A Call for Thought Over Emotion at the RPV Convention
May 28, 2009 by Cato
Filed under Conservatism, Republican Campaigns, Virginia, Virginia Politics
Former gubernatorial candidate Wyatt Durrette makes an excellent case for an end to the emotionalism and desire for retribution apparent among some Frederick supporters. Norm Leahy at Tertium Quids argues that there is a distinct disconnect between the Virginia party’s grassroots and the “establishment”; but the fault lies in political consultants and not in those elected to public or party office.
Leahy’s argument will hold up better over time. While I respect Durrette, he lost me with:
Exchanges like the recent verbal jousting between Colin Powell and Tom Ridge on the one hand, and Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh, on the other, highlight part of the problem. The idea that two men of the caliber of Powell (former Secretary of State and Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and Ridge (former head of Homeland Secretary and former PA Governor) who tout the Republican banner would be banished from GOP ranks by some is poisonous nonsense.
It is not for me, or anyone else, to “banish” the likes of Powell or Ridge from the GOP. However, Republicans were only able to see growth and strength when we were the party of fiscal conservatism and social responsibility. Now that we are the party of spendthrifts (in a false hope to curry votes) and theocracy (to help keep the socially conservative wing on the reservation) we are out of power.
While the fall of Soviet-style communism may have been the loss of the glue which held us together, Obama-style economic fascism may be the new Gorilla Glue to bring us all back together. Unfortunately, as long as consultants and moderates preach about a Republican “brand” rather than ideas, victory will remain just outside our grasp.
Sphere: Related Content
Ridge pointedly refused to endorse Toomey (REPUBLICAN) over Specter (Dem). Powell endorsed Obama over McCain. McCain was one of the very most moderate Republican Senators, and that STILL wasn’t good enough for Powell. Instead, he supported the ultra-liberal Obama. I don’t care if they are “good men.” This isn’t a “good men’s club.” If they can’t even endorse and vote for Republicans, then they can get the hell out and call themselves Independents, or Democraps, or whatever. What good is it to have people calling themselves Republican if they don’t vote Republican?
We definitely must be a Party of ideas. Republican behavior in DC during much of the Bush Presidency was deplorable and hurt us badly. We must also remember that in a two party system both parties must be coalitions that share enough common ground to join together to get 51% in enough elections to govern. We will not agree on everything and must not expect it. As the Democrats took the long term view and took Joe Lieberman back in their fold (so that Coleman will soon give them a filbuster proof majority), we must welcome back into or keep in the Party those, who like Powell and Ridge, want to support most Republicans, but perhaps not all Republicans. We don’t have to like all their actions and one does not have to support them for Party leadership or nominations, though of course we could. But the attitude of John Doe makes it much harder to grow the Party and to win elections. The vast independent vote does not understand why we would have such a harsh attitude toward Powell and Ridge, both of whom are widely admired. It is an unseemly debate. Why would anyone with a serious desire to govern alienate voters who want to support them now because they committed some transgression yesterday? When prodigal sons are ready to come home they should be welcomed back.
The goal of parties should not be just “winning” elections. Or at least it should not be. But it apparently is to people such as Wyatt Durrette. What use is it to win Specter’s seat, or Snowes’ seat, if they vote against us in the most important vote of the year, or of the term, or whatever? So we can have a majority in the Senate with the R after their name? So we can win a slim majority, and then they can stab us in the back ala that jackass New England Senator from a few years ago? Traitors must be dealt with decisively. The Dems took Lieberman back out of expediency. IF they didn’t need him, they would have abandoned him. As soon as they no longer need him, they will.
Ridge and Powell could not even find it within the goodness of their heart to support the Republican nominee for Senate and President respectively. If “the vast independent vote does not understand our harsh treatment of these” poor poor dears, then we should spend time EDUCATING them. Powell is a traitor. We conservatives are sick and tired of moderates and RINOs supporting us only when it is expedient for them. Loyalty is a two way street. But RINOs take their ball and go home if their man or woman doesn’t win the nomination. Or sometimes even when they do–see e.g., John McCain’s recent candidacy. A coalition that only works one way is no coalition. It is one side playing the other for fools, ala Lucy promising that this time she really will hold the football for Charlie Brown.
And Mr. Durette, is there ANY length to which those men or others like them can go to finally cross your threshold, so that you would no longer want them in your party? Or is your so-called standard such that they can hold any view point, vote any old which way, and endorse any Democrat, and that is fine with you, so long as they call themselves Republican? I’m serious. I’d truly like to know if you have a line beyond which they cannot cross. If so, then let’s hear it so we can discuss it. It is easy to criticize others when you do not set forth a standard of your own.
And if you have no standard, and would accept anybody, then you are just pathetic. Oh, Benedict Arnold isn’t really a traitor. Sure, he is now a General for the British, and in command of a fort, but he calls himself an American, so it’s all good. According to Wyatt Durrette. Or so it would appear.