« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Matthew Berry to challenge Jim Moran (D, VA-08).

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  November 16th, 2009 at 03:27 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Matthew Berry. Not the ESPN guy: the former Clarence Thomas clerk/DoJ/FCC guy. He’s running on a fiscal conservatism/national security/ethics platform; and opposing the infamous Jim Moran, believer in Israeli conspiracies.  His statement about Moran’s blathering* on the NYC show trials works for me:

“It is wrong for Congressman Moran to question the patriotism of the millions of Americans who believe that terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried by military commissions rather than in civilian courtrooms. Furthermore, Congressman Moran’s comment reflects a basic ignorance of American history. Military commissions were used to try war crimes during the Revolutionary War, Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, and World War II. The use of a military commission to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would have been entirely in keeping with American history and tradition.”

For those wondering: VA-08 is a D+16 district that includes Arlington, Virginia, which makes Matthew’s oppositional stance on the hot-button topics of the stimulus, cap and trade, and the health care rationing bill all the more notable.  He’s also supportive of the Tea Party’s objectives of more citizen involvement in government, particularly from a fiscal point of view.  Lastly; Matthew happens to be gay, and is making no attempt to hide his sexual orientation.  Which, given the way that minority conservatives routinely get viciously targeted by the Other Side, deserves particular mention.

The race itself is in its early days; Matthew appears to be the first candidate to declare for the primary (the VA GOP**, while not involving itself in primaries, did note that “it would be of great benefit to the Commonwealth of Virginia if Jim Moran were to lose his seat;” they look forward to supporting the eventual candidate).  All in all, a fiscon and natsec hawk sounds like a definite trade-up to the guy that we have in there now – especially since he reads RedState.  Note to candidates: that is a very, very smart thing to do…

Moe Lane

*Apparently, objecting to show trials in NYC is now somehow un-American.  I’d note the irony, except that I’m more bemused at the irony that a ‘show trial’ has become the best possible outcome for this administration.

**Who did a nice job with the last election, by the way.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • aesthete

    I imagine that he’s for gay marriage, but do you know where he stands on abortion?

  • lycurgus

    pass

  • Dan McLaughlin

    you should be.

  • RedBeard

    And no one could possibly be as rotten as Moran.

  • rsss
  • douglaswarren

    But you use as a point of argument that he questioned the patriotism of those opposed to his agenda.

    Is there not a lot of that that comes from our side of the political spectrum?

    Just self-critiquing here. Consistency is a powerful political commodity.

  • douglaswarren

    I understand the take what we can get position, but I mean, he’s obviously not on our side of social issues.

    Openly accepting and endorsing his candidancy, does that open a door that might not be able to get closed in the future?

  • douglaswarren

    Note: I intended those as honest questions and thoughts, not in any way as a slight to the poster.

    Thanks!

  • aesthete

    Personally, I don’t put much stock in terms like “racist”, “patriotic”, “non-partisan”, “bipartisan”, “caring”, and the rest of the litany of political buzzwords because they have become so devalued through politics. Heck, I almost feel offended when I hear someone calling me patriotic nowadays, given that it almost certainly means that I’m endorsing some sort of government encroachment on our freedoms! I prefer to simply call myself unabashedly American, and to let others sort out what that entails.

    I don’t really have an opinion of Berry (I don’t have enough info, really), but he’s bound to be better than Moran on both an ideological and personal level. As a note, I appreciate that he doesn’t seem to be “in your face” about his sexuality, but at the same time, doesn’t attempt to hide it when it would be convenient for him to do so.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Anybody with this persona that you’ve put together would cheerfully drag himself over broken glass to get rid of Jim I-see-Jewish-conspiracies Moran.

  • mschmitt
  • aesthete
  • douglaswarren

    On the de-valuing of terms.

    Sometimes when I really think on it I start to going in circles. A lot on our side seem to get really upset when the credentials as “Real Americans” are questioned by those that oppose us.

    But I do remember, as much as I’d like to block it out, us doing the same thing under Bush and many, all over Internet comment forums on the Internet, still doing so today.

    I wonder sometimes if it cheapens our complaints like the one this post pointed out, when we say that you can’t just do that to us, say we’re Un-American, because many of us, myself included, have used that line of attack on others many times in the past and today.

    Makes me feel like, again, consistency is a powerful political tool. Inconsistency could hurt us.

    Any thoughts? Our ultimate goal should be victory with as few setbacks and self-caused harm as possible, no?

  • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

    If he’s a strong fiscal and defense conservative I’m willing to give him a listen. Let’s leave social issues to the states

  • aesthete

    Personally, I won’t ascribe motivations onto others unless there’s probable cause. Even then, I see little use in talking about motivations on the part of politicians; it is, functionally speaking, as useful as looking for motivation in “”, and given the massive PR teams that any major politician has, probably futile to discern whether you’re seeing real emotion, or an orchestrated performance.

    I’m of the view that, generally speaking, showing the results of progressive policy is more effective, because it is more objective. Conservatism has always been at its best with objective truth and statement, and is out of place in the post-modernist world that liberals tend to prefer (note how often their calls to arms rely on emotion, and not substance).

  • douglaswarren

    I appreciate your response but, unfortunately and totally my fault, I couldn’t really understand the underlying theme.

    Basically, I can be an idiot, and I didn’t really get what you were saying there.

    Maybe you could elaborate. My curiosities and questions are honest and open to all.

    Thanks.

  • aesthete

    My post was rushed and badly-written, and in reading it again, I can see where you were confused.

    In short, I was saying that in the end, discussion of the various allegations of “racism” or “unpatriotism” or what say you are fruitless because of the obvious ambiguities surrounding politicians, and because of the simple fact that you, as a voter, don’t know them. Moreover, whenever conservatives get into the namecalling game, liberals win: we’re not very good at it, and we are at a disadvantage to begin with, as a result of an unfair and biased arbiter (MSM).

    Therefore, rather than try to win on a subjective level, where progressives have natural advantages, we should try to frame issues objectively. As an example, instead of calling Dems “unpatriotic” or “socialist”, we should show the effects of their actions (“the bill that Senator X voted for will have the effect of increasing the budget by 200%”).

    Hopefully, that clarified my position a bit.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    At Jim Moran’s level, please.

  • douglaswarren

    Thanks for taking the time.

    In truth, I tend to agree with you. Sure, some of his policies are socialist inspired but the truth is that America has been a mixed economy for as long as there has been a stable and prosperous middle class and what you really see all over the Internet are alleged conservatives calling everyone that’s not conservative, Socialists, Communists, fascists, totalitarian, or dictator interchangably and sometimes all together as if it ever makes actual sense.

    This is an area where I think, as you say, we sell ourselves short because we’re not as good at it. We should be arguing on the basis of what these bills are ACTUALLY going to do instead of just crying out the scariest word we can find.

    It has it’s place but I fear sometimes it might hurt us in the end. As I said, consistency. How can we be upset that Moran questioned our patriotism when we call and have called people that oppose us anti-American and any other scary word we can find ad infinitum?

    But I fear I may he treading on thin ground here. I’m just so worried about all this stuff and I know how important trying to defeat it is that I want to air out some of the things I think about that I worry about hurting us in the long run. The MSM shows what they want and people do remember. Even if we wish they wouldn’t.

  • douglaswarren

    Call me an idiot, but again, I’m a confused what you were trying to convey to me, if this was to me.

    Thanks!

  • douglaswarren

    Here’s a gem from 2006:

    “Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., said: ?The seven million Muslim-Americans living in the US are an integral part of American society. Our country is a melting pot of different cultures and beliefs. This diversity is a strength, not a weakness. Bringing more Muslim-Americans into the political process is a goal, not something to be avoided.?

    How do you feel about that, especially after recent events?

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Provide links showing examples of same, at Congressman-level or above.

    Next post.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    RedState has a Muslim Contributor; we don’t appreciate it when liberals like yourself try to bait like this.

    Moe Lane

    PS: “Model.citizen@yahoo.com” Cute. Alas, some of us actually listen to Alice Cooper.

    http://new.music.yahoo.com/alice-cooper/tracks/model-citizen–2061240

  • Tbone

    in “Pure Country”.

  • makemyday

    Bad acting aside I loved Pure Country! Please find something else to bang this guy in the head with.

  • Cheryl

    on the other hand, the acting was pretty corny.

  • Tbone

    double instead of a stunt double for the star.

  • makemyday

    But ya gotta admit he sure can sing!

  • Hooah_Mac

    You see, you say that “our” side, although we know you aren’t on the same side as most people on this site, called the left unpatriotic during the Bush years. Except that never happened. The term unpatriotic was never used, it was a preemptive strike by your side. If you look back you will find that the only ones using the term unpatriotic was the left*, responding to charges they could have only been hearing in their own conscience.

    I know the left loves their narrative, but you guys could at least try to use one with a basis in fact.

    * Yes, I know someone will dig up a comment on some never read blog somewhere that says unpatriotic, but relevance is the key.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth
  • http://www.jumpinginpools.blogspot.com orfannkyl

    http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/11/interview-with-republican-candidate-for.html

  • ZeusKingoftheGods

    … and never again would I vote for such depravity. Former Congressman Jim Kolbe represented Southern Arizona for 22 years. The man was sick! At the time, he was the only openly ?gay? Republican in Congress. And we Republicans were told to support him ? if we knew what was good for us.

    So, what did Mr. Kolbe support? Well, Jim Kolbe was 1 of only 6 Republicans in Congress to vote against the ban on partial-birth abortion. He was a huge supporter of abortion. He also hid language in a bill that allowed gay lovers of foreigners and diplomats to use their sam-sex partners to seek asylum and immigration recognition. Jim Kolbe was also the open-borders genius who wrote Bush’s amnesty plan. So, what did he oppose? Well, he wouldn’t support Republicans who ran to replace him after he retired because they were opposed to gay marriage. He was Dede Scozzafava before Scozzafava was. The list on Jim Kolbe goes on & on.

    Obviously, this new guy might not support the same things, but Congress does change people. Kolbe didn?t even start off as ?so bad.? He just got progressively worse as he became more entrenched into power. So, what are Matthew Berry?s feelings about “Don’t ask; Don’t Tell”? What are his feelings about allowing people who think they are gay to adopt children? What are his feelings about so-called “gay marriage”? And how much will those feelings change overtime if he holds conservative positions on these things?

    There are reasons why the “Tea Party” movement became so powerful. And part of that is because voters saw that those who were being pushed on us as “our best” candidates were so flawed and represented things that were dead wrong. The ?homosexual agenda? is dead wrong!

    Voting against a person who conducts him or herself in such a manner is absolutely justified. Homosexual conduct goes against the very nature of man given to him by God. Now, I don’t live in Virginia, so this race does not affect me. And I am no fan of Jim Moran who is an absolute idiot. But saying that someone just “happens to be gay” is a page right out of the liberal playbook. I would write someone else or find another candidate before either of these choices became acceptable.