You Must Be An Idiot

• Monday, February 1, 2010, 9:59
• Krusty Konservative
• 1,031 views
• 17 comments

• Share
  Delicious Digg Design Float Mixx Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati
• Printable version

About the Author

17 Comments on “You Must Be An Idiot”

• 
  Michael Corleone wrote on 1 February, 2010, 10:48

  It sounds to me like Kent Sorenson had a whopper of a fundraiser too, with Ron Paul and the millions of followers that he has. Didn’t Deace say they raised a ton of money at that event? I can’t say that I wasn’t surprised when Sorenson raised $15,000 in all of 2009 including his big fundraiser with Deace as emcee. Shouldnt Deace’s 50,000 watts of pure power been enough to at least help him break $50,000 for a big fundraiser with the Constitution king, Ron Paul? I heard the event didn’t even raise $3,000. Sorenson, Deace, you’re idiots and crappy fundraisers.
• 
  Craig Robinson wrote on 1 February, 2010, 11:52

  Sorenson raised over $22k.
• 
  DebbieS wrote on 1 February, 2010, 13:22

  I must say that fundraising is important but doesn’t supersede connecting with the people, ” We the people are savvy at what the political professional think, but what do the people think? I’m not going to vote for a groomed and endorsed politican “what to be” by the professional incumbent that is passing the baton to further what Big Government wants, no fundraising isn’t important enough to swing my vote, it’s my candidate Chris Reed who’s listening to the people and will represent me and my fellow patriotic neighbors. WAKE UP political professionals-YOU”RE NOT WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT. Telepromters-scripted formated speeches-and a plastic faced facade is identifiable to the people and we’re not going there.
• 
  Conservative Demo wrote on 1 February, 2010, 14:25

  What is with the stupidly pejorative connotation that has gotten attached to speakers for using teleprompters?

  For probably hundreds of years speakers have used written notes and we have no problem about that, so why would we think less of speakers whose “notes” are written on a display out in front somewhere?

  Debbie S, would you feel better if your elected representatives dropped the teleprompters and went back to using note cards?
• 
  Timmy wrote on 1 February, 2010, 14:26

  I guess either I don’t get it or somebody hasn’t properly explained this to me, but this claim of “High Speed” passenger rail service is mis-leading at best. What is being proposed is in essence conventional Amtrak service along the Iowa Interstate(the old Rock Island) east-west mainline accross Iowa. The only “High-Speed” service in the U.S. is Amtrak’s ACELA(sic?) along the N.E. Corridor line from NYC to D.C. which are electric-powered trains. Because of the traffic, this line actually runs profitably.

  However, what is being proposed here is another story. First of all, Omaha is already connected to Chicago via Amtraks “California Zephyr” that runs at a max speed of 79mph along BNSF’s mainline accross southern Iowa. There hasn’t been any passenger service on the old ROCK west of the Quad Cities since 1970(the Rock Island continued to operate from there to Chicago until 1978. They were forced to continue service by the same legislation that enacted Amtrak because they didn’t sign on and it was subsidised by the taxpayers of Illinois. It also is a leading factor that bankrupted the railroad and led to it’s demise.)

  It would be sheer folly to extend this as far as Omaha and only maybe would there be a reason to operate from DSM eastward. There needs to be tons of $$$ to upgrade this line by adding more passing sidings, modernizing the signalling system and trackage to Amtrak standards, etc. IAIS is operating quite well as an independent freight hauler without the intrusion of Amtrak and although they will get paid for hosting Amtrak, it will definitely change the way they currently operate. If there is somebody else out ther that can expain this much better, please correct any of my mistaken assumptions.
• 
  We The People wrote on 1 February, 2010, 15:00

  Krusty – If you think you think raising money is THE MOST IMPORTANT ROLE of a canidate, I for one am very relieved you are not running for office. However, I will concede that the vast majority of the “Political Class” do see that as the number 1 priority of getting elected and STAYING in office; so much so that many are ALWAYS basing their decissions and platforms based on where the money is, rather then their Oath of Office, staying in touch with the true constituents (who are having rough times financially right now). The money as FIRST PRIORITY has a lot to do with the corruption in government as well as the lack of trust The People have for their elected official from either Party.

  Mr Reed’s priorities are to God/Country, and those whom the people he wants to represent. He shows he is willing to state exactly where and which of his principals are non-negotable. This shows Integrity and Honor, and that somethings can’t be bought….I am much more likely to vote for a canidate who exhibits such characteristics (whether I agree with him on every issue or not) because I know he is a man of his word…not someone willing to say whatever they must to get elected and continue doing that to stay elected. Where is the moral fiber in that? I firmly believe that the American People, especially in IOWA, are tired of being used by the politicians and special interest groups and want men and women in office that do have integrity and are accountable.

  There is a human tendency to value those things in life we work hard to accomplish and to take for granted those things that are easily obtained. This not only is seen in life but amplified in politics.

  You, above most others because of your blog, have to realize money doesn’t play the role it did in the past; there are other ways of getting the word out…and the money should be WELL spent when it is. Money does help, no denying that; So if this is some twisted way of letting people know that even the smallest amount given is appreciated – I hope you have done your job (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here as to what the true prorities of a canidate are or are not) I’ll leave it up to the voters as to whom the idiot really is
• 
  DebbieS wrote on 1 February, 2010, 15:08

  So much has been written about the style of speaking, or or how much money has been raised by the candidates to validate their worthiness as being a candidate. What seems to be missing is what the people want as reported on the internet. Regular people, out of work, regular people who are the average , hard working, down to earth, deserving of a trustworthy representation in Congress. Look at the population of Iowa how many have gone to college? I know my neighbors they are farmers, busy working their farms, they are warehouse people, they are service people, they are veterans, they won’t be fooled by prowlness or degrees. They are the descent people that believed the representatives that have gone crazy spending in Washington and we won’t be fooled by the moderates in the race or the fundraisers that have connections or the newspaper reporter that slants his reporting or the comments left on this blog that are biased. Including my own. I can agree to disagree as long as there is an answer to the problems that Iowa is facing. Take a stand bring about balance that makes our country great, it’s out of balance as it now stands.
• 
  Right Winger wrote on 1 February, 2010, 18:50

  I wouldn’ t cut Christopher Reed out of it yet. I think he will surprise everyone and come out on top. He certainly is the strongest Conservative of the three candidates. I think KC’s words about him are totally unnecessary and prove nothing. Christopher is a Navy veteran and I’m confident he has much fight left in him.
• 
  Waywardson wrote on 1 February, 2010, 20:39

  Krusty you are 100% right. I cannot count the number of brilliant, articulate, energetic, dynamic, ultra hard right God, Guns and Guts candidates that came up just votes short of a knockoff win, because they did not raise 1/10th of what their RINO or Communist opponent raised. I became a fundraiser by necessity, because these otherwise great candidates just plain suck at saying “show me the money”. For some inane reason, asking for money, closing the deal, is just impossible for them. I can’t help be replay the scene in Glen Gary Glen Ross:
  ——————————
  As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anybody want to see second prize?
  [Holds up prize]
  Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize… is you’re fired.
  —————————-
  Only in Politics, Second Prize is you’re fired.

  Issues only HAPPEN if you win, if you lose then your issues SUFFER.

  This, of course, is going to be the problem with ol’ BVP.

  @RW: I actually prefer Reed over the others, on the Issues. But, you are all fools if you do not heed Krusty’s wisdom on the matter. Blind fools. Soon to be politically dead fools and the best ideas dead with ya. Get your man on the phone and skip the baby kissing starting right now. He should not even take a p*** until he’s called 1,000 previous known donors and raised $100 from each of them. Do that, and he might win. Skip it, play “fun games” as a candidate and you can enjoy just losing.
• 
  Right Winger wrote on 1 February, 2010, 21:30

  “Money doesn’t vote! The people vote!”
• 
  Timmy wrote on 1 February, 2010, 21:49

  RW: While “Money doesn’t vote! The people vote!” also remember this: Money talks, B.S. walks!!!
• 
  We The People wrote on 1 February, 2010, 22:05

  “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”–John Quincy Adams
• 
  onlyhave9 wrote on 1 February, 2010, 23:10

  “the most important role of a candidate is to raise money”. Really? I thought it might be telling people what you stand for so when you get to Washington they could understand and trust how you were going to vote on certain issues. I thought it might be showing people that they can trust you by being upfront on where you stand on those issues and not flip-flopping on them depending on whose vote you were trying to get at the time. I thought it might be being honest, having a grasp on the issues and having integrity. If you are right and raising money is the most important thing then it is that way because we, the voters made it that way. We told the candidates that it is more important to show us fancy or funny commercials with cows talking than it is to have the guts to stand for something. If you are right then Mr. Obama is also the best “candidate” in the history of American politics. Sure, it got him elected but it obviously didn’t make him the best man for the job! I am so sick of politicians who think they can buy our votes with fancy campaign adds. I am even more sick of people who let them do it. Pay attention to the issues. Find out where the candidates stand on them, if they’ll tell you (I know Chris Reed will). Find out if that is where they have always stood or if they just stand there now because it will give them a better chance of winning this time. If you are simply looking for the candidate who can raise the most money it probably won’t be Mr. Reed. The other two have to many wealthy friends who can drop 1000 in the plate as easily as most of us can drop 10. But if you are looking for a candidate who will tell you up front where they stand on an issue, if you want an honest candidate with the kind of integrity that we should be sending to Washington then it will be Chris Reed.
• 
  Waywardson wrote on 2 February, 2010, 0:01

  Listen people. I will say it slowly. I think Chris Reed is the candidate with whom I most closely agree on the issues. But, and here is the wake up call, if he does not raise serious money, he and those issues are toast. So, quite telling us how money does not matter and how grand the issues are, and go out and HELP him raise money. Stop posting, and pick up the phone. It is only a numbers game. Show me any, and I mean any, ever, any, candidate who did not raise 1 million for a Federal Race and I will show you a candidate who did NOT spend enough time simply asking. The end. Do or do not. Do and win. Do not and lose.
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 2 February, 2010, 6:04

  onlyhave9: Your beef is not with waywardson who says you need money–your beef is with the ignorant voters who won’t bother to scratch beneath the surface to learn the very things you want them to know.

  They are lazy. That is why the necessity of money. You have to have a sufficent amount of money to make them aware you are seeking the office. It’s not ideal, but it’s reality.

  Selling a candidate is no different than selling any other product. Advertising pays.
• 
  onlyhave9 wrote on 2 February, 2010, 6:29

  Deace voted for Obama: I agree, I have no problem with Waywardson saying we need to raise money and that is not how I intended to come across. Obviously we do need to raise money in order to get out the messages I mentioned. I think we all realize that money has become an all to important part of part of a political campaign. I do think, however, that we have more people who are truly interested in the issues and who are willing to dig a little than we have had in the past. Granted, not enough. Waywardson: I appreciate you slowing it down for me and not using any big words. I also appreciate you telling me exactly what I need to do to help Chris get elected. The only question you left me with is what are you going to do? You have found a candidate who you “closely agree with on the issues” but he is struggling to raise money. You have the answers. What are you going to do to help? As you said setting around posting on blogs and criticizing or being condescending toward those who are trying get Chris elected isn’t going to get it done.

Trackbacks

1. Army Fitness | Fitness for Life | Military Fitness Wisdom

Write a Comment

Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!

You must be logged in to post a comment.