Friday, September 28, 2007
|
|
How Activism Matters
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
12:26 PM
|
A few points that I hope can wrap things up in a nice neat bow:
1) The only reason Fred Kagan's ideas were able to get any traction at all is because we have a president with an (R) after his name. Don't look for Hillary and Bill to be leafing through the pages of the Standard for their ideas. And absent some blockbuster idea entering the picture in the next 13 months, who sits in the Big Chair has just as much to do with the tactical nitty-gritty in closely divided America as anything else.
Taking this a step further, the only reason we are having debates about surrender is that we have a Speaker of the House with a (D) after her name. If our team controlled the House by just one vote, none of these resolutions would ever come to a vote. And if we have a President with a (D) after her name, they will have everything they need to set in motion a slow-bleed surrender. No amount of pontificating will be able to stop them then.
So, elections matter. And who runs in those elections matter. And the composition of our front bench matters, and is something the blogosphere can impact in terms of making sure the corruptocrats don't go anywhere at the county committee level on up. To do that we must intervene at the local level.
2) Ideas must be at the core of this. If the rightroots ever reaches the prominence of the netroots, I hope we won't repeat the mistake and we'll still be about ideas. A number of us have been discussing what these new ideas might be. Something has become corrupted about a movement and a party that would trade away its best idea -- personalizing Social Security -- for electoral advantage, only to lose the election anyway because we didn't stand for anything. The blogosphere can be on the leading edge of change in developing the next Contract with America, but that will require us to think like activists looking to move the ball down field, not like casual observers of politics.
3) I haven't been bashful about admitting that Jim Ogonowski is not a perfect conservative. He's against withdrawal, but that's basically it. But that hasn't stopped our readership from grasping the singular importance of snatching a Democratic seat in the People's Republic of Massachusetts. It crystallizes an emerging trend (Congress's 11% approval) into an electoral data point the national media can understand, in the same way that the OH-2 special did in 2005.
Yesterday, I posted about Eric Egland in CA-4 (disclosure), who would move his district to the right on ethics and earmarks. The only thing he has in common politically with Ogonowski is this: he would move Washington in a better direction, and away from the left. For conservatives, that should be the test. Naturally, the answers we'll get will look radically different from district to district.
|
|
Good luck with that, let me know how it goes.
You'll have to chime up in between all the liberal bashing going on.
The Swift Boat Veterans will not get the next President elected.
All that is needed for Democrats to propel a further majority is for the right wing media here to keep up its incessant non-stop, hatred of all things liberal.
|
|
Look, I too am as conservative as one gets. And rereading our posts, we are at odds when we all want to have a real conservative win. But, so far, that is not happening. Will we all give up if Mitt, Rudy or even Fred wins the nomination? That is my point. I will not. I cannot fathom Hillary, Pelosi, and Reid running this nation with its tax, immigration and more importantly, its national security defeatism. Perhaps you can take that. I cannot. I hope that in Nov. '08, we will be angry enough with our real enemies, the socialist Dems to vote them out or at least stop them from gaining totalitarian control. You two are not my enemies. Period. Liberal Dems are.
|
|
|
Gee Pas Phil, empty headed huh? Since I want to win, and you apparently are fine with a generations of Hillary's running the nation just so you can cry out , 'I have marvy principles which , of course, are Reagan's and if only we...' The problem is Phil, many of us who are older, worked for the Party when it was AUH20's and before Nixons, knew that liberalism was eating away at our nation's innards. We loved Barry, adored and worked hard for Ronnie and now we find that the purists have so punished the Party that we are split perhaps beyond repair. It does no good to wish, hope, surmise that there are secret conservs , the no-voiced majority just waiting for the Paulites, or some mythical Rightist King to win one for the Gipper. The Party is hanging on by its thumbs and it is the only Party which has any conservative hopes attached. You can fantasize that if we just wait, stay home, the public will see the error of its ways when it elects the pacifist socialists. It won't. The electorate is getting less principled as far as conservatism. Still, there are candidates who have a chance, a real chance to beat Her Highness. Not Newt, or Duncan, or Ron or maybe even Fred. It would be nice to see Fred rally all of us but so far, nada. So you stay home Phil and weep and gnash and say that the Party is filled with empty heads as the Dems take all the Branches of Govt. for a generation. I'm too old to wait for the Man on the White Horse. If the Pubs with some conservative ideas left can win in '08, I will support them even if Mitt, Fred or yes, Rudy wins the nomination. But, you, well you just stay home with your principles. |
|
We don't don't want or expect any candidate to be perfect, we just don't want a liberal. Rudy is a liberal, no matter how much spin anyone tries to put on it. Romney was a liberal, he's sounding conservative now, but those youtube tapes from '94 will haunt him. McCain has put his thumb in the eye of conservatives too many times for anyone to trust him.
How about we nominate someone who has always been conservative? Consistently. |
|
|
They need to get back to conservative roots. Stand for something, because we will not fall for anything like Dem voters. The rule of law and upholding their oath of office are not just abstractions to us. They mean something. The amnesty debacle could be instructive if they could get their heads out of the posteriors of their cheap labor donors. There is a huge majority of American citizens who want the laws enforced and the border secured. Ignore them some more at your peril. Calling us names didn't work out so well in '06 now, did it? |
|
|
I rest my case. That is exactly what I am talking about. "Purists". When the Republican party has abandoned everything that they used to stand for and are losing elections because it has compromised every principle for winning elections expediently, only empty-headed loyalists who are amazed by people who flash shiny objects in front of them, people like you, are dumb enough to hang around. There is a reason why GOP registration has sunk to the present 26% of all registered voters from the 38-39% of not too long ago. Like Reagan once said of once having been a Democrat: "I didn't leave the party, it left me". There is no "here" here. People like you should just stand aside while the adults work it out. Your vote is automatic. You're going to vote Republican no matter what. You have nothing to contribute to the discussion other than to let everyone know your are an empty-headed Republican. I'm sure even the Tampa Bay Blue Devils have fans like you. |
|
|
I have been posting for 2 years now that the Pub purists will be the undoing of conservatism. Why? Because they will take their ball and go home if some Perfect Prez Purist is not nominated. I beg all of you who were once Pubs, thinking Independents, Libertarians, and now Pubs, do not allow perfectionism and pharisaism declare the outcome of the election next year. Many now are finallys seeing that elections do have consequences. In order for any conservative agenda to be put forward, the R's have to win. If we lose Congress, at least vote for a Pub for Prez. If vindictive one issue voters penalize the Pubs one more time, you will have 8-12 years or more to regret it. And please, no more fluff about how the Pubs and Dems are just alike. On the many issues that do divide us, at least 6 with victory against Islamofascism being first, are different and extremely important. |
|
|
Here and on Dean's posts miss the point. The internet and bloggers are floundering because they are trying to use the internet as a propaganda tool while getting cut to pieces by those who have command of the facts. That is back-end-asswards. The GOP needs to use blogs to once again be the party of ideas. Instead of having all these blogging political consultants constantly trying to propagandize their liberal candidates to persuade us that they are actually conservative, or calling conservatives "extreme", or arguing that "perfection is the enemy of good" and finally resorting to the inevitable last gasp argument "we can't let Hitlary win! She's...she's....EVIL!!!!", why not build something from the ground up. So far, TH has been little more than a propaganda tool. It didn't work when Hugh tried to save Harriet Myers nor when many of them were pushing for amnesty. It might be better if there weren't so many political consultants without portfolio. |
|
|
Strategic voting has gotten a bad name. Not surprisingly because it has been so effective for Democrats - "Sure we suck, but at least we'll give you sh*t." Most of the right of center crowd - as evidenced by the 2006 election - seem to be of the "cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face variety; whereas, the left has no conscience in such matters. Until I'm named dictator, there will never be a candidate with whom I agree 100%. |
|
I do not recall any such Patrick comments about Oganowski either. Dean is right.
As for Fred Kagan's ideas only having traction with a Republican president, well. . . yeah. Thanks for stating the obvious. After 9/11, a President Gore would have probably gone into Afghanistan (and I hope not screwed it up), but doubt Gore or any other Democrat president would have taken on Saddam and Iraq (other than the off hand chance President Gore keeled over from chronic unmitigated smugness and President Lieberman took over--even then it would have been a long shot). |
|
I saw you put up the button to contribute to Oganowski a few times here in the past week. I don't recall any posts here "admitting that Jim Ogonowski is not a perfect conservative."
Does my memory fail me, or was it an oversight? |
|
|
And that puts us closer to having a Speaker with an (R). One hopes that such a Speaker would be a better conservative than Ogonowski; He would certainly be a better conservative than Pelosi. |
|
There is merit to what both of you guys are saying.
However, in the end, Patrick, you are right.
If we don't win elections, all of our cleverness still amounts to ineffectual onanism.
At ModernConservative.com (http://www.modernconservative.com/), we have decided it is time to fight back, not just online, but with a vigorous ground-game. We have developed an innovative plan, and we are about to begin its implementation. Our ultimate goal is to match or exceed MoveOn.org in effectiveness and reach. For more information, folks may get in touch with us using any of the email addresses listed on our contact page (http://www.modernconservative.com/contact_us/). |
|
"If the rightroots ever reaches the prominence of the netroots..."
The "rightroots" already has reached, and surpassed the "prominence" of the netroots. The right is different from the left. What works one way there, won't work the same here, and vice versa. People on the right are different from people on the left. We act differently; we react differently. We're different. Haven't you ever heard the old saying, "It's like herding cats?" We're different; that's probably why we vote for different candidates too. |
|
The POWER of ONE Voice is tremendous.
No matter how small.
Let's get it together, Hillary wants to take things away from us...
Our Nation deserves better. |
|
|
|