Feb 12 2008

Hannity & Gingrich, Conservatives In “Exile”

Published by at 5:16 pm under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions

Another day, another whine from conservative talk radio. Hannity and Speaker Newt Gringrich were talking today about how they are now “conservatives in exile” – which means they no longer consider themselves Republicans. Clearly they see something not apparent to the rest of regarding the fortunes of the hyper-right in this nation. Why else basically declare they have been defeated in terms of dictating the path of the GOP? Why go in ‘exile’ unless it is clear that they have destroyed their cause and no longer represent the formative views of the GOP?

After years if being a conservative with principled and rational differences with the hyper-partisan right (which I prefer to call the hyper-right to save some key strokes) and being disappointed with their direction and destruction of the governing coalition I find the current ‘exile’ statements quite petulant. When I and others disagreed on Dubai Ports, The Gang of 14 and Comprehensive Immigration reform we were ridiculed and you know those who ran the GOP over the cliff wanted unconditional support and obedience to their views. And now that they have become the minority voice in the governing conservative coalition they are declaring themselves unable to support that coalition unless and until it bows to their views.

Quite a fit of self absorption there if you ask me. I am a conservative. I believe in low taxes, strong defense, sanctity of life, finishing our work in Iraq and strong borders. I also believe that the most prudent path forward on some of the nation’s most nagging issues is to deal with long term illegal workers with fines and back taxes and criminal background checks (toss anyone out who has committed a violent crime, never to be allowed back). I was not spooked by Dubai Ports and to me the Gang of 14 helped pave the way for two conservative justices on the USSC and a plethora of conservatives judges across the federal benches.

For having these positions which are more than defendable (and probably more representative of America overall – that great country the hyper-right claims to love so much) I saw responses such as traitior, fool, quisling and our President attacked and called names like El Presidente Jorge Bush. This one way obedience being demanded by Hannity and his fellow exiles is what destroyed the coalition – they are untrustworthy allies. They don’t get their way they lambast their allies and bolt to the sidelines.

It occurs to me that exile is another word for loser – someone who did not get their way (lost) and cannot handle getting back into the game with respect to those who may have bested them this round. They are not leaders and clearly do not have what it takes to lead – patience and respect for others. All I could see from Hannity’s and Gringrich’s exile as the final admission – they lost and now they know it and now those who disagree will pay the price.

Empty threats from a spent political force IMHO. Compromise is not evil. Working with fellow Americans to find a way forward together is not un-American. Having a modicum of respect for political opponents is not weakness. Running away when one loses a round is a sign of weakness. Somehow I fail to see how Anne Coulter voting for Hillary is the ‘true’ conservative over someone willing to support McCain (despite grave differences) to make sure Hillary and Obama never become President. But that is the twisted pretzel logic coming from those who lost the broader base because they could not deal professionally with those who disagree.

I am not the only one wondering what happened here, just check out Ollie North’s thoughts on this today. This distancing is not helping beat the Democrats.

Update: Reader Crosspatch notes Hannity has just declared himself a RINO – a Rep in Name Only. How ironic, and finally factual.

84 responses so far

84 Responses to “Hannity & Gingrich, Conservatives In “Exile””

  1. owl says:

    Think I hit a nerve. And your solution is…..? You darn right Miers is still in play. You still do not get it. I never said she was the best nominee, although I think my local plumber would be better than half of them. But that was never the issue. The issue was that the President nominates and then there is a process. We had all stood up and screamed that all nominees deserved a vote. So who decided to change the rules? Was it the Dems? No.

    It may not be a game but it does have rules. Now you can take your marbles and go home, but don’t talk to me about high-falutin principles if you can not even understand the above.

    Same for Malkin. You need to go over and read. Then read the comments. Now compare. She has stirred that hate pot from the beginning because she is furious with Bush over immigration. That is why she felt compelled to lay the blame on Brownie/cryonyism instead of Blanco. She hates Bush. It has been there at the end of many posts that had nothing to do with anything. It is about ‘her’ issue of immigration. It was there before she got in on the front boiler. She has been a ringleader of the destruction.

  2. 75 says:

    Wiley and Whippet1,

    Great posts! Given all we know now about liberalism, leftist idealogy, and the decadence of the Democratic Party there is no reason why any Democrat should want to slide left and absolutely NONE why a republican would. I can’t see any reason someone would want to play the middle in this. Just what’s on the other side of that fence they
    sit on that they want to see, anyway?

  3. Whippet1 says:

    If Bush chose to remove Miers from the nomination process because of pressure from those against her that was his decision. He could have just as easily decided to move forward with the nomination. And that too is part of that process that you describe. That was his choice..and those are the “rules.” President Bush chose to support many different types of legislation throughout his Presidency that were unpopular to many within the party but he chose to continue with them. Again, that was his choice and either way he would receive criticisms within the party. You act as if pressure from outside sources rules all of President Bush’s decisions – or is it just those decisions you disagree with?

    President Bush is a man of deep conviction to his principles, whether one likes it or not. He is the one who decides on the judicial or legislative path that he takes knowing full well that he will have to deal with criticisms. He knew that when he took the job. To suggest that he would buckle under to the pressure from anyone is to suggest that he is weak.

    Yes, there are people out there who promote hatred as a way to deal with certain issues but some here seem to confuse dissent with hate.

  4. Whippet1 says:

    I think your points are very true and I agree with them. My support of President Bush is very strong but that doesn’t mean that I have felt everything he has done has been conservative. I have certainly disagreed with some of his policies but all in all I have felt he has withheld his conservative principles on some of the most important issues like tax cuts, the GWOT and appointing conservative judges. As much as I would hope to get everything I personally want from a President I know that that is virtually impossible so I look at what he has done and I am satisfied.

    What I have always most admired about President Bush is his ability to stand firm, against all else when it really matters. Has he made mistakes along the way…sure, but every President has. Has he pushed legislation that I don’t agree with, sure, but on many of the issues that matter most to me he has been pretty consistant.

    And after watching him take down the Democrats and Ann Richards here in Texas to become Governor – well, you just can’t help but love the guy!