Today, in editorializing about Scozzafava’s collapse, the normally astute editors of The Wall Street Journal join the ranks of those chronically infatuated with equating the supposed extremism of the right with that of the left. This apples-to-oranges nonsense is made only worse by the editors’ absurd acceptance of the “litmus test” argument about supposed conservative rejection of those who don’t “agree with them on every issue.”

Unfortunately, this kind of analysis is something that could be found in a not-so-good high school student newspaper, and is deserving of some questions for the WSJ editors:

First, please name any major conservative politician, pundit, talk radio show host or blogger who has ever seriously said – or even implied – that a Republican candidate need agree with them on every issue. Please be specific.

Second, who is it – specifically – that is as “bloody-minded and intolerant of all dissent as the hard left is at the Daily Kos,” and on what issue or issues in particular? Because comparing a conservative’s intolerance of politicians who fail to support our soldiers, or who appease terrorists, or who confirm extreme activist judges, or who constantly embrace big government spending, or who support economy-killing environmental policy, or who “negotiate” a form of socialized medicine… with those on the left’s intolerance of those who don’t do enough of these things is absurd.

Third, which “right-wing blogger or talk show host” prefers “having Democrats in power because it drives up their own ratings,” specifically? Rush? Sean? Levin? RedState? National Review Online? Who?

Fourth, who is calling for a candidate in Illinois, California or Connecticut to sound like Tom DeLay, specifically? And, what if some conservative did? Which specific principles, issues, or policies advocated by Mr. Delay would be worthy of trading for a coveted congressional or senate seat?

Fifth, Democrats did not drive Joe Lieberman out of the party in any practical sense. He still caucuses with them and still votes with them on most issues not involving middle east policy. And even if the ant-war left crazies did force him to run as an Independent Democrat, how is that comparable to the Hoffman-Scozzafava situation? Scozzafava isn’t even close to a Republican much less a conservative. Lieberman was the Democrats’ VP candidate just 6 years prior to his switch. He is – on most issues – liberal.

This is the fallacy of the “litmus test” argument. It’s ridiculous to suggest that having even a bare minimum of standard of a belief in liberty, limited government, fiscal responsibility, strong national security, respect for life, American exceptionalism and a general sense of getting the government to leave us the hell alone is some kind of litmus test.

Until conservatives stop comparing that which is not comparable – and stop trying to “make nice” in an environment where our way of life is under attack – the Republican Party and the health of our nation will flounder.

Promoted from diaries.  Now spread it around. - Moe Lane

As of August 31, 2009, since the Nov. 2008 election, the Maricopa County Republican Party has increased its precinct committeeman ranks by over 21 per cent. The Party had, in Nov., 2008, 1,989 precinct committeemen representing the 694,000 registered Republican voters in Maricopa County. The quota was 6,231. Thus, the Party was at less than one-third “fighting” strength. Those 1,989 were split about 50-50 between moderates and conservatives.

No more.

Since November, we’ve recruited 434 more PCs. Most at Tea Parties and congresscritter protests. Most, if not all, of these new recruits are conservatives – I’ve been to a lot of Tea Parties and protests – and talked to a lot of people at them in my efforts to recruit PCs – and I’ve yet to meet a moderate.

Read More →

The Confirmation Hearing for Judge Sotomayor has begun in the United States Senate Judiciary Committee. We will hear a series of opening statements - and then, likely, a couple of days of questions for the aspiring Supreme Court Justice.

This is a real test. But the test is not for Ms. Sotomayor. The test is for Republicans.

In the 1990’s, President Clinton had two opportunities during his tenure to replace Supreme Court Justices - and his picks were the obviously liberal and activist judges, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. These two Justices received precisely 3 and 9 Republican “no” votes, respectively. That was pathetic, given the extent to which Republicans then knew full well that each of these Justices would often times ignore their role to interpret the law in order to seek an outcome based on some other rationale… say, “empathy,” or what is “in their hearts.”

Today and in the coming days, Republicans can choose how to approach the confirmation question of Judge Sotomayor and their decision will say a lot about whether the Republican Party, as a whole, has any fight left in it…

There is no good reason to for any Republican - or any Senator who values the Constitution and the role of judges to, in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, “call balls and strikes” as an umpire - to vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor given her very public pronouncements on the role of activists judges and her quite apparent penchant for ruling on issues of race with a personal or policy purpose in mind rather than basing her decision on the law and believing her race and sex make her a better judge.

The world is watching, yes. But, conservatives who believe the Republican Party has lost its way in recent years are watching this hearing particularly closely… to see whether Republicans are on the right road - whether they have an ounce of core beliefs that can serve to provide backbone and a will to fight.

This is an easy test. Let’s see if they pass it.

From the diaries by Erick

I recently posted an article introducing Chris Roy for VT Sect. of State in which he described his political philosophy. In today’s article Chris was kind enough to share his thoughts on a couple of the issues facing Vermont, elections oversight and the economy.

With ACORN’s recent electoral notoriety, the criminal indictments which have followed and the probability that ACORN will be running the census, election oversight is and will be a matter of considerable import. As well, the teetering economy is on the forefront of many American’s minds. For Vermont the Sect. of State can have a considerable impact on both.

The Vermont Secretary of State is responsible for a variety of functions geared toward advancing the cause of good and transparent government. These responsibilities range from overseeing campaigns and elections, to regulating 44 different professions, to working with Vermont’s local governments to ensure compliance with the law. They also include oversight of the business registration process, maintenance of public archives, and advocacy on behalf of Vermont’s open government laws.

From elections to business registrations

Read More →

There has been much discussion around these parts of late about “50%ers,” “squishes,” “moderates,” and all manner of other adjectives to describe those who do not appear to be “strict” conservatives.  But what does that mean?

As I’ve stated here several times, conservatism isn’t binary.  There is no on- or off-switch that magically turns one into a conservative.  And although there are philosophers, authors, etc. who have created great works describing the conservative mind and philosophy, most conservatives have not read them, and even if we have, there are few who consistently follow the philosophy.

We have many in DC who we identify as conservatives, yet many/most of them occasionally anger us over their apparent “straying off the ranch” with votes that don’t meet our expectations.  But is that unexpected?  Shouldn’t we expect that  there are precious few “100 percenters” out there?  Where do we draw the line?  What turns a good Senator or Representative into a conservative turncoat?  Look at it this way:

One can draw a line anywhere along that continuum.  Where is the acceptable place to draw it, and how do you determine where it goes?  Do we use National Journal rankings?  American Conservative Union?  The Club for Growth?   But more interesting to me is:  is there a litmus test that disqualifies a politician from being considererd “conservative?”  What is it?  How many litmus tests are they allowed to fail before being rejected?  Is our view of things more like this:

What drives the location of that dividing line?

Read More →

From the diaries by Erick.

view a slide show of this weekend’s RPV convention here

Will Virginia field the first wave of comebacks for the GOP this coming November or will the momentum of Obama-mania continue unabated through 2009 and on into the next federal elections? Saturday’s convention in Richmond for the Republican Party of Virginia holds some interesting lessons for us all.

At the best attended convention in nearly 15 years, Republicans gathered at the Richmond Coliseum to crown their next set of candidates for the upcoming 2009 elections. (Virginia is one of the few states to hold off-year elections for state level offices.) All politics is local as they say, so what follows is a series of lessons learned from the debates leading up to the convention and the final results. Glean from it what you will:

Read More →

A Roll Call story by John Stanton just posted that references our conversation here regarding the importance of Jeff Sessions being Judiciary Committee Republican Ranking Member instead of Chuck Grassley or Orrin Hatch. The most significant paragraphs are below:

The conservative blog redstate.com and other activists and media outlets already have started pushing back against Grassley. They are organizing call-ins to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) office, urging him to block his ascension on the panel. Redstate.com urges readers to register their opposition to the Grassley plan, arguing that “to have Orrin Hatch or Chuck Grassley at the helm would be an unmitigated disaster. Each are cut from the same cloth — that of the old guard Republicans in the Senate who have given us the train wreck that the Party has become.”

A GOP leadership aide, however, said there is little that McConnell can do at this point, and the Minority Leader is almost certain to avoid choosing sides in the brewing dispute. But the source said that if Grassley can persuade enough Members to back him, the Conference rules allow for it.

That may be technically true under the rules - but this is precisely the problem. Leaders - real leaders - recognize the goal and do what they need to do to attain it. That is what Mitch McConnell needs to do. Lead, dang it. Jeff Sessions is a capable, smart, conservative lawyer - and is the right man to lead the Committee right now. Chuck Grassley is not the guy to do it - and the old Senate guard “seniority” structure shouldn’t be the deciding factor on how to proceed.

Full text of the article follows and a reminder that Mitch McConnell’s phone number is 202-224-3121 (call your Senator, too, if he’s Republican).

Read More →

Is anyone else getting sick of the constant talk about the size of the Republican tent? Who gives a darn about the size of the tent if you have no idea where the tent is or what it looks like?

Right now, I know Republicans who are pro-gun and anti-gun, for intervention in Iraq and against intervention in Iraq, pro-life and pro-choice, pro earmark and anti-earmark, Christian and atheist, pro marriage amendment and anti marriage amendment, for stronger border security and for amnesty, and so forth and so forth.

And before you launch into it… I know, I know… the anti-amnesty crowd yells at the pro-amnesty crowd, and the pro-life crowd is vehemently opposed to pro-choicers, etc… I get it. It’s politics.

But the truth is, the Republican problem is not that the so-called tent is not big enough… no, it’s that the tent keeps moving around under the non-leadership of a bunch of Republicans more interested in “figuring out what the American people want to hear” than in defining a vision for America based upon principle – conservative, or otherwise.

In short, no one knows what Republicans believe or why.

Read More →