?) Party came up with this most marvellous of documents the “Contract from America” and 7th Heaven was in view. Since its inception, Rajjpuut at Townhall and later at TEA Party sites has praised the good and great and warned about the utterly depraved potential of the TEA Party. It now appears thanks to “great candidates” like Ken Buck right here in Rajjpuut’s Colorado, that the TEA Party in 2010 is preparing to make the most radical and dangerous progressive Democrats in history and the Communist administration of Barack Obama look desirable to the American people out of sheer unmitigated stupidity. OUCH, OUCH, OUCH, OUCHity, OUCH!
For God sake’s, the mission is "save America" through fiscal conservativism, constitutional conservativism, just plain common sense, and high ideals. The mission is not to become just another losing third party asterick in history, split the conservative vote and doom the country to an Obama "dictatorship" as a result. Let’s look at the latest TEA Party idiot, Ken Buck . . . makes me shiver he’s so wrong. And let’s look at candidate Angle in Nevada, who has resurrected her candidacy but still faces an uphill battle. In an earlier blog, Rajjpuut lambasted Angle . . . .
About six weeks back Sharon Angle became the TEA Party backed candidate against the most hated and evil congressman in America (Pelosi gets the congresswoman honors), Harry Reid. It’s still NOT been settled whether the TEA Party Express who nominated her wasn’t a Harry Reid front aiming to select the worst possible candidate for Republican candidate so that Reid could almost NOT lose, but since that smacks of conspiracy theory and doesn’t help the discussion along, let’s forget that notion for now. Angle made enough mistakes that as soon as she was nominated in the primary she went from an 8% lead over Harry Reid to a 5% underdog. Rajjpuut’s earlier blog documented her amazing ability to “snatch defeat from the jaws of easy victory.” (In fairness to Angle, she's since adopted Rajjpuut's suggestions about 99% and is making a comeback, but what a waste of effort and money and the easy victory possibilities are gone.) And now comes Ken Buck right here in Colorado. If Angle proved stupid right after winning the primary, Buck is proving ultra-stupid and very hateful . . . Buck makes me sick that I’m a TEA Party member.
The TEA Party’s natural role is that of the overseer; as a group with unquestionable integrity standing up for real fiscal conservative and constitutional conservative values rather than becoming just another political party. Let’s review Angle’s and Buck’s shared mistakes before we get to the Ken Buck brilliancies that makes him, and by reflection, the TEA Party look like buffoons, nincompoops and hate mongers . . . . in the earlier blog on Angle
Rajjpuut said that Angle did everything wrong, everything third-partyish that is destined to make Obama and the Democrats praise Allah for the creation of the TEA Party. To wit, the TEA Party getting heavily involved in the nominating process is a losing strategy. We have two parties, both have failed us, the TEA Party’s effective role is as Kingmakers as they proved in the November, 2009, special elections. In the early stages, since it is the Dems that have failed us the most that will about 90% of the time mean that the TEA Party will be benefitting Republican Candidates, but remember this . . . Republican in their own way failed the country more because knowing the wiser path, (fiscal and constitutional conservativism) the G.O.P. joined the Dems to become “Progressive Lite.”
If you’ll remember back to November, 2009, the TEA Party backed^^ the most fiscally and constitutionally conservative candidate in the four races, winning three and narrowly losing the fourth in an almost miraculous battle. That was the height of the TEA Party movement, and except for the Contract from America, it’s been largely downhill## since then.
So now Buck like Angle is more a TEA Party candidate than a G.O.P. one. Successful and honest candidacies require immense amounts of money and a lot of political expertise and experience, successful candidacies also require the candidate to get himself dirty, it’s the nature of the beast. Rather than getting dirty, the preferrred TEA Party role is to sit back and decide which candidate shows 1) fiscal conservativism 2) constitutional conservativism 3) common sense and 4) maintains the most integrity and high ideals in the heat of battle . . . the TEA Party’s natural and preferred WINNING role is, in short, not as a political party but as Kingmakers, WATCHDOGs and as a “party of ideas and ideals.”
Besides basically generating into a loutish third-party-like candidate, Buck like Angle early on has been shooting his mouth off and giving his opponent all the most satisfying sound bite opportunities imaginable. Understand this regardless of ideals, WINNING is a matter of practical politics, it appears that with testosterone added to Angle’s highball, Buck is out to prove himself the stupidest possible candidate. Ken Buck aside, even if your ideas are the noblest and wisest governing ideas -- IF it, however, takes (unfortunately) a lot of effort to explain them -- they are NOT good candidate ideas because it gives the opposition strong sound bites which are easily distorted, why in heaven would a sensible person do such a thing (give his enemy ammunition and load his gun)??? It is, however, highly debatable that Ken Buck’s idea are noble and wise, the man seems to be an utter fool. You want sound bites, you idiot? You have been provided with sound bites . . . the greatest possible sound bites imaginable . . . the ten principles of the Contract from America. Shut your fool jaybird mouth (overloaded by your alligator and jacka_s brain) and speak only from the script (the Contract) and even you might still have a chance. Rajjpuut repeats: regardless of ideals, WINNING is a matter of practical politics.
Again, Rajjpuut will say it clear . . . here’s the virtually failproof strategy for Conservative candidates supported by the TEA Party who’ve already proven themselves politically viable (they won their party’s nomination in the primary without TEA Party money and without TEA Party help) 1. Politics is a strategy game. You win strategy games by pounding away in areas where you have great advantage (Contract from America) and managing your problem areas (your big mouth and the tendency to talk out of turn, or about ‘outside areas’). You make your strengths into the most important issues in the battle. You win strategy games by making your opponents’ weaknesses the most important things about them (alignment with Obama, Pelosi and Reid and their own personal voting record that shows them as far from fiscal and constitutionally conservative) and you ignore your opponents’ strengths altogether. Politics is not about ego when done rightly, but about your ideals connecting with what’s best and smartest in the voters.
Buck, as mentioned, has proven himself an incompetent and flawed politician rather than a man of ideals. Let’s talk about his abortion rant. For almost 40 years, this country has been a country where the high court of the land allowed abortion. The Democrats have succeeded in making it a country where in the average election 56% of the women vote for them because the Republican Party does NOT recognize abortion as the law of the land; and because the Republican Party has chosen to tell people how to live the most intimate areas of their life. Rajjpuut is NOT a pro-abortion or pro-choice per se supporter, but neither does Rajjpuut elect to enter into a woman's brain, spirit and body and tell her how to live her life. Rajjpuut does NOT believe in abortion of demand. She and God will have to figure the proper course out for her. So now, thanks to the right-wing Republican's holier than thou stand, we have made de facto abortion on demand in the country pretty much the going standard. What a wonderful thing we've done because of the Republican's stupid stance. Rajjpuut is a father. You’re telling him that if his little girl is a victim of rape that she can’t decide for herself, talking to God in her own way, what to do next, that she doesn’t have this right? What gives anybody BUT her and God that right?
By squandering their anti-abortion effort on untenable and uncompassionate stances against rape and incest victims and the very young and against women whose very lives were in danger . . . the ultra-right wing (they are not conservatives, they are devilish busy-bodies) of the Republican Party has made the Progressive Democrats by default “virtuous” and desirable to a lot of women, and men. Rajjpuut has said to mention abortion at all is a stupid strategy. What does Ken Buck do? He says, “I’m not only against abortion, I’m against abortion in cases of rape or incest or where the mother’s life is in danger.” Such a fool. Sure like to see him gangraped in an alley and then by a miracle, becoming pregnant . . . . any man who enters the abortion debate is a hideous and utter fool, that’s a matter for women and individual women to deal with between them and God.
The single most important issue is what Buck and Angle didn’t choose to do. Here is the most nearly perfect little document ever created for this moment in history, the Contract from America, and Buck and Angle prefer to talk about abortion (a losing and unnecessary strategy) rather than pounding away at the fiscally and constitutionally conservative planks from the Contract. Now they have given the most depraved progressive congress in the history of America all the soundbites necessary to win and win easily. If I’m the Democratic National Committee what do I do? I run against TEA Party sound bites and nothing else. Featuring 50% Ken Buck, 35% Sharon Angle and 15% Rand** Paul’s unnecessary and foolish sound bite that makes him look like he’s anti-integration. I run on “Republican and TEA Party candidates are racists and dangerous demagogues” and I run on almost nothing else. Thanks Buck, thanks Angle . . . you’ve distorted the noble idea of the TEA Party into just another loony American third party.
What can every thinking principled America agree upon? Fiscal conservativism, Constitutional Conservativism, common sense and high ideals. Help unite people behind these four principles and comparatively without money, you control the political life in this country and save this country from 100+ years of PROGRESSIVE incremental Marxism. What could be more important? What could be more noble? What could be more practical? And why is no one using the Contract from America? Is throwing the Contract and the Declaration and the Constitution down the toilet and flushing them away . . . the logical and high-principled road to victory?
Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut ## Among other things, it is morally repugnant to win a Republican primary running as a TEA Party candidate and then expect the G.O.P. to finance you because you won the Republican Primary, etc. If TEA Party "candidates" must run, they need to run as Republicans or Democrats period; and run with the TEA Party's Contract from America providing the strategic resources and touchstone but never saying the words "TEA Party" but rather showing with actions and words that the Contract from America lives inside of them. Any other path is disingenuous . . . running as a TEA Party candidate per se is expensive and unnecessary and doesn't serve the country well. Running as a TEA Party Republican means you're stealing their money. The only proper road is to win as a Republican because your ideals shine through; refer to those TEA Party ideals early and often, but run as a Republican (Or Democrat, or conservative, etc., whatever). Because if you take their money like Crist did in Florida, by God you need to represent them unequivocably and to put yourself forward with utter integrity. Crist has proven himself a lowlife and that's exactly what TEA Party Republicans, etc. do if they accept Republican money that way. The TEA Party is a set of ideals to emit from every pore of your body, not a label useful to help win a primary race in someone else's party. ^^ The winning strategy was shown and has been largely ignored since November, 2009. Back the most fiscally and Constutionally conservative candidate presented. In your ads for that candidate, show your principles (now we’ve got the Contract from America). The TEA Party got three victories and three turn-things-around winners. But the real lesson is what happened in the House election we lost. Here’s the situation. The idiot Republican Party gives $1 million in campaign money to a lady who makes Barack Obama look conservative. The Tea Party steps in and the far more conservative Democratic candidate wins easily with the lady Republican withdrawing a week before the election. In fact a very pleasant but “utterly-unshiny and otherwise unpolished” TEA Party candidate running under the banner of the Conservative Party nearly won the election. Why? How? He didn’t shoot off his mouth about losing issues and relatively unimportant issues but stayed tightly-glued to fiscal and Constitutional conservativism. **Unlike Buck and Angle, Rand Paul is NOT stupid, quite the contrary . . . but his gaffe on the Civil Rights Law was very stupid and unnecessary. It allowed the progressives to paint him and other candidates and the TEA Party as racists. It would behoove, TEA Party candidates running as Republicans to learn from Rand Paul’s candidacy both good and bad. Avoid soundbite material at all costs.
Crist has proven himself a lowlife and that's exactly what TEA Party Republicans, etc. do if they accept Republican money that way. The TEA Party is a set of ideals to emit from every pore of your body, not a label useful to help win a primary race.
^^ The winning strategy was shown and has been largely ignored since November, 2009. Back the most fiscally and Constutionally conservative candidate presented. In your ads for that candidate, show your principles (now we’ve got the Contract from America). We got three victories and three turn-things-around winners. But the real lesson is what happened in the House election we lost. Here’s the situation. The idiot Republican Party gives $1 million in campaign money to a lady who makes Barack Obama look conservative. The Tea Party steps in and the far more conservative Democratic candidate wins easily with the lady Republican withdrawing a week before the election. In fact a very pleasant but “utterly-unshiny” TEA Party candidate running under the banner of the Conservative Party nearly won the election. Why? How? He didn’t shoot off his mouth about losing issues and relatively unimportant issues but stayed upon fiscal and Constitutional conservativism. He proved himself a Harry S Truman type candidate and had he another ten days would have won the election.
**Unlike Buck and Angle, Rand Paul is NOT stupid, quite the contrary . . . but his gaffe on the Civil Rights Law was very stupid and unnecessary. It allowed the progressives to paint him and other candidates and the TEA Party as racists. It would behoove, TEA Party candidates running as Republicans to learn from Rand Paul’s candidacy both good and bad.