For the record
I've been noticing a meme in the some conservative blogs/vlogs (RedState, PJTV, etc.) which seeks to establish an either-or dilemma for Senator-elect Brown's victory, i.e., they're pitting the GOP against the Tea Party movement. I have no desire to engage in armchair quarterbacking after such a stunning victory, nor do I wish to beat the dead horse of the GOP's faults or the dead pony of the Tea Party movement's blind spots. I merely want to point out that on the same day I heard about Scott Brown's rising poll numbers on the Michael Medved show I received a call from the National Republican Senatorial Committee asking for money for Brown. After verifying with them that every penny I contributed would be used to help him pull off a victory, I gave them my Visa card number. The idea that if Republican party officials don't show up with bullhorns then they shouldn't receive any credit is absurd, especially in a state like Massachusetts where independents and Democrats (22%) helped him to carry the day.
So we should give credit where credit is due. Yes, it's true that grassroots mobilizing was more on display in the race, especially in regards to the contrasting of homemade Brown signs and pickup trucks with Coakley's last-minute fundraiser in the Sonoma Wine Bar. But to the eager beavers who recently discovered politics, you might be surprised at the wealth of strategic information which can be provided by a large political organization like the GOP. Any candidate would be a fool not to take advantage of this affiliation and rely on their "ground game" alone. It's a both-and strategic alliance which hopefully will continue throughout the year and provide more victories in November.
Excellent post, Pauli. I get the resentment of many conservatives towards the GOP establishment, but it can be taken to absurd lengths sometimes.
ReplyDeleteRight. Hopefully a coalition can be set up whereby the GOP can be held to conservative principles by the grassroots movements and the grassroots movements can be buoyed in reality by the GOP establishment.
ReplyDeleteby a similar token, it would be nice if conservatives stopped mindlessly championing wall street, which they mistakenly believe is been a bastion of free market capitalism. I say this b/c Obama's new proposal regulating banks is not all bad, contrary to what some would have us believe (that this new proposal exists just to promote class envy, etc)
ReplyDeleteK, your point re: Wall St is well taken. However, my problem with Obama is not so much who he wants to regulate but who he DOESN'T want to regulate, e.g., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GMAC and Chrysler.... by their nature as gov't entities they will kept be on life support indefinitely. That's why hearing the big guy rail on about "too big to fail" made me laugh.
ReplyDeleteyeah, seems like he wants fannie and freddie to occupy the field which would be even worse for the economy than the current state of affairs. However, if he messes with wall street and weakens that alliance that can only be a good thing for conservatives. Either wall street lessens in influence or rebels entirely
ReplyDeleteContra to Pauli, IMO the problem with Obama's regulation of banks (or any industry) is not so much who he does not want to regulate, but the reason he wants to regulate in the first place.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that he wants to regulate in order to control, and to pick winners and losers (see F. Hayek and The Road to Serfdom). Which means that regulations will be toward that end, not toward the alleged problem -- and thus not fixing the true problem but re-making America, as he said he wanted to do.
I would like someone to point out what regulations were not in place that, if they had been in place, would have prevented the financial problems. Because that would be a starting place if the goal were in fact to prevent such problems.
Rather, from Obama we continue to see small-f fascism. Businesses are able to do business but only if they do things his way. If you're not at the table, you're on the menu.