-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The Republican radio address this weekend was, appropriately enough, on the right subject, the Gulf oil spill, with the right message. But it was by far the wrong messenger. Why would the GOP choose a whoremonger when it could have given a platform (sorry for the pun) to a wonderful, principled young congressman with a tough fight to keep his seat, Joseph Cao? This issue is tailor-made for Cao to opine on, and he needs the attention. Instead, the GOP allowed a mercurial embarrassment to gush (another pun) about responsibility. If the GOP actually wants to move public opinion, this is the wrong way to do it. And if it wants to elect a Republican House, it ought to be helping its embattled House members, not letting an unthreatened senator spout off. What a cheap trick.
View all comments (32) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/05/24/wrong-messenger
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Her Unrequited Letter
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Bunkerville | 5.24.10 @ 9:34AM
Please Michael Steele let the young turks have some air time. Your wading into the civil rights stuff is something we do not need.
Ryan| 5.24.10 @ 9:43AM
What, CM Punk? wait, oh, Vitter.
I've been watching too much wrestling lately.
Tim| 5.24.10 @ 10:01AM
The establishment GOP is the Grandpa Simpson of American politics.
Sheila| 5.24.10 @ 10:20AM
Joseph Cao, a "principled" conservative? What've you been drinking, Quin? Just how principled was he when he voted for Obamacare? He's as much as a RINO as Maine's twisted sisters, and as much a member of the establishment as McCain. He's just another diversity whore for the respectable, establishment Republicans to parade around, along with Steele and all those true-blue African-American Republicans featured so prominantly at the tea parties. Diversity R Us - what a wonderful alternative the GOP offers.
Missy| 5.24.10 @ 2:59PM
"Maine's twisted sisters." LOL
I thought California had that designation all wrapped up!
Warrior | 5.24.10 @ 10:27AM
Wow. Maybe it was because Charlie Crist was unavailable and Arlen Specter was still pissed off. You really didn't say Cao is principled?!?!
Oldefarte| 5.24.10 @ 11:16AM
To label Vitter as a 'WHOREMONGER' is truely a cheap shot! As a born/raised/educated Catholic, I certainly DO NOT CONDONE his sexual misconduct, but as the old saying goes, LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE [or possibly, PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULD NOT THROW STONES]. In my 63 years on this planet, that includes most everyone that I have met. If one wishes to throw around the 'WHOREMONGER' label for Louisiana politicians, try Joseph Cao who politically slept with Obama/Democrats over their WELFARE/WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION bullexcrement that everyone's grandchildren will be paying for; Mary Landrieu whose famous LOUISIANA PURCHASE over Obamacare is known by every coonass moron in that state [and whose politically oriented arrest of David O'Keefe over his trying to sunshine Landrieu's inattention to her Louisiana constituents' phone calls over same] as being 'WHOREMONGER' moments; and and Charlie Melancon for filing bogus FEDERAL legislation over the chines drywall home destruction issue [when the related property insurance is a STATE REGULATED issue]. If anyone wants to progress further into that state's sleezy political past, I'll be more than happy to oblige. I don't see how anyone can claim to be a Republican supporter when they are castigating Vitter over what is/was a PERSONAL IMMORAL issue; which only concerned himself and his wife/children; and for which he has apologized to his Louisiana constituents on numerous occassions for. TO ERR IS HUMAN, AND TO FORGIVE, DEVINE! Vitter is/has led the charge on many important political issues [the recent oil spill, the Chinese drywall home destruction,etc(which has personally affected my relatives in Louisiana); etc]; and to compare him to that inconsequential, nimcomput, Obama bedmate Cao is ludicrous!!!!!!
Tim| 5.24.10 @ 2:39PM
" Foolish human! Your puny Capslock multiple exclamation points are no match for my mighty hyperbole!"
Quin| 5.24.10 @ 1:20PM
There seems to be a delusion on the right that nobody can be "principled" unless they agree with CONSERVATIVE principles. This is nuts. Joe Lieberman is principled; it's just that on many issues his principles are different than ours. And Joseph Cao is principled, too. He explained what he was for, and why, and stuck to it. He did not run for office as an economic conservative; he ran for office as a pro-life, traditional-values conservative who would show high ethics in office while supporting a moderate course economically that is in concert with his understanding of the "social Gospel." Where he sees an economic issue as a close call, he will often defer to a strong majority of his district. That is what representative democracy -- or, more precisely, a "republic" -- is all about. Cao voted against the stimulus, and explained why in a clear statement. He voted for Obamacare when it included the Stupak language, but against it when it did not include the Stupak language. In all cases, he was abiding by, yes, his principles. It is ridiculously two-faced for conservatives to blast Democrats when they vote AGAINST their districts' majority (i.e. when they vote more liberally than their districts want) but then to expect a moderate Republican in a liberal district like Cao to ignore his district when his principles provide no clear guidance to the contrary. Let those who blast Cao ask if they would be better off with Dollar Bill Jefferson still in that seat.
Meanwhile, to my friend Oldefarte, I am sorry, but I will continue to refer to Vitter as the whoremonger that he is. Actually, I could call him far worse, as I have explained on this site several times. Last I checked, whoremongering is not just a private sin, but against the law.
Meanwhile, my point still stands: Why give the forum to the relatively politically safe Vitter, when the politically endangered Cao is in more need of the positive attention?
Warrior | 5.24.10 @ 3:38PM
Of course him arguing that the bill is an out and out lie as to coverage, costs and what it will do to the national debt was irrelevant. That would have been too difficult and forced him to take an unpopular stand. Mr. Cao can stand on a pro-life agenda, even though a majority of his district is pro-death because why? By your standards, he should be pushing for earmarks to fund abotion clinics if that is what his district wants. Trying to make this a complexed issue when it is simple.
Quin| 5.24.10 @ 9:59PM
Warrior: Can you read? You write this: "By your standards, he should be pushing for earmarks to fund abotion clinics if that is what his district wants." But I wrote this: "In all cases, he was abiding by, yes, his principles. It is ridiculously two-faced for conservatives to blast Democrats when they vote AGAINST their districts' majority (i.e. when they vote more liberally than their districts want) but then to expect a moderate Republican in a liberal district like Cao to ignore his district when his principles provide no clear guidance to the contrary." Read again: WHEN HIS PRINCIPLES PROVIDE NO CLEAR GUIDE TO THE CONTRARY. It's simple: When your principles are firmly on one side, you must vote them, regardless of district. When your principles leave you in a close call, or unsure, then your job as a representative is to defer to your district. Cao has clearly stated that he is firmly pro-life and will not bend on that issue. He did not. He has never stated that he is a full-fledged economic conservative. He is a fiscal moderate. He voted against the stimulus because it was too expensive. He voted for the first version of Obamacare because he has said all along that he believes government should help ensure that the uninsured should get insurance. I disagree with him on the latter. But that's what he believes, and he stayed consistent. He voted yes, after agonizing, when the bill was pro-life. He voted no when it wasn't. That's principled.
Warrior | 5.25.10 @ 9:26AM
You can't be this dense. He is not a conservative. You try and cover bases with a two faced argument. He is principled, so f*&ing; what! I'm sure you can argue that Olympia Snowe and George Bush are principled. They are leading and have led us to a statist Euo style country. We are losing on all fronts but we can feel comfort in Joe Cao getting an invitation to attend the Super Bowl at the WH. There can be no such thing as a liberal conservative. Liberals are now all campaigning on conservative issues and doing quite well while the Republicans are attempting to be moderate and falling on their faces. Once the liberals get elected they take a severe left turn. The liberal base understands this campaign type of politics. All we can hope for is a moderate taking the seat and voting with liberals less than all the time, but at least when it assists their ability to get relected. You can keep getting kicked in the ass with moderates, I for one will not compromise values any more.
Ryan| 5.25.10 @ 10:01AM
You're oversimplifying conservatism. It's the biggest headache on this site, that everyone considers their side to be "true conservatives"
Cao is a moderate. He's conservative on social issues, moderate on fiscal. It's an apt description. Calling him "liberal" is an oversimplification.
He's also the best we can hope for out of that district. If you understood Louisiana politics at all (Quin and I are both natives) you would understand that.
Warrior | 5.25.10 @ 10:34AM
Sorry, I was speaking as an American. I'll have to try your little picture approach to the national landscape. I guess it is more important to judge a Senator on his personal failings than a congressman on his actual record.
Ryan| 5.25.10 @ 12:03PM
Shoot, if I had my way, they'd both be gone. I'm a fan of neither.
If there were a primary opponent, I'd vote against Cao in the primary and for him in the general (not sure if they're open over there still); same with Vitter.
Personal failings AND actual records are both reasons to get rid of politicians.
It's not about "little" or "big" pictures. It's simply about political realities. Cao is the best we're going to get in that district. Vitter should be gone, but we're stuck with him for now because Scalise can't get backing.
Alfred| 5.25.10 @ 12:43PM
Quin, your logic and reasoning seems inconsistent. If you feel one deserves the benefit of the doubt, why not the the other? You seem eager to peer into Cao's soul, judge his motives pure, and remind us that he represents his (and my) district, yet condemn Vitter's soul for his perceived lack of contrition, but nevertheless representing his constituency. Just as neither you nor I can discern whether Cao's motives are pure or a vain attempt to be re-elected, we cannot know whether Vitter is sincerely contrite or unprincipled. I view both these individuals as imperfect and troubling, but as good as I realistically can expect.
Valerie| 5.24.10 @ 2:02PM
Cao? SERIOUSLY? I can't believe I have to remind you of this: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs.....-bill.aspx
American Spectator just took a huge creditability nosedive, IMO, with this claim.
Truthyness| 5.24.10 @ 5:27PM
Whoremonger, lol. What's Quin going to do next, cast him some stones? What a colorful fellow.
Yosemeti Sam| 5.24.10 @ 11:18PM
" Wrong Messenger...."
The Right Messenger should be one who will ask the simple question - where is that Mao Zedong White House Christmas tree ornament.
MacAoidh | 5.25.10 @ 2:34AM
The problem with trotting Cao out to give the speech is that he's horribly inarticulate. Nice guy, and we're pulling for him to find a way to keep Cedric Richmond or Juan LaFonta away from the Capitol Hill honey pot (if you think Dollar Bill was corrupt just wait until Richmond gets to Congress), but as a guy who can make the GOP look like it knows what it's talking about on the oil spill he's not up to the job.
Steve Scalise would have been a viable alternative, and Jeff Landry, who is the most likely candidate to take over Charlie Melancon's 3rd District seat, might have been an interesting choice. But Cao is the worst speaker of all the state's prominent Republicans; it might help Cao to get some airtime, but it certainly wouldn't do the party any good.
And finally, like him or not the GOP is stuck with Vitter. He's going back in for another six years in the Senate this November. Democrats rehabilitate their fallen political heroes; as a result they tend to hold seats a lot longer than Republicans do.
Kate| 5.25.10 @ 7:57AM
Quin,
Your name calling against someone who has asked for forgiveness shows a definite lack of Christian charity on your part, which one might even say, in God's eyes, is a sin.
Cao is a losing cause and has already caused great harm to our country when he was the lone Republican vote. I don't recall his contrition on that.
Your nasty name calling is creepy-stop it!
Quin| 5.25.10 @ 11:05AM
Sorry, Kate, I will not stop telling the truth about David Vitter. If whoremongering were his only "sin," it would be bad enough. But I have provided plenty of information on this site in the past showing that he is a lout, through and through. Moreover, whoremongering is not just a sin, but a crime, at least under most circumstances. Meanwhile, how did Cao cause great harm to our country? Would you rather a liberal Democrat in that seat who would DEFINITELY vote for big government every time?
Oldefarte| 5.26.10 @ 12:49PM
So Vitter, after committing an immoral act/sin and CONFESSING and APOLOGIZING for same, is a 'WHORE MONGER', right? I suppose then that the Good Thief who was hanging on a cross beside Jesus Christ at Calvary[and who also confessed his sin and received absolution (and was told that he would be with Jesus in Heaven after their deaths)from Jesus] was also a WHORE MONGER as well, right? It's amazing that literary writers/editors/media can selectively use their pen/computer to label/condemn certain individuals with whom they disagree politically, but somehow seem to be ignorant of other politicians' moral offenses that are equally comparable/offensive. In my 20+ years in Louisiana, I don't seem to recall a news writers' avalanche of investigations/exposes concerning local politicians who filled suitcases with cash money and visited Las Vegas from time to time [and who no doubt was using part of that cash to WHORE MONGER also, and who appropriated $-billions
in corrupt rice and gambling deals to the detriment of the citizens of that state]; politicians who had sexual affairs while being a US Representative from Louisiana and was in line to become Speaker of the House; about black mayors [former judges] who some say had a deadly heart attack while being serviced by his white mistress [WHORE]; about white mayors that discriminately filled their city halls with incompetent black employees to further their own political careers and to the detriment of local citizens; or about the corrupt local white businessmen and law firms that financially contributed to inept black political candidates for mayor,etc in order to financially grease their own pockets from the future business/legal contacts that would be obtained from same. Did these local news/media writers/editors and/or their contemporaries have the guts/courage to investigate/expose these examples of corruption, or were they too afraid of losing their
jobs/income from such activities? Could they and their colleagues that were aware of these happenings while keeping their mouths/pens/computers shut, also be branded as WHORE MONGERS?????