Banning the Birthers
Jon Henke thinks it’s time for the Right to throw out the lunatics:
In the 1960’s, William F. Buckley denounced the John Birch Society leadership for being “so far removed from common sense” and later said “We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner.”
The Birthers are the Birchers of our time, and WorldNetDaily is their pamphlet. The Right has mostly ignored these embarrassing people and organizations, but some people and organizations inexplicably choose to support WND through advertising and email list rental or other collaboration.
Several of us — notably Melissa Clouthier, Doug Mataconis, and Matt Sheffield — bandied this about on Twitter yesterday. And while I’m still inclined to agree with Jon that the Republican Party and organized conservative movement should distance itself from the yahoos, I’m not sure how much energy it’s worth. Aren’t we better off, as Melissa suggests, in focusing “on a positive message all can unite around?”
Casting out the infidels will likely not have much benefit and comes with quite a bit of cost.
As Steve Benen notes, the RNC is among those advertising on WND. And, while I’d love to see them not legitimate the loons by sponsoring their websites, it’s true that loons vote. And they’re not going to go away just because the RNC doesn’t give them any money. Indeed, it may well just prove to them that both parties are corrupt.
The more important criticism is that Jerome Corsi, the loon that sparked Jon to say “Enough” is the yahoo who was behind the Swift Boat Veterans slime group that attacked John Kerry so successfully in 2004. While some of us on the Right denounced them at the time, most sat by and figured the ends justified the means.
At this point, I’d just be happy if the GOP can find leaders who rise above the Birther and Death Panels fray and put forth principled alternatives to the Obama-Reid-Pelosi programs. Aside from continuing the status quo, what’s the Republican plan for solving the impending financial collapse of our health care system? What’s the Republican vision of American security policy? Does it envision continuing nation-building in every country where Islamist terrorists might live? How do we pay down the national debt and get back on the road to fiscal sanity?
Ultimately, focusing on that might take the spotlight off the crazies.
I love the suggestion that you can ban the crazies from the GOP. The crazies are the GOP. It’s their party, not yours.
While some of us on the Right denounced them at the time, most sat by and figured the ends justified the means.
Well, there’s a reason that most people see a problem with “the end justifies the means.”
Tolerating the contempt for truth, in favor of a whatever-works relativism, turns out not to be something that can be just put back in the bottle. And it doesn’t seem to be doing the GOP much good. JJ calls for a positive message the party can rally around, but that’s just it — the GOP has become the party of reaction. “I’m against it,” like the Ramones song.
Leaving aside how, if Obama is gunned down by some nutter whose apartment turns out to be full of tracts and books about how Obama is a socialist Nazi Communist liberal foreigner, the “ends justifies the means” people will be falling over themselves to say THEY never embraced such stuff.
They just tolerated it, trying to win elections.
The bottom line is that none of the recent activity has added a single voter to the Republican party. It has only driven up the negatives on both sides (including among leftists who will never vote Republican, but who are demoralized by the seeming legislative quagmire).
But this actually may not be a bad idea, as a hyper-polarized, scorched-earth electoral field has recently proven to be to the GOP’s advantage. And you can perhaps see how, if your demographic base is shrinking, and you don’t have any policy ideas to erode that shrinkage, depressing participation can stave off complete marginalization for a couple of cycles.
The segregationist wing of the Democratic Party, disgusted with LBJ and the Supreme Court, could’ve gone on to form a third party openly supporting racism and “states’ rights,” which would’ve dwindled and died.
Instead, Nixon brought them into the GOP.
That didn’t have to happen. The GOP could’ve said, no, we’re the party of Lincoln, we’re not going to tolerate this kind of thing, we’re not going to appeal to these people.
But for Nixon, the ends justified the means. And there were elections to win.
And now, 40 years later, the GOP is stuck in the house Nixon built for them.
I begin to suspect that the older population of GOP voters will simply have to die off naturally for the party to recover and to figure out what it stands for.
The Swift Boat Vets had a weak, eminently criticizable, mostly but not entirely incorrect argument regarding Kerry’s service in Vietnam. It came off as petty, and basically besides the point.
Their later effort regarding Kerry’s testimony and antiwar efforts after Vietnam, were perfectly legitimate and should have been their main/only line of attack. I still have trouble dismissing people like Col. Bud Day (MOH) as a crank who was part of a “slime group.” (recommend his bio, it’s amazing)
And some of the press conferences by vets who cried while discussing the impact of Kerry’s testimony on their lives and families make me continue to believe that the campaign deserves more complex treatment than “knowing dismissal.”
As I said – there was plenty to criticize. But it was not the black and white caricature of a political hit job that it’s assumed to be in many circles.
Just because the Dems propose a sweeping overhaul of health care doesn’t mean the Republicans have to do the same. Sure the status quo may not be an option but why must we always be searching for a single piece of legislation to solve all of our ills? Small steps that can be adjusted or even undone would be a more prudent approach to correcting the failures of our system. Overall the system is still pretty darn good so why are we trying to kill it off completely and replace it with something untried?
Other policy initiatives should be the same. Small changes that can be monitored and adjusted.
As for Birthers and whatever other group is being disparaged today I would remind everyone about the “big tent”. You don’t throw out people while claiming to have a big tent. You talk some sense into them and control the message. Frankly I’m getting tired of the self proclaimed “elite” of the party (who are seldom representative of the party) telling us all how unwashed we are. If Joe Hillbilly has a dumb question then try to answer it. Throwing him out makes no sense and makes the party seem arrogant.
The GOP really, really needs ideas and leaders. We need an alternative party. The GOP needs to address the major public policy issues. No more emphasis on gay marriage.
Steve
I think we have seen, both on this site and on every other, that birthers are not willing to listen to sense or reason. They are so hysterically over the deep-end in favor of their cause, that (not that I ever thought I would quote Barnie Frank in my entire life) arguing with them is like arguing with a dining room table.
I actually agree with this, and no doubt JJ does too. What is called for is leadership, for someone trusted by the base to address their legitimate concerns, but at the same time to admonish them to take their role in democracy more seriously, and to stop believing and repeating outlandishly false things.
As I commented upthread, allowing the current wildfires to burn is actually not a bad strategy for a party hoping to hold ground but resigned to not gaining any. But they will never elect a President unless he, or someone, is willing to Sistah Souljah the paranoid element. Trouble is, at least up till now, no elected Republican has been willing to step up and say those things.
That’s a two edged sword, Anderson. What Henke’s been trying to do… for years now… even before the laughably named “Next Right” came along… is ignore principles so as to gain power. In this, I see him as being no different than Democrats, as I’ve been saying for some time.
And you’ll forgive me Anderson, if I take you saying the question of Obama’s birth has been sufficiently answered, with a grain of salt, given your overt support of the man. What, I ask you, is behind your support of someone who flat out refuses to show us his birth certificate, thus proving he is qualified for the role, past contempt for the truth? Fear of it, perhaps? Or is it that the end justifies the means if you’re an Obama supporter?
Oh, I don’t doubt Henke would like the conservatives to STFU. I don’t doubt that at all. But remember, gang… Labeling people who bring up uncomfortable truths as ‘crazies’ is one of the older tricks in the book….and is straight from “Rules for Radicals”.
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.â€
“Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It”.
As an outsider looking in, I would have to say I more or less agree with Michael Reynolds. You are more likely to be cast out by the current GOP than to be able to toss out the birthers.
You generally present a reasoned opposition, but at least you agree that there are problems that need to be addressed. The Republican party is currently the anti-Obama/Democrats party, they seem to be unwilling to actually initiate anything (other than torture.)
How many Republican politicians and commentators (off the web) are taking a similar position?
Now, look; Argue if you will that at this stage we might be more productive arguing on other topics. There’s a fair amount to commend that argument. But dismissing those demanding the truth as ‘crazy’ is hardly the way of someone of principle, particularly given how easy it would be for Obama to turn back such questions, and given the effort he’s put into avoiding answering the questions put him.
Eric:
You are the crazy you’ve been waiting for.
John Kerry swore on the floor of the Senate that he was serving in Cambodia while Richard Nixon was president. Just two stubborn problems with Kerry’s yarn. One the Mekong was not navitable into Cambodia, and two, Kerry’s entire four month tour of duty was under President Johnson.
The Johnson in Cambodia just doesn’t fit any socialist approved narratives. The fact is that Kerry lied about his Vietnam experience and the American public owes the Swift Boater’s a debt of gratitude from exposing Kerry as a fraud.
Was the Swift Boater’s narrative completely accurate? No. But much more accurate than Kerry’s yarn.
So after you ban the crazies from the GOP, are the rest of you going to get together for an intimate dinner?
David; Quite. You and I both wrote quite extensively to that point during that campaign. As, for that matter, did about half of the ‘sphere.But of course, we were treated for doing so to being called a band of crazies . Seems to me there’s a pattern there that should raise an eyebrow among anybody that values truth.
Something doesn’t add up here. All the “birthers” I know have dropped that subject and moved on to Obamacare. I kind of suspect the issue is being kept alive by liberals for political gain.
Of course there are always going to be a few incurable nut cases, but I’ll bet there are die-hard liberals still investigating Bush’s military records.
I wouldn’t doubt it… and more than just liberals.
You’d win. And when was the last time you saw a call for those to be seperated from the left?
Telling, that.
We are currently living in a nanny state where you cannot live or breathe without being advised on the risks, its gotten silly.
@DavidL
Bullshit:
By Sea, Air, and Land: An Illustrated History of the U.S. Navy and the War in Southeast Asia — Chapter 4: Winding Down the War, 1968 – 1973 Department of the Navy — Navy Historical Center.
A look at any map of Cambodia will show you that Phnom Penh is quite a ways up the Mekong from the Vietnamese border.
Dr. Joyner is it that you do not respect the Doctorate earned by Jerome Corsi? Why is his credential less valid then yours? Are you accusing Dr. Jerome Corsi of intellectual dishonesty? Having done none of the research Dr. Corsi has done, you have come to a different conclusion. How quaint.
@DavidL
More bullshit:
Nixon was inaugurated President on January 20, 1969. Kerry left Vietnam in April 1969.
You’re 0 for 2, dimwit.
If the political enemies of the Democrats use arguments advanced by people like Glenn Beck and Jerome Corsi, the Dems will continue to win elections…
You know, I seem to recall this kind of arrogance about…mmmm…6 years ago. Didn’t work out for those arrogant S.O.B.s then, I doubt it will work for your side.
You know, I seem to recall this kind of arrogance about…mmmm…6 years ago. Didn’t work out for those arrogant S.O.B.s then, I doubt it will work for your side.
WTF are you talking about? Of course it worked, it worked beautifully. The leader of that effort to create Republican dominance has catapulted himself to a gig on Dancing with the Stars where the women of America will swoon over him.
Just think, if Obama and Pelosi and Reid and Rangel play their cards right, in 6 years, they too could be decked out in sequins and find themselves sashaying across a dance floor, or in Rangel’s case he could be dancing with a fellow named Bubba in the prison yard.
Skip over the question of whether the Republicans should ditch the Birthers, I would ask how?
As near as I can tell, the Birthers are the base of the Republican party. They’re the ones who go to precinct meetings and organize at the local level.
karen mobile I had no idea you lived in England..
We need to expand the Republican Party by kicking out all those we disagree with. Yep, sound logic. Oh the Democrats got back into power because they kick out their fringe groups. Right (sarcasm off)
The GOP didn’t lose because of a few fringe elements after all there are many more on the DNC side. They lost mainly for two reasons. The pendulum was swinging out of their favor and more importantly they compromise their sole with too much compromise. Yes we need some compromise but the GOP went too far and spent way too much money. Dem lite is not good enough.
While it is true that too much arrogance could bring down the Democrats, it is hardly “arrogant” to point out that if the face of the opposition is foolish conspiracy theorists who espouse ridiculous ideas like the Birthers or the death panels, the opposition will lose…
re: Wayne September 1, 2009 19:35
I am curious how the GOP expands if RINOs (people who have the nerve not to be completely conservative) aren’t welcome…
Oh the perils of trying to do a five year old arguement from memory, alas. However, Kerry may claim to have the hat, but I have his quote:
From the Washington Post.
The President on Christmas of 1968 was Lyndon Johnson. That not only makes Kerry a liar, but a rather poor one at that.
Who cares if the ender of all earmarks except his own(pun intended) was born here or not, he bullsh-ted the dumb people fair and square, but the king of ALL abortionist(I SAY THIS BECAUSE IT’S ONE OF THE ONLY TIMES HE EVER VOTED FOR ANYTHING) not open to death panels? Come on pookie. was up with that? Have you any idea who he picked to be his science czar?Didn’t I tell you. Oh ya, I forgot all you liberals think like that, sorry for wasting both of our times.
And speaking of DumbB.O. can’t speaker Astroface loan him it’s Plastic surgeon, maybe he’ill stop knocking over his teleprompter if he gets them sh-ts fixed.
“I am curious how the GOP expands if RINOs (people who have the nerve not to be completely conservative) aren’t welcome…”
The answer is to keep them but convince them to change a bit through rational argument. It’s not that hard. Conservatives like myself think this way and can keep the tent big.
As a committed “leftist”, I’d have to say I agree.
Uh oh, it looks like triumph hacked into G.A.Phillips’s account.
What military records?
Actually, you waste everyone’s time whenever you post your drivel here, pookie…by the way, your concern for the unborn really is quite touching…a pity you (among others) don’t seem to show the same concern for lives once they actually leave the womb…
And what “rational” arguments would work on, say, Lincoln Chafee or Bruce Bartlett…
by the way, your concern for the unborn really is quite touching…a pity you (among others) don’t seem to show the same concern for lives once they actually leave the womb…
Being a pro-choice fellow myself, I’m embarrassed when this shallow argument is trotted out. A citizen who intervenes to protect a helpless child from live-threatening danger does a good deed regardless of whether the same citizen later rejects the notion that he is then required to support that child.
Pro-life people believe that the fetus is worthy of being given a chance to live. When they protect the fetus from destruction they are doing a good deed. That good deed isn’t conditional on a follow-on good deed. The responsibility for the child rests with the parents, not with those who wanted to stop its destruction.
If there was no such thing as trashing combat vets, what would a guy like David do with his time?
re: TangoMan | September 1, 2009 | 10:41 pm
Considering your slavish devotion to Sarah Palin, you should be embarrassed about things other than the argument that I presented…and how can you be pro-choice if you believe that abortion presents life-threatening danger to a helpless child…
Wm.Buckley was a man of depth and intellect,
Jon Henke… You’re no Wm. Buckley!
May All the lunatics “moon” you where ever you go!
Considering your slavish devotion to Sarah Palin, you should be embarrassed about things other than the argument that I presented…and how can you be pro-choice if you believe that abortion presents life-threatening danger to a helpless child…
Dude, when was the last time you were paid a six figure sum to give a speech in Hong Kong?
Secondly, try harder to comprehend what you read. I didn’t say that I saw life-threatening danger to a helpless child, I said that a pro-life person sees the situation that way. Their actions are acting consistent with their beliefs. You wanting to slam them with a charge of hypocrisy means that you’re the one who is walking the logic plank.
Umm, not really…if all life is precious, whether inside or outside the womb, then those that are so worried about protecting fetuses should also be as worried about protecting babies and children…and my comprehension is fine, dude…originally, you made the argument that a fetus is a “helpless child”…you didn’t clarify whether you believed that yourself…now it is obvious you don’t…
@Tangoman
Well, and I really mean this, I hope she’s not going over there just to be set up:
Hey, I keep wondering who keeps going on my puter and making a right wing extremist terror suspect out out of me!!!!
TRIUMPH!!!!!!!
Well I believe it, and if you liberals give up your right to vote and stop pooping in this giant diaper that we used to call the U.S.A., I would be more then happy to give you some charity as Im am sure millions of others would, I’m all for protecting babies and children that can’t think for and or take of care of themselves.
Given Pailin’s erratic behavior, her career in public speaking may be a short one…
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/oops-she-did-it-again-palin-cancels-for-fourth-time.php
Did the president of France call her up to invite her?
AIP
I never suggested in kicking out RINOs from the party only that I don’t want them as my representatives. Surely you wouldn’t suggest putting and very extreme right person in as a Senator? The problem I have of many is that they will compromise their principles and vote for a RINO in hopes of putting in someone with an R behind their name.
I agree with Steve and think the best approach is to maintain our conservative principle and convince others to join us than to try to adopt their liberal principles. Do we have to agree on everything? Of course not and we should be tolerant of the of small % difference. Tolerant doesn’t mean we can’t try convince each other of our rational but we shouldn’t call each other nasty names. Moderate,liberal, RINO, far right, big time conservative are always said in the nicest way but I wouldn’t consider them to nasty. Nut job, loser ,wing bats etc would be.
Well, and I really mean this, I hope she’s not going over there just to be set up:
Let’s say that Goldman Sachs invited President Clinton or President Chirac to give a speech and then punked them for the world to laugh at. What effect would that have on Goldman Sach’s reputation and their ability to draw high value speakers to future conferences?
Just because an idiot with a blogging account can write something that speaks to the irrational bias of his audience, something that they truly and desperately want to believe, doesn’t mean that there is any merit to his ramblings.
James,
At this point, I’d just be happy if the GOP can find leaders who rise above the Birther and Death Panels fray
Yup, no such thing as death panels:
As much as it pains you, you need to be objective and realize that the death panels meme has no similarity to the birther nonsense.
TangoMan, when you stop to think about it, I’m not sure that article says what you want it to say.
Are you with the judge, and for unlimited government health care for the uninsured?
Are you with the judge, and for unlimited government health care for the uninsured?
When the US government blows up nuclear bombs on these people’s islands and promises them certain benefits, including health benefits, I don’t think that the Death Panel Committee has the right to put a limit on the chemotherapy these people need, a need that has a high likelihood of being caused by living on irradiated islands.
Sorry, your link didn’t show for me yesterday.
Following it now, yes I can agree with you that we should honor treaty obligations, but it seems a strange paragraph in a story about a state and it’s health care program.
The Fed’s aren’t picking up treaty obligation tabs?
If the birthers are a problem for the Republican Party, then how come having a communist-truther as a Czar is not a problem for the Democrats?
Why is the media focusing on birthers, who as private citizens have no influence on policy, when a communist-truther is sitting at the right hand of the President?