Geraghtyites Versus Tapscottians: A Inter-Party Debate

Hugh Hewitt brought this to everyone's attention earlier this week (Monday, I believe). Jim Geraghty of National Review has this viewpoint going into the 2006 mid-terms:

"But apparently the Kos are not the only ones with an all-or-nothing mentality. Sometimes in life you have to use the West Coast offense, nickel and diming your way down the field instead of going for the long bomb. If I want a more conservative government, I get it by electing the more conservative of the two choices, even if he isn’t as conservative as I would like. I do not get it by sitting on the sidelines and pouting, and letting the less conservative guy take the reigns of power."

In other words, no sitting on your laurels in a snit; change comes to those who help enable it.

Mark Tapscott, on the other hand, has a different view:

Democracy Project's Bruce Kesler has an interesting post up in which he argues with his usual direct, no-nonsense approach that folks like me on the Right - whom he believes are talking about sitting out the 2006 election - are suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD.

Referring to yours truly as well as Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters and Professor Stephen Bainbridge, Bruce opines that we suffer as a result of being "worn down by defending difficult positions at the forefront of the battle against irredentist Democrats in Congress and their fifth-column in the media."

That Bruce is posting on the issue is a good sign that I am succeeding in one of my goals, which is to encourage a dicussion in the Blogosphere about whether the GOP deserves the continued support and loyalty of those millions of us who since the 1960s have provided most of the party's human, intellectual and financial muscle.

So, in short, the argument is whether to suck it up, pound the pavement, and not give up on the party (the Geraghtyites), or abandon the party this year, and maybe 2008, to send a message to the party that we are not happy (the Tapscottians). Let me just say that this is an interesting debate, to say the least. We can sympathize with Mark Tapscott. We understand where he is coming from. Thomas and I have watched the GOP shoot itself in the foot over and over. From issues ranging from judicial nominees to spending, the GOP either is playing to it's "inner McClellan, or it acts as though it just does not care what their constitutents are saying. It is extremely frustrating, and as a lifelong Republicans we get just as ticked as the next person. Their sort of behavior recently is also disheartening to the base that, like Mark Tapscott, keeps saying "Why bother? The GOP will just screw it up again."

On the other hand, Jim Geraghty preaches that we can't abandon the party. The disaster that ensues from such an action. Refusing to vote will only ensure a tighter race, and may cause us to lose seats. A refusal to help candidates could also hurt the race. We can't just sit idly by and stew over the stupidity of a few. Captain Ed's "Not. One. Dime" campaign was the start, and the GOP has felt it. We're contributing to the people we want as opposed to giving the money to the RNC and NRSC. It keeps the money out of the hands of people like Chafee and Snowe. But the fact of the matter is you can't sit this one out.

In 2004, it was a make or break year for the GOP. We needed more Senate seats to ensure the president's judicial nominees. We needed President Bush's reelection as opposed to John Kerry's walking potential disaster. We were not happy with the GOP then, either, but we still worked the campaign cycle. We blogged, we argued and debated, and we pounded the pavement. We are not ones to give up. That is a fool's notion, and punishing the party for the antics of a few is the wrong strategy.

Are we saying that Mark Tapscott is wrong? When it comes to this issue, he is. And in the worst sense. What he stands for is a failure of the party that might not be recoverable. We can't afford that mistake. We have issues that are sitting on the table that are monumentally important. Both Marcie and I have preached the platform to the hilt:

Win the War
Control the Spending
Cut the Taxes
Confirm the Judges
Control the Border

This fifteen word platform was designed by Hugh Hewitt. It is short, sweet, and to the point. It also provides our side with the most firepower against the Democrats. The Democrats, as a party, are weak on each and every one of those points. But a protest--a sit-out as opposed to a sit-in--could undo the ball before it really gets rolling. That is something we cannot support. So, we at The Asylum are officially labeling ourselves Geraghtyites. We like Mark a lot, and admire his knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence in the realm of politics. But pushing this sort of a reaction to the GOP would prove to be a disaster to the party. The object is to beat the Democrats, not ourselves.

Marcie and I have both been pushing the simple fact that certain people up for reelection need to be shut out in the primaries. If people like Mike DeWine (which based on his recent votes regarding immigration reform, shows he doesn't deserve support) fall in the primaries to a more capable "party-man" of the GOP, so be it. The same goes for Olympia Snowe, Chuck Hagel, Trent Lott, and Richard Lugar. These people, in conjunction with RINOs like McCain and Graham, are a detriment to the party. While we agree with Hugh Hewitt that the tent is big enough to encompass the center-right ideology, there needs to be some way to keep these people in line when the votes matter most. We're not going to achieve that by sitting on the sidelines. But we will if we're in the trenches.

The Bunny ;)
Publius II