With this post, we have our second winner, the winner in the Liberal Category.  However, before I get into that, I would like to mention a post at the Prince William-Manassas Family Alliance, TEA PARTY KOOL-AID?  The poster, Tom Salmon, cites an article in AlterNet, Don’t Drink the Tea Party Kool-Aid, to make the point that Liberals close their minds to any Truth save their own.  Instead of considering what their opponents have to say, they react angrily and emotionally.

Here is how Don’t Drink the Tea Party Kool-Aid begins.

As I continue to read the goings on at the Tea Party Convention, I am overwhelmed by my disbelief that this is a serious movement. However, when I step back to take a rational look, I completely get it. Humankind has a long history of rallying around hate and propaganda. If you recall the Frank Capra films used by our country to rally the nation during World War II, you understand that we have a rich history of being taken in by effective messaging. The American Right Wing movement over the last thirty years has known exactly when to pounce on any deep-seated fears in order to gain political advantage. In the guise of patriotism and our so-called freedom, the public has been hoodwinked into believing that government is evil and government services are only for the poor or someone else. The roads we use, the mass transit we ride, the public schools that serve our children and yes, the air we breathe, can only work with an effective and well-organized government. To say over and over again that government is evil and actually believe it is the most Un-American rhetoric anyone could buy into. (continued here)

What is most contradictory is that even as they react with such venomous disdain, Liberals accuse their opponents of anger and hatred. Does Don’t Drink the Tea Party Kool-Aid ever actually discuss the Tea Party movement?  No.  

The Tea Party movement rose up spontaneously in response to trillion-dollar deficits. Unfortunately, instead of trying to determine whether the Tea Party movement has any Truth in its complaints, Don’t Drink the Tea Party Kool-Aid portrays the Tea Party movement as a sinister enemy.

The modern Liberal stands Liberalism on its head and insists upon defining the Truth for everyone else.  The Liberal would use the power of government to enforce his definition of Truth and make everyone else live according to his Truth. Yet government can offer only earthly truths. 

What is the Truth? None of us can answer that question satisfactorily for everyone else.  That is why men fight for a free society.  They want to live their own way, to live by their own version of the Truth. 

What is Truth that will stand for eternity?  

Psalm 15 (Today’s New International Version)

A psalm of David.

LORD, who may dwell in your sanctuary?
Who may live on your holy mountain?

Those whose walk is blameless,
who do what is righteous,
who speak the truth from their hearts;

who have no slander on their tongues,
who do their neighbors no wrong,
who cast no slur on others;

who despise those whose ways are vile
but honor whoever fears the LORD;
who keep their oaths even when it hurts;

who lend money to the poor without interest
and do not accept bribes against the innocent.
Whoever does these things
will never be shaken.

The Winner in the Liberal Category

The blog Too Conservative wins in the Liberal Category. This post, I AM A WINNER? — PART 2, describes the criteria.

Why Too Conservative?

Because Too Conservative portrays itself as “Too Conservative” and Republican, this choice may strike some as a little odd.  However, Too Conservative has a habit of supporting “Moderate” Republicans and attacking Conservative Republicans.  Why does that deserve some discussion? We are at that time of year when we select our Republican nominees.  So instead of talking about Liberal Democrats, it makes more sense to talk about Liberal Republicans. 

Who has Too Conservative attacked?

• Here is a post where VA Blogger could not figure out who he disliked more, Jim Gilmore or Bob Marshall.
• Here is a post where Loudoun Insider attacks Ken Cuccinelli  and Fasil Gill.  Here is another where he calls Cuccinelli paranoid.
• Here Loudoun Insider rags on Steve Hunt — after Hunt lost.

Since Too Conservative‘s older material is no longer online, we can only find left over references in Google, not the original posts.  Here we have an attack on former PWCGOP Chair Tom Kopko.

embarrasing, and over the edge

13 May 2006 by Too Conservative   in an incredible display of hypocrisy, the new prince william gop chairman tom kopko held a joint press conference with the prince william democratic chair and two democratic candidates for the prince william board of supervisors, … Too Conservative – http://tooconservative.com/ – References

So what is the point?  With friends like these….  

Too Conservative generally supports the Republican nominee but, Too Conservative leaves little doubt that its support Conservative Republicans stems from its greater dislike for Liberal Democrats.  Is that a sin?  Not necessarily. Politics provides no perfect choices. We can only choose what we regard as the best candidate, not the perfect candidate.

So what really is the point? “Too Conservative” is a “Moderate” Republican blog. At best, Conservative Republicans can count upon Too Conservative only for grudging support.  

 A Review of a Too Conservative Post

Which post? We are in the process of nominating our congressional candidates.  So the proper pick is a post related to that subject.  Thus, we have Fimian and the Frederickistas desperate to find a challenger to Anthony Bedell by Brian S. In this post, Brian provides us a rather weird attack on Keith Fimian.  It starts with the title. What does Fimian have to do with Frederickistas? Darned if I know.

The weirdness continues with these accusations.

After some of the scenes I witnessed at the last FCRC meeting when Keith Fimian ignored the decision of the Committee to not allow any candidates except Kerry Bolognese and Samantha Rucker to speak (which was the right decision, considering if he’d allowed candidates from the 11th to speak, he’d have to allow candidates from the 8th and 10th, and there are at least 6 of those out there) it was only a matter of time before Fimian’s team started searching for a more pliable Chairman.

Imagine that.  A congressional candidate wants to speak to the FCRC.  Did Fimian ignore Bedell? According to a commenter (see I’m Just Sayin), nothing of that sort happened. Fimian did not speak during the meeting. When Brian “refuted” I’m Just Sayin, Brian did not reaffirm his version of the story. Instead, he made excuses (see here).

Is Fimian looking to replace Bedell? I don’t know.  I am not a member of the FCRC, and I don’t claim any inside knowledge. The only source we have for this “news” is Brian. When he has already changed his story once, what reason do we have to believe Brian?  Because he has provided his name, Brian asks us to trust him (see here). Nonetheless, his sources are unwilling to provide us their names.  The funny thing is that he asks us to trust him without noticing that irony. My guess is that Brian has read — and believed — too many newspaper exposés.

So what else should we know?

• FCRC Chair Tony Bedell endorsed Pat Herrity (see here).  Somehow Brian did not think it pertinent to mention this fact in his post.  In spite of Brian’s inside knowledge, a commenter had to add that fact (see I’m Just Sayin again).  The same commenter also suggested the following.
  

  Fimian and Herrity had spoken the week before at the PWCRC, and rumor has it that Fimian was extremely well received. It would be interesting to hear from somebody who attended the PW meeting. There is speculation among some in the Fimian camp that the Herrity camp did not want a repeat performance.

  Here a link to a post that describes that PWCGOP meeting.

• Brian supports Herrity. Apparently, Brian thinks Fimian too conservative for Too Conservative to support.

Did Herrity and Bedell conspire to prevent Fimian from speaking?  We can only speculate.  My experience is with PWCGOP.  If our chair refused to allow congressional candidates to speak, I think it would raise quite a stink.  Why would the members of the FCRC react differently? They are too busy to listen to their own candidates?

So is Brian right? Is Fimian looking to replace Bedell? Well, I suppose it is reasonable to speculate that Fimian might want to replace Bedell. If you were a serious contender for the 11th Congressional District, how comfortable would you be with a FCRC Chair who supports the nomination of someone else?  Here is a portion of comment I left on Brian’s post.

Fimian’s supporters will risk a great deal of time and money in their race for Congress. If they do not believe they will have Bedell’s whole hearted support, that is quite sufficient reason to seek a replacement. No spite is required. (from here)

So why did Brian write such a nonsensical post? The answer is at the beginning of this post.  Brian never considered Fimian’s point of view, he reacted with venomous disdain.  Consider this quote from Brian’s post.

It still surprises me the antipathy that some on the Committee have shown to anyone who has been willing to put pragmatism over ideology. 

Brian thinks of himself as pragmatist (Pragmatism seems to the preferred of “ideology” of self-styled moderates.). Brian apparently considers Fimian and his supporters (the Frederickistas?) ideologues.  However, if you look at the comments, Brian and his friends at  Too Conservative do not seem to know what it means to have an ideology.

History and experience demonstrate that those who adhere to an ideology can accrue certain advantages. Pragmatism is ideology for beginners. Pragmatism is just about what seems to work. The pragmatist tries different things.  Then he continues doing what he thinks works.  However, the right ideology provides a body of time-tested wisdom, wisdom gathered and tested by those who went before us. 

In his comments, Cato the Elder explained the advantage of learning from the past.

It strikes me that, over time, the meanings of our words get lost for a variety of reasons. In the contemporary lexicon, uttering the term “ideology” is designed to provoke the image of a set of values and ideas that are firmly held in the absence of logical premise. Which leads to flawed statements like:
*
“Ideology is un-American.”
*
Bullshit. Ideology was formed from the Greek roots idein (meaning “idea”) and logos (meaning “reason”). America was founded on ideology. The ideology that the human condition will reach full potential when not restrained by tyranny. The ideology that all men are created equal. These were not new ideas, but rather borrowed from Greek and Roman society. Both were formidable and both failed for different reasons, but our founding fathers had the foresight to steal the best elements and learn from past errors. That’s our “marketplace of ideas.” It’s managed to stand the test of time against the polar opposite, central planner/coercive approach. So far, we’ve come out ahead, and I’d consider that a pretty good basis for a “reasoned idea.” (continued here)

The Internet provides a forum for discussion, and there are excellent discussions at Too Conservative. Occasionally I comment there.  :wink:   Hopefully, the guys there read as much as they write.

Other Contest Winners

See I AM A WINNER? — PART 1 for a list of winners and contest rules.