Sibling Rivalry
My brother Shaun decided to focus on my comments after the recent Virginia primary:
And so the battle for the hearts and minds of the 28th Virginia Senate district is over, and decidedly in Chichester’s favor.
So what does this mean, particularly for “conservative Christians” that were the target of the Free Lance-Star editorial last week? As expected, the GOP moderates will capitalize on the victory as more than a repudiation of “negative politics” and extend it to a defeat of the conservative movement altogether.
Don’t think that will occur? Take this gem of a line for instance:
With 61 of 63 precincts reporting, John Chichester has kicked some ass and forgotten names in his primary romp over ‘challenger’ Mike Rothfeld. Damn right. I’m sorry, Rothfeld fights dirty and Chichester is a good guy. Oh, drats, he doesn’t toe the conservative line 100% of the time. You know what? GOOD! I want someone who actually thinks for himself and understands that there’s a real world outside of ideals. emphasis added
Go, Chichester.
This is the problem.
Chichester’s absence on parental notification is not going to be one more instance of a politician going MIA when the cards are down, but as statesmanship. Voting to make RU-486 a legal contraceptive is no longer antithecal to pro-life values, it’s compassion. Rejecting the Republican promise to rollback the car tax while state expenditures rise 50% over five years is no longer irresponsible, it’s construed as “fiscal responsibility.”
That’s not leadership. That’s dodging issues that are important to Virginians.
Yes yes, the election is over, and any gripes about Chichester’s voting record have been settled by the sword so to speak. But this election had nothing to do with a rejection of conservative values. People were turning out to reject negative campaigning and support their old friend.
First problem is taking a line from someone who’s opinion you questioned the very foundation of and using it as representative of an entire group. That’s like Tate declaring his loss by only 100 votes was a referendum when he had less than half of a small portion of the district’s population. But if you want to grasp for straws…
The election wasn’t just a rejection of negative campaigns but of the very people who run them. It was a rejection of bids by the far right faction to oust the more moderates within the Republican party. It was a reminder that the GOP is supposed to be a big tent.
The problem with the state and national GOP is that now they are firmly in power they feel they can push a far right agenda more. We’re seeing big conservatives coming out of the woodwork to demand that the more moderate voices of the party shape up or ship out. If they don’t, the Republican party spends time and money running someone against them, focusing on one of their own instead of putting more money and effort towards a Democrat’s seat. We’re destroying the Big Tent philosophy of the 90s. The party’s discarding it, saying more or less that Big Tent is good to build up, but once you’re in, screw them, we’re in control now and it’s our way or the highway. Short term is conservative gains. Long term is the fall of the party from power.
The Dems are facing the same thing, but for different reasons. You have some blowhards on the left saying that in order to challenge the Republicans, Democrats must embrace the strong liberal philosophies and policies. In order to compete you must contradict and polarize. Any compromise or moderation is rubber stamping the Republican party.
Elections are determined by the moderates. Republicans and Democrats can always count on their core to vote for them, but they have to appeal to those who aren’t too far one way or another. And they don’t do that by forcing out their moderate voices. The moderates spoke out in this election, and not about negative campaigning but about the efforts of the party to cave in to it’s extremes.
Hoist that Union Jack!
