Wading Through the Ideological Muck

“Agree with her or not, she seems like a sweet kid who means well.” HotAir.com’s Allah Pundit recently Tweeted this reassuring proclamation to his followers. The subject: Meghan McCain. The context: Her political philosophy. Surely, Allah Pundit’s right. Meghan does, indeed, have good intentions. But it is her somewhat anti-conservative viewpoints about which direction the Republican Party should head that drive a wedge between her and her constituents.

In reality, Meghan’s perspectives comprise just one of the many tenants competing for GOP dominance in a smorgasbord of ideological muck. Conservatives and Republicans are embroiled in a high-stakes battle-of -the-ideals, with all sides vying to capture the party’s heart and soul.

Unfortunately, some conservatives have forgotten that we live in a constitutional democracy. If you’ll recall, Laura Ingram was so incensed over Meghan’s political proclamations that she called her a “useful idiot” and made fun of her physical appearance. Just as Miss California had every right to voice her perspective during Sunday’s Miss USA pageant, so does Meghan McCain have the right to express where she stands on her party’s sociopolitical alignment (I bring up this totally random side-note to remind conservatives not to perpetuate a double standard when criticizing “rogue conservatives.” This is America. May we all speak freely).

Two, Contrasting Perspectives

So, what’s the big deal about Meghan, you ask? She describes herself as a Progressive Republican. Others, like political strategist Patrick Ruffini, would likely counter efforts to bestow such an anti-conservative title upon the party. Ruffini sees a need within the movement to return to conservatism – an effort to clarify party roots, while infusing the values and ethics that made the Republican Party so appealing to the Reaganites.

In truth, this brief description is less that a totalistic view of what is occurring within the GOP; Meghan and Patrick merely represent two opposing sides, with a middle-range so diverse it couldn’t possibly be captured in mere paragraphs. Ideological stances are surely in battle, but I’d hardly call it a full-fledged war. The Republican Party has lost step and those within it are attempting to repair its standing. The point of contention surrounds defining a literal meaning for “repair” and crafting an action plan that the majority of the party can embrace.

This past week on Twitter, Patrick said, “We can be more conservative AND more aggressive / dynamic / forward focused. These things are not in tension.” In contrast, Meghan McCain recently wrote, “I consider myself a progressive Republican…” and claimed that “…being a Republican is about as edgy as Donny Osmond.” Talk about a difference of opinion.

The two contrasting perspectives define, in a macro sense, the issues facing the party. While I am a big believer that current perspective is important in determining next steps, exploring the past is the best way to predict what’s to come in politics. A recent history lesson shows us that moving in the opposite ideological direction isn’t necessarily indicative of future success. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the democrats. Following its 2004 electoral defeat, the Democratic Party moved so far left that it’s currently dangling off a cliff over a sea of socialistic decree. Barack Obama’s nomination and subsequent election is the literal manifestation of this reality.

Clinging to the Outer Fringes

Aside from his overt inclination for “spreading the wealth” and his less than moderate positioning on issues like abortion and diplomatic relations with rogue nations like Iran, from 2004 and 2008, Barack Obama distinguished himself as the most liberal member of the United States Senate (or, as the Democrat’s like to say, he earned the title of “Miss Congeniality”). That’s like a baby learning to run before taking first steps. Or, to put it in a more realistic perspective: When a party embraces a candidate whose ADA rating beats Ted Kennedy’s, one can safely say that said party is clinging to the outer fringes of liberalism. Barack Obama is the most left-leaning president America has elected to date. Hands down.

The GOP is now the Democratic Party post-Kerry. This in mind, the notion that becoming more “liberal” will redefine the party in a positive way just doesn’t make sense. Unless Republicans want to see a split that rivals the Catholic-Protestant disunion, I’d advise against such a move.

If you follow the Democratic model, you’ll see a party that elevated another ADA-favorite and a liberal, yet average guy — John Kerry — to take on George W. Bush during a time of relative domestic and international instability (2004). Following electoral defeat and a steady increase in discontent, the Democrats saw a clear opportunity in 2008 to make “change” through the nomination of the most left-minded candidate they could find. Enter, Barack Obama.

A State of Shear Dormancy

When I hear the debate about how the GOP should react, I wonder: Have some Republicans been in a dormant state? Are drugs that induce sense-retardant inclinations being consumed without their knowledge? Don’t they get it? From health care to abortion rights, Barack Obama thinks we’ve done it all wrong. His self-proclaimed mission is to reboot any and all conservatively-influenced policies and his prescription for success is a hyper dose of Democratic doctrine. Meanwhile, Americans are encouraged to stand by while he continues to perform euthanasia on the financial markets.

What simply doesn’t make sense from a strategic or logical standpoint is the idea that becoming Democratic Light will equate to a positive reformation for the Republicans in 2010, 2012 and beyond. Did the Democrats make themselves more conservative, or more moderate for that matter following their 2004 defeat? The most recent bailout and tax code changes should answer that question for you.

As much as I believe Meghan McCain to be an effective leader and someone who does, indeed, deeply care for her country (she is John McCain’s daughter, after all), I deeply disagree with some of her insinuations that the party must move left for sake of survival. Retracing our conservative steps is the answer to formulating a true contingency plan. America doesn’t need a more liberal GOP; she needs a more rational and doctrine-abiding one.

To clarify, this means looking at where the GOP has been in an effort to retrace and correct party wrongs. This process transcends architectural tweaks to the party; it requires recapturing the movement’s heart and soul. It’s not about gay marriage – or abortion (to name only two controversial social issues). This is not to say that conservatives cannot and should not hold opinions about these issues. Everyone is entitled to individual perspective (yes, even Meghan McCain). But, if we truly want to save capitalism, the conservative heart must shift focus to the most pressing issue of our time: America’s economic decline. Fiscal conservatism is the answer.

Conservatives, for what it’s worth, have stuck solidly to the structures surrounding America’s social paradigms, but we have neglected and abandoned our small government mantra. We have allowed our own party members to engage in excessive spending, while sitting back and watching our economic doctrine lay dormant. The fiscal irresponsibility and vampire-esque future-feeding that the current administration is engaging in is a dangerous detriment to our democracy. The GOP needs to retract irresponsible spending policies and make good on its claim that human beings are the primary benefactors and architects of their own destiny.

It’s time to truly embrace small government ideologies. It is not time to abandon our principles in pursuit of a party construct that already exists. What made the GOP so powerful was its embracement of important social and economic issues. In keeping in step, the only natural reaction is to return to our roots, while making good on both areas of political inquiry.

Liberals were singing President Obama’s praises last month when he overturned Bush-era restrictions on federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research.  Unfortunately for the left, this move has been post ceded with restrictive regulation on how these cells may be used – a relatively welcome game-changer for most conservatives.

While destruction of human life for scientific benefit is surely reprehensible, the newly minted restrictions are paramount in that they represent Obama’s first attempt to remain somewhat neutral on a domestic issue of importance.

From the relatively unpopular bailout, which was pushed into law despite Republican discontent, to incessant acts of misgovernment, this administration has taken somewhat of an anti-conservative stance on a cornucopia of social and political issues.  And while I still remain opposed to tax-payer funded embryonic stem cell research, the results of the administration’s stance could be playing out in a much more detrimental way.  According to FOX News,

“Draft guidelines released by the National Institutes of Health reflect rules with broad congressional support, excluding more controversial sources such as cells derived from embryos created just for experiments.”

Despite Obama’s overt attempt at leftist appeasement through the overturning of President Bush’s executive order, it appears the president is considering the rally cries of the opposing party on this issue.

Perhaps this newfound openness to issues associated with the right to life movement is reflective of the synergy many conservatives are creating in their attempt to rally together against those who would seek to pursue looser restrictions on abortion (as if the words “restriction” and “abortion” exist conversantly in Obama’s legislative agenda). 

It is also quite possible that Obama recognizes his need to respect a massive portion of the populace’s rejection to his anti-life stances.  Either way, this is somewhat of a step in the right direction.

Some scientists are, no doubt, disappointed.  While many had hoped for no restrictions on taxpayer-funded embryonic research, the National Institutes of Health is requiring that all cells used must come from “…clinic embryos that otherwise would be thrown away.”

Aside from Obama’s first, and thus far only, compromise, the most ironic portion of the new regulatory system is as follows (as per FOX News):

“The guidelines also demand that the woman or couple who donate the original embryo give proper informed consent. There are other options for such donors, such as donating the embryo to another infertile woman, and all must be explained. The donation must be voluntary, without pressure from scientists.”

These regulations are surely a step in the right direction.  With many claiming that embryonic stem cells are a hopeless endeavor, and with scientists finding more useful and less controversial methods of using and extracting stem cells (from amniotic fluid, by adapting adult stem cells, from umbilical chords, and without harming a fetus), one wonders why Democrats are behind the times in their incessant urge to pursue this method.

Still, it is encouraging to note that the government is not deregulating to the point of no return.  While I am hopeful that common sense and logic lead the president and Congressional Democrats toward the realization of more optimal and viable options, I’ll take this compromise and pray for more.

And as ironic as it stands, I must congratulate President Obama for making his first attempt at moderate governance.  Now, let’s hope he does the same in other sociopolitical realms.

The New York governor’s push for gay marriage tops this week’s legislative charts.  Earlier today, The New York Times reported Patterson’s intention to unveil legislation in support of homosexual unions.

According to the governor, pushing for this legislation is a natural progression. As per the Times, he said, “The timing was always right…It’s just who is willing to take that step. And I am.” Considering his grim approval ratings, the move may be viewed as a strategic shift aimed at appeasing leftist voters.

Going back mere months, Patterson was catching heat from the left for his U.S. Senate pick. He selected Kirsten Gillibrand to fill former Sen. Hillary Clinton’s seat, a move that was deemed unpopular by some liberals who viewed some of Gillibrand’s more conservative stances unfavorably. Now, when the governor needs all of the political support he can get, he is taking on a tone that is undoubtedly more Democratically-pleasing.

Although he will surely gain support from the left, many New Yorkers on both sides of the aisle are disengaged with his policies following proposals for the “fat tax,” state levies on music downloads and other legislative gems.

Also, it’s important to consider the impending effect the affirmation of his stance might have over his relationship with conservatives. According to the Times, “The governor also risks alienating socially conservative voters at a time when he can least afford to drive away any more support.”

Patterson’s most recent actions might be construed as partisan, although one could also claim that his selection of Gillibrand, teamed with his support for gay marriage, provide an eclectic, somewhat moderate, take on a cornucopia of sociopolitical issues.

Either way, it is difficult to deny political motive in his timing, as he has had many months to make such a declaration, but has chosen to do so at the height of his unpopularity. Nonetheless, his announcement will be welcome news to gay marriage proponents both in-state and nation-wide who continue the fight for gay marriage.

It’s practically impossible to tell the difference between The New York Times and The Huffington Post.  Aside from occasional whit (sorry “Grey Lady,” but you lose the battle on that one), the outlets mirror one another.

Sure, The Huffington Post doesn’t come in print (and who knows how much longer theTimes will), but the ideologically-driven content one finds in both outlets is leftist – and that’s being kind.  Today, as I was perusing the Times’ site, I came across an extremely curious headline: “Job Seekers at the Library, in Obama’s Footsteps.”

My initial thought was, “Ugh, another piece praising stimulus spending,” as I figured the library was offering something flagrantly expensive that Obama and his minions had crafted (like free massages for those seeking employment, or some other irrelevant and audacious expense – think “bailout”).  Sadly, I was wrong.  After reading the article, being mad at Obama was impossible.  See, the Times had aimlessly inserted his name in an article that had absolutely nothing to do with him – whatsoever.  Misleading?  I think so. 

Here’s my theory – American media haven’t yet gotten over their blatant Obama fawning, which is why an article intended to educate New Yorkers about an amazing, new job-search tool invokes the president’s name.  The article commences with the following lede: “Jobless New Yorkers are being invited to follow in the footsteps of Barack Obama, starting at a Midtown branch of the public library.”

To provide some context, the New York Public Library created “Job Search Central,” an excellent resource that will surely help New Yorkers find employment.  That said, how this translates into the exuberance the paper attempts to invoke in its insinuation that using said system will allow us to “…follow in the footsteps of Barack Obama…” is perplexing.

According to the Times,

“In an interview four years ago with American Libraries magazine, Mr. Obama recounted how a librarian at the mid-Manhattan branch of the library helped him locate the organization in Chicago that hired him as a community organizer in the mid-1980s.” 

The next lines read, “That was before looking for work became a predominantly electronic exercise.”

Almost in-step, the Times sort of admits that it has drawn a weak comparison between the new, technologically-advanced system and the old, no-frills job search tool (i.e. an elderly librarian, most likely) Obama used to find his community organizer position.  Then why invoke his name at all?  I’m sure librarians have helped everyone at one point or another.  Obama gets mentioned for talking to a librarian and Bush got coverage for choking on a pretzel.  Go figure.

The piece is reflective of a love-obsessed high school girl who constantly talks about her crush.  We get it, media.  You love him.  He’s your golden boy.  Enough already! 

But in all seriousness, the library does, indeed, have an excellent resource for those of you out there who are seeking employment.  As reported by the Times, the library’s director claims that about one-third of its 1,900 daily visitors are looking for positions in some fashion.  Clearly, the resource is extremely valuable, especially considering the current fiscal climate.

Thank you, New York Times, for the heads up, but next time leave out Obama.  Thanks!

On Friday, April 3, New York State Assembly Republican Leader James Tedisco stepped down from his post to place a more intent focus on monitoring votes cast in his recent Congressional bid against Democrat Scott Murphy.

This resignation, alone, shows the force of the political capital associated with the House seat recently vacated by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. Last week, I wrote about the expectations both Democrats and Republicans have regarding the contested position.

While the Congressional battle rages on, in Albany, Republicans have nominated a new minority leader– Assemblyman Brian Kolb, a state representative from district 129.

According to the Poughkeepsie Journal, Kolb was “…unanimously selected for the post by the 41-member Republican conference.” Also mentioned and reaffirmed by the Journal is the massive democratic lead in number of assemblymen and women (109-41) – a scary disparity for anyone hoping for Republican rejuvenation.

However, uniformity in selection is a good sign that Republicans are cohesively supportive of Kolb – a boundedness Republicans have been missing since well before the 2008 presidential election. Although New York State’s Assembly represents only a small microcosm of the United States when it comes to political occurrence, this development may be significant in that it may be signaling the beginnings of a more united front.

Aside from the unanimity shown in selecting Kolb, there are a number of factors that point to a party focused on resurgence. This, of course, must be led by the assembly’s new GOP leadership; so far, Kolb is showing the proper mindset.

In an effort to offer the GOP caucus a consistent leadership model, Kolb has stated that he will not run for Congress next year. With devotion in mind, Republicans can be hopeful that Kolb will ascertain the ability to lead the legislative charge against the assembly’s doubly-large Democratic majority.

According to the Gotham Gazette, “Tedisco was known for his theatrics and headline-grabbing stunts but Kolb is expected to take a more strategic approach.” This may have implications for possible party growth or disability, depending on how Kolb engages his constituents.

Only time will tell if the recent power change will help or hurt the Republican cause.

Both Democrats and Republicans are looking at tonight’s electoral result as a potential indicator of party success. Individuals on both sides of the political aisle are attaching significant capital to the race that will inevitably find a replacement for Kristen E. Gillibrand, the Representative who recently filled former Sen. Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat.

According to last week’s numbers, Democratic candidate, Scott Murphy, is leading Republican candidate, James N. Tedisco. But, as Americans have learned, early polling isn’t always indicative of what will truly happen once the ballots are tallied (remember the media’s coverage 2004 election?).

This election does, indeed, hold great consequence for both parties. For the Democrats, a win signifies yet another vote – and, most importantly, a further deterioration of what little system of “checks and balances” is left within the federal government (Democratic rule is running amok, in case you haven’t noticed). For the GOP, a win might inspire the confidence needed to rebound and the inspiration to win back more seats in 2010.

Listening to liberal pundits talk about a potential Murphy win practically inundates audiences with a level of irony unseen since Biden’s latest gaffe (luckily for America, Biden is so inflicted with gaffisism that one rarely has to wait between flaps).

As liberal commentators chalk up a hypothetical Murphy win to Obama’s “superb” leadership (as though a Democrat replacing a Democrat would constitute a historic victory), one cannot help but chuckle. After all, conservatives have been bellowing (considering the far-left policies America has been inflicted with, not loudly enough) in response to Obama’s inexperienced meanderings. The liberal response? “Obama hasn’t been in office long enough to judge him! Bush left him with a horrible situation!”

So let’s translate: Liberals believe that a Tedisco loss is predicated upon Obama’s idyllic leadership, but they do not believe that Obama has been in office long enough to rightfully criticize. Something doesn’t add up here, hence the irony ensues.

The New York Times sums the hype up, appropriately (irony, yet again) as follows:

“Even before a vote was cast, the contest was freighted with all kinds of political significance — an early test of President Obama’s political strength, a verdict on the stimulus package, a do-or-die moment for a new Republican national chairman, an early sign of how the 2010 midterm elections are going to go (never mind that they are 20 months way).”

But, let’s be real. New York is only one state (and let’s remember, this is only one district) and viewpoints and perspectives held within district boundaries will, in no way, capture the sociopolitical landscape that is sure to evolve over the next two years. As reported by the Times, former Virginia congressman, Tom David, says it best:

“The first thing you can count on is this thing is going to be way overspun. I don’t think it portends a thing for the midterms. But it emboldens whoever wins.”

While Obama and RNC Chairman, Michael Steele, have thrown their names and campaigning power behind the candidates, at the end of the day it is New Yorkers who will most directly benefit or see deficits in the quality of their lives as a result of the election. Let’s hope Tedisco pulls it off. After all, New York state needs all the red blood she can get.

Education is the greatest civil rights issue in America today.  I’ve reported on this before, as it is truly concerning.  New York State spends nearly $15,000 per pupil, yet the majority of the money never seems to make its way into the classroom.  With the current financial crisis in mind, New York City is scraping for money, as many teachers and education department staff fear cuts.

One wonders where all the money goes. Amid the budgetary drama came last week’s report that the city had allegedly misspent education monies.  According to the Gotham Gazette:

"A new report from councilmember and public advocate candidate Bill de Blasio shows the city’s Department of Education spent $57.3 million on “unnecessary” tests, courier services and an expanded press office."

De Blasio’s argument is that the city is spending more than required by state and federal regulations.  In an interview with WNYC, he said, "We’re going far beyond the federal requirements and the basics and spending a lot more on additional testing and pre-testing that we don’t need in the middle of a fiscal crisis."

According to a WNYC reporter, de Blasio complained about a number of massive expenses, including an $80 million data-tracking computer network, more than $20 million a year in student testing, and a $1.3 million communications budget.  Ironically, de Blasio is a Democrat, so I’m surprised to hear spending complaints coming from his camp (surprised, but nonetheless relieved, that someone agrees that it’s time for fiscal restraint).

Perhaps the most perplexing response came from a spokesman for Chancellor Joel Klein (chancellor of the New York City school system).  Aside from the expected response — that de Blasio overstated some of his numbers — WNYC reported that the spokesman "…noted that President Obama has called on districts to invest more in data systems to help drive student performance."

In this instance the spokesperson is saying (pardon my translation), "Hey, Obama told us to spend some money on tracking, so the $80 million is totally legit."  Wrong.  A president’s word doesn’t pave the way for an $80 million tracking system, especially when a district is financially strained.

This appears to be yet another symptom of liberal spending.  At the least, it’s bad judgment.  If children don’t have the materials they need in the classroom and lack basic educational necessity, what good will an $80 million tracking system do?  Obama is literally running our economy into the ground with new spending galore, and a spokesperson actually had the nerve to say, in simple terms, "Obama said it was okay.”

It’s simple, New Yorkers. If we don’t have the money, we can’t spend! But, with an average of $15,000 per student coming into the system, one wonders why our children are still lacking necessities in many of the state’s public schools.

It’s time we ensure a better education for NYC students.  de Blasio — thank you for stepping up to the plate.  Let’s hope others, regardless of party, work accordingly to shed some light on alleged instances of fiscal irresponsibility.

I have officially joined forces for a new podcast with RedCounty.com!  Yesterday, we released the second episode of “The Scorekeeper.” As host, I focus on the GOP’s winner and loser of the week.  There can only be one on each side, so the competition is tough.  But, if we’re going to talk about renewing the party, we have to delve deep to find the heroes who will help us progress and the zeros who are dragging us down!

Aside from my new weekly show (available every Monday), be sure to check out Red County’s new, slick design, great content and the other four shows that come from some great conservative minds!  Click here to check out “The Scorekeeper” or surf over the Red County’s main page.

On Monday, a Brooklyn judge ruled in favor of allowing 17-year-olds to obtain the morning after pill without a prescription.  And according to The New York Daily News, the judge ordered the federal government to consider providing the pill to women of all ages.

The ruling came as the result of a lawsuit filed against the Federal Drug Administration by The Center for Reproductive Rights.  Apparently, over-the-counter for 18-year-olds wasn’t good enough for CRR.  Perhaps the most ironic statement comes from the CRR Web site, where the group’s president, Nancy Northup, released the following statement:

“Today’s ruling is a tremendous victory for all Americans who expect the government to safeguard their health not undermine it.”

And there’s more:

“Emergency contraception is proven safe and effective and today, we have succeeded in expanding access to 17-year-olds and are one step closer to making it fully available to all women, including young women for whom the barriers – and the benefits – are so great.”

It seems the main concern in this case is “science” over “policy.”  Of course, the CRR was angry over Bush-era policy that restricted the dissemination of the morning after pill.  But regardless of ideological affiliation, why is it that an organization that claims to have such a deep concern for women advocate a measure that many believe to be dangerous to the health of the women who participate?

Even more disturbing is the idea that the pill should be made available to all women, regardless of age.  According to the Daily News, “One plaintiff in the suit demanded Plan B should be available for her 13-year-old daughter.”

In reality, if one were to consider “science” over “policy,” he or she would — at the least — mull over the social scientific issues surrounding young America.  Even a cursory look provides enough evidence to safely show that political opinion wasn’t the only element at the heart of Bush-era restrictions.  In the end, placing a high value on over-the-counter, morning after solutions will have a common sense, negative affect over both women and society

In a world replete with promiscuity and teenagers who engage in sexual acts at younger ages than ever before, one would think that the use and promotion of the morning after pill would be handled with more caution.

In addition to the obvious sociological affects, biological science teaches that there may very well be bodily damages that accompany the use of the pill.  According to one source,

“There is concern that the very high dose of hormone taken in the ‘morning-after’ pill might ‘kick-start’ cervical cancer if a woman is already infected with human papilloma virus.”

Some studies even show an increase in abortions as Plan B has become more accessible.

With sources citing findings that there very well may be sociological and biological damage to individuals and societies that expand the use of the morning after pill, why are the potential dangers being ignored?

Back in 1999, The Population Research Institute had this to say about the morning after pill’s availability over the counter:

“OTC/MAP will cause a dramatic increase in rates of sexually transmitted diseases. In Washington State, and in Sweden, where MAP has been made widely available, rates of STD infections have been skyrocketing since MAP was introduced.”

Let’s hope the effects are nowhere near as bad as some have predicted. Send retardant? I think so.

“Okay, I was really hoping that I was going to get that role in the Real World, but then I realized that, well, they don’t like plus-sized models.  They only like the women who look a certain way.  And on the 50th anniversary of Barbie, I really have something to say.” - Laura Ingraham on Meghan McCain

Laura Ingraham – your insidious attack on Meghan McCain exemplifies, with surprising potency,  all that is currently awry within the Republican party.  As a young conservative who is active in the movement, I find it increasingly difficult to respect those of you who confront differing opinions with negative language, devoid of any substantive content. 

Rather than focusing on your take on the elements that comprise the heart of conservatism when responding to Meghan, you resorted to disrespectful and unfounded distractions (i.e. making fun of her weight, calling her a valley girl and insinuating she has no place within the party).  Where are the words of encouragement, theories and other prescriptions for future GOP successes?  Where is the logical presentation of ideas — or, at the least, a sensical list that explains why, going moderate, is not going to work for the GOP? 

As we have endured losses in both the 2006 midterm elections and the 2008 presidential election, one would think that a united determination to mend the party would be undertaken – especially by those of you who have the power to encourage a mass conservative populace. 

With your millions of listeners, your star-power should be used for the good of the party.  Instead, your attack on Meghan shows that you’re willing to use your notoriety to intimidate those who hold differing viewpoints.  While you have surely done much for the movement, this particular instance makes it difficult for me (and I’m sure many others) to see you in the same light.

You called Meghan a “useful idiot,” but it is you and the others who share in these tactics who are the “useful idiots.”  It was your choice to abandon logic in pursuit of ultra-liberesque, fourth-grade mockery — not Meghan’s. 

Yes, the media are predominantly liberal.  And yes, they target conservatives.  But in this case, criticism of your words is well-founded.  Surely we on the right have much to complain about when it comes to coverage, especially during political campaign cycles, but we cannot use the “media victim” card every time we make a mistake or say something off-color.  Since you made your comments, you have continuously blamed the media.  But, you’re the one who’s responsible. As conservatives, if we are going to hold ourselves to high standards of character and moral fabric, we’re going to be judged — especially by the media — that much harder.

Your words were flat-out mean and unnecessary.  Liberals are giggling like schoolgirls, thinking, “Hey!  Look at those Republicans.  They lost the last two elections, their party is in disarray and the incessant infighting will enable us to Barack our way to the top again in 2010 and 2012!”  

Wake up, Laura.  Our nation and our party are at a great crossroads.  The result of the latter will have a lasting impact on the fate of the former.  As a conservative, I know the value of utilizing logic, statistics and when necessary – qualitative analysis – to verbalize and corroborate my theories and sociological viewpoints.  I thought you recognized this value as well.

Since when do conservatives need to resort to such lowly tactics to make a point?  We used to be the party of ideas.  We never heard Reagan call his leftist critics “plus-sized” while he single-handedly toppled the Soviet Union.  We certainly never heard Lincoln call Democratic slaveholders “valley girls,” (or whatever equivalent existed way back when) as he fought feverishly to restore the union.

Furthermore, as members of the ultra left have worked incessantly to push ideological diversity out of our schools and media, your comments aim to do the same, as you used body image and baseless insults to insinuate that someone whom you disagree with has no place in our party.

Laura, you don’t have the right, nor the privilege to decide who may or may not be considered a Republican.  Our party will not progress until the ideologues who clog the system revert back to the sense and sound knowledge they once used to instill the conservative cause.

Additionally, how you can claim to care so deeply about image issues, while inadvertently making fun of a woman’s weight is practically unfathomable.  I agree with Meghan: “There’s no place for weight criticism of women in 2009.” 

All brands of Republican deserve a voice in the ongoing discussion about renewing the conservative cause.  If we, as conservatives, are going to call out liberal attempts to squelch free speech, it’s important we do the same when we see conservatives waging baseless attacks on peers with whom they have ideological differences.  If we want to fix the party, members must be held to higher standards of transparency and accountability. 

If you want to intelligently refute Meghan’s comments, go for it.  After all, I don’t agree with all of the points she’s been making.  That said, 2006 and 2008 showed us that we need a renewal.  If we don’t let everyone weigh in, we’re going to lose out on a vast marketplace of ideas.  Sure, we may not like every ideal we hear, but to act as though each perspective we disagree with lacks merit is to truly damage our party’s growth and revitilization.