Connect with us

Everything

On winning: Discretion is the better part of valor

Published

on

Are there times when losing, regardless of the repercussions, is preferable to winning? We are a society which has stopped keeping score at our children’s athletic events. Instead of MVP awards we hand out participation trophies to everyone. Yet, there are segments of our culture where winning is prized above all else. On one hand our children see use say everyone is winner and no one fails, while on the other hand we seek to crush out opponents by any means necessary. Losing with grace and honor is a thing of the past. But, should it be, and did we miss an opportunity to show our children what an honorable loss looks like?

Caleb Howe wrote a terrific article on Thursday, over at Red State, titled The Flight 103 Presidency. I would encourage you to read it. His position is that the game of Russian roulette, that was the 2016 Presidential election, we got a gun with every round in the chamber. There was no chance of drawing a blank and living to spin again. Caleb says the bomb on board is going to blow, now it’s just up to us to determine where we are going to be when it blows, not if it blows.

This brings me back to my opening question. Are there times when it’s just better to lose? Can there be more honor in losing and maintaining some amount of dignity and honor. Is discretion the better part of valor? Is it better to take some hits, but live to fight another day?

The election of 2016 was just such a decision making opportunity. It was very apparent during the primaries, and subsequent general election, that Donald Trump had struck a nerve and ignited people’s passions. Those opposed to the left’s radical agenda feared Hillary Clinton and the continued policies of the last eight years. You know the story, and I won’t repeat it here.

Trump won, despite his historically low approval ratings and despite his complete lack of any moral compass. We have had some bad presidents in our history, but I’m not sure we’ve ever had one who so completely lacks any moral, or ideological, identity. The only consistent thing about President Trump is that so long as you praise him, you are good. If you don’t, you are bad. That is the one thing you can put money on with Trump. Nothing else matters. But, it didn’t matter. We had to win. We had to win at any costs. Well, now we are seeing the costs.

So, what are the costs and were they worth it to avoid a Clinton presidency? This administration has accomplished nothing other than Justice Gorsuch and rolling back some regulations. To be honest, we could have gotten that from a President Jim Gilmore. Hell, insert any republican name behind “President” and we would have at least gotten that. And for those victories, what has been the costs?

Seven months of complete dumpster fire. Every Friday, we wait for the next shoe to drop. A different position from every administration official who opens his or her mouth. Every republican elected official having to decide if it’s more beneficial to defend Trump or distance themselves and risk awakening the wrath of the Twitter Monster that is President Trump. I haven’t even gotten to the latest with the race issues. Like it or not, the Republican Party, and candidates, with spend the rest of their existence fighting allegations of racism and collusion with the alt-right. All at a time when the party was supposed to be expanding the base and becoming a “Big Tent”. Personally, I’ve never been more confident in my decision to leave the party in May 2016, and more proud to have found a home in The Federalist Party.

The argument by some, in conservative circles, during the election was that the Republican Party would be in a better position had Hillary Clinton won. I tend to think they were right. With a Republican House and Senate, she would be opposed at every turn (perhaps). They could have held the line on judges, funding, and any number of issues. (I say this hypothetically, because they really showed no spine during the Obama years) With all of that said, at least there would be some moral authority left, however slight. That is gone.

This is beyond the point of fixing. The President’s inner circle in now void of any right leaning voices. He is surrounded by life-long democrats. If you have been unhappy with the way the first seven months have gone, I anticipate it only getting worse. As Caleb Howe said, the bomb is going to blow. There is no stopping it. The only question now is whether those who are in the Republican Party, and those of us who already left, can admit that we must disassociate with this President and live to fight another day and take the high ground.

“It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

― Samuel Adams

Jacob is the provisional State Chair, Federalist Party of NC

Continue Reading
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Doug Olson

    August 19, 2017 at 5:01 pm

    Well said, Jacob. For over 30 years I have been a member of the GOP. I felt a great relief in May when I left the party and joined the Federalist Party. When the GOP became so feckless due to the maneuvering of Priebus, Trump, Ryan, McConnell and Graham, I saw the writing on the wall. Conservatives are now the enemy of the GOP and of Trumpism. I believe, only through the Federalist Party can true conservatism be re-defined back to where it should be, not what the likes of Flake and other “RINO” would say it is.

  2. Hermann Fegelein

    August 20, 2017 at 7:06 am

    Conservative would have a more compelling message if it have ever been anything but a failure and a disaster anywhere it had been put into practice, and if we’re possible to point to a conservative economic philosophy based on anything other than racism and federal handouts. Your argument that Hillary clinton is uniquely horrible actually looks like an ex cathedra declaration, with your claim to make such declarations undermined by your apparent lack of cognitive skills sufficient to enable you to pour water out of a boot. I used to be a conservative, following a conservative leader. It led to a catastrophe the like of which had never before been witnessed on Earth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Mastermind behind Iranian parade attack allegedly killed

Published

on

Mastermind behind Iranian parade attack allegedly killed

Iranian state television is reporting the mastermind behind last months’ terrorist attack on a military parade in Ahvaz, Iran. 25 people were killed, including a dozen members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

An alleged member of the Islamic State, Abu Zaha, was killed by Iran along with four other militants in Diyala province in Iraq. They gave no indication of how the operation was carried out. Though the Islamic State claimed responsibility for the terrorist attack, many believe it was the Ahwaz National Resistance, an Iranian separatist group that also claimed responsibility.

Iran Claims It Has Killed Mastermind of Deadly Attack on Parade

https://www.algemeiner.com/2018/10/16/iran-claims-it-has-killed-mastermind-of-deadly-attack-on-parade/The Sunni Muslim Islamic State group, in decline in Iraq and Syria, considers the majority Shi’ite Muslims of Iran to be heretics.

Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said those responsible for the parade attack were paid by Sunni Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and that Iran will “severely punish” those behind the violence.

My Take

It behooves Iran to get their justice from the Islamic State rather than Ahwaz National Resistance. ISIS is an easy operator to blame for the attacks whether they did it or not. It’s believable and presents an enemy that isn’t as close to home as Ahwaz National Resistance. It also allows them to maintain their narrative that ISIS is funded by Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

We’ll likely never know if Zaha was really the mastermind behind the attack. If similar attacks happen in the coming months, it’s likely that Ahwaz National Resistance is behind them, not ISIS.

Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory

If Keith Ellison wins his election, #MeToo has officially jumped the shark

Published

on

If Keith Ellison wins his election MeToo has officially jumped the shark

Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) should be a prime target for the #MeToo movement. He’s a powerful man who allegedly abused his ex-girlfriend. She has corroboration and evidence to back her claims. She’s a fellow Democrat, so she’s not a political plant by his opposition. She’s a woman with a story of abuse that, by #MeToo movement standards, should be believed.

The problem is Ellison is a powerful Democrat, a Muslim, a minority, and is in the middle of a tight election. Therefore, he’s protected from the people who would have sunk Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation despite no evidence or corroboration.

The hypocrisy of it all is stunning. The message being sent by the #MeToo movement based on their unwillingness to confront Ellison and call for his removal from offices, current and future, is that women are to be believed if they’re accusing the right people. Keith Ellison isn’t the right person. He’s an ally to the #MeToo movement because he’s a Democrat, a Muslim, a minority, and someone who’s in the middle of an important election in Minnesota.

Despite the #MeToo movement looking away, it seems that voters in Minnesota are starting to look closer.

Domestic abuse charges diminishing Ellison’s lead

https://onenewsnow.com/politics-govt/2018/10/16/domestic-abuse-charges-diminishing-ellisons-leadRep. Keith Ellison’s (D-Minn.) lead in the polls – to become Minnesota’s newest attorney general in the midterm elections – has continued to vanish after his ex-girlfriend’s domestic abuse allegations.

Before the Karen Monahan’s charges were made public, the Democratic Muslim candidate was believed to be a shoe-in in the contest to become the deep-blue state’s top cop, but since then, polls show that his once long-shot Republican competitor, Doug Wardlow, has closed in on him – big time.

Misogyny and abuse of power are real problems in America. This is why the initial iteration of the #MeToo movement was so powerful. It worked. That cannot be denied. But what it has become is a shadow of its original self.

The highest ranking law enforcement official n the state of Minnesota may be a many accused by his ex-girlfriend of physical and mental abuse. Unfortunately, #MeToo doesn’t believe her.

#MeToo will only go after people like Keith Ellison if there’s incontrovertible evidence against them. They’ll go after Brett Kavanaugh no matter what. #MeToo is not the women’s empowerment movement they claim to be. It’s a political activist front.

Continue Reading

Democrats

How Beto O’Rourke is losing more than his race for the Democrats

Published

on

How Beto ORourke is losing more than his race for the Democrats

Democratic Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke was billed by many magazines and news outlets as the next coming of Kennedy (John or Robert, depending on which fluff piece you read). As his star began to rise in the beginning of the year, excitement was high among Democrats who believed they could strike at the heart of the Republican base in deep red Texas.

Polls continue to show O’Rourke’s and the Democrats’ hopes fading. Texans are coming to their senses and realizing that O’Rourke hasn’t done anything of substance since getting into politics. He has a tainted history that includes misogyny, intolerance, crime, and lies about all three. Oh, and he’s not Hispanic despite clever attempts to fool Latino voters into thinking he was.

But O’Rourke’s failures aren’t just killing his chances in Texas. They’re also hurting the Democratic Party as a whole, making it more difficult for others to win their races. Here are four reasons this is the case:

Funds to him are funds that didn’t go elsewhere

There has been tons of buzz in mainstream media about the incredible $38.1 million his campaign raised last quarter. In fact, it’s given him more attention than anything he could possible buy with that much money. It’s so much that some Democrats have suggested he share his spoils.

Nope.

Beto O’Rourke won’t share his $38M with fellow Democrats

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/beto-orourke-wont-share-his-38-million-with-other-democrats“No,” O’Rourke told a reporter when asked if he would commit to sharing funds with Senate Democratic candidates who are in closer races. “I’m focused on Texas. Most of our contributions have come from Texas. All of them have come from people. Not a dime from PACs.”

“Folks contributed to this race because they want us to win this race. If they want to contribute to another campaign, of course they’re welcome to do that,” O’Rourke said. “No, we’re going to spare no expense. We will bear any burden to make sure that we deliver for this state and for this country. That means a victory on the 6th of November.”

Much of the money raised by O’Rourke’s campaign came from outside of Texas. That means money that could have gone to tighter races has been funneled to his. He’s the great hope of the party, the one who can prove the runner up for the GOP nomination in 2016 couldn’t keep his own seat in Texas. Unfortunately for the Democrats, it’s money that will be shown to be totally wasted in the end.

The great deflate

One leftist commentator I read a couple of months ago said something to the effect of “Beto O’Rourke carries the entire Democratic Party on his shoulders right now. When he beats Cruz in Texas, it will mark the shift this country needs away from the backwards thinking of conservatives like Trump and his Republican enablers.” I wish I could find the piece again so I could see what the author is thinking now.

We can speculate because we’re seeing other Democrats expressing an identical sentiment. O’Rourke really was the guy who could be their champion in the Senate and the shining example that puts the nation on notice of a rising Democratic Party. Except, he’s not. He’s flawed. His campaign is very clever and modern, but it’s not necessarily effective.

When hopes are placed on one person and that person fails, it’s deflating. So much hope had been placed on O’Rourke that this particular deflation is crushing for many Democrats who thought he was destined to win.

Attention on O’Rourke means others are being ignored

Allahpundit over at Hot Air thanked CNN today.

Endgame: Cruz 52, O’Rourke 45 in new CNN poll

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/16/endgame-cruz-52-orourke-45-new-cnn-poll/Many thanks to CNN for producing this, the fifth poll of Texas in 11 days, instead of polling Indiana, Florida, Missouri, or Montana, all of which are much tighter races and none of which have been polled since October 2nd. There are many ways to measure Betomania! in the media but the fact that they keep polling and re-polling the Lone Star State, hoping against hope for some movement towards Team Blue, is an underrated one.

There are much closer races that should have updated polling and more media attention, but all eyes are on O’Rourke. Some of it’s out of pride; many leftist journalists put so much of their credibility on the line by backing O’Rourke that they are demanding he win whether the people vote for him or not.

We really don’t know how close it is in the other states where the races are tighter. This favors Republicans who are forced to rely on old data showing them losing. Nothing gets the vote out like a poll that shows your side is close but behind. One can argue that in swing states in 2016, the fact that President Trump was behind in most of them was enough to help him win them.

It’s very possible the Republicans are winning in these other tight races, but nobody knows because so much attention is going to O’Rourke. Republicans don’t mind that at all.

The fresh face that wasn’t fresh enough

The more people learn about O’Rourke, the more he seems like a run-of-the-mill Democrat whose only distinguishing qualities are attractive facial features and a skateboard. He’s not out there sharing inspiring ideas like Senator Bernie Sanders did in 2016. He’s not giving the leftist base socialist fodder like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

He’s Claire McCaskill. He’s Heidi Heitkamp. He’s Jon Tester. He’s a blue guy in a red state playing the leftist when talking privately to young Democrats while playing the centrist in public forums. Yes, he’s said some things in public that are definitely leftist such as banning semi-automatic rifles, but he’s not saying enough to differentiate himself from other milquetoast red state Democrats.

Arguably the only difference between O’Rourke and other Democrats is his willingness to say the F-word a lot in public. That might endear him to hipsters, but it’s not helping him win a Senate seat.

To the media and Democrats, please keep trying to help Beto O’Rourke win. Focus on him. When he loses, it will have a deeper impact on the future of the Democratic Party than all the other Democrats he helped to lose.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report