-
How Mitt Could Be Beat
February 8, 2012 | 9 comments
-
Charmaine Yoest's Victory for Life
February 2, 2012 | 0 comments
-
Florida Republican's Ad Depicts Children Enslaved by Obama
January 24, 2012 | 3 comments
-
Rick Perry Declares 'Strategic Retreat,' Endorses 'Visionary' Gingrich
January 19, 2012 | 7 comments
-
Former Perry S.C. Supporter Switches Endorsement to Santorum
January 14, 2012 | 20 comments
The Spectacle Blog
. . . excuse me for not enthusiatically endorsing the sentiment he expresses here:
But I really hope we don't lose sight of the fact that we're in a bad position -- worse than we anticipated, I think it's fair to say -- and that winning is indeed preferable to "losing with principle and ideological integrity."
Am I serving as an apologist? You betcha I am. I also served as an apologist for the horrible candidate John McCain, and I will continue to serve as an apologist until we actually win something and can better afford to be choosy.
Meh. ("Meh" being on of the many blogger tropes I've shamelessly stolen from Ace, who was named CPAC's 2008 Blogger of the Year.)
The problem with Ace's argument is in his use of the word "we." To whom does this first-person plural refer? I'm reminded of the punchline of an old joke where the Lone Ranger says: "Tonto, We're surrounded by hostile savages!" To which Tonto replies, "What do mean 'we,' Kemosabe?"
Are "we" conservatives, or are "we" Republicans and, assuming that these two circles on the Venn diagram are not coterminous, what is the proper relationship between "we" and "we"?
Unlike Ace, I am far from certain that a John McCain presidency would have been better in the long run for either either conservative "we" or Republican "we" -- or for that much larger set, "We the People."
A couple of days ago, I explained in a phone conversation with a buddy that, if I'm going to get screwed over, I'd much rather be screwed over by my enemies than by my friends.
An honest enemy is better than a false friend. The realities of coalition politics in a two-party system require toleration of sincere disagreement and a pragmatic acceptace of necessary compromises.
At some point, however, every man must draw a line and say, "This far and no further." Otherwise, you become an advocate of The Politics of Meaninglessness, and your support can be taken for granted by any opportunistic scoundrel who puts an "R" beside his name (e.g., Arlen Specter.) Some may argue that on Nov. 2, 2010, a conservative in Florida would feel compelled to hold his nose and vote for Charlie Crist, but the time for making such a shameful compromise of principle is not 15 months before the Republican primary.
This was what Phyllis Schlafly meant in 1964 when she said the Republican Party must offer A Choice, Not An Echo. Ace says we (by whom, I suppose, he means conservatives) cannot "afford to be choosy"? Yet it was at the very zenith of liberalism's prestige that Schlafly argued that, if the GOP wishes to succeed, it can only do so by offering a clear, principled alternative to the liberalism of the Democratic Party. Even when principled conservatism is, in the short term, a loser at the ballot box, if you believe that liberal policies inevitable produce disaster -- and I most certainly do believe that -- then to lose an election by standing firmly for principle is merely the first act of a drama that will end in triumph.
Barry Goldwater's 1964 defeat paved the way for Ronald Reagan's 1980 victory precisely because conservatives heeded Schlafly's advice. Of course, Reagan loyally supported Gerald Ford against Jimmy Carter in 1976, but only after coming within an eyelash of taking the GOP nomination away from Ford.
Which brings me back to my thoughts about the 2008 election. If the Republican Party could nominate as its presidential candidate a man whose only apparent political principle has been the advancement of his own ambition and still win, what kind of cynic would call that a good outcome? When the GOP nominates the wrong man, the electoral debacle that inevitably follows cannot be interpreted as evidence that the party should nominate more scoundrels like that.
Which brings us back to Charlie Crist, you see. Political loyalty must be a two-way street. If GOP leadership wishes to promote a strong sense of party loyalty, then in what alternative universe does it make sense for John Cornyn to repeatedly jab his thumb in the eye of the party's conservative grassroots? And who can blame the grassroots when they complain about this abusive treatment?
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
--John Adams
Facts and evidence clearly show that the current national leadership of the GOP is a bunch of clueless losers who couldn't organize a winning campaign in an election for treasurer of a high school math club. When the only place your leaders ever lead you is to disaster, you need to get some new leaders. And if Ace's "we" means conservatives, then "we" are entitled to demand conservative leadership.
But you're still my hero, Ace, no matter what David Frum says.
View all comments (33) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Robert Stacy McCain
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/18/ace-of-spades-is-my-blog-hero
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Mission Implausible
- Common Prayer, Uncommon Beauty
- Who's Really Conservative?
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Aaron| 7.18.09 @ 9:31AM
The answer to your question of who is "we" lies in the link to Frum's column... Frum says to Ace "elitist to elitist", and then goes on to extend the invitation to his Georgetown cocktail party. I believe you were there RSM...no? Laura Ingram as well. Did Ace show up? I do believe that might be the we he is talking about. I know it ain't me, I would ghetto the place up with my blue collar F-bombs.
But you're still my favorite AmSpec contributor, no matter what Antle says.
J. Davis| 7.18.09 @ 10:03AM
RSM's sentiments are ok as far as they go, but at some point, the opposition party needs to get some wins. Does RSM really think Obama's version of health care reform would fly in a McCain administration? McCain actually had a sensible plan on health care. Alas, he was not able to articulate it. Anyway, it's fine to stand on principle, but at some point the opposition party needs some muscle. That's the line in the sand that matters. With the paltry numbers that Republicans have, it is going to be difficult to thwart Obama's agenda, and once these things get rollin' it's very hard to stop big government programs. Call it crass, but Republicans need to do whatever it takes to get numbers. Charlie Crist and John McCain are better than nothing.
Bob| 7.18.09 @ 10:08AM
RSM, the problem with your analysis is that we are in a different time with a different demographic. With Reagan, the party was centered on economics, not social issues. Furthermore, it costs far more to get elected today than it did back then. This requires politicians to raise lots of money and make back room agreements with lobbyists and interest groups.
There is a huge split in the party between the social conservatives who control it, and the more libertarian leaning group. Just read the responses at AmSpec -- the party is now defined by the social issues and is very weak on fiscal issues.
You and others make the assumption that the party can be strong on both fiscal and social issues. Given the changing times and demography, that is no longer true. If the party dropped the social religious agenda and stuck with conservative fiscal issues, it would bring disparate groups together and be a winning formula. But you and others continue to cut off your nose to spite your face.
William R| 7.18.09 @ 10:49AM
Ace is pathetic punk. From his Wikipedia page
"A huge animosity at any expression of anti-Semitism (which led him to condemn Ron Paul repeatedly, early on, and in no uncertain terms)."
As I confronted him on his blog to find one thing Ron Paul has ever said or written that is remotely anti semitic . He couldn't but that didn't stop him!
Ron Paul went into business with Burt Blumert, had a decades long friendship with Milton Friedman. Wrote a book with Lewis Lehrman. Henry Hazlit wrote the introduction to one of his books and Murray Rothbard wrote the preface to the same book!
What do all these men have in common?? They're all Jews.
Again, Ace is punk and the fact that he's your blog hero tells me you're a punk too.
Pingback| 7.18.09 @ 12:28PM
The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Ace, Did You Ever KnowThat You’re My Hero? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
J. Kelley| 7.18.09 @ 1:53PM
The problem with 'RINO's' is they give the Dems cover. With Collins, Snowe and in the past Spector, the Dems would claim we got Republican votes. McCain was not a good Choice, but with the Media and Dem cross over voters we got him. There must be a clear difference between Conservatives and Liberals.
Robert Stacy McCain| 7.18.09 @ 6:44PM
"But you're still my favorite AmSpec contributor, no matter what Antle says. "
Thanks, Aaron. And Antle is still my favorite staff writer, no matter what Klein says.
Pingback| 7.18.09 @ 7:10PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Ace of Spades Is My Blog … | Webmaster Tools links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 7.18.09 @ 11:00PM
Gerald Ford | All Days Long links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 7.19.09 @ 12:03AM
How Can You Claim Moral Superiority Voting For Bob Barr? « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 7.19.09 @ 3:15PM
Two Words Bitch | Political Byline links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 7.19.09 @ 4:11PM
Oh Please! | Political Byline links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
harsens-rob| 7.19.09 @ 9:28PM
If the party dropped the social religious agenda and stuck with conservative fiscal issues, it would bring disparate groups together and be a winning formula. But you and others continue to cut off your nose to spite your face.
Bob -
Co-signed on that. I would be likely to support a Republican Presidential candidate if I wasn't horrified by the virtual theocracy that so much of the right wing seems to want to advance. And, unfortunately, the GOP candidates seem to feel the need to tacitly support in order to bring in 'the base'. The SoCons (especially those who hysterically scream loudest about "the bible says") are just bad for a CIVIL government.
Red Phillips| 7.19.09 @ 10:08PM
Official Republican party organs like the NRSC should not endorse in the primary. They should wait until after the primary to get behind the nominee. This should be an obvious issue of fairness.
That said, by far the best Senate candidate in Florida is Marshall DeRosa, the Constitution Party candidate. His conservative credentials are impeccable.
Harsens - rob, Christians ought to worry explicitly about what "the Bible says" because they believe it to be THE WORD OF GOD. Where should a Christian look in preference to the Bible, Paine? Last I checked what he wrote wasn't inspired. Christians are not bad for civil government. They are, if they are acting on their Faith, bad for secular government.
Bob, you are a broken record.
flenser| 7.19.09 @ 10:34PM
"I would be likely to support a Republican Presidential candidate if I wasn't horrified by the virtual theocracy that so much of the right wing seems to want to advance."
It's Moby Central here at AmSpec.
Jann| 7.20.09 @ 3:45AM
You guys do not make sense to me. Crist? You should just vote for Obama, same thing. Do you want to do the right thing or just win, there is a difference. This sounds like just a big game to some of you bloggers. It went from the MSM to the internet that's all. What I do know is the silent majority has awakened. You don't hear much about them but they're not going away for a long time, they have learned their lesson the hard way. I for one are with them, and they aren't Rinos.
Tim| 7.20.09 @ 8:31AM
"Facts and evidence clearly show that the current national leadership of the GOP is a bunch of clueless losers who couldn't organize a winning campaign in an election for treasurer of a high school math club. "
I am with you on this one.
Flenser
Amazing isn't it?
louis tully| 7.20.09 @ 9:32AM
Wow, the Frumster springs to Ace's defense. That had to wreck Ace's weekend.
Solo| 7.20.09 @ 10:13AM
" "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
--John Adams "
Indeed they are!
Bob Barr got about 1/2 of 1% of the vote. This is pretty standard fare for the Libertarian party in this country.
Trying to re-mold the Republican Party into the Libertarian Party will only net you two parties which garner less than 1% of the national vote. "Misery loves company", I guess.
This is politics, not purist ideology. Politics is about compromise.
Take Adams' advice and wise up! It's time to stop devouring our own in the name of "purist ideology". Otherwise, we will spend the rest of our lives living under what is essentially a socialist dictatorship.
But hey!....We'll still have our "principles", huh?
That and a 60% tax rate will get you "free" health care.
Brad Schwartze| 7.28.09 @ 1:41PM
"With Reagan, the party was centered on economics, not social issues."
Bob, there was also the small, insignificant issue of the THREAT OF THE SOVIET UNION AND ITS CLIENTS back then. The Dems had a hammerlock on the econ issue, and it took Jimmah-induced inflation to break that hold.
And, oh, it was thought to be standard Dem boilerplate back then that the GOP had "an inordinate fear of Communism," as Jimmah put it.
nike| 12.9.09 @ 11:40PM
Adidas 35TH Anniversary
adidas classic shoes