I have seen the arguments for pragmatism and compromise.  To save our strength until the important battles are to be fought.  They have been eloquent and well thought out. I respect all those who gave us those views, they are patriots and liberals all.  But I must be true to myself and say that I disagree.

I was perusing the diaries and I came across this one from LostSoul: http://lostsoul.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/6/41655/27017

In it she points to an article that states the conservative principles.

Since one of my goals (as a Recovering Republican) is to destroy conservatism, I decided to rebut the article so that she and other's don't believe that these are actual conservative values.  They are liberal ones, dressed up.

More below the fold.

I have been trying to decide on how to win the war in Iraq and win the war against the GOP for control of the US.  Both seem like very daunting tasks.  My research into winning in Iraq led me to a book that I had read back when I was trying to establish a organization within a network marketing company (I ended up learning that I wasn't ready to be a salesman.): "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" by Robert B. Cialdini, PhD.

There is a story in there about how, during the Korea war, the Chinese used the consistency mechanism to convince our troops to collaborate with them to devastating affect.  (It is estimated that over 95% of our troops who were POWs with the Chinese collaborated with the Chinese.)

More below the fold:

Bloggerman is reporting that The New York Times and the Washington Post are running stories today that there are voting irregularities in Ohio.

Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/politics/15ohio.html?oref=login

The honestly non-partisan article from the Post:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6714782/

Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, the newspaper reports, will today ask the FBI and a county prosecutor in Ohio to investigate what he has termed "inappropriate and likely illegal election tampering" in one or more counties in that state.

It's about time.  

And thanks Bloggerman for putting the nail in that rumor.  

I have been called a narc. At least it has been intimated that I may be a narc.  In my book, you might as well have just said it. A narc.  The origin of the word comes from narcotics officer.  People who busted those who broke the law of the land.  It also came to mean those who informed for the officers. Informer. I have been called a lot of things, but never an informer. I delivered pizza's for 4 years in a college town where I saw more hash than most will ever see. I never had anyone busted. Narcs, in the original sense, should be (and for a vast majority of them are)  liberals.  They just don't realize it. You find a police officer that believes that prisoner abuse is wrong, who believes that suspects should be treated respectfully, who believe that they should be governed by the same laws they enforce and I'll show you a liberal.  I actually know quite a few of them.

I grew up in a red state, worked in nothing but red states, was in the Army for 9 years, moved to Ireland and now I'm a liberal.  I'm working on eradicating all the lies that have been stuffed into my head over the years and would like some feedback on any additions from other recovering Republicans.