|
Sorry, I thought the NRCC sold the list because that seemed to me like the only possible explanation why I am receiving so much junk mail, and so many fund soliciting phone calls. I couldn't believe the NRCC could be responsible for all of them by themselves. Evidently I was mistaken. |
|
|
Hewitt won't point any of what you wrote out for the reason that he is very much one of them. |
|
|
I hear all these Republicans talking about how the GOP left its conservative roots, and they never say why or that there are different branches of "conservatism". For the past eight years the Republican Party has been absolutely dominated by those known as Neo-Conservatives who do not believe in cutting government but in making it more efficient. They are weak on immigration and border control. They believe in entitlement programs and believe that it is their duty to push democracy onto the rest of the world. All of these policies sound familiar? Then you have Traditionalist Conservatives like President Reagan who believed in killing government programs, not creating new ones. Hugh needs to point this out. Any book that fails to distinguish the various streams of conservativism and not inform the reader of which stream ran things for the last eight years and which stream ran things during the Reagan years is not worth buying. |
|
vote for the Dems, as they are WAY too liberal for me.
But, I will also not vote for the next GOP presidential candidate either, unless they run a REAL conservative. |
|
Good point about the ".party"
I wouldn't donate the money for for any of this garbage.
I even think you are correct about "chump change", considering the pundits and politicals don't seem to be too upset about running trillion dollar deficits. I'm grateful for the last three idiots and the congresses we've had since 1988 for creating this mess along with the people who voted for these clowns.
Obama will probably complete the destruction. |
|
Or you could put it towards the $160 million inauguration circus.
4 years ago we heard no end of how we shouldn't be spending $40 million on a "party" while we are at war. 4 years of endless carping about the cost of the war later and now $160 million is acceptable?
I think the phrase "chump change" is going to acquire a whole new meaning over the next few years.
|
|
"As I write in my new book, GOP 5.0, every activist ought to begin a monthly contribution to the NRSC and the NRCC. Even $5 a month begins the rebuilding that has to commence immediately."
Yes! And everyone needs to run out and buy this political manual from someone who has been more wrong than he has been right. That's the ticket!
I wouldn't give the NRCC and the NRSC a wooden nickel after the way they screw their supporters upon winning control of the congress. A complete waste of money if there ever was. You might as well flush it down the toilet.
A far better idea is to give it to an individual candidate. That way you know who gets your money instead of having some GOPers giving it to some establishment party hack. |
|
|
In FLorida and Missouri they seem likely to get their top choices. The GOP Bond bails and then Jeb bails. We are being by a caterogy 5 demographric hurricane! |
|
FRom the NRSC website...
"Under no circumstances will the NRSC sell your information to commercial entities."
That negates points 2 & 4. The rest isn't worth commenting on.
|
|
|
|
If you contribute $5 per month to the NRSC and/or NRCC, you are guaranteed to receive $10 per month worth of direct mail pieces asking for more money.
The Republican plan seems to be:
1. Send direct mail fundraising letter
2. Sell list
3. Deploy telemarketing fundraising campaign
4. Sell phone numbers
5. Harumph about what the Dems are doing: "Uh, we agree that something needs to be done about [subject], but the Dems are going too far, we think our halfway there approach is better, harumph, blah blah blah"
6. Play golf and refresh oneself at the 19th hole
7. Repeat steps 1-6 until the day after Labor Day 2010
8. Say "vote for us, we're not quite as stinky as the other guys."
9. Explain that it was "those awful right-wingers who cost us the election" |
|
SO'H said:
"This blog was going after Obama for his millions of online friends, and the money garnered from that venue. Looks like now HH is trying to copy that strategy."
No, what Matt Lewis ACTUALLY said in the CNN article he linked to was was as follows:
"That'd be insane not to use this in some capacity to govern," said Matt Lewis, a conservative blogger with AOL's Political Machine and a writer for conservative Web site Townhall.com.
Lewis suggested that, like Ronald Reagan, Obama should try to circumvent the traditional filter of the media and use his ability to contact directly the millions who supported him. Where Reagan used television, Obama should use the Internet, Lewis said, pointing to the president-elect's dissemination of his weekly addresses as YouTube videos as one example."
Where is he "going after" Obama?
Where does Mr Lewis "cast as suspect" the on-line operation?
|
|
|
|
|
|