Taking a Bullet Intended for Someone's Foot and Other Bad Advice for the GOP
There has been a great deal of discussion about the recent comments made by Joyce Thomann, ostensibly under the imprimatur of the Republican Women of Anne Arundel County. If you have not heard about this, here is some background.
Personally, like most Republicans, I would prefer this story go away. A real debate is emerging, however, about how Republicans and/or conservatives should respond to the left's united attack premised upon what have fairly universally been regarded as "unfortunate" comments and some have called me out for my thoughts on the matter.
So, here goes.
I do not believe that anyone has an obligation to defend these comments or Joyce Thommann, especially given that she herself has admitted they were wrong by apologizing for them. Why should any elected official, candidate or party leader expend their credibility defending the indefensible? Why is it cowardice to say that the comments were "inept" and that Thomann was "right to apologize" (which is what County Executive Leopold said) or that they are "unfortunate" as the party is trying to grow (which is what Councilwoman Vitale said)? Why should aldermanic candidates who sincerely disagree with the statement endorse it?
Make no mistake. This entire issue is an effort by Judd Legum to raise his profile as he runs for a Delegate seat in the Annapolis area and fits perfectly into the hard-left's efforts to brand all Republicans as extremist kooks who can't handle a black President (epitomized by Olbermann's nightly rantings). Legum, Olbermann and their blogger buddies are scumbags trying to score cheap political points. The local media is happy to dive in because it is a simple, sensational story that fits in their template that Republicans are extremist kooks. There are plenty of other examples of the same storyline, be it the hypocritical infedelity of Gov. Sanford or a local GOP official posting a joke stating that Michelle Obama's relatives are apes. It is a tactic of the left to promote these stories.
So what do we do?
One "defender" of Ms. Thomann said that her statement was "careless" and that she disagreed and, this cannot be repeated too often, Ms. Thomann apologized for the comments and admitted they were "insensitive" and a poor choice of words. This was not an erudite comparison of Obama's agenda and the tenants of National Socialism, a la Jonah Goldberg. It wasn't even an accurate metaphor of the speed of Obama's agenda in Congress and the conquest of Europe. Rather, it was a ham-handed attempt to set aside reason and logic in favor of using the hyperbole and shock value of the name "Hitler". It was "careless", "inept" and "insensitive" and destroyed the credibility of the legitimate point of a call for urgency in resisting the President's agenda. It was the stupid rant of a woman whose zeal far exceeds her judgment and who, frankly, should have more sense but does not.
The Mike Netherland/David Kyle/Don Dwyer's of the world do not see it this way. While some may choose to remember the good works of Ms. Thomann despite her recent error, the "ultra-defenders" believe what she said was "nothing inappropriate", that she was merely "saying what she believes" and to not defend her to the utmost is "spineless" and raising our "hands in surrender and throw[ing] Mrs. Thomann to the thought Gestapo". (Talk about hyperbole!). They revoke the conservative bona fides of (and threatened to destroy) anyone who does not endorse these statements. (By this logic, of course, Thomann herself might have some explaining to do after apologizing and saying that the President is "an honorable man and a dignified public servant and as such he's worthy of our great honor and respect". Buy hey what's rationality among friends.)
The fact is, though, this course of "going down with the ship" to defend the indefensible and refusing to recognize that people on our side can go beyond the pale is exactly what the left wants. Why do you think the Capital was so quick, after ignoring his emails for years, to publish the castigation of RWAAC by Mike Netherland the day after he issued it? It feeds their template, damages our credibility and distracts from the real issues where the conservative message is making headway.
But Greg, you say, what about the hard lefties crying "McBusHitler" for years? They made crazy comparisons for years, why can't we? Well, for one, we in the blogosphere have used this term as a shorthand to describe the loony left who has no credibility. I talked about this in the "Nut Ball Box" segment of my podcasts.
Do you really think taking the same tact is the right way to go? An over the top, crazy comparison we criticized for years is now okay because it is made by someone on our side?
Some say yes. That is their right. I respectfully disagree and think intelligent, credible, principled conservatives with spines can see this approach as no recipe to compete in the marketplace of ideas or any legitimate political debate.
So, we don't have to defend it, or excuse it.
The fact is some other Republican may say something stupid again or say something stupidly again. I hope they don't. But if they do, I will not pretend the Emperor has no clothes and say how brilliant their comment was.
8 comments:
You missed my point. My point is not some variation on "they did it first," so it's OK for us to do it to them. Not at all.
Rather, my point is that Progressives count on using your better nature against you - you toss yours under the bus in an attempt to look like the bigger person. You ring your hands and swear off using certain words and arguments. Meanwhile, they are not similarly constrained and look to take advantage of your being intimidated. Advantage, them.
Progressives, especially those of the George Soros brand,care for one thing and one thing only: Winning, and winning at all costs, even if it means the personal destruction of anyone and everyone who gets in their way. Progressives NEVER eat their own, because to their mind, the ends justify the means. The more outrageous, the better. Look no further than Sarah Palin for a prime example.
Conversely, we constantly eat our own in an attempt to appease the opposition. It never works - the lines are redrawn, to our continual disadvantage, and the push back from the left begins again and we swear off using the next argument or the next turn of phrase.
When was the last time you heard a hard-core liberal express admiration, or even respect, for a conservative? No, it's constant sneering and mocking, but conservatives are expected to be models of decorum at all times.
It's Alinsky 101, and until we get tough and quit letting the left dictate the terms of engagement, we aren't going to get anywhere.
The best answer is to be creative and frame strong arguments that don't require touching any of the third rails that Progressives are constantly whining about. In the event of things that cross into a grey area (like this) deal with it directly and responsibly, but in private. Never, ever, ever apologize.
But Nat, she did say it publicly and she did apologize. Why is it "eating our own" to say, she was right it was a mistake to say that? Why should we hold ourselves to a higher standard to stand behind these statements than the speaker does themselves?
And it is not appeasing our adversaries. Believe me, our adversaries want us to say just what Kyle and Netherland are saying, that what she said is correct.
This statement isn't a "grey area" though you have come further than the ultra-defenders would like.
I agree framing well thought out and reasoned arguments are the solution.
Nat,
Not to be rude, but have you ever read anything posted at ThinkProgress or the DailyKos? They tear into each other all the time for not being "progressive" enough.
Take healthcare for instance. The progressive community is tearing its people to shreds over this.
Some are pissed that Congress isn't pushing for full out single payer and only half-heartedly going for a government-controlled plan.
Meanwhile another faction of progressives is routinely pissed at progressive members of Congress like Dennis Kucinich for letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and voting against legislation that is an incremental improvement.
And if you look back to 2000, all but the most firebreathing of progressives were verbally crucifying Ralph Nader for costing Al Gore the presidency.
Every faction eats their own to some degree. Sometimes it's silly and stupid. Sometimes it's necessary. In the case of Joyce Thomann it's most definitely the latter.
Greg,
You need to re-read what Netherland and Kyle are saying.
1. Was what she wrote a little over-the-top? Of course.
2. Was her main point lost in an effort to discredit the GOP? Perhaps.
3. Was her main point valid? Yes.
I was not concerned with what she wrote. I was concerned with how she would be treated. Why? Because I know her and YOU know her and many others in the MD GOP know her.
We know her to be a voice for action for the GOP and for the American way of life. And what this party needs more than anything is a clarion, a rally, a common effort in the right direction. And Joyce tried to be that voice; tried real hard. Expecting nothing in return.
And what did she get for her effort? She was spat upon, tarred and feathered, all but run out of town.
Did I expect Republicans to defend what she wrote? No. I did expect us to defend her yes, if for no other reason than to see the big look of disappointment on the faces of the liberals.
Did I expect Republicans to kick her while she was down? Sadly, I have to say yes. As soon as heard the story, I got that sickening feeling. I've felt it before. And as you said, Greg, there will come another time when in the heat of a political campaign (or afterwards) someone else will go over the top with a careless comment and the liberals will call for his head, demand (yes they will demand) that we rebuke him and "forcefully reject" him, or else!
And who will be there to defend us against them?
Greg:
There needs to be an emphasis on "know your opposition" here.
The typical strategy of a Progressive in an argument is to try and pin the opponent into a position where he or she is either "defending the (allegedly) undefendable" or is constantly conceding points and backing down. They don't care which one the opponent chooses - they win either way.
There was a great example of this on MTP a few weeks back - Tim Kane was trying this strategy on Michael Steele. However, Steele wouldn't step into the trap. He'd pivot out and make the points he wanted to make and would ignore Kaine trying to dictate the terms of the engagement. It was one of Michael's better performances.
Same here - you have to remember this is not legitimate outrage. It's phony, and shouldn't be dignified with sincerity in the response. Actually, there shouldn't be a response. Pivot, ignore, and make the point you want to make. Never let a Progressive control the terms of the engagement.
The best way to have handled it would have been to say "Joyce feels deeply on the subject and has a right to say what's on her mind, but you know, historical allusions aside, I am concerned by President Obama's..." Keep the conversation on our terms without having to throw a hard working political volunteer under the bus.
Kevin:
Progressives will fall all over one another to try to be the most ideologically pure. It's what they do.
This is different.
I maintain that you will seldom, if ever, see a Progressive apologize over the use of a tactic. See Photoshops of Trig Palin. Again, it's what they do...
Mike,
I'm sorry, but most of what you said was pretty inane.
To begin with, her comments were more than a little over the top - they were downright retarded. Not only did they make minimal sense (and were poorly written on top of that) they reinforced every caricature of the Right the Left likes to use. We play into their hands far more by ruining our own brand than we do by rightly chastising people that act like rat heads in the Coke bottle.
Second, her main point wasn't even valid. Do Obama's policies have the net effect she described? Yesm most of them do. But that doesn't matter, not for the average person. Why? Because what everyone except the most blindly partisan members of the Right can see is the difference in motive. Reagan understood this, but I don't think any serious commentator on the Right since has - the Left doesn't hate America, they're doing what the honestly believe is best for the nation and they just happen to be a little misguided. When we use language that suggests there is real malicious intent behind the Left’s policies all we do is alienate independents and others that might otherwise be inclined to our side.
Next point. The Right doesn’t need some great clarion call to action. Hell, we don’t even need a centralized voice (considering the liability some of our supposed voices have been, a little bit of decentralization probably wouldn’t be a bad thing). More than anything, the Right needs to stop being the force of NO. I’m not saying we go along with the policies of the Left though. We need to be about real policies and innovations, and they need to be fresh ideas that go beyond tax cuts (although they definitely need to be part of those answers).
I read Joyce’s post, and a bunch of the ones past that. As far as I could tell, she offered no solutions, just a lot of poorly written Ann Coulter-esque vitriol. At this point in time, the Right doesn’t need that, we get plenty of it already from voices more capable than hers. More importantly though, we don’t need it all, the actions of the Left, now that it has seized power, are more than enough motivation for action.
Another point. You suggest Republicans shouldn’t have defended her words, but they should have defended her. What exactly is the logic for that? By the very fact that she
A) Lacked enough common sense to write that down and
B) Lacked the common sense to pause and think before posting it
she proves that she has no business being in a position of influence for the Right. People like her and Michele Bachmann that insist on making lunatic statements like this are nothing but one of several albatrosses around the neck of the Right, and they should rightly be kept at arm’s distance at the very least, lest they drag us all down with them.
It’s no different than when a person has cancer. You don’t just keep giving them drugs for the pain, you cut out the tumor as quickly as possible before it kills the person. It hurts like hell for everyone involved, but it’s the only way to ensure long-term survival.
I did read what you guys wrote and I linked to it so that others could as well.
Frankly, you are backpedaling as fast as you can. We should defend Joyce but not her statement? That is very much not what you said. I have no doubt it was your motivation but it is not what you said.
As noted in some of the reporting, this is not the first time she has gone off half-cocked. To put it nicely, she shoots from the hip and this time it came back on her.
I stand by what I have said and I am glad your view is "evolving". After all, isn't saying we don't have to defend what she said really admitting what she said was wrong? Isn't that the "bait" you have been talking about?
I will defend Thomann's right to say what she said. Her comparison seems apt in that legislation is being rammed through without people reading it, without debate or very little. It was done this way so details would not come out till after the fact and also to prevent the opposition from doing anything about it.
Greg, you are right that she did apologize after being attacked, punched, and kicked by Democrats and those of her own Party who felt the need to go after her as well. How many people wouldn't have apologized to stop the vicious attacks taking place? It is disappointing that you see her apology as a vindication of Republicans attacking her. Do you think her letter would have been of any benefit if she had written, Obama is an honorable man who seeks the best for this country, but he is going to destroy it. I'm sure at that point people would have accused her of senility.
If her comments were a non-issue why did Republicans have to get in on the act of denouncing her. When I first got an email about her comments I wasn't going to say anything because in and of themselves it wasn't worth my time. But when spineless Republicans began to go after her, then I felt it was time to speak out. Anyone who claims her comments are defenseless doesn't know what they are talking about. Unless they don't believe free speech, which judging from reactions on the left they don't. When I left the Party three years ago, it was because of the piss poor spineless leadership we had, that refused to stand up for what was right.
I have no problem with those that don't want to step out and defend what she said, but there is a big problem when party members act at the call of the left to do what some did. Leopold can refuse to answer questions about his inappropriate behavior, but will make comments about a private citizen and chastise her. Yes, that is the kind of leadership we need isn't it.
This would have been a none issue if Republican's had ignored the baiting by Democrats. Instead the swallowed the bait and have been lead around. If you think this makes Republicans look weak, you are wrong. It shows them that we are not all in lockstep with the Party and that my friend is a good thing. What I find baffling is the people that were not willing to defend what Thomann said, yet are perfectly willing to criticize those that defended her.
I find it funny that Republicans would believe that those that are speaking out in this matter are hurting the party. That is a load of crap. The ones that have hurt the party are those that are willing to compromise to sell their principle for convenience and safety. I have to wonder how many Republicans think Obama is an outright Socialist but are to frightened of the consequences to say it. As I said before, if you don't want to speak up fine, but shut the hell up about those that are willing to defend the perfectly defensible even if at the very least on the right of freedom of speech.
Post a Comment