ALLAHPUNDIT CAN'T ABIDE BECK's STAND; MAKES THE CASE FOR RINO-WORSHIP:
Video: Glenn Beck goes all in for Doug Hoffman — and third parties
MENTAL SHORTHAND as a SUBSTITUTE for ACTUAL ANALYSIS
Hot Air's AllahPundit recycles a tired argument about conservatives sitting down and shutting up when the RNC sticks the goobers in the sticks with a liberal weenie candidate.
It's all about being on the winning team, doncha know? A variation of "My tired Republican hack can beat up your tired Democrat hack!"
We agree with AllahP. more than we disagree. But that doesn't mean that it's not getting tiresome for conservatives/libertartians to be endlessly lectured about supporting--well, somebody, anybody, long as that magic "R" is tagged alongside the name.
Apparently, AP listened to some Glenn Beck and now sees disaster if conservatives decide they're tired of generic politicians and elect to stand on principle.
It's all mental shorthand for avoiding what used to called 'fighting the good fight'.
One crushing defeat away from total victory, in perpetuity. A question for Beck fans, borrowing a line uttered here by the man himself: What is the endgame? There’s a sense I get from watching Beck that he thinks there’s a supermajority out there willing to return to Founders-style libertarianism if only he and other conservatives hammer the message hard and long enough. I don’t think there is. And if I’m right that there’ll always be at least 40 votes or so in the Senate and 45 percent among the population for progressivism, how does he presume to enact the libertarian agenda while confronting the realities of congressional compromise?
Ahhh. The "endgame". What does the endgame for people like the good Allah turn out to be?
It's the rosy scenario of Bob Doles, G.H.W Bushes and John McCains stretching far into the future as far as can be imagined--at least until the rubes wise up and opt out of the system because no one represents their concerns anymore.
It's the idea that Republican Party apparatchiks are so electorally smarter than the great unwashed they're supposed to be serving.
When Republicans are lectured about a "winning formula" by the New York Times' editorial board: that's annoying.
When famed squish-meisters like Kathleen Parker and Christopher Buckley--both of whom conservatives are wise to--throw in their hectoring two cents worth: that's both annoying and useless.
But when the lecture is followed by eight years of Bill Clinton and the Obama Good Time Hour and is delivered by the occasional well-meaning right-leaning pundit: well, that's nearly unbearable.
At some point, "well-meaning" can be understood to mean "well-meaning tool". There's no debating these types: a philosophical difference of opinion spells doom for the Republican Party.
But make no mistake: this debate must be held and now's as good a time as any. It's past time for conservatives/libertarians to stop apologizing for standing on principle.
Exactly when is the right time for conservatives to open a can of New! Improved! STFU?
Following this well-meaning advice will produce much the same situation as in Europe and the UK. There, the rise of nationalist parties has been a response to the major parties turning a deaf ear to the concerns of the workaday saps that didn't attend the right schools.
These parties usually contain extreme elements--but keep getting stronger because Europe's political elites govern as they damn well please and the yokels who work for a living can shut the hell up and vote as they're told. The elites know better because they're elite and stuff.
Script sound familiar?
After the nationalist parties start picking off seats in national legislatures, those same pundits--who told the hicks to shut up, vote the PC Party Line and everything will turn out swell--then amuse themselves by tarring the frustrated masses for consorting with the "racists" and "Nazis" that these parties inevitably seem to attract on the fringes.
The masses then amuse themselves by completely ignoring the pompous asses to whom they once listened--and trusted.
IF NOT NOW, WHEN?
Only today, Gallup states that 20% view themselves as Progressives, but Allah sees that number ballooning somehow to "45%".
All because conservatives are tired of being played for suckers.
Of course, a "permanent (progressive) 45% of the population"--if that were possible in the near future--does help make this oft-repeated-though-still-false argument. The number of self-identified liberal/progressives has been stuck at 20% for awhile now; so somehow, conservatives should shut their mouths--the better to eat their RNC-sponsored shit sandwiches they keep getting fed--and this will stop the evil Democrats from winning?
Thank God conservatives didn't listen to that kind of advice in the 1970s. Had they followed that logic, Ronald Reagan would have been known largely as a B-movie actor.
Thank God those that couldn't abide slavery didn't listen to this kind of pablum in the 1850s. Else there would have been no Republican Party to spawn the squishy candidates beloved of RINOs today.
JUST ONCE it would refreshing to hear these principle-evading apologists explain why voting for a cap-and-trade, amnesty-loving, abortion-sponsoring stimulus-cheering Republican is so much better than voting for the Democrat counterpart--other than style points and the odd parliamentarian maneuver?
It is exactly this "well-meaning" advice that was argued in support of political finger-in-the-wind testers like Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee. How are those decisions working out for the Republican party today, huh RNC?
MEMO to Hand-wringing, RNC-loving robo-dopes: just as being a RINO/moderate doesn't mean you'll mindlessly pull the lever for every John McCain clone that makes the ballot--evidence this RINO-in-the-room: Obama won the moderates that supposedly was McCain's strength in 2008--so might conservatives have enough sense to pick their spots about when and who to support.
But then, acknowledging that point would mean conceding important parts of Glenn Beck's argument.
Also, that would mean the unthinkable: that harried pundits working against deadlines would have to stop using mental shorthand when compiling pieces and resort to actually doing some thoughtful analysis.
Support for a conservative third-party candidate doesn't mean support for every conservative third-party candidate.
Perhaps, the RNC might be moved to run candidates which actually stand for something--besides a chance to deliver the occasional winner in a Democrat-wannabe empty suit.
Perhaps the Republican Party will have actual conservatives running and voters will get a real choice.
Novel thought, that.
Heavens knows that the opposite occurs all too often nowadays. But you don't see the hand-wringers getting their panties in a bunch when a liberal Republican jellyfish squares off against a liberal Democrat.
In their mental shorthand: that's letting democracy work for the betterment of unenlightened hicks, boobs and redneck Jonnys everywhere across the fruited plain.
Saw this after posting at Michelle Malkin: Cartoon of the Day which came to her from TobyToons via RedState.
It fits this article to a "T".
by Mondo Frazier