Geraghtyites vs. Tapscottians

"Prince Charles of Viana" by Jose Moreno Carbonero 1881, The Prado, Madrid

 

I just learned that Dean Barnett @ Soxblog and I seem to share Hugh Hewitt as our Blogfather. Well, Dean just penned a brilliant article, which I want to share with you in its entirety as it truly reflects my thoughts with such clarity, that reading it, had almost a therapeutic effect on me - don't worry, I am not going to comatose on you any time soon...

It started with Jim Geraghty saying "...put me down as one of those guys who cannot comprehend the argument that conservatives ought to sit out this election to “punish” the GOP so that they’ll “learn a lesson” and get better/more conservative in the future..", and caught momentum following Hugh Hewitt's Geraghtyites v. Tapscottians post:

Jim Geraghty essays on the results the "stay-at-homers" will be bringing about if they succeed.

Mark Tapscott embraces his inner purist.

Both are my friends, and rightly influential in the new media.

But I am a Geraghtyite --as one would suspect from the author of Painting the Map Red.

Then there are the follow-ups from Jim Geraghty here, here and here and from Mark Tapscott here, here, here  and here. Take time to read these gems, it will give you a fountain of information, and a powerful injection of crystal clarity of the thought process you should be engaging in.

It's all good, especially Ed Morrissey's defense of Mark Tapscott (don't miss Ed's interview with Tapscott) and Hugh Hewitt's dissecting take on SCOTUS, with Dean Barnett delivering the slam-dunk:

WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN? I’d wager not much. You probably don’t have a clue as to where he stood on gay marriage, illegal immigration, tax policy, or pork barrel spending. Let’s face it – there’s even a possibility then when it came to such matters, Neville Chamberlain was the most inspired leader in the history of the British Empire.

Of course, none of us would be aware of such accomplishments by Chamberlain because he booted the big one. He thought he could have peace with Hitler. He was wrong. Millions perished as a result of this grievous error. Even if his leadership was the picture of perfection in every other regard, Neville Chamberlain remains the personification of a failed leader because he was entirely mistaken on the biggest issue of his day.

MY VIRTUAL MENTOR, the great and good Hugh Hewitt, has invited me to participate in a little on-line dust-up over whether rock-ribbed Republicans should make their callow and disappointing leadership pay at the ballot box come November. From what I gather, Mark Tapscott has been the most eloquent voice in defense of the notion that the bums should be thrown out, especially if they’re Republican bums.

Skillfully mixing realpolitik with idealism, Tapscott concludes that Republican losses in 2006 will likely be offset by gains in 2008. But wait, there’s more! The Republicans who are swept in by 2008’s tidal wave of pro-conservative/anti-moonbat sentiment will be more reliable conservatives than the pathetic Chafee-types that currently stalk the halls of the Capitol forever seeking out ways to stick their collective thumb into conservative America’s collective eye.

National Review’s Jim Geraghty ably represents the opposition to Tapscott’s theory. At the risk of over-simplifying Geraghty’s thesis, Jim suggests that conservatives acting to throw the Republican bums out would be the political equivalent of biting their noses off to spite their face.

FOR ME, THE ANALYSIS GOES TO basic principles. Namely, what is the biggest issue of the day?

The biggest issue of the day from history’s viewpoint will undoubtedly be civilization’s struggle with radical Islam. We are at war with Radical Islam. If you don’t believe that, let me offer a less controversial assertion – Radical Islam is at war with us.

How grave is the threat that the Jihadis pose? Existential. In other words, if Ahmadenijad has his way, America will cease to exist in any recognizable form. Of course, Ahmadenijad is just the most prominent dangerously deranged wacko of the week. Bin Laden remains deadly; so too do hundreds of thousands of Salafist Saudis. So does a fifth column already in America.

The goal of our foes is not to be a murderous nuisance. The goal is not to get Israel to fall back to pre-1967 borders. The goal is global conquest.

What I admire about this administration is it understands the threat, and it wants to fight it. If John Kerry were president, you just know he’d be looking for a way to jawbone the issue out to 2013 while applying global tests that would give him permission not to fight. If Al Gore were president, we’d still be looking for the root causes of 9/11 and consulting Bill Maher on where the “Why They Hate Us” pavilion should be located at Ground Zero.

But here’s what I suspect about Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney – the three of them are trying to figure out a way to strike Iran right now in a manner that will destroy the enemy and be tolerated by the American body politic. After all, we’re going to have to deal with this menace eventually. Better to do it now before the mullahs have nuclear weapons at their disposal. If I didn’t believe that Bush and company were willing and ready to fight, I would be indifferent to November’s results as well.

In some ways, I sympathize with Tapscott’s formulation. It would be tough to shed any tears if Lincoln Chafee were sent packing. Hell, I’ll go all in – it would be tough to weep if the Republican Party got as a reward for its incompetent twelve year stewardship of the House the demotion to minority party that it has so completely earned.

But unfortunately, we don’t have time for party purification at the moment. History’s moving too fast. We can’t take two years off for John Conyers to mount impeachment proceedings while the liberal blogosphere does multiple victory laps.

Just think of all the important committees Ted Kennedy would be chairman of. And consider two more terrifying words – Speaker Pelosi. Does that sound like a solid wartime government to you?

Our enemies will not be taking the next two years off – of that you can be sure. Friends, we live in consequential times. To paraphrase a great man, you go to war with the Party you have, not the Party you wish you had.

And if that isn't enough of a spark, Tony Snow's commitment to embrace the Blogosphere in the White House ought to do it (interview by Hugh Hewitt):

HH:  Are you still reading the blogs?  You did when you were on the radio.

TS: Of course.

HH: Which ones are you reading, and are you reading them everyday?

TS:  I read lots of them, and I read lots of them everyday.  Do you really want me to do this?

HH: Yeah.  I want to know which ones you are checking up on.

TS: OK.  Well let's see.  I read you.  I look at Instapundit.  I look at Michelle Malkin.  I look at Powerline.

HH: How about the blogs of the left?  What are you reading on the left?

TS: Yeah, you know, I keep an eye on a handful.  I mean, the DailyKos and that kind of stuff.

HH: Now given that, on the night of the president's address, no sooner was he done than dozens of blogs were chewing up what he had to say. How does the White House press office deal with a 24/7 cycle that is relentless, Tony Snow?

TS: We are in the process of designating people to sort of do blog work. Because...that is one of the things I am doing at the press office is to get us up on the new media, and so I still haven't finished that task, but I am going to start designating people to keep an eye keep an eye out on certain blogs so we can figure out an effective strategy because, as you know, the great thing about a blog is that if you get some information out, the blogs are useful not only for infoprmation but also for various analyses. You get it into the bloodtream and boom, people start linking all across the universe and it is like one of those pictures of a crack in the ice, it just spiderwebs everywhere, only it does it at the speed of light...

Read the whole interview for the scoop on "the judicial nominations logjam".

Comments

[rich glasgow]

Republicans have become democrats. Dems have become socialists and conservatives are beside themselves. Still, if you can't vote FOR someone, you have to vote AGAINST the greator of two evils. It may be an unfortunate situation, but we can't allow the leftists to be in charge. It's bad enough that the RINO's are in charge.

[Cowgirl]

This is the first time I have visited your site.

I have enjoyed the visit, and will return again.

[Walter E. Wallis]

With a penstroke, Bush could have had an exclusive franchise to Iraq oil, with Haliburton the exclusive oilfield contractor.
As it is, Haliburton has not profited from Iraq, and is trying to sell that branch off.

[saus]

On a possible Iranian strike, it's not just a race against the weapons, but a race to get it done before reactors under construction come online. The period between reactors coming online and the time it takes to make weapons is often considered still viable in these crazy long time frames cited in the media like 7 years, that is not nec. the case. Those reactors are coming online a lot sooner than that!

[gringoman]

The socialists have arrived? When did they ever leave?

[Michael Galien]

I see that the socialists have arrived.

[gringoman]

What's shaping up here is a clarion call to tragi-farce. Some, understandably, feel an irresistible urge, a desperate desire to save the world (okay, civilization)while their own house is burning. Fine sentiments, despite a subtle myopia. (Nice theme for Aristophanes?)

Yes, these visionaries may see what the angry socialist goody-goodies cannot: the great issue of the day might be described as Islam vs. Planet Earth. And civilization must be saved from the fast-breeding lethal burqa hordes, who can be frenzied up easily by their cunning jihadi masters---isn't that the point? And what is the civilization to be "saved"? You do mean Western Civilization? Or is it more politically correct to leave it at "Civilization"?

And exactly who is to do the saving? Europe? Nouveau Chamberlain Europe? You do rely on the creditor of last resort, the "mighty" USA, no (when even the Euro humanitarians denouncing Guantanomo "torture" find their cities targeted)?

Which implies that you believe the Immigration Issue (if you prefer that term to 'The Third World Re-colonization of the U.S.) is too secondary. It's not primary enough to be factored into your "Clash' equation, right?

Like Bush in the Fortress, you have a sense of global mission. Yes, you might even disagree with his globalizing plans for sieve-like borders and stealth amnesty for the illiterate entitlement millions. But first things first, right? Sure, you might even see signs of fire in the Fortress, or at least you're beginning to smell smoke. But it's not yet a real blaze, is it? Bush doesn't think it is, and he's The Warrior of the moment, is he not?

So back to the Clash in the world, rather than the Clash at home. Surely they are not of equal importance. One is obviously more fateful than the other, no? After all, Vicente Fox isn't even trying for nukes. And how can you expect Americans to fight wars on two fronts, when the Libstream half refuses even to recognize one front, let alone fight on it?

Better just to fight the war that Bush has got. You don't want to add to it the war he will not fight, do you? That would be terribly complicating. So let it go, at least for now. Stick to his War #1. Be grateful to him for that. After all, the smoke in the Fortress isn't all that bad, maybe. Well, look, you aren't choking on it, are you? Some fine protective masks are on the market now, good for double-duty with bird flu or other outbreaks from the carriers of contagion. So stick to the war where Bush at least is your ally, not the other war where he's your enemy.

There's time to wait for the fire in the Fortress. Don't you think? The Jihadis know how to wait, don't they? Clearly, the Fortress is not yet ablaze. You can wait.

[MD]

For a different take on the supposed political virtues of Neville Chamberlain (both domestic and foreign policy), consult Donald Kagan's "On The Origins of War."

[Keith H.]

I find it a little hard to believe that you think Junior Bush, Cheney, Dumbsfeld and Con-man-lezza are generating endless war for our benefit. Like they see into the future and want to help us all out. Give me a ##ckin' break. The next time these War Pigs do something to benefit the people of this Country will be the first. These people are out to benefit the richest people in the country and their campaign donating, bribeing, no-bid contractors. They should be treated as the federal offenders that they are. But since our republi-thug congress allows endless law-breaking from their own party, that's not gonna happen, not just yet.
Maybe Junior Bush will have another conversation with God on his next vacation and get the scoop on how he will be doing God's will in the near future.

[rhamning]

Mr. Barnett's maturity and ability to maintain clarity in his thoughts allows him to see and articulate this truth. I can imagine that many are quietly thinking to themselves, "Of course. He's right." But, I can also imagine those same people also quietly wondering how they can make their point to the less than courageous and clearly disingenuous republicans who are so obviously working overtime to figure out how much they have to give their base to keep them satisfied without going too far and (in their increasingly out of touch brains)actually doing the right thing. I do not recall ever witnessing a more pathetic display of pandering, cowardice and self-serving dishonesty than what we are seeing from our elected leaders in the last 2-3 years.

[Michael Galien]

I am more on the side of Tapscott on this one, with one exception. I will come to that exception later.

As every law scholar knows, one needs to have certain principles, one is able to fall back on always. Those principles must triumph everything. If they don't you'll get lost.

This administration, no matter how you put it, does not adhere to traditional conservative values enough. As a conservative one cannot, in my opinion, support those non-conservative policies, just because the present Administration recognizes the danger of Islam.
There are conservative politicians out there, I am sure, who support conservative values and who recognize the dangers of Islamic extremism.

Anyway; one cannot support an administation, simply because they recognize that danger. This means that, in my opinion, conservatives should make extremely clear to the administration that it needs to change it ways, asap, if not they will withdraw their support immediately.

However; not voting is never a real option. My motto is; if you don't vote, don't complain.

Therefore, my view is that conservatives need to either support Republican conservative politicians this year, who clearly speak out against some of Bush's policies and who are brave enough to go in against Bush when they need to, or, this is going to sound strange for some of you, if those conservatives really believe that, no matter what, a Congress ruled by the Republican Party will never adhere to conservative values as long as Bush is in power, they need to vote for a conservative Dem. or for an independant.

[epaminondas]

It comes down to this .. at the national level the democrats suck worse.

I want a change but not to Pelosi and Reid

I want a change but not to a fig leaf withdrawal from an Iraq given over to the likes of Hassan Abbasi :
http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/2006/03/the_other_other_bad_guy.html
and the guy at the other end of the strings, Sadr

I want a change in leadership but not in order make certain we have no border, or move it to Missouri

I want change but not the kind in which being liked by those who have no interest in our saftey is any kind of goal

I want change change but not to those who think that Ahmadinejad shold be engaged not in a clash of civilizations, but as if in some kind of academic dispute as to when neaderthals really did die out, or when the Sphinx really was built.

I want change but not to those who automagically accept that since we believe in freedom of religion, religion can be free to teach pure hate and racism.

I want a great deal of change, but today not only can the democrats provide none of that, but on every single critical issue right now, certainly in the FOREIGN domain (which has the ascendacny right now, and for the forseeable future), they will make our situation in the world WORSE.

I hate that I will have to support those who have proved to be on some wrong paths, and INCOMPETENT, but there is no better alternative TODAY.

The fault for that lies with the MOVEON, SOROS, KOS ..Hillary is too conservative, LUNATICS.

Give me Harry Truman and I wil pull the dem lever ...TODAY
Give me Nancy Pelosi and I will vote republican every time.

Whose fault is that?