Party men, Townhall, and war.
By trevino Posted in GOPWar | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (50) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
From the diaries...
This piece originally appeared at joshua.trevino.at.
A truly remarkable series of events has transpired in the past few days, and we are faced with a split in the online right that is both portentious -- and necessary. Before we get into the details of the division, we must step back a bit and ask why we participate in the online political sphere at all. Some few do it out of purely perverse motivations, it's true, but most do it for one of two reasons: to advance a movement, or to advance a party. These are not the same things, and each needs the other -- but it does not follow from this that they are equally important. The only Marx quote I approve of is paraphrased, “Philosophers seek to explain the world; the point is to change it.” This is well and good for motivating on-the-ground activism (in a Marxian context, with Molotov cocktails and Ninth Circuit suits), but it ignores the necessity of the explanation preceding and motivating the change. A structure is not an end alone; an apparatus that exists to promote the apparatus is worthless to all but itself; there must be content before the container becomes worth carrying. From this follows the obvious: that the Republican Party is worthwhile only inasmuch as it reflects and promotes conservative ideals, aims, and principles.
Read on . . .
I say this is obvious, but only from a moral standpoint: from a pragmatic stance, the Party may be extremely worthwhile in its own right, as a means of personal advancement or a source of sinecures for friends and allies. Serving a structure for its own sake is the time-honored career of apparatchiks through history, and the Republican Party assuredly has its own class. Fortunately, they are easy enough to pick out: they are the ones who pirouette and leap to defend whatever line is promulgated by the ruling elements of the party at any particular moment, independent of its veracity or sense. They do the hard work of shaping the narrative at the ground level, and they hew it so that it is impervious to principled critique -- almost always with the protest that such critique merely weakens our own. The irony is that no critique weakens our own so much as their most profound absurdities, be it that Tom DeLay is worth fighting for to the bitter end, that Harriet Miers is competent to serve on the Supreme Court, that Alberto Gonzales is a fine Attorney General, or that the White House is doing a great job in Iraq. The cumulative effect of these things, and the concurrent abandonment of conservative principle in governance large and small, is why we now have a Congressional minority and a President with a 33% approval rating. The men of the party took the 1994 and 2000 victories won by the men of the movement, and squandered it all on -- well, the party. Common sense tells us that it's time to reverse the priorities and put conservatism ahead of Republicanism if we want to begin the climb back.
In this light, it is the dictates of that common sense that led RedState's Erick Erickson to “declare war” on the GOP House leadership, to keep the latter from installing corrupt solicitor of prostitutes Ken Calvert on the Appropriations committee. This is truly an act of a friend toward a friend, albeit a sort of “tough love.” Having lost their way -- and lost the Congress -- the Republican leadership desperately needs this sort of attention from the grassroots who support and elect them. Unfortunately, just as every addict has enablers, so too does the party apparatus have the men of the party to defend and sustain it in its path toward moral and electoral oblivion. True conservatives know who that Ken Calvert must not assume his place in leadership: and true conservatives know that this is merely the beginning of a long and sustained effort to reclaim the Republican Party for principle and the movement.
How do the men of the party respond? By deriding the conservatives as having adopted “the tactics and rhetoric of the Left.” That's Matt Lewis of Townhall. Hugh Hewitt's co-blogger Dean Barnett, also of Townhall, writes, “Students of the left wing blogosphere will find this message and Erick’s entire campaign strikingly similar to a Markos Moulitsas operation.” Lewis goes one better, mistaking the men of the movement for the men of the party, and declares the campaign against Calvert “a business decision.” Well. The irony is thick here, where the party men accuse the conservatives of -- being too much like leftists! Townhall claims to “arm conservatives with the tools and information necessary to have an impact in shaping the news,” but its major voices here arm the party apologists with the tools and information necessary to fight principled conservatives. What a pity -- and what a betrayal of Townhall's roots in the eminently principled Heritage Foundation.
I wrote that this is a split in the online right that is both portentious and necessary, and so it is. The conservative movement online evolved in an era when putative conservatives controlled the whole of the national government; now that they do not, that movement is slowly defining itself apart from the party that serves as its policy vehicle, and making demands that the party has not experienced before. If the “war” to deny Calvert his committee seat seems distressing to the power-holders, know that it is mere prelude: conservative demands will not end there, and the Republican Party will have to face the same trauma of adjusting to an empowered base that the Democratic Party has faced for several years now. Some party leaders will adapt, and some will resist. The latter will fall by the wayside in due time, but they need not worry overmuch: unlike the “netroots,” we won't be cruel -- and we'll be right.
demonstrates the core of Marx's writing: that ideas do not matter. i encourage you to reject Marx in full. everything he wrote was twisted with the darkest evil
1) To what extent will those regular participants on this site, who aren't ready to adopt a belligerent stance against others on the conservative blogopshere, continue to be welcome at Redstate? (I'm reminded of how Polipundit purged regulars from his site who didn't agree with his opinions.)
2) Am I the only one who has concerns about Redstate's apparent eagerness to bring on battle with others in the conservative movement? Its apparent yearning to provoke a fight? Do we want to work with others in the conservative movement, or subdue them?
3) Can the "GOPWar hawks" on Redstate assure the rest of us that launching an internal party civil war won't affect the ability of the GOP/conservative movement to keep up momentum/support for the war in Iraq?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
I think Calvert and some of the others under FBI investigation aren't doing much to
"keep up momentum/support for the war in Iraq."
Coverups and general complicity won't help us to achieve higher goals.
....is to think again about who really is part of the conservative movement.
We are but warriors for the working-day.
Who says who is part of the movement, and who isn't?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
American Conservative philosophy is not exactly an enigma. There are
very clear, longstanding, and compatible definitions for the American Conservative philosophy. People who generally believe and act in accordance with the American Conservative Philosophy are Conservatives. People who consistently believe and/or act in opposition to the American Conservative Philosophy are not Conservatives.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
The problem with the way that RedState approached this is simple. They went fast and headlong into the fray without inviting anyone to join them.
Once they were in the thick of things tossing in grenades then they called for reinforcements.
What is the difference between these four blogger-initiated efforts:
The NRSC Pledge
We Win They Lose
The Sunlight Foundation
RedState GOP War
The first three efforts were launched with numerous prominent bloggers across a diversity of blog sites. The RedState "war" was launched from RedState.com.
The first three efforts were launched with specifically branded initiatives, hosted on seperate domains, with legal entities (501c3 or otherwise). The RedState effort was not.
The first three efforts used a modicum blending of online orderly petitioning, emails, and Capitol Hill efforts to get their word across. The RedState effort was run bascially from one person's Inbox.
I don't mean this as a dig against RedState but if we are going to be successful we need to know how to influence Congress. We need to understand that moving Congress from a distance will not cut it.
see my post here:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/rightsideredux/2007/may/16/advocacy_activi...
1) To what extent will those regular participants on this site, who aren't ready to adopt a belligerent stance against others on the conservative blogopshere, continue to be welcome at Redstate? (I'm reminded of how Polipundit purged regulars from his site who didn't agree with his opinions.)
This is not PoliPundit. If we didn't purge during Schiavo or Miers, you can probably infer a pattern of behavior.
2) Am I the only one who has concerns about Redstate's apparent eagerness to bring on battle with others in the conservative movement? Its apparent yearning to provoke a fight? Do we want to work with others in the conservative movement, or subdue them?
I have no idea from where you drew this conclusion.
3) Can the "GOPWar hawks" on Redstate assure the rest of us that launching an internal party civil war won't affect the ability of the GOP/conservative movement to keep up momentum/support for the war in Iraq?
At this point, nothing that happens domestically, except another terror attack, can do anything positive for that.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
This is not PoliPundit. If we didn't purge during Schiavo or Miers, you can probably infer a pattern of behavior.
Good to hear
I have no idea from where you drew this conclusion.
I fear an escalating pattern of harsh words and insults flying back and forth. Once that gets started, you poison future chance for real cooperation. Too many bad feelings will have been created.
The sense I get from trevino's diary, though, is that some on this site have lost interest---if they ever had it---in cooperation with those who don't have the same take on conservatism as they do. They've chosen now as the time to launch an assault on those whose conservatism is not their own. That's what I mean by "subdue."
At this point, nothing that happens domestically, except another terror attack, can do anything positive for that.
Oh, what an empty thing to say...if you're saying what I THINK you're saying. (You must admit, Thomas, that's a pretty vague response you gave me, open to lots of interpretation...like this one). Are you saying that what we do here at home doesn't impact this war effort? Au contraire. Plenty of knowledgable war commentators (e.g., Max Boot, Michael Yon, Blackfive, Smash) point out the dismay our troops feel when they see our government seemingly unwilling to support the fight. A united GOP Congress is essential for keeping the pressure on Pelosi, Murtha and the others who want to cut and run. And, a conservative blogosphere, working together, is much more likely to generate public awareness and mass the pressure on key lawmakers necessary to keep up support for this conflict, than a blogosphere Balkanized among feuding camps.
The North Vietnamese feel they won Vietnam by turning American public opinion, and in so doing sapping American government support for the war. Al Qaeda feels the very same thing. Oh yes, Thomas, what we do here domestically has a VERY big impact on what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, even if there's only a chance that I'm right, is now the time to risk splitting the conservative blogosphere?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
The sense I get from trevino's diary, though, is that some on this site have lost interest---if they ever had it---in cooperation with those who don't have the same take on conservatism as they do. They've chosen now as the time to launch an assault on those whose conservatism is not their own. That's what I mean by "subdue."
Joshua Trevino is not a Contibutor here. We're quite possibly poorer for it, but there it is. The diarists are free to offer their own opinions -- as are the Contributors -- without dictating "site policy."
Are you saying that what we do here at home doesn't impact this war effort?
No. You're missing an important word in what I wrote: "Positive." Fact of the matter is, we have only a limited amount of time, where we need a decade or so, to put Iraq on its feet, because the Baby Boomers' and "Greatest Generation's" silliness is now part of our culture. No amount of Republican infighting or lack thereof will change that.
It ain't right -- it's actually sickening -- but it is what it is.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Smagar, I really do understand where you're coming from. I really do. I am fighting this fight with or without help because I truly believe that the House GOP Leadership needs to "get it" this year and Calvert is *not* a conservative.
As for others, my preference is to ask for help, but throw no stones. I do think there is an interesting contrast here. On the left, there are a lot of online pundits who don't want to get their hands dirty with activism. But, they don't throw stones at the ones who are willing to get into activism.
I think I'm just aggravated by the off-handed dismissal of this matter as a "business decision," cause I gotta tell ya -- it's definitely not that. If I were making a business decision, I'd be giving Calvert, Boehner, etc. unfettered access to RedState and encouraging people to kiss their butts.
You don't have to join the fight. I'd appreciate the support. But I won't push you in that direction. Just don't expect to push me in your direction on this matter.
I do support the effort to remove Calvert, and I'll start making calls on Monday.
I'm simply not ready for all-out hostilities with either the GOP leadership or the "Hugh Hewitt" wing. IMO we have bigger fish to fry---in Iraq, namely---and we need to maintain the ability to work together.
For, once September hits, and al Qaeda ramps up its bombings in anticipation of Petraeus' "make-or-break" progress report to Congress, I fear the pressure to cut and run will increase exponentially. If, at that time, the key parts of the conservative blogosphere are not on speaking terms with each other, or with the leaders of the ONLY group in Congress willing to finish this fight (?), our power will be drastically diminished.
To paraphrase Lincoln's response, when asked why he wasn't willing to risk conflict with the British over the Trent affair---one war at a time.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
... Clark won.
And then Bushie screwed it up by getting involved in
ANOTHER LAND WAR IN ASIA
Any Questions?
How soon can you get us that 2,000 word essay on the history and status of the GWOT? You know, the one that you need to write before we'll turn your account back on.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
This is not PoliPundit. If we didn't purge during Schiavo or Miers, you can probably infer a pattern of behavior.
I've been a member for 2 years, 43 weeks -- since nearly a beginning. I am no proponent of a conservative philosophy: my politics are classic liberal (aka, non-insane libertarianism). In accordance with my views, I've taken stands both for and against the Republican party line, and for and against the RedState frontpagers. If I haven't been "purged," SMagar, you have nothing to fear.
As for Trevino's post: This suggest, of course, that the Republican party is the Conservative party, or should take its cues from Conservative philosophy. It wasn't at its founding; it wasn't under many of its leaders (e.g., Lincoln, Eisenhower, Goldwater*); and it is not at all clear that is should be today. Better, perhaps, would be two parties -- Republican and Democrat -- each with their own conservative wing.
von
*Reagan, the clear omission from the above list, adhered to many conservative principles.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Why should there be two parties with the exact same views or the exact same mix of views? What is the point of a political party if it doesn't advocate anything?
built on the bones of the dead Republican party.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
There are lots of conservatives who vote Republican but lean decidedly Democratic on fiscal issues. There are also an enormous number of independents and democrats who like large portions of the Republican platform, but get turned off by the Southern cultural aspects of the party.
In other countries, there is a Christian Democrat party. In this country, all these folks are shoehorned in (or feel shoehorned in) the Republican party. Although it has worked for Reagan (the so-called Reagan democrat), I'm not convinced that it's a tenable solution long-term -- as we may be seeing now. (Note how the WSJ editorial page is increasingly at odds with large parts of the grassroots, and the social conservative wing feels increasingly betrayed.)
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
represent your people. take stands on what they need, do what is best for them.
That's all I want.
I don't give a fig about parties -- they are fig leaves that help hide the corporate influence in elections.
As for me, I'd say better to get rid of them, as they tend to cloud thinking. How many people do you know who "pulled the lever"??
Have you ever seen a government official shakedown a business?
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
as I am not a "real conservative."
First, the Republican party predates the modern conservative movement and, absent the conservative movement, had a set of values that allowed it to be competitive nationally probably through 1992. Now whether one agrees with those values or thinks those values are winners in the electoral marketplace is arguable, but the Republican party will be around even if conservatives take their ball and go home.
Second, the relationship between the Republican party and the conservative movement is clearly symbiotic. It is hard to see what vehicle conservatives would use to advance that agenda were they not welcomed in the Republican party, on the other hand it is pretty easy to see what the Republican party would look like absent conservatives: Rudi Giuliani, Linc Chaffee, Susan Collins, Gordon Smith, etc. In fact, one could argue that conservative principles on abortion, the role of government, etc are drags on Republican electoral chances. Arlen Specter wins easily in Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum not so much. I think the idea that conservatism is anywhere close to defining itself as anything other than being a part of the political philosophy of a plurality of the Republican party is a stretch.
I'm not sure that the conflict here is between party and philosophy but much more banal.
I think that Townhall's objections to what RedState is doing was revealed by Matt Lewis's "business decision" jibe. Clearly, Lewis and Barnett don't believe that RedState is legitimate as anything but a adjunct to the "big boys" at Townhall and seem to think that we are involved in zero sum scenario where readers here are deducted from readers there (though given their traffic it is hard to see how that could happen) and ideas here reduce ideas there (which given the behavior over this incident might very well be true). Because Erick did not seek their imprimatur, what he's doing is de facto illegitimate.
None of that has an effect on the issue in question. Erick is absolutely right, be he a movement conservative or a cheap party hack, to insist on a certain standard of behavior from elected officials, especially those in his party. I support him not from some vague notion of making demands on a party but because his position is right and honorable.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I'll add my thoughts.
The Democratic Party suffers from a base that is impossibly broad with so many diverse and opposing interests. The Republican Party may have become too narrowly defined, identified by only a subset of conservative principles. Inclusion as a "true conservative" is now not only defined by ideals and goals, but also by methods and approaches? This definition is even more narrow.
At the heart of the conservative movement is a moral compass, a moral polarity. There is a direction that is positive. There is a direction that is negative. Right. Wrong. Good. Evil. A weakness of the conservative movement, however, is its inability to view life as anything but black and white, one end of the scale or the other. Life comes in shades of gray.
RedState's war for party integrity shouldn't be an issue of right or wrong approach or of legitimacy. By any measure, it's on the positive end of the scale. It's just a different approach from others. That doesn't make it invalid.
Unless you define your world so narrowly that there is only black and white.
You're simply not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
That does not, however, render what streiff said incorrect.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
(chuckling) True they are all black and white dots. But, then you have to consider halftones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halftone) (sorry, I need to learn to do links here)
And no, my goal was to applaud streiff for a well stated post and then add my thoughts.
as I've grown older I've become increasingly convinced that the overwhelming majority of life and its choices are indeed binary, black and white as you say.
Gray is what we render things when our desire to achieve a particular end (let's say enjoy a nooner with the boss's wife) hits the cognitive dissonance of our value system (adultery is wrong). In response, we perform amazing feats of mental gymnastics (we are consenting adults, she isn't happy, it doesn't harm anyone) to create circumstances where an unjust act can be rendered arguably just or at least neutral.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
The nooner with the bosses wife is wrong on so many levels (especially if you knew my bosses wife).
But what if you and the girl from the coffee shop, both single and uninvolved, have a nooner? Some "conservatives" I know say that is equally wrong. Other "conservatives" I know see no wrong in it all. Is one group right and the other wrong? Is the first group more conservative than the latter? If so, what is the threshold of conservatism to be "right". Or, more importantly, what is the threshold of conservatism to be included in today's Republican Party?
you think there is no controlling morality.
Within the Judeo-Christian tradition the answer is clearly no. The gray area becomes when you argue neither of us are involved, it doesn't hurt anyone, etc.
But I'm ending my own threadjack here.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I'm not sure that I agree that within Judeo-Christian-ism the answer is no. But I do agree that that argument is for another time and place.
issue. This is a corruption vs integrity issue. Calvert by no means qualified for a leadership position regardless of geographic distribution', 'it's his turn' or the other foolish reasons given. If the RNC thinks they will continue to be supported as long as they bring the earmarks home - they are wrong and are destroying the party in the process. Another 40 years in the wilderness awaits.
Regarding Townhall; that is most likely an issue of them wanting the attention vs an 'upstart' blog like RS. I support Eric on this because it's the right thing to do - TH should be humble enough to get on board and support this - even if it wasn't their idea.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
... but those are just sound bytes.
In my book, torture is wrong. Solid black, no contest. It is somewhat like prison, in that prison hurts both prisoner and the guard.
"the best" torture is undetectable. "inexpert" torture is just hurting someone slowly.
I would not want anyone's fingernails ripped off, them forcibly drowned, or anything else.
When the republicans became the party of fear, they lost my support.
I think I would have voted for Goldwater.
Santorum was beat by a Pro-life democrat in a state where he had previously won election to the senate and the House as a principled Conservative. Santorum's campaign was also plagued by two different corruption scandals in
2006, and was hampered by the damage done to the Republican Brand via Big Government Republicanism. The implications that Conservatism hurt Rick is absurd.
P.S. The Republican Party prior to the Conservative migration was not competitive. See 1930's and 1940's election results.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
if you view Casey as anything but a dem who happened to be quietly pro-life. Or if you view being kinda-sorta pro-life as being the same as being against abortion. Or if you view the abortion issue as being the only thing that makes a conservative.
The fact is that the voters had a choice between a liberal who was pro-life and a conservative. They chose the liberal.
What "conservative migration" are you talking about? The 30s and 40s predate anything like modern conservatism by 20 years.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
"if you view Casey as anything but a dem who happened to be quietly pro-life. Or if you view being kinda-sorta pro-life as being the same as being against abortion. Or if you view the abortion issue as being the only thing that makes a conservative."
The pro-life issue is very important to the entire Conservative package. Additionally PA is one of the more Pro-life states in the Union (see recent posts on this site as to this subject).
"The fact is that the voters had a choice between a liberal who was pro-life and a conservative. They chose the liberal."
It is not really how you or I see Casey that matted a great deal to the last election. It was how a large segment of voters in PA viewed Casey and Santorum that mattered. According to the Santorum campaign (I cannot find the site anymore) a very high percentage of Casey supporter actually thought they were supporting Casey's father (who was a former governor of PA, and the only prominent/outspoken pro-life democrat I have ever known about). Casey's campaign successfully obfuscated many of his own liberal positions from the PA electorate in 2006, by hiding Casey in his father's more popular and pro-life shadow. At the same time Rick was tied (fairly or unfairly) to a national scandal and a local scandal, both of which damaged his campaign. Casey was not embroiled in any scandals during the campaign. It would be fairer to say that PA voters (who had previously elected Rick to more than one office) chose what the precieved to be a palatable democrat (pro-life, centralist image, no corruption scandals, etc.) over a person who the precieved to be scandal plagued. You might not be aware of this, but the center-right and independent populations of PA with the notable exception of Philadelphians are extremely anti-corruption (see the payjacking scandal where many incumbents lost their seats due to a massive corrupt and immoral midnight pay raise). In conclusion, "they chose the liberal" type statements are either false, or at the very least in desperate need of a caveat or two.
"What 'conservative migration' are you talking about? The 30s and 40s predate anything like modern conservatism by 20 years."
In the first half of the 20th Century both the Democrat and Republican Parties had proto-Conservative and Liberal wings. These proto-Conservative wings were uncomfortable or opposed to the New Deals and their ilk. Their grievances with the New Deals were legion (to many to enumerate here). In the 1950's as the Modern American Conservative Movement began to coalesce, the aforementioned early Conservatives recruited Ike to run for president (as a Republican) in order to reestablish an effective two party system in the US (Ike's popularity made the Republican Party viable again). It is important to note that Ike was not a conservative, but he was a patriotic American who understood that a one party system in the US would most likely led to totalitarianism. Anyway these first Modern Conservatives began to migrate towards the Republican party in both support and in registry in the 1950's in order to create a counter-balance against the Socialist tendencies the democrat party developed under FDR, and Truman (remember what he tried to do to the steel mills). This migration coupled to Ike's popularity made the Republican party viable again in the 1950's (not 1992). Without Conservative support the Republican Party would have long ago gone the way of the Federalists.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
As many of you know, I am a Dem, but a frequent reader and commenter here. I disagree with about 80% of the opinions here, but I really do respect this site. Erick's "war" has reinforced this respect a great deal. In the midst of such a divisive time in American politics, it's good to see such a principled group as is found here at Redstate. Would that more folks, on both sides of the aisle, were more like the fine folks here.
and I've mentioned this before.
You can only go to the well so many times before you simply change yourself into a whiner.
You can only pick so many lines to draw in the sand and say "This far and no further."
You can only cry wolf ... well, you get the idea.
I don't have a problem with driving people nuts on the phone, but at what point do you start damaging the party by distracting from the other important issues (as I've stated before, why aren't we doing a calling campaign about the Immigration reform bill?).
It's good to be activist, I'm just not sure this is something that I would throw good Republicans like John Linder under the bus for.
Romney or Fred.
Currently writing non-political stories over at first-cut-stories.blogspot.com
Good point, Oz. But when the majority of both GOP and Dem voters say that "party corruption" was one of the primary reasons they turned against the House GOP in November and the GOP then replaces John Doolittle, under a criminal investigation, with Ken Calvert, who the FBI has also been looking at, what should we do?
They did not listen to objections within the House caucus. They did not listen to Steering Committee members. They don't want to listen to us.
Should we continue following along, or should we finally let them know that we have to hold our own accountable if we're going to win back the trust of the American voters?
just like Novak I tend to find that those who are represented in the media as Conservative are really Republicans which to my minds eye are two different spectrums of the right. I think people such as George Will and Fred Barnes are a little to socially liberal to be called Conservative and that would include Arlen Specter and quite a few others. I know that the media loves to brand everyone right of center as Conservative however I find that not to be true at all and when I am checking out the above mentioned commentators I am always mindful of the difference as I see it.
On the one extreme you could have a Republican party that exists only for acquiring power for itself. It would be completely poll driven with no principles.
On the other extreme you could have a party whose principles are so narrowly defined and rigid that they will lack public support. I think this second situation actually happened to the term limits campaign. It was not good enough that you had to be for term limits in general, you had to be for the specific term limits of the major group (I forget their name) down to the exact number of terms.
Of course both extremes are bad. We need a reasonable balance between principles and practically holding power. I don't think RedState is arguing that we take the extreme principles. Most are arguing that we have gone to far in ignoring principles for power, and, ironically, the party has lost power because of it. We need a shift toward principles, but not necessarily to go all the way.
I think balance is right on. We do have to be a big tent to get voters. Conservatives have to compromise with moderates and vice versa.
But corruption hurts them all.
Republicans have to run a much cleaner ship. Any slipup gets magnified in the "culture of corruption" witchhunt. The left is used to whining and is much more organized and vertically integrated in getting the word out.
A Rep gets accused of something and they step down. A Dem gets accused and they get a promotion. They have the organization behind them to tamp down criticism, Reps don't.
This is the way it is. Until it changes we have to be much more stringent on putting people in high ranks that will not hurt the integrity of Reps and conservatives.
Real change requires real change. -Newt Gingrich
I consider myself conservative but based off many things that conservative media types including Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity and this Townhall Columnist spew makes me sound like some bleeding heart liberal.
Eric is doing the right thing and obvious has quite a bit of support here.
I dont support many of the decisions this admin has made and today immigration decision has me incredibly upset.
Also, Gonzales, who most conservative will agree is a joke, has been awful in terms of border security. Those two border agents are still in jail and the mexican drug dealer was freed which makes my skin crawl.
There is a big difference between "party men" and individuals who believe in the conservative cause. "Party Men" and "Media Conservatives" principles tend to blow with the wind. Real Conservatives actually stand for conservative ideas, which unfortunately we have seen very little in the current admin and republican party men.
I do think the immmigration decision will be the last straw with this admin. We have one of the biggest spenders in the white house, larger government, incompetency, a deal for amnesty, a war that has been managed poorly. And for the most part many conservatives have given them the benefit of the doubt. The future of conservatism was been damaged during the past 6 years. It is our right and duty to respond to this completely sad state of affairs.
Please Eric don't back down in all you are doing.
Great post Trevino. The Republican Party will be adrift until it is reclaimed by conservatives. A long and painful journey but there is really no alternative. Mismanagement and corruption should be dealt with consistently and systematically. The party has bargained away it's core conservative principles and as a consequence represents a small minority who has a stake in the process.
I still believe that Americans are basically conservative. But, they refuse to be bullied by either party and once they've been lied to no amount of spin or doublespeak is going to make things better. Give them integrity first, and allow conservatives back into the party before it becomes a permanent minority.
want to protect gay pedophiles like Foley but won't build the border fence?
Or do they expect us to bend over, take it up the ___, and keep voting for them anyway?
Sorry, that was all rhetorical. We all know the answers...
nt