Relax
By Mitch Berg
I’m a conservative. I’m pretty ideological about it (which manifests itself in the fact that I write a conservative blog).
But I’m no purist. I try to be pretty tough about my reasons for departing from my ideology – and let’s be honest, it’s easy for me, personally, to be pretty uncompromising, because I neither govern nor represent anyone. Just like all the other ideological purists – the Libertarians, the Greens and the Constitution Party.
Being a purist is the mark of those who sit in splendid, uncompromising isolation, unhampered by ever having to worry about governing anything.
Brown votes for Obama’s “jobs” bill:
A month after being crowned the darling of national conservatives, Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts is being branded “Benedict Brown” for siding with Democrats in favor of a jobs bill endorsed by the Obama administration.
Like the four other GOP senators who joined him, the man who won the late Democrat Edward Kennedy’s seat says it’s about jobs, not party politics. And that may be good politics, too.
In Massachusetts, it just might.
The four other GOP senators who broke ranks – Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, George Voinovich of Ohio and Christopher “Kit” Bond of Missouri – also were criticized on Tuesday. But Brown was the big target on conservative Web sites, talk shows and even the Facebook page his campaign has promoted as an example of his new-media savvy.
“We campaigned for you. We donated to your campaign. And you turned on us like every other RINO,” said one writer, using the initials for “Republican-In-Name-Only.”
Buncombe. He’s a moderate guy in a whackdoodle liberal state.
And as big a waste as this “jobs” bill is, it’s small potatoes compared to Obamacare and the various stimulus and bailout bills – which Brown campaigned against.
Do RINOs exist? Sure.
The new senator responded by calling into a Boston radio station.
“I’ve taken three votes,” Brown said with exasperation. “And to say I’ve sold out any particular party or interest group, I think, is certainly unfair.”
The senator said that by the time he seeks re-election in two years, he will have taken thousands of votes.
“So, I think it’s a little premature to say that,” he said.
Of course it is.
And let’s face it – Brown is going to have a more centrist record than a John Kyl; he represents Massachusetts. We knew he wasn’t an orthodox conservative. But let’s not talk about “RINOs” until he’s been in office 6-12 months, or until he squibs out on a promise, like Obamacare.
The bad thing about this, of course, is that the left is going to try to use this as a wedge between the GOP and the Tea Party. To succeed, the GOP needs to share some goals with the Tea Party; the Tea Party, in turn, needs to live Ronald Reagan’s admonition; if you agree with someone on 70% of things, you need to ignore the other 30% and get along with things.
February 24th, 2010 at 9:55 am
NRO has a good point (and echos what you say above)…..Brown voted for a stupid useless “jobs” bill that spends money to do nothing. But this bill is not going to destroy the country. Now Brown can say he is the moderate independent from Mass. Gives him cover when he votes with Republicans on the really big bills (health care, taxes, etc). Remember, he has to win re-election in Mass in a couple of years.
February 24th, 2010 at 10:41 am
Perhaps I am a purist … insofar as I don’t want to climb into the tepid, gray bathwater that’s supposed to pass for moderation and electability. But while the purists supposedly don’t have to worry about governing, show me where the Republican Party has had any such concern. From what I’ve seen it isn’t about governing but “winning”. The Tea Party is a fire under that bathtub and the waters are already roiling.
The country has had 20 years of “lefty-lite” and one year’s exposure to true-left philosophy and maybe, just maybe, it’s seeing that there has to be some another way.
February 24th, 2010 at 10:57 am
NW, would you rather have Coakley in that seat? Sometime the lesser of 2 evils is the only choice.
February 24th, 2010 at 11:11 am
“From what I’ve seen it isn’t about governing but “winning”. ”
Can’t do one without the other.
Mark Kennedy was a wonderful conservative candidate, but Klobuchar handed him his ass. Now he doesn’t govern and she does.
There was a Tea Party option to Scott Brown, but this probably would have led to a Coackly victory.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/us/politics/15massachusetts.html
February 24th, 2010 at 11:37 am
But what good is winning if you won’t govern?
February 24th, 2010 at 11:58 am
to keep the other guy from governing
February 24th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
It’s a trade off.
Here’s a good example from the 3rd CD.
Ramstad won his elections by 20% without breaking a sweat, but on governance he wasn’t a strong conservative.
Paulsen won by 8% after working his tail off and he governs noticeably to the right of Ramstad, but not quite far enough to the right for purists.
Could somebody like Bachmann win in the 3rd? Doubtful. Could Paulsen vote more conservatively and still win in the 3rd? Maybe in 2010, but maybe not in 2012.
If you live in Massachusetts (or Minnesota), you do the best you can do.
February 24th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
I will say that Pawlenty has governed, using his veto and unallotment last session and effectively holding the line so far this session in the face of all the approbation that can be hurled at him by the hamster party and their rodent-cousins in the media. The question might be would he have otherwise had the nerve to do this without the heat generated by conservatives and the TP? Are legislators finding a backbone or merely an opportunity?
February 24th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
NW, we could have Governor Mike Hatch look at it that way
February 24th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
to keep the other guy from governing
But what we’ve seen is that the so-called Republicans “govern” just like the other guys anyway.
February 24th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
NW, would you rather have Coakley in that seat?
You mean Dede Scozzafava wasn’t available?
My point is that the GOP leadership of it’s own volition and using Conventional Wisdom put up Scozzafava in the race, even though she was to the left of her Dem opponent on some issues. Why even have two parties if they both act the same? The GOP and Conventional Wisdom didn’t think Scott Brown had a chance in Massachusetts until the end, and it wasn’t the GOP “machine” that was responsible for his success. The “purists” ousted Dede late and still nearly got a last-minute conservative candidate into that seat. Both parties can spin the outcome of that race however they want, but if both parties aren’t sweating behind closed doors over what happened there then they’re truly disconnected from the people and the issues of the day.
The only way to count having Scozzafava-beans in the seat as a win is if your scoring system is based totally on the number of R’s and D’s after the name. By any other measure, it’s a loss for principle. And if you’re not going to fight over principle, why bother to fight at all? There are a number of people energized right now to vote and act, and they’re not doing it for the glory of the R’s … or for Conventional Wisdom.