Greetings to everyone, Democrat and Republican alike. Iâ€™ve been watching and reading the Pundit on occasion for the last several weeks, and finally acquiesced to the requests that I become a contributor. I will admit up front that I jolly well have no intention of endorsing any candidates, or encouraging or participating in any further vitriolic street fights. It seems to me that the very thing that tears Republicans apart is this in fighting and posturing during primary season. Republicans have the aforementioned peculiar tendency to eat their own. This cannibalistic practice is what weakens what would, in my humble opinion, otherwise be our nationâ€™s strongest party by a long shot. The purpose of forums such as these is not to air dirty laundry. Is our purpose to build up, or tear down? Incidentally, the absence of certain topics seems to have caused quite the lack of participation in the last week or so. Weâ€™ve seen only the occasional post with substantive candor. Do Republicans, as a whole, only have something to discuss if youâ€™re in a contest of wills between two good men? Is the only Republican conversation and fiery conversation fueled by hatred of another, rather than passion and conviction towards a common cause?
“[T]he Governor should be much further ahead, especially if itâ€™s a Republican poll.”
I chose the name Silence Dogood because it represents the character and will of a man who, in my opinion, was one of the most wisely pragmatic government leaders in our nationâ€™s history. Far from the sold out evangelical, Benjamin Franklin nonetheless was one of the most articulate architects of our constitutional republic, and its conservative principles, that history gives us. I believe it would do us well to look back to those principles, and practices, upon which those Republican principles are built.
Am I Democrat? No. Am I a Republican? No. Conservative? No, I rather doubt this society presents us with much Iâ€™d want to â€œconserve.â€? Traditionalist? The idea of traditionalism doesnâ€™t suite us well in a modern society driven by progressive ideals. However, traditional principles, both of politics, society, and culture suit us well when viewed in a pragmatic, progressive light.
What am I saying? I suppose Iâ€™m advocating that we address our concerns not towards men who may, or may not, have the ability to solve the problems we face. Our energies would be better directed, in a unified fashion, towards the problems we face, through building coalitions, and then turning a unified aggression on defeating those problems.
What if we took money out of politics? What would be left? There was no money in politics in the day of Benjamin Franklin. Of course, this is an ideal thatâ€™s just short of silly, more along the lines of idealistic at best. Thereâ€™s no way that we could achieve a â€œmoney â€“ lessâ€? political system. Think about it, however, and consider what would be left to motivate people to â€œpoliticâ€? if there was no money involved. Honor, nationalism, patriotism, sacrificeâ€¦the ideals that allowed us to rabidly, unabashedly attack another politician, and his personal affairs, without shame. What would happen if we went back to those ideals, those principles?
With that, Iâ€™ll address, in brief, some of the more practical items that have been mentioned over the last couple of days.
First, Iâ€™m rather taken aback that no â€“ one mentioned the possibility that Georgiaâ€™s United States Senator Saxby Chambliss could very well end up on the next Presidential ticket. Not since Former President Jimmy Carter has a native son of Georgia ended up in such a prestigious position. His name, of course in rumor and conjecture, has been mentioned as the perfect compliment to a certain New York Mayor, with his white hair, and wise, rolling Southern voice. From a policy angle, his experience and expertise on matters of defense and foreign policy fit him perfectly to address problem the U.S. faces in an international society.
It sounds as though things in Middle Georgia are heating up quickly as both incumbent Representatives Robert Ray and David Graces have drawn challengers in the 2006 election cycle. Can Meg Nichols present a viable, well funded challenge to a man well liked by his colleagues, widely considered to be a conservative supporter of the Speaker? Itâ€™s a difficult undertaking. Will Rep. Graveâ€™s transgressions, so to speak, catch up with him? A lack of professional and ethical responsibility can be remarkably damaging in a campaign, or, if the voters so choose, can be largely ignored. I think more poignant and dangerous for him at this point is the simple fact that heâ€™s not had a challenger in many years: does he still know how to campaign? Will the press crucify him for his â€œsins,â€? or will they leave him alone, so as not to support a challenger who may be much more conservative than he.
From the perspective of the Governor: everyone has been toasting and re-toasting the results of the Republican polling that came out last week. Incidentally, the polling was done by a largely Republican polling firm. The governor has $5 million more than Cathy Cox. Had many months more to raise it. Cathy Cox is pulling against another powerful Democratic politician, while the Governor has no opposition. And heâ€™s only six points ahead? Rejoice as you will, but all the factors say that the Governor should be MUCH further ahead, especially if itâ€™s a REPUBLICAN poll. Circle the wagons, boys, itâ€™s going to be a fight to the death. My suggestion? Forget Reed, Cagle, Handel, Stephens, McGuireâ€¦help your Governor!! On that same note, to the folks talking about attendance in Perry this weekend. I wasnâ€™t there, so I canâ€™t speak from personal experience, but one would assume, based on conventional wisdom, that it matters not how many legislators or other candidates are there. What matters is how many blood â€“ and â€“ sweat â€“ producing volunteers and community activists were in attendance, and even further, how intense the energy and spirit was. Any input on this?
Just my two centsâ€¦