« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

We May Or May Not Be ‘Ultraconservative,’ But We Certainly Didn’t Call the SBA Pledge ‘Ridiculous’

The pseudo-conservative Washington Post blogger, Jenn Rubin, has decided to label RedState as ‘ultra-conservative’. I can only guess that it is because we advocate hanging the traitor Jonathan Pollard instead of setting him free like Rubin does and also because we here at RedState embrace Jim DeMint as a standard bearer for conservatism while Rubin would prefer to take an exacto knife and excise from the movement those conservatives she does not care for, e.g. social conservatives.

So if your definition of ultraconservative is one who believes in conservatism across the board, then I guess we are. If your definition of “conservative” is one who detests most social conservatives and loves American traitors, then I guess Jenn Rubin is a conservative. I’ve always viewed her has a libertarian too ashamed to admit she is a libertarian because of the people we typically think of as libertarians and because one of Jenn’s foremost issues is the defense of Israel, which neither liberals nor libertarians care much about.

So in that vein, RedState is ultraconservative because Jenn is fashioning herself as a mainstream conservative to make herself feel comfortable in a group she otherwise doesn’t want much to do with it.

It happens.

In any event, in calling the Susan B. Anthony List’s pro-life pledge “a mess”, she’s seeking to use “ultraconservative” RedState to prove that even those icky social conservative sites dislike the pledge.

It is not only inaccurate to say that, it is absolutely journalistic malpractice for which I insist upon a correction.

Speaking for the majority of the front page here at RedState, we embrace the pledge, do not think it is a mess, and for Rubin to extrapolate that “RedState” thinks the pledge is “ridiculous” when it was actually one diarist who got only four recommendations is what is actually ridiculous.

You would think people who grew up in the blogosphere would have some sense of how RedState works instead of making the same mistake the New York Times editorial board recently made.

See, we “ultraconservatives” here at RedState actually do allow a pretty wide variety of viewpoints between conservatives in our diaries and on our front page. If I or a “Directors” post have not taken a position on something, you can be pretty damn sure the site as a whole has no position, though some individuals here may.

The majority of us on the front page, however, support the SBA List’s pledge, and find it perfectly reasonable.

Yes, we do think the candidates for President should only pick pro-life appointees in the same way, I am sure, the left wants only pro-choice appointees picked.1 As for the hyperbole over the SBA List’s pledge, let’s be clear on what is happening:

Mitt Romney does not like the pledge and has a bunch of sympathetic allies making excuses for why he shouldn’t sign the pledge using the most extreme examples imaginable — examples that neither we here nor, I’m sure, the Susan B. Anthony List are prepared to get worked up about. But Romney needs cover and his faithful allies are willing to throw the Susan B. Anthony List under the bus to give him that cover under a bunch of hyperbole about a very decent and worthwhile pledge.

As for Herman Cain’s separation of powers argument, it is honestly the stupidest thing to come out of his campaign. I guess Cain won’t offer up a budget to congress either, since, you know, that’s congress’s job. Saying he will not not “advance” the legislation in congress displays a naiveté about the Office of Presidency I did not think he had.

By the way, I would note that Jenn Rubin spends an inordinate amount of time in her section of the Washington Post bashing conservatives. Seriously, I long ago stopped reading her because the hand wringing over what actual conservatives are doing . . . er . . .”ultra” conservatives are doing was no more or less than what the purported lefties at the Washington Post do.

With friends like Jenn . . .


  1. As an aside, any “conservative” who gets a tingle up their leg or developes a case of thigh sweats for Tom Ridge and laments he might be excluded from a Republican administration is definitionally not a conservative.

COMMENTS

  • pauly1620

    Is that the new lexicon for RiNO?

    Rhetorical question.

  • http://www.riversedgealliance.org Robin Smith

    Clingers, Hard-liners, Far-Right, whatever. It astounds those who view principled leadership as rigid when we stand on our convictions instead of living in the land of “whatever.” Those who thrive on deal-making and compromise for the sake of popularity are THE reason our nation is in such debt, floundering in education, see fewer with work ethics of winners, etc.

    Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.

  • surfcitysocal

    Bravo, Erick Erickson, bravo!

  • msctex

    . . .we are as good as done.

    Manipulative semantics are arguably the first go-to tool in the Progressive box. But all it will take is one man or woman standing up on a bog enough stage and defining who we are and what we believe, and setting us apart from those who could not do that to save their lives. The rest will come naturally and easier.

  • junkbondtrader41

    Erick took this as yet another opportunity to pull out his pistol reserved for giving members of our team who are with us on only 9 issues and not 10 the firing squad, preening about “pseudoconservatives” versus “icky social conservatives.”

    And I’m sorry, Erick, if she accurately quoted a Red State diarist, it’s fair game to say “Red State” made the statement. Why not stress your disagreement with the individual diarist, rather than attacking Rubin for her perfectly reasonable expectation that RedState at least tacitly agrees with someone it provides a platform for?

    Game, set, and match, Rubin.

  • chbroussard

    If one diarist authors a post supporting Ron Paul for president, does that translate into Redstate endorses Ron Paul? No it doesn’t. Makes about as much sense as your statement above. So Erick is responsible for every statement made at this site? There are varying opinions on Redstate, and each person who posts should be responsible for their own comments.

  • chbroussard

    If one diarist authors a post supporting Ron Paul for president, does that translate into Redstate endorses Ron Paul? No it doesn’t. Makes about as much sense as your statement above. So Erick is responsible for every statement made at this site? There are varying opinions on Redstate, and each person who posts should be responsible for their own comments.

  • chbroussard
  • chbroussard
  • kripto

    A Candidate should be allowed to state their position without having to be nailed to the cross if they don’t sign someones interpretation of what is conservative.

    As for this list, if Romney was so flip flopping as some suggest, he could have easily signed the list and flip flopped on it later. Instead he acted with integrity and stated his positions. So instead of examining his record fairly or his position on the issue, there is attempt to crucify him simply because he will not sign someone else’s position paper on an issue.

    Do we want atomitons or do we want individuals who can think for themselves. The pledge is open to interpretation and that is a bad thing.

  • robbyshankar

    I agree, I think these pledges are ridiculous. Why can’t a candidate just articulate their own position as opposed to having it handed to them by someone else.

    I would prefer all the candidates put out their own position and pledges the way Romney did. It shows a lot more about what a candidate is really thinking and the direction they are headed in.

    However, I tend to agree with Erick when it comes to Rubin. It seems to me she exists more to tear down the Republican field rather than build it up.

  • streiff

    In that case, I guess I’m forced to ban you because I wouldn’t want your opinions taken as representing the site. Fair enough? Hit the contact button when you’re ready to reconsider your idiocy.

  • cpaguy

    The Rubin article was pretty good (note: I know nothing about this lady).

    She went through each of the points of the pledge rather than make a blanket statement about it. Then she talked about the nuances and differences between why Cain didn’t sign the document and why Romney didn’t.

    Of course the Redstate dig was unwarrented given the type of site it is. She was very wrong there.

    Erick is right to attack the that part of the article, but at the risk of being maligned, I think his article was an emotional response rather than a logical one.

    I have no problem with candidates not signing pledges. I think bringing up questions about the unforseen consequenses of such a pledge are warranted.

    I want honest brokers in government. Not people who sign stuff because they are afraid that they won’t be included in the the “in crowd.”

  • paulnashtn

    I am not a fan, in general, of these kind of pledges, as they that tend to try to box a candidate in. In lower echelon races they might serve a better purpose but the president is president of ALL the people and deserves the right and obligation to have advice and advisers(and possibly even members of his or her cabinet) that have positions different from their own on various subjects
    If a candidate, I would announce strong support for the ideas presented by the pledge but would refuse to make that concret commitment.

  • robbyshankar

    Exactly. I want the candidate to be pro-life. It’s very important to me. But I want him/her to be able to convey that conviction without needing to resort to statements from others.

    Pledges like this are better for dividing the party than they are for effectuating any sort of lasting change. For instance, Bachmann and Santorum are now hitting Romney for signing this (note that neither were willing to discuss his own statement on the issue). Similarly, Grover Norquist was up in arms because the Senate voted to end Ethanol subsidies, and he called it a tax increase and therefore a violation of his pledge. No matter how you feel on any given issue, the pledges don’t really count for anything. I care a lot more about what a candidate says and does on their own.

  • romeg

    as “conservative” from the pages of an organization that has, arguably a left-of-center POV then I question the validity of that claim itself. What are her conservative bona fides.

    She’s a talented writer who’s spent her entire life, both personal and professional, in something of a liberal echo chamber. From her undergraduate and graduate work to her professional career she has been surrounded by liberals inculcating her with liberalism in one form or another to some degree. In my view, for her Conservative Writer is a gig, not a lifestyle.

    I see nothing on her site to suggest even the slightest exposure to Conservative thought save for the name of her school: the Annenberg School for Journalism & Communication at USC named for its benefactor, Walter H. Annenberg the founder and publisher of TV Guide and a staunch Republican.

    So when you live your entire life on the left edge, anything to your right looks “conservative” and if it is even slightly right of center, it qualifies as “Ultra-conservative”.

    Bravo Erick for peeling back some of the layers.

    BTW, did anyone catch the Jon Stewart interview on FOX this AM?

  • cpaguy

    I think her insertion of Redstate in the article was not warranted and should be condemned.

    However, this is a very conservative site. There is nothing wrong with. Most Americans are very conservative (even if they don’t realize it).

    I wouldn’t have used the word “ultraconservative” given its negative connotation (like “liberal”). However, I don’t think she was using it negatively (at least not intentionally) just trying to get across that it is a very conservative site (which I don’t think anybody would disagree with).

  • revo1117

    I have issue with the obvious fact that the authors of SBA are using this more a “political club” to beat conservative candidates over the head with, rather than promoting a legitimate “pro-life” agenda. I thought we Conservatives were AGAINST “Special Interest” groups”?

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    Romney considers the nomination his so he has already begun to plan for the general election. The consideration is why he remains adamant on Romneycare and global warming, and now refuses to sign the SBA pledge.

    Establishment politicians lie and weasel their way around policy decisions. A pledge makes them nervous because it holds them accountable.

    Romney claims he does not have to sign the pledge because he is already pro-life. It is nice that he is pro-life but it is not enough. The SBA pledge requires more. It requires that a “pro-life” candidate actually govern according to his pro-life views. It requires guts to act on conviction rather than just a vapid claim to conviction.

    As a social conservative, I am sick of “pro-life” candidates who in actuality are virtually pro-abortion because they refuse to act upon their convictions. Convictions are fine when they want the votes but are negotiable when it comes to policy. I question whether they have conviction in the first place.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    The man has a credibility problem.

  • SirGladiator

    For a man who has already taken both sides of the abortion issue, you’d think he’d be trying harder to get people to think he’s pro-life, since it was already hard enough to do that following his pro-abortion Senate and Governor campaigns. Maybe he honestly believes he’s already got the nomination won and is looking forward to the general, where he’s planning on running to the left of Obama the same way he ran to the left of Kennedy in his Senate race. Just one more example of why nobody in their right mind trusts Mitt as far as they can throw him. On the other hand, pro-abortion liberals might very well trust him, he sure did a good job for them as Governor of Massachusetts. In any event, thank you SBA for exposing even further what was already pretty well exposed, the simple fact that Mitt Romney will say anything on abortion, and can’t be trusted to keep any position he takes for very long.

  • http://whattoreadtoday.blogspot.com/ Paula
  • ohiohistorian

    This “banning” of people with whom the “management” disagrees is what turned LGF from a pretty cool site on which to blog to a kiss up to the management site. If you really ban junkbondtrader41, streiff, let me know and I can disappear also. Not that I blog, but I do read and comment.

    Any flake who thinks that all conservatives sing in harmony is a liberal who is told WHAT to think and is given the talking points. If this is what conservative opinion must be, I’m back to townhall.com. At least they tolerate the idiots well.

  • mboyle1988

    And I hope dear Mrs. Rubin is reading this comment right now…

  • gekster

    1. Read the article
    2. Didn’t understand the article
    3. Didn’t read the comment
    4. Didn’t understand the comment
    5. Didn’t read striefs’ comment
    6. Didn’t understand striefs’ comment.
    7. All of the above.

  • Bill S

    We usually don’t ban for idiocy. So you’ll have to do better than that.

  • crusty

    It is rather interesting that Rubin feels it necessary to go after Mr Erickson and calling him an ultra conservative. In the first place a writer for a self important lame stream media outlet was so threatened she felt the need to bring up the topic. When you consider the national footprint of her paper versus this blog you wonder if she even realizes she is only bringing attention to Red State. Score one for Eric as Red State is more likely to benefit from the free advertising.

    With that said I know who Mr. Erickson is having enjoyed his insights many times. However, I have never read a word written by Ms. Rubin nor do I care to. I have never spend a dime on her paper nor will I. You see when the thinly disguised bias of that paper had been revealed one can’t trust a word printed in it. We know Red State is a conservative site and Erick has never pretended it was anything else. That is not true of the left wing media who consistently disguises opinion as news.

    What the lame stream media fails to understand is the signing or not signing of the pledge does not matter a bit in regard to the election. The thinly veiled attack was to cause conflict in the conservative ranks. Does she think for one minute that conservatives will vote for Obama if Romney is the nominee because Romney failed to sign the pledge? Conservatives will likely vote for anyone who runs against this imposter even if their name is Elmer Fudd, Daffy Duck or Snoopy.

    Disregard the whole lame attempt that is all it is another shot thinking they will convince people. Notice CBS attacking Bachman over the foster kids and the amount of time she had each kid in her home. Suggesting she is dishonest because she won’t disclose specific time frames each child was in the house. It does not matter that state laws provide prison time for people who disclose confidential information from the foster care system. They won’t tell you that though. In NY if she gave specifics she could get two years in jail. I doubt Mn is very different.

  • Christine (Trelaina)

    I’m sorry that some two-bit Post blogger used a post in the member feed to represent the opinion of RedState. All Erick had to do to combat this was say that Rubin is obviously incapable of understanding how RedState works and how official positions are posted. End of story.

    Was it necessary to add the “majority opinion”? Your statement that RedState allows a wide variety of opinions is fantastic….but then it is ruined by a front-page slam of a member’s opinion. It’s almost as if you are saying “we allow all opinions, even if they are incredibly stupid like this one”.

    I’m not even the author (although I am one of the “ONLY four recommendations”) and I can’t shake the feeling that I should be offended. I hope Steve does not feel the same, and I truly hope he was consulted on this before it was posted.

  • standingonthewall

    Whether it’s the SBA pledge, government run healthcare, global warming or… The fact is I just don’t trust Romney. Sure, he’s better than Obama. No, I don’t think he’s a liberal. But in my gut I sense trouble if Romney is the R nominee and thereafter elected president. Other than Ron Paul or Huntsman, I’d much prefer ANY of the R candidates (announced or not yet announced) over Romney,

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    Streiff is proving a point that junkbondtrader is too thick to understand: we DO allow multiple opinions here, but there’s a difference between RedState Official Line, and what diarists post.

    I wrote a diary last year I think in which I called for the legalization of prostitution. That’s not RedState’s position. It’s not even the position of a majority of RedState posters. The Official RedState position is that spoken by RedState staffers. Not member diarists.

    Rubin is an idiot. Junkbond is an idiot. Don’t beclown yourself by defending fools.

  • gunslingr45

    I and many others do and I don’t care what kind of “pledges” he does or does not sign. And if he does have the nomination locked up, I am voting for daffy duck!

    So many RINO?s so little time!

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    I’m not for signing pledges because it unnecessarily ties a candidate’s hands. Either you believe he or she will do what they say they’ll do, or you don’t. Pledges are ways for PACs to feel important… they’re not really useful for anything else.

    So my above comment isn’t about that — I just get annoyed with people who lack reading comprehension skills.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    nt

  • acat

    These “pledges” are not much different from the pictures of pledges taken during one or another “initiation” for good old Alpha-Tau-Omega fraternity.

    Set the pledge up to do something that, from the right camera angle, looks bad. Stripped to the skivvies and told to peel a potato under a table, for instance. Shoot some video without sound and .. you’ve got something incriminating.

    The SBA and Norquist’s band of followers etc. etc. all ask candidates to put themselves in a “damned now if you don’t, potentially damned later if you do” situattion… and I fail to see where there’s any benefit provided by the SBA.

    I am opposed to abortion in all forms, not just in the cases Romney sketched out. I would still refuse to sign.

    I’m not interested in giving someone else the ability to press-release at a future point that I “went back on my word” because I nominate someone who has a good background but whose position on abortion does not match theirs.

    It’s not doing Conservatives any good to sign this kind of crap pledge… and worse, these pledges also provide cover to D.C. gutless wonders who do. I’m sure Bart Stupak would have been thrilled to sign off on this .. and then crow about it in his press releases. Until Pelosi needed his vote, of course.

    On this one, while I am in agreement with Erick and The Directors on ending abortion, it appears I am not in agreement over the value of pledges.

    Mew

  • streiff

    your can participate — or not — based on your own prudential judgment. I’m confident if you leave we will valiantly soldier on even though your clarion trump of truth and virtue has been stilled.

    There was no banning based on disagreement, what you saw was a rather dense participant hoisted by his own petard.

  • eldstenorge

    No support for Romney now either as he is going back to his Massachusetts ways.

  • http://brennansbiz.intuitwebsites.com/index.html mayo_man

    Romney…
    Cain…

    You either get it or you don’t !!!
    Social Issues and the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    that candidates ought to lay out their positions their way and not have to say yea or nay on the constructions of others.

    But I would not agree to only hire pro-lifers in so-called “relevant” jobs and would not invite endless litigation over hospital funding for hospitals based on D&Cs.

    I am pro-life and believe that Mitt’s conversion on the issue was real. I was for Mitt before Fred in ’08. But my main goal in Campaign 2012 after defeating Obama is to bring Mitt down and it has nothing to do with social issues. He is for big government, appeases the left on the ManmadeGW hoax and is neutralized on ObamaCare. He should be no more nominatable than The One Whose Name Shall Not be Uttered, aka Ron Paul.

    I want Cain to be the VP but his reason for opposing the pledge was lame.