« McDonnell VP buzz reaches its highest level | Main | Both presidential campaigns stretch truth in welfare fight »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


that the only way he could lose was if he was found with a dead woman or a live boy. That was because the Republicans went innsae that year and nominated a Klansman, David Duke.Thousands and thousands of Louisiana voters hated the idea of voting for a crook like Edwards. But what choice did they have? Vote for a bed sheet and pointy hat wearing racist? The Republicans gave voters no choice but to elect Edwards.That is why nominating a credible candidate even in problematic districts like the 8th is so important. Something unforeseen can always happen that makes the race winnable if the voters have a palatable choice.And that, Mr. Socci, is why they should not nominate someone who shoots from the lip (or the keyboard) with nasty comments that don't make anyone think that person has the temperament to be a leader of any type. It doesn't matter how nasty the provocation for the response. Think Ronald Reagan. Would he have ever responded in the way you have? I think not.Being nasty is not a substitute for making a forceful argument for a set of positions. And it doesn't persuade others to follow you. William F. Buckley, for instance, made the case for a conservative political philosophy with wit and humor and graciousness. And he made it so forcefully that he gave life to a movement.It's true that Buckley had a few instances where he wasn't terribly polite with opponents. And those were memorable. But they were rare. People who are nasty right out of the gate just turn others off completely. Except for a handful of partisans that were always going to be with them anyway.There is a reason happy warriors generally beat nasty cynics.


A little comomn sense shines through. We recently changed the rules at our rifle club regarding signing in. For years you signed your name in a log book upon entrance. Book was kept in a mailbox by the front gate. Last year, the book disappeared. About 10 pages worth of names, all of whom owned guns. Two of us brought up changing this, as in NOT USING NAMES ( since there's exactly one instance of my name in my region, I was rather set on this). We are now permitted, with no small amount of smirking, to use our member numbers as an alternative, since we're "paranoid". I still have to deal with members who think nothing bad will happen, just because someone knows you own guns. Glad someone in that office had some comomn sense, or more likely, was afraid of a lawsuit when someone homeowner ended up with extra orifices during a robbery...


My opinion an total ouietdsr (which means I probably know about as much about the candidates as an average voter) is that you guys need to nominate someone next time around who doesn't look, taste and feel like an insider offering a different flavor from the same good ole political class.Choose someone with a healthy dose of private sector experience or a reputation as a renegade taking on entrenched interests. Because when you look at the resumes of the two candidates there was a tweedle-dee, tweedle-dum characteristic to the race, nothing to get excited about.

The comments to this entry are closed.