Will This Stolen Election Create a Third Party? Part II

By Rich Kozlovich

On December 19th I posted this piece.  Will This Stolen Election Create a Third Party?, and when I sent it out saying I thought it was a good piece and hoped everyone would agree.  Well, I will never believe "everyone" likes my articles, but I did get a big response, some positive comments, and some observations worth repeating. 

One of  "Our Group", an e-mail group to which I belong, replied back saying:

I agree both that Rich’s article was well argued, and that the way forward is through the Republican party. But the firebrands miss some essential points:

1. In any district, it is better to have a Republican in office than a Democrat, RINO waverer or not. They still caucus with the Republicans and therefore are influenceable in ways that a Joe Manchin is not.
2. When you have only a tiny majority, you can’t afford to be hard-assed with the people whose votes you need. Collins, Romney, and Murkowski are necessary to any vote.
3. You must treat them that way under these conditions; Leadership must adopt some of the internal strong-arm tactics that the Democrats routinely employ to keep party members in line. I am sure Mitt would not want a poorly lit, inaccessible basement office with broken AC, nor would Susan want Committee reassignments to include the most backwater, mind numbing responsibilities imaginable.
4. Republicans must understand that their appeal in broad geographic, population density variable areas may generate more strange bedfellows than the increasingly homogeneous, densely populated urban Democrat strongholds, and therefore may expect to deal with a more diverse group of elected Republican officials - and this effect will be even more important if Republicans want to increase their appeal in black and Latino areas. In doing so, they must be prepared to accommodate a wider range of opinion;
5. If Republicans manage to get a comfortable majority in either the House or Senate, they must be ready to adopt Democrat tactics of shielding their most vulnerable members from the bad local effects of adverse votes whenever possible; and
6. Once a comfortable majority is established, the Party can finally Start to pick and choose which Republicans to support and which to drive out with strong primary opposition. Only at this last point does the Party have enough power to choose its bedfellows.

Unfortunately the Democrats have proven far superior at Party discipline, but yet that is not always the right answer. How many “Blue Dog Democrats” are left? Pelosi did a rotten job protecting them. They are mostly history now.

I felt his comments were well thought out.  It's clear, at least to me, we need to see this long term.  We need to see farther, deeper and wider than the enemy, and remember, the left is treating this as a war of conquest and destruction of American capitalism and democracy.  That makes it a real war, and we need to get that they are the enemy of the American identity, the American culture, the American economy and the U.S. Constitution.

Although I strive to be unfailingly polite, being a fire brand is my cup of tea.  I love the confrontation, the challenge of ideas, the battle of logic, the battle of facts, the ultimate destruction of my adversaries position.  However, I always understood when in a leadership position you find you're not always left with deciding between right and wrong.  

It’s usually easy to know what’s right and what’s wrong.  But often times in a leadership role you don’t have the luxury of picking between the two. Often times you have to pick which wrong is the most right.  Sometimes you just have to be quiet.   And if you're in a leadership position you have to do what's best for the body you're representing, even if it makes that body a bit sick, because sometimes the conditions and circumstances give you no other options.  I get that.

I’ve often said at meetings every military strategy ever developed was absolutely perfect!  Until they meet the enemy!  It turns out the enemy always has a perfect strategy too, and both found out neither of their strategies were "perfect"!  There are battles that become stalemates, but that's rarely true for a war, and only one can win the war.  The one that wins is the one that can develop effective alternatives.  

That was Alexander the Great’s great skill.  

The Greeks had the phalanx long before Alexander and his father came along, but they never were as successful as Alexander.  Why?  Before that the Greeks didn’t have Alexander.  He had the ability to examine the potential battle field, and actual battlefields, and develop alternatives to overcome his adversaries before and during the battle, even when massively outnumbered.

I was on the Governmental Affairs Committee for my state association for years and the one who was the leader in our group was a three year old child when his family fled Castro's communist "paradise".  Isn't it funny how many people in the world keep leaving these leftist molded paradisaic conditions to live in the horrible conditions of the inequality, racism, white supremacy, oppression and capitalism of the United States.  

 

Does anyone besides me find that's just a bit remarkable?  

Isn't it also funny that no one living in our vile world of inequality, white supremacy, racism and capitalism wants to move to a wonderful leftist paradise?  

A leftist paradise the left, academia, Democrats, Hollywood and the media praise, excuse and pander to, and want to turn America into.  Of course they could just move to Venezuela or China, or even better yet, one the the many Muslim dominated tyrannies they support and leave the rest of us alone in our alleged "misery."  But that's not going to happen!  As the little kid in The Little Rascals said:  Remarkable!

At any rate, at one of our meetings he asked:  Which should we support, the party or the person?  And most said the person.  He said the party, which kind of surprised us all.  He pointed out there's a reason parties have a party Whip.  That's to whip everyone into line, and that's what they do, and that's what happens.  

You have to have the numbers, even if some of that number are offensive to the touch.  Getting rid of them is the long term solution, the short term solution is to moderate their effect as much as possible. When in a leadership role you represent all the members, no matter how you personally may feel, and this is paramount:  That doesn't mean abandoning conservative values and principles in order to go along to get along.  It's a matter of long term strategic thinking and planning.   

Strategic thinking requires goals.  There are three types of goals. Short term, intermediate and long range goals. Do your best to not mess up the long-range goals to accommodate the short and intermediate range goals. Know the difference between compromise and capitulation. Sometimes we have to side step, shift, or maneuver, but that doesn't mean quitting.  Never quit, never give up and never back down from what you know is right, and that may require patience.  But patience requires understanding.  Understanding is created by defining things property, and that generates discipline. 

You have to know the weaknesses of your friends in order to work around them.  You have to know the weaknesses of your enemies in order to exploit them.  You have to know your own weaknesses in order to fix them.  

Discipline and persistence wins out every time. Quoting Calvin Coolidge, one of the most successful, and most underrated, Presidents of the 20th century:

 “Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not: nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not: the world is full of educated derelicts."

"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."

This fraudulent election will, at least in my opinion, bring more real conservatives into the picture, especially at the local and state levels.  Also, how these lunatic governors have imposed tyranny on their states will make it happen all the more.  The fauxcons will either find themselves unelected, or at least marginalized and/or too intimidated by the conservatives in the party, and the conservative media, to get too far afield.  

Let's face it, fauxcons are for the most part gutless wonders, otherwise they wouldn’t have been lying to everyone all these years.  But controlling what they do and think takes numbers.

Right now, people like Romney, Chaney, Kasich and Boehner get a lot of positive attention from the left and their lap dogs in the media.  It's clear they love the attention and the praise, but that's as changeable as ladies fashion.  They may be shining in the glow of leftist praise now, but they're viewed as high smelling, low down and treasonous by former supporters, and that will take it's toll over time.  But the silver lining in all this is they're actions have made it abundantly clear; they're not to ever be trusted again as they're all nothing but leaky vessels in storm tossed seas on the best of days.  

As for McConnell, a few years ago when Trump came into office McConnell was a Never Trumper, and I know for a fact from friends in Kentucky, who've been politically active for years - people who had donated thousands to his campaigns over the years - were making it clear to their friends in the party that McConnell had to go. 

After those conversations I watched this play out and it was clear McConnell read the tea leaves and made the adjustments he needed to fool everyone again.   His days are numbered now.  In February he turned 79, and since he just got re-elected, in six years, if he lives out his term, will be 85.  And at this point he no longer has a need to fool anyone.  It's my view we’ll see McConnell’s whole raison d’etre has been to protect the family business – getting elected! 

However, If the Republicans in the Senate wisely pick a new leader, his influence will be toast, but that’s not gong to happen until the real conservatives get elected, and since the Senate has six year terms, that's going to take a while and a long term concerted effort.

Senators hold their seats for six years with the Senate divided into three groups, therefore, one third of the Senators are up for re-election every two years, which means there will be two elections that can change the make up of the Republicans in the Senate.  However, unless there's a huge change among those nominated for the Senate by the Republicans in the next two national elections, it seems to me McConnell or one of his ilk will be the Senate leader for the Republicans.  

Another EXCELLENT reason for term limits.