Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Thoughts on RWAAC-Gate

There was a story in the Capital yesterday about pressure on RWAAC President Joyce Thomann to resign in light of her comments. I don't think Joyce Thomann should resign. Resignation is the honorable way out, and there was absolutely nothing honorable about what she said. The RWAAC Board should refuse her resignation and remove her by their Constitutionally mandated methods.

There has been a lot of harrumphing about Republicans who have failed to defend Joyce's comments. Mike Netherland has been characteristically off the reservation with some of his learned thoughts on the matter:

If no other good can come from the Thomann affair let it be that it has opened the eyes of conservatives in and around Annapolis as to who in the Republican Party are most likely to throw you overboard when the going gets a little rough.
Somehow, Mike has determined that the entire Republican Party does not consist of "conservatives" but of merely "registered Republicans", and that RWAAC's disapproval of Thomann's statement will "forever be an ugly stain and its only lasting legacy." (Coincidentally, Mike considers himself a true Republican conservative. Go figure).

You know it's one thing to defend a Republican when what they do actually merits a defense. Attacking Democrats on an issue, standing up for principle on policy, and those kinds of things are worthy of my defense. Idiotic comparisons that basically wrap the Republican elephant in a box of hand grenades with their pins removed deserve no sort of defense. Joyce in her position as President of a Republican Club should be focused on doing her part to elect Republicans and get the Republican message out to the people. And as anybody who has ever heard of Godwin's Law can tell you, if you have to invoke Hitler in your argument you've already lost. These comments did one hell of a lot of damage to the cause of conservatism and the cause of the Republican Party.

Conservatism is in a tenuous moment here on our country. We do have a situation where we have a number of Republicans trying to masquerade as conservatives in order to obtain and maintain elected office. Of course, that point has nothing to do with comparing Obama to Hitler. This is the time we need to be attacking the policies of this President (which are, in fact, dangerous to our country). This is the time we need to be focused on defending conservatism and the conservatism message. Taking even one minute of time to defend ridiculous outbursts like this takes valuable time away from defending conservative principles and electing conservative candidates.

So no, I cannot be bothered to defend what does not deserve to be defended. And I don't give a damn who questions my conservative bona fides for it.

(Crossposted)

18 comments:

G. A. Harrison said...

Bravo Brian!

You're dead on except that I question whether continuing to make an issue of this is good for anyone. Obviously I'm not particularly familiar with AA politics so I would defer.

It just seems to me that this woman is (was?) the president of a Republican Women's Club. She doesn't hold public office. She's not chairman of the county central committee. Making this woman a martyr to "the cause" (whatever her cause may be) simply adds grist to the mill for people like Netherland.

Just a thought.

Greg Kline said...

GA,

I hear your point but there seems to be some debate among conservatives about how to handle this. Some think what she said was not so bad or is in fact true and that this attack on her is just a PC witch hunt in which too many Republicans are complicit.

The point needs to be made that the statement is indefensible, which is why Thomann said as much by apologizing. No elected official, candidate or club leader should have to diminish their own credibility to defend this nonsense. I am sure the lefties scoring cheap political points with this would love nothing more than to have more to say that all Republicans are as nutty as Joyce Thomann. Some of Netherland's comments have already been used for this purpose.

That is why the Netherland, Dwyer, Kyle (all friends by the way) tact is wrongheaded and needs to be countered even at the risk of keeping the story alive.

Mike Netherland said...

Greg,
You left out, Sean and Frank this morning, Michael Swartz of the Monoblogue who was quick to defend Joyce, John Frenaye and The Observer of EyeOnAnnapolis, Jeff Quinton of Inside CharmCity...

It seems the "reservation" is getting smaller and smaller. Soon you'll have to make a decision as to who is on and who is off the reservation. Or are you just going to take Brian's word for it?

The Wheat and the Chaff...

Michael Swartz said...

Here's the rub. The connotation in the Hitler name is getting in the way of the extremely valid point that Obama is conducting a "lightning war" of his own on the freedoms we all enjoy. Witness the stimulus, usurpation of property rights, appointment of "czars", cap and tax, and Obamacare - all to be enacted before the 2010 elections.

Unfortunately, the "blitzkrieg" tactic happens to be associated with Nazi Germany and obviously the Left (who must know a thing or two about Hitler since they did so much research in comparing George W. Bush to him, right?) has jumped all over the comparison, casting themselves as "shocked" that their Messiah could be compared to a monster.

All this misses the point. I can't see how I'm the only one who picked up on the warfare connotation and ignored the Nazi part.

Michael Swartz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Netherland said...

Michael,
Rest assured, you are not the only conservative capable of rational thought. This point has been made on a number of blogs, most notably by Mr. Kyle.

Again I think the distinctions between Hitler and his tactics are lost mainly on those Republicans who are reflexively politcally correct, whose primal instinct, when they see their political careers threatened is to profess an equal if not greater fake offense than the fake offense professed by their liberal detractors.

If this reflexive reaction causes harm to loyal Republicans, so be it. It is high theater and the audience are full of laughing liberals! "Look at them run and jump and hide!" "Republicans are so predictable!"

David K. Kyle said...

Greg,

Please explain why those defending Joyce are wrong. What do you propose to counter it with, attacking those that are defending Joyce after she was attacked for making a comment? Why does what we do need to be countered? You suggesting that we need to be countered and not the Democrats, is rather odd.
The only thing here that needs to be countered is the feigned indignation of the Democrats because of simple comparison to tactics. I don’t even think it has to be done by you or anyone else that doesn't want to do it, but it should be done. Why would you capitulate so easily like the French to their tactics? The bottom line is, we should not allow people to be vilified for speaking their mind. It should be rather simple to see that the Democrat strategy in this is to divide and conquer. Having the so called leaders of the Party here in the state do this to one of their most loyal people pleases those on the left no end.

Nat Hound said...

Can someone tell me why we are backing down to a bunch of political thugs and hacks trying to intimidate a group of (primarily) older ladies?

I'll stipulate that what Joyce said was politically incorrect, but the party of "BUSHitler," "Chimpy McChimperson" Janeane Garafalo, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, and Rahm Emanuel (among others), has no standing whatsoever to complain about some prickly language. Especially not in a state that the Dems own lock, stock, and barrel.

Instead of protecting our own, we air our dirty laundry in public in the hopes that liberals will like us and think we're good people. They don't and they won't, particularly those rabid true believers known as "Progressives." Those folks play for keeps, while the Md GOP is playing hopscotch in the schoolyard.

Tales of a Grownup said...

I'm sure the Democrats would like nothing more than to see her keep her position. Hell, they'd probably give her a talk show because she's doing more to help Democrats get elected than anyone else.

David K. Kyle said...

How would she be helping Democrats? Even if she made a direct comparison to Obama and Hitler, what person that thinks rationally would not know it wasn't true. Only the irrational would think she meant to imply that Obama wants to kill Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals. While I know there are people in his Party that would love to see the opposition rounded up and thrown in jail I don't even think that applies to Obama, at least not yet.
Anyone that thinks we are going to lose elections here in Maryland because of Joyce had better look around and count how many we have in office. Who is to blame for the current situation? Is it because of Joyce or because of a weak Party? Democrats will only give Republicans enough to keep them quiet, anything that matters to the base they will never get. Republicans would rather take the few handouts that are offered over fighting for what they believe or supposedly believe. Some as can be seen from this current mess will jump when they are told to jump. Tell me why should Republican voters support candidates like that? Fortune favors the bold; the meek and servile get trampled upon.

Mike Netherland said...

Tales,
I submit that what is helping to elect Democrats is the spectacle of Republicans abandoning not only their principles but their own loyal members.

Who wants to join a group that routinely throws its members to the wolves? I don't know how to explain in simpler terms with the use of crayon and stick figures.

Mike Netherland said...

Bravo David! You are dead on. I think the people who stand to lose from our continuing to make an issue out of this are people like GA Harrison and Brian Griffiths (and Greg Stiverson and Scott "si! se puedo" Bowling).

I think Joyces comments were a result of a weak GOP rather than a cause of it!

Brian, why don't you go back to playing with your Re-Branding chemistry set, while us grown-ups talk. Hmmm? There's a good lad.

Nat Hound said...

Also, Joyce's comments need to be seen in the context of someone who is not a paid political professional, is terribly frustrated by the Obama agenda (as we all are), and is terribly frustrated by being a member of a party that is a very, very, small minority in our state (as we all are). It's not optimum language, but we're better off with motivated individuals such as the RWAAC than without them and if it means putting out the occasional fire, so be it.

Better question is, how worried are the Dems if they are getting their back up over the RWAAC? What's the matter, can't handle the ladies taking a little jab at "the One?"

Mike Netherland said...

Nat,
Another excellent observation.

And if it was just the Democrats getting their backs up, I wouldn't be wasting the time writing about it. But, as I feared and warned about, there were GOP pols who just couldn't resist the bait. This is the real issue for me. Getting rid of these lap-dog Republicans, as David Kyle put it, is the goal.

Sometimes it takes defining issues and events to flush them out. Like the Cap and Traitors, 8 "Republicans" who just couldn't resist. Hopefuly they will follow Wayne Gilchrest into politcal oblivion.

Greg Kline said...

Mike,

So not defending Thommanns' comments after she apologized is the moral equivalent of voting for the Cap and Trade bill?

I take it you no longer wish anyone to take you seriously.

Mike Netherland said...

Kline,
You can read the English language any way you see fit. If that is how you interpret my comment and it makes you feel better, then God be with you.

I don't remember saying anything about before or after anyone apologized for anything.

Try to focus on this: REPUBLICANS TAKING THE BAIT. Wassamtta, Greg? Did you take the bait, too? Maybe you didn't defend Joyce, but I didn't read you condemning her, like the liberal Democrats and, oh yeah, Brian Griffiths.

Greg Kline said...

Mike,

Do you even remember your argument?

You didn't threatened to ruin the careers of people who condemned Joyce you threatened anyone who didn't defend her. My point is no one has an obligation to defend her especially after she admitted her comments were inappropriate.

What was it again that these "spineless" Republicans were supposed to do?

Take a breath and think about how absurd you are sounding.

Mike Netherland said...

To quote myself:

"I, and a few others, jumped to Joyce's defense on Inside Charm City, which picked up both postings and on Legum's blog. I warned Republicans that I would be HIGHLY disappointed" in those who failed to defend Joyce and I would work to "ruin" the political career's of those who folded."

OK, "folded," "to fold." Slang for primarily in poker, a player who gives up, doesn't have anything left to bet, and has lost confidence in the hand he is playing or in his ability to bluff. Also known as a loser. Probably shouldn't be playing for money in the first place, etc.

Yeah I said I would work to ruin the republicans who folded, who TOOK THE BAIT. But I would just be disappointed in those who failed to defend her.

Savvy?

ShareThis