Dana Mathewson

Kurt Schlichter rides again.

A COMMENT FROM TIM:

I don't know, Dana; I really don't agree with Schlichter here that much. It's the same thing we've been hearing from the RINO class all along; you have to take what we give and like it or you'll lose it all. Yeah, yeah, yeah. This was the very argument that would have given us Jeb! rather than Donald Trump, who was also a "weirdo" as Kurt would put it. Nothing will change if we continue to put the same kind of people in Washington.

Look; we intern POW's but execute spies and partisans. Why? Because the guy who is not wearing a uniform does far more damage because we don't suspect him. It's always been understood that a renegade is far worse than a competitor.

Now, politics is about imposing your will on the country. Our will happens to be what the will of America used to be just a few short years ago, and is probably what the majority of Americans really would like. The Democrats are hookers who are paid by the radicals to impose THEIR will.
They hold many of the cards, though, in that the mainstream media - which most Americans still use to get their information - supports their revolution. They also have the big money. We have some big money, but it is not interested in preserving what was but in making more money, and to do that it will ally with the radicals on occasion, particularly where things like immigration or international cooperation is concerned. Those of us who actually care about preserving the culture and traditions have few allies.

Schlichter would argue that means we need as many as possible. I would argue that it means we need to be stubborn on occasion because our erstwhile friends will betray us if it behooves them to do so. We've already tried this tactic, backing RINO candidates to give us numbers, and it failed because we turned off the public, who see no reason to accept Royal Crown Cola when they can have Coke Classic. Pastels do not insprire. Also, it fails because we then have men not of conscience but of political opportunism. Such men will be liberal because that is the current in the waters of Washington. So, as happened in the 2000 era, we will rack up political victories but continue to lose the war.

The type of guys Schlichter would have us support are the types who would try to put out a five alarm fire by spitting on it. At this stage there just isn't any point.

Schlichter doesn't realize that there is no longer time to play these long ball games. Barack Obama largely routed us, and people on our side never figured that out. We will be routed again if we go back to the same tactics.

I agree we never should have lost the Alabama seat. But whose fault was that? Moore was right in not quitting; he knew a fake scandal when he saw it. What does Kurt think would have happened? Does he think Luther Strange would have been immune from this sort of dirty trick?

The fact is, what we should do now is go after Mitch McConnell hard. HE is the guy responsible for losing that seat, not Moore and not us.

We are in the position of Abraham Lincoln, demanding aggression of George McCLellan. We are demanding action but our erstwhile leaders refuse to fight because they want to displace US. McClellan was not interested in defeating the South so much as making his mark so he could run against Lincoln. We are in a similar position; Mitch McConnell won't fight the Democrats half as hard as he will fight a conservative in his own party. Until we get control of our own we will never defeat the enemy. We have two enemies in this political war, and our friends are one of them.

It's interesting that Kurt says "the Swamp is going to Swamp us" tehn calls for us to support new swamp rats. One does not drain a swamp by pumnping in more stagnant water, nor by sewing moquitoes.

If we follow Schlichter's advice here we will return to status quo, and continue the long, horrible slide.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 725 words, total size 4 kb.