Via Ace, I saw this quote in his "Top Headlines" sidebar by by the proprietress of "It's Only Words" - who should be one and the same as this lady here, and thought it was one of those brilliant things you've always thought of but never quite found the right words in which to express it.
Nuance is the mantle intellectuals like to don when they espouse ideas that slap common sense in the face.
So I clicked over to Paula's blog to see what brought on that slice of genius ... and my mouth dropped open at the sheer incandescence of the stupidity Paula was grappling with. It was an op-ed by a Matthew Manweller; an associate professor of Political Science at Central Washington State University, published in the Seattle Times a few days ago. He also happens to be a member of the Washington State Republican Party Executive Committee.
He's also an idiot, notwithstanding his obvious self-regard as some sort of intellectual. Or a Democratic plant. I don't believe there is any other explanation for what he's proposing that the Republican Party do to itself in 2010. Either way, it's Republicans like him that make the Committeeman Project (which I apologize for completely neglecting - and in the cause of which ColdWarrior has been an absolute wonder to behold) so absolutely necessary.
Get this; this is Manweller's brilliant idea for Republicans to regain the majority; not challenging vulnerable Democrats.
GOP Chairman Michael Steele should not go after the "Blue Dog Democrats" in 2010. This small group of representatives has shown themselves to value practicality over ideology. They have been willing to compromise, change their minds and even oppose their own party when necessary, characteristics that should be valued regardless of one's own political affiliation.
This was supposedly John McCain's trump card in 2008, according to his Primary boosters. His willingness to compromise and oppose his own party in the name of "Bipartisanship" and reaching across the aisle, his Maverick™ credentials, his popularity with the chattering classes would have the silent "moderate" majority rise up and pour money into his campaign coffers, man the phone banks and walk the precincts and then march into the poll booths to pull the lever next to John Sidney McCain III.
But that's not what happened now, was it? It turns out the voters didn't particular care about McCain's catalog of "Bipartisan" accomplishments or admire his history of taking sides against his own party, including the so-called "moderate" voters that were supposed to recognize a kindred spirit in John the Maverick, and of course he lost to an opponent with the most liberal and partisan voting record in the Senate.
More will be lost than gained if the GOP attacks this coalition.
Huh? I simply cannot imagine how any Republican can think reducing the majority Nancy Pelosi has to work with would be a loss. Note again; this man has a seat on the Washington State Republican Party Executive Committee.
What message does it send to conservative Democrats if the GOP assails the very people who were willing to work with them? Republican challenges will simply drive Blue Dogs to seek cover in the liberal wing of their party and make them question why they should ever cross the aisle again. More importantly, what message does it send to the American voter if the GOP seeks to overthrow the very group of people who are actually looking (and thinking) before they leap?
The same message it sent to the American voter when the DSCC spent all that money to take out Susan Collins? The message it would send to the American voter is that Republicans are ready to lead and are willing to step up to the plate. Patton was right, and it was only after 40 years in which it completely escaped a Republican Party led by the likes Nelson Rockefeller and Bob Michel that it finally clicked with the GOP Leadership; Americans respond to winners, to confidence, not people who plan to be "gracious" losers.
The fact that Manweller - a member, I remind you, of a Republican State Executive Committee - actually seems to believe that these so-called "conservative" Democrats are not voting for the President's Left-Wing agenda because of anything other than self-preservation is proof that education is no substitute for intelligence. And given that, does this cretin honestly believe that removing the threat of being challenged would serve as encouragement for them to continue "looking (and thinking) before they leap?"
If Republicans win a majority on the backs of Blue Dogs, they will look cynical in victory and send a message that the desire for power trumps a commitment to rational discourse and the politics of cooperation.
Cynical to whom? This is the sort of argument that lets one know without a shadow of the doubt that the person making it is severely out of touch with reality. Try to imagine the illogic of this argument. This Democratic plant is trying to sell the asinine argument that the same people who voted out their Democratic Congressman for being a vote for Nancy Pelosi to hold the Speaker's gavel would immediately eye the man (or woman) they voted to replace him negatively for actually running and winning their votes.
I submit that the only people to whom a Republican successfully challenging a so-called "Blue Dog" would look "cynical" to are the liberal chattering class twits that this Manweller is obviously trying to impress with this op-ed. May I remind you all again that Manweller is a member of the Washington State Republican Party Executive Committee?
Such a victory would not be good for America. After having lost the trust of the American people in 2006, the GOP needs to show that they can put country above partisan gain.
And the only way, according to this member of a Republican Party Executive Committee, for the Republican Party to regain the trust of the American people (showing that he is strangely, for his position in the WAGOP, not at all conversant with current polling) and show that they are capable of putting the country above partisan gain is for the GOP to deliberately lose in 2010. That, according to a member of the WA Republican State Executive Committee would be good for America.
Words fail me ...
The Beltway glitterati, not least among them the Davids Brooks and Frum, were falling all over themselves in the aftermath of John McCain's campaign for Gracious Loser in Chief in advising Republicans to jettison all those icky social conservatives and limited government weirdos and instead cater more to "Republicans" like Colin Powell, Christie Whitman and Lincoln Chafee. Republicans, according to the New York Times editorial page and other well-meaning outlets, would do better to make these types of "Republicans" - "Republicans" who contribute to Democrats, endorse Democrats, campaign for Democrats and vote for Democrats - the face of the GOP. If only Republicans would put these types of Republicans in Leadership positions, the story goes, and follow their example (especially by voting for Democrats on Election Day) somehow, Republicans would be back in the majority again.
I honestly thought no one was taken in by the obviously self-serving load of tripe from liberal commentators and their supposedly "conservative" boot-lickers. At least no one in any position of authority in the GOP. Well, I apparently thought wrong.
I'm really curious ... how many people here honestly believe Matthew Manweller is not a Democratic plant? Or is this just Frum-level stupidity? Either way, how in the name of all that is Holy did he end up on the principal policy making body of the Washington State Republican Party? And how soon can he get booted off?