(5/16/06 Please note; comments by PACleanSweep about Russ Diamond and visa versa could be skewed and biased. Each has reason to want to make the other look bad. Comments provided by either are not substantiated and as are all comments on this board, they are the opinions of the commenter and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this blogs management)
I'd just like to make one point. Re-reading Mr. Diamond's comments here have illuminated a question others have asked previously. It behooves us to ponder it further.
Did Russ Diamond use the Payraise felony by lawmakers in a ruse to greatly further his possible gubenatorial run? Was it his intention all along not so much to bring about real reform but to advance his standing amongst political conservatives?
I guess only he can say with any certainty, however the fact that we have already witnessed what a third party candidate can do to an election (re:Perot vs Bush vs Clinton basically handing the Presidency to Bill Clinton) we can only deduce that the willingness of Russ Diamond to launch a candidacy with this knowledge shows the increasing possibility that these theorists were correct all along.
Mr. Diamond should follow the advise of bloggers and commenters here and in countless others to withdrawal from the race and prepare a run in the next election
I for one would like to see if he is the true patriot that we hope him to be. If so, I PERSONALLY will volunteer to work tirelessly on his campaign following the next election. Current the "Mission" is "not accomplished", Mr. Diamond; but let's facilitate one political mission as best we can at the moment and further the cause. Tomorrow we will fight another battle and if you'd like to continue to lead it many will follow.
May 12, 2006
REDUX: Republicans and Conservatives for America: Russ Diamond Must Exit
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You could not have said this better PA. A sustained Diamond candidcy only solidifies a Rendell victory on Tuesday, and condemns Pennsylvania to 4 more years of his mis-management.
I find it hard to fathom, although that all of Diamond's hard work in exposing the arrogance and thievery of our so-called leaders in Harrisburg was merely designed to advance his own political agenda. This is the type of behavior one would expect from those 253 hypocrites in the General Assembly.
Nevertheless if he persists in this "fools errand" it will only take votes away from Lynn Swann, much like Ross Perot did from George H.W. Bush. The consequences for Pennsylvania will be much the same.
Au contraire, the original mission has been accomplished, at least as much as can be done from this end.
My goal in founding PACleanSweep was to facilitate a correction - or reform, if you choose that term - through competition. We all know that was sorely lacking in PA legislative races for years.
I had no idea the 'reform movement' would gel like it did. That was the pleasant surprise - that I wasn't a lone voice in the wilderness.
Truth is, I had my eye on no office post-PACleanSweep. (In fact when I started it, I was a candidate - for my local school board - but I withdrew when PACleanSweep really started taking off.)
But again, it was about a correction through much-needed competition. And a funny thing happened on the way to reform - a little Darwinism got injected.
Think about it: Yes, the organization's slogan is 'vote em all out'. Realistic? No. Likely? Not at all. Decent emotional marketing ploy? Yup.
But even though we painted with such a broad brush, take a look at who got challenged and who didn't, regardless of any challenger's affiliation with PACleanSweep. Overall, it's an interesting picture and a result of natural selection of sorts.
Here's my dirty little secret: I think there are some 'good ones'. And many of them are getting off easy this year. But "vote 'em all out" works SO much better than "vote 163 of 'em out."
So with the original goal being competition, the mission was effectively accomplished with filings by our candidates, and all the others. (BTW, there are some out there who we recruited and/or worked with behind the scenes, but who chose to not to carry the banner for various legitimate reasons.) The rest is up to those candidates and the voters. We'll see how that all pans out on Tuesday.
Competition! In the gov race, I expected none from the Ds (although I tried), but never dreamed the Rs would pull another Mike Fisher (although I tried there, too).
Competition! It makes the cream rise to the top. What I've realized through this process is that the same cleansing we need in the legislature, you guys in the parties need to perform as well. Your leadership has taken over and the rank and file party voter has been ignored. Sad. Distinctly UN-American, too.
An anointed candidate is the reason I got into a Congressional race in 2004, and now we have the same from both parties in the governor's race - effectively leaving EVERY rank and filer out of the decision making process. So I'll give them a choice if they want it - and at least 67,070 have to say they want it first.
Here's the bonus: if I can get my policy points across to the general public after the primary, the R and D in this race will both pale by comparison.
So the real battle here will be over how hard they work to discount me. Take a look at Triad Strategy's write-up on their most recent poll. They went to A LOT of effort to point out my 'diminished' chances in this race. If I'm not much of a factor, why bother so much?
And have you followed the coverage on PoliticsPA? For those in the public who believe that site is a legitimate news source, they make me look pretty bad. But for those who understand what that site really is, it's quite amusing.
I don't threaten the R more than the D. I threaten both. But what I really threaten is the Establishment and business-as-usual, regardless of party.
But to answer your question directly - no I didn't do PACleanSweep so I could run for gov, or any other office. To assume so is to assume that I knew in advance how big the voter outrage would grow and to assume that I knew something that all the pundits, journalists and experts got wrong every step of the way. I'm somewhat intuitive, but I'm not THAT good. :)
Here's the reality: Even with optimal support, Lynn can't beat Ed. But I could do it with a fraction of what Lynn would need.
The question then, is: Which do you want - good government now, or an R governor who can't give it to you even if he could win?
I once thought like you. That third parties are bad for voting, because tghey split this vote or that vote. But I've realized there is a definite need for a third party. I have found most republicans are no longer conservatives, they're liberals Most democrats are socialists. I believe this goes back to your "Want People to Vote" post. This is a little off subject but believe iot still pertains here. If Julliani or McCain win the nomination in 2008 I will Be voting third party.
Oh my!
PA-CON, I have no reason to want to make PACleanSweep (the movement or the poster) look bad.
Plus, I sign my name. ;)
Awesome victory for Pennsylvania on Tuesday! Movement alive & well!
Out of respect for your blogspace, I will offer to no longer post here, but if you have any Q's, feel free to contact me directly so I can answer directly!
Keep up your fight, PA-CON. I know you want what's best for PA!
Post a Comment