As usual Joe your observations are spot on.

The marketplace of ideas and conservatism in general is far more dynamic than advertised. The assumptions and false connections of some on several sides, have elevated and widened divisions within the Republican party in Loudoun. It is safe to say that some of it from is simply crap.Not only crap, but very counter productive crap.

Your example of the immigration issue is sound.
Advocating for local action on the behalf of citizens may very well put one at odds with a wide variety of commercial interests. At the top of those interests is the pro-development community with deep alliances within the Republican and to a lesser extent the Democrat parties. Development interests have money and therefore their influence is felt at every level of the political game. Nothing new here.

In general competing ideas are in the end a good thing. Engage, compete and move on should be the mantra. Get into the marketplace of ideas, make your case and then congeal around a game plan with like minded allies against those whose ideas and policies you deem to be inferior. Again, nothing new here.

Joe, a pleasure as always to hang with you and imbibe, same with Mr. Dover.

I will take a little issue with your description of me as a “moderate”. I think there are simply too many issues to weigh in on these days to describe anyone as moderate, conservative, or whatever. Of course there are those who fit the stereotypical mold, but most people have a wide range of positions. I’m very conservative on many issues, but I take a pragmatic view when it comes to political reality.

CathyMac, I do not beat down the “conservatives” and welcome them to the mix, but they need to get over their own self-importance and rigidity. The litmus test BS is what has caused the shrinkage of the GOP. We must do better to reach outward and draw people in, rather than looking further inward and kicking people out.

“We must do better to reach outward and draw people in, rather than looking further inward and kicking people out.”

LI, I await your posts and comments/actions to follow these words. And please feel free to apply the following to yourself as well:

“……but they need to get over their own self-importance and rigidity.”

There is rigidity even in “moderate” views.

Both of you are free to stop by or not stop by. I have no official party role. I post up my own thoughts and observations. Take them or leave them.

LI presents an interesting and relevant subject for debate. Unfortunately, he too quickly made the mistake of antagonizing his interlocutors by applying the terms “self-importance and rigidity” to them in a negative connotation.

The “self-importance” claim is rather irrelevant. In truth, some of the primary practicioners of “self-importance” are those who create politically-oriented blogs on the internet and regularly throw out their own opinions for public consumption.

But don’t get me wrong on this. I do not see that as a negative thing. It is, in truth, absolutely human and even laudable. Indeed, it is a fulfillment of what the Founding Fathers sought in establishing our unique system and one of the reasons why they thought it so absolutely necessary to enshrine the worth and rights of the individual in the First Amendment.

Where we go wrong is mixing selected abuse of the system in the same bag as this very natural “self-importance.” I do not consider it wrong to hold a strong view and to express that view openly and persistently. I do, however, object to a growing tendency to attach nasty labels to one’s interlocutors. That, in my opinion, is undermining the entire system itself. We have arrived at a point wherein a certain part of the citizenry has become hesitant to exercise their First Amendment rights out of a fear of ridicule or other forms of retaliation, e.g., the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Instead of responding with reasoned opposition, we have taken too often to subtle jabs or even to open ridicule through the use of such ugly labels as “Neanderthal” or “racist” or “wing nut” or “crazy Christian” or “liberal idiot” or “commie”, ad nauseum. And, yes, I do include “self-importance and rigidity” in that mix. They are just as much a debate turnoff as “flaming a**hole.”

Now, what really does set me off is the term “rigidity.” Translation: “I have my beliefs and you have yours. Your failure to compromise your beliefs and move in my direction makes you rigid.” Say that again, please? Am I the only one at this table who is being “rigid”? Where have I heard that before? Oh, yes! Old Nikita, he of the long ago shoe pounding at the UN: “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is negotiable!”

I came from a very blue-collar and somewhat insulated background. I, however, had the good fortune to become the pupil of a very cosmopolitan and erudite college professor who provided my first introduction to the wider world of literature and the arts, both old and contemporary. I quickly noticed, however, that, in a world being turned upside down by the “Age of Aquarius”, this professor never backed down on his core social beliefs. He did not flaunt them, He simply practiced them openly and without self-consciousness. When questioned about them, he calmly and rationally defended them.

There came a day when I could not longer refrain from asking him about the seeming dichotomy between his personal social beliefs and what were then certain growing trends in contemporary literary and art circles. His response was simple: “If a person has specific beliefs, he should hold firmly to them, practice them openly, and defend them whenever the occasion arises. Otherwise, what good does it do a person to have any beliefs at all?”

I personally found that to be a worthwhile philosophy of life and have tried to follow it, admittedly not always successfully. By any definition, you could label me as “conservative.” I, however, select my battles carefully. For example, I am a firm believer in the free market system but one who opposes strongly the turning of semi-rural Western Loudoun into just another bedroom community. I am an “internationalist” in a sense with long experience living in foreign nations and working side by side with almost every race of peoples on the globe. Yet, when you cross my home borders illegally and proceed to turn my own neighborhood into a gang-filled, trash-strewn, and law-ignoring mess, you will be facing me on the ramparts and will find me an implacable foe. I am a strong supporter of legitimate civil rights and a philosophical follower in many ways of Martin Luther King but a very strong opponent of affirmative action for the sake of affirmative action. I am a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment; but you will not find me very amicable if you consider gun ownership to be some sort of macho thing to be flaunted — this from someone who has seen up close and personal in war and “peace” what weapons do to fellow humans. In many instances, you might call me a mixed-bag “conservative.” You can never count for sure on ascertaining where I will stand on many issues.

There are, however, some instances where you will be able to judge me accurately: social issues. These views are not only philosophical but also religion-based (I was raised Fundamentalist Protestant; my wife and children are conservative Catholic). I do not take kindly to suggestions that I should be the one to compromise on these views in order to gain temporal political power. That may be just fine for “moderates”, who will then waltz into positions of political power and enjoy the associated benefits, usually leaving the likes of me on the sidelines with a “thank you” and see you at the next election. Such compromise also leaves me to deal with my own conscience, having, in effect, sold what I consider to be my birthright for a “mess of potage.” That’s no skin off your back. You don’t have to deal with it. I do.

The rejoinder, of course, is that I have relegated myself permanently to the political sidelines and will leave my fate in the hands of the opposition. Ain’t necessarily so. This poitical landscape is a whole lot more complex than just social issues and imbued with whole lot of the unforeseen and the unexpected. You just have to look at the political landscape of the past half-century: FDR-Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon(Ford)-Carter-Reagan-BushI-Clinton-BushII-Obama. No consistency in that. The wind changes. I’ll compromise on certain issues if a see a chance because the wind is changing; but don’t ask me to sell out on the most basic values of my own social conscience just so those of you who do not necessarily hold as strongly to those values can enjoy temporal power.

But you want compromise? I’ll give you one. Anybody who calls me a “crazy Christian” to my face is in for a terrific tongue-lashing and possibly more, Good Book or no Good Book! “Mr. Nice Guy” does have its limits.

All the rest of you, please forgive my lengthy discourse here. I am just sick and tired of being told that I am always in the wrong because I won’t compromise on my innermost beliefs.

Amen Wolverine. You write beautifully and I alway enjoy your “lengthy” posts. I learn something, I laugh and I think – 3 things that are key to good reading!

If you ever write a book about your life and become a multi-millionaire, please remember your friends here and throw us a bone occassionally.

First off…

YOU @!#$%^&*(*&^%$ BASTARDS!!!!!
Did anybody pick up the phone???
Noooooooooooooooo!!

Secondly, let’s address the context of some of the comments that LI has been attacked for…

“LI presents an interesting and relevant subject for debate. Unfortunately, he too quickly made the mistake of antagonizing his interlocutors by applying the terms “self-importance and rigidity” to them in a negative connotation.”

You have to put this in actual context. And in order to do this, you have to run into a couple of the golden nutjobs he bases this on. Most of the folks left inside the LCRC are great, solid and very pragmatic folks, who I’m proud to have worked beside for the past election…and whom I will gladly work with in our upcoming elections of the future.

Mr. Stone is one of those folks. The guy was tireless, and he was ALWAYS there. Do we agree on everything? Hell no. But when it came time to shoulder a load or stand around and complain, I know which way he went. In return, Stone and I have deepened a respect for each other (I hope) and will work much better in the future, because we have walked a good distance down the same road.

Those who ran only stood by and ran their mouth, but never delivered…well, we can all do without their input in the future. The difference is…now we know who they are.

I imagine a cartoon with a bully beating up a weakling and a bubble from the bully saying “Pity me, pity me, I’m getting smacked down!”

Feel free to advance at your leisure. Just don’t complain about being smacked down when for so many years you were doing the smacking. (And still are outside the “G”OP.)

I don’t mean you personally, of course, I mean you the “social conservatives” of #2.

“In return, Stone and I have deepened a respect for each other (I hope)…… ”

You are correct Mr. Monk. Now if we can only get you to paint your war wagon another color.

All this talk about “wing nuts,” “RINOs,” and “moderates” drives me nuts. The REAL litmus test ought to be whether you are willing to support the MOST ELECTABLE Republican candidate even if you don’t agree with him/her on every issue (that means even the big ones).

Joe – A good time, and a good discussion.

Monk – No harm intended – this was pretty impromptu (Besides – I like to spread out collecting beer debts).

Wolverine – A fine and thoughtful post. Everyone should stand by their beliefs, but neither should we stop being introspective about what we believe. Joe’s post referred to me as a “moderate,” and while I have no issue with that label, I would prefer to tag myself as a pragmatist. I am inclined to believe that often times the very best solutions are those that leave both sides of the debate feeling somewhat, or perhaps entirely uncomfortable.

That said, I would reiterate that one should never compromise his or her “social conscience.” Not surprisingly, I agree with your stated positions almost uniformly.

I think that the problem before us is that people have become so strident in their views, that it has become entirely acceptable to marginalize (or attempt to marginalize) those who have a different view or perspective, without giving them the benefit of an honest hearing. If the starting point in any debate is, “I can’t hear you,” or, “I don’t care what you think,” we all lose. No one person, or group, or party for that matter has obtained a monopoly in the marketplace of ideas. That’s why we must all attempt (as difficult as it may be at times) to keep listening.

Yeah, except in most ways Reagan was more liberal than McCain. How soon you forget!

The problem is that you guys have turned so hard to the right that you’re not anywhere near anyone any more. You need to moderate or pretty soon the only states you’ll win are Mississippi and Utah. Maybe Idaho. Maybe.

Here’s the facts guys:
* You had Reagan who was not nearly as socially conservative as you seem to remember. He won because he talked trash to Russia. And we had Carter .
* You got Bush I, hardly a “true conservative” who won against a lousy opponent.
* We got Clinton, twice.
* The majority of the country wanted Gore, but you guys won 5-4.
* Bush squeaked by again because we were in the middle of a trumped up war.
* People are in full-blown “buyer’s remorse” about Bush so even a black unknown kicked your guy’s ass.

How in the hell do you figure you’re even in the game any more? You were 528 votes away from having dems for 20 straight years.

Since you have your heads so far up your rears, your only hope, and I mean only, is that the Dems do something really stupid. If they govern anywhere near the middle for the next 8 years, it won’t matter what kind of candidates you have.

Oh, Kennedy too, of course

Reagan would be a RINO to many of these people. Spare me all the BS about McCain – ANY Republican candidate was doomed this year because of the miserable performance of GWB. Reagan succeeded in large part to his sunny optimism. I have yet to see that in evidence of many current “conservative” leaders. Most of them come across as grouches.

Great posts Joe and Wolverine.

As for Reagan=RINO… Sorry, I had to pick myself off the floor from my laughing. Reagan was a conservative across the board. I know of not a liberal view in him. Perhaps you are confusing him with his wife, or perhaps his son by the same name…

“Since you have your heads so far up your rears, your only hope, and I mean only, is that the Dems do something really stupid. If they govern anywhere near the middle for the next 8 years, it won’t matter what kind of candidates you have.”

You mean like maybe Iran, or perhaps talking about “economic malaise” when we had 20% interest rates and 13% unemployemet? Or maybe you remember someone by the name Lewinsky? Had Algore actually been elected, remember he did lose the Electoral College vote, which is how we Constitutionally elect our President, he would have screwed up as well, just like every other Dem President since I can remember.

You can debate all you want about whether Reagan was truly conservative or not. However, I can tell what I saw in him: determination and decisiveness. For four long years under Carter, we fought a silent battle against nasty foes with the proverbial one arm tied behind our backs. From DAY ONE, Reagan unloosed those bonds and sent us back to that front with what we really needed: the full backing and support of the C-in-C. That for us was a whole world of difference.

Bush I, although not quite so adept as Reagan, pursued the same policy; and I can guarantee you that there are Americans walking around today who, although they may not realize it, owe their very lives to those two men. And then came Clinton. And then came the shackles again. You saw the results in the late 1990’s and beyond. After 9-11, Bush II tossed those shackles into the trash can. Let us hope that Obama imitates his Republican predecessors in this regard and not his Democrat forerunners.

LI, Reagan was a Democrat in the 40’s, and as he said – the Party left him. If we keep up with the “pick the most electable” and ignoring the principles of the Conservative movement, we will continue to lose people – because the Party has left them.

Please name me one issue Reagan was a so called “RINO” on.

A tad off topic; but I just read a recent quote from Joe Biden on the subject of counterterrorism: “…the way in which we have conducted our policy in terms of surveillance as well as the detainees has hurt our reputation around the world.”

Thats an “oh-oh” moment, folks. Our reputations or our lives. We had all better hope that Obama returns the vice-presidency to its once traditional role as a “bucket of warm spit.”