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 Why go in ‘exile’ unless it is clear that they have destroyed their cause and no longer represent the formative views of the GOP?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. Terrye says:

    Obama supports drivers licenses for illegals. Think about that.

  2. Cobalt Shiva says:

    Whites minority 2050 The GOP will really be dead then — replacing it will be a socialist party.

    Interesting. In other words, your vision of the GOP is tied to racial identity politics.

  3. Cobalt Shiva says:

    Whites minority 2050 The GOP will really be dead then — replacing it will be a socialist party.

    Interesting–you are arguing that the GOP is a racial identity party for whites.

  4. Whippet1 says:

    Terrye,
    McCain doesn’t have to make threats…much of his voting record has done that for him.

    1% of the population? I laugh…but you seem awfully worried about that 1%…

  5. Klimt says:

    CobaltShiva:

    I’m not being racist. Latinos, whose population will grow by 60 percent, and account for 30% of the population, aren’t typically conservative. Add to that around 15% of the black population and half of the whites that are left leaning — and the GOP is a tiny minority.

    Most Latinos like socialism. It’s not hard to imagine an American-Latino socialist party being born.

  6. 75 says:

    I think one only need look at the results from DC yesterday to see why conservatives are rightfully skeptical of John McCain. I’m not so sure the centrists in this forum should be proud of those results.

  7. 75 says:

    I think one only need look at the results from DC yesterday to see why conservatives are rightfully skeptical of John McCain. I’m not so sure the centrists in this forum should be proud of those results.

  8. 75 says:

    oops…sorry for the double post ladies and germs.

  9. Klimt says:

    I think McCain is actually going to ignore conservatives by not changing his positions and surrounding his cabinet with liberals and moderates trying to win over democrats and independents. Most conservatives will be voting for him anyway — because Obama and Hillary would be worse.

  10. Klimt says:

    Cobalt:

    I posted an answer for you, but it never appeared. This may turn into a double post….

    I’m not being racist. Latinos, whose population will grow by 60 percent, and account for 30% of the population, aren’t typically conservative. Add to that around 15% of the black population and half of the whites that are left leaning — and the GOP is a tiny minority.

    Most Latinos like socialism. It’s not hard to imagine an American-Latino socialist party being born.

  11. Whippet1 says:

    Klimt,
    I hope you are not right but I fear you are. It’s the perfect political situation to once again stab conservatives in the back. Other than foreign policy it’s the thing he does best…

  12. owl says:

    “the conservative movement has to declare itself independent from the Republican Party”.

    You noticed that CP? Spitting it out of both sides of his mouth as he sits there smiling. I once sent him an email when he attacked Bush. They wrote back that ‘oh, no, they were very supportive of Bush, etc’. I watched and did not catch him exactly like that again. The other night with Ingraham, he said he was wrong and should have been more critical of Bush, as Ingraham piped in that she had been critical.

    Yep. Just what the world has needed for the last 7 years. We needed more people critical of Bush. Yessireee…..more of those good conservative backseat drivers and chest thumping hair shirts. More, more. Our good President was not ‘conservative’ enough. He was not Reagan. I think Reagan would turn over in his grave at what these people have done.

  13. owl says:

    I feel like I’m watching children fight.

    Whippet………….that was my point about rules. When your children break the rules while playing a game, we try to correct them and explain they played the game, they must follow the rules. There has to be a winner and loser.

    Everyone here knows I have fought against McCain on issues and ego for 7 years. He WON. Game over. Done.

    It does not bother my ‘principles’ one iota to support McCain for President. I have been shouting about this Voice since 2004. We know almost nothing about the Voice but when something does come out……………it scares me silly. He will be the UN Decider. The MSM will never, ever mess up this Elvis lovefest.

  14. 75 says:

    Having followed this blog for some time, I am curious about one thing, though. If the right is marginalized, and talk radio is rejected, and the country is overwhelmingly moving to the center, shouldn’t then McCain be the overwhelming winner for the White House? A landslide? Did not one commentor at this site claim only 5% of republicans were conservative? If all this is true, why are the centrists and independents so upset? Should they not be happy that Rush didn’t endorse McCain? Rush is joking today that if his idealogy is so rejected, then McCain followers should enjoy seeing him endorse Obama or Hillary, no? From the center perspective, something doesn’t add up here. I’m just asking.

  15. Whippet1 says:

    Owl,
    Dissent is not breaking the rules. Just because McCain won doesn’t mean people who disagree with him should be silent. That’s never been part of the “game.”

  16. 75 says:

    Whippet1 & Owl…
    Are those the same rules that have AJ breathing different air than us conservatives?
    😉

  17. owl says:

    Whippet………I guess the kid could just keep sitting there refusing to make the last play in order that the game never be over. Same thing.

    This is exactly what happened with Miers. They never understood that for many of us, it was not about Miers. It was about their conduct when they decided to change the ‘rules’.

  18. wiley says:

    “rules”? Give me a break, this isn’t a board game.
    It’s just been over a week since super Tuesday and Mitt suspending his campaign. There’s time for conservatives to coalesce around McCain, but McCain needs to do more than one CPAC speech while his surrogates and many in the GOP establishment continue to pummel the right for not backing McCain yesterday.

  19. Whippet1 says:

    Wiley,
    Owl and others see politics as just a game. It’s about only strategy, if we make this move we get this, if we make that move we get that. That’s where the lovely “compromise” philosophy comes from that they’re all hyperventilating about. Instead of standing firm on issues and ideology they want to water it down to win the game.

    And I wonder how much they’d all be willing to play their own game and compromise when it comes to their most important issues? I seriously doubt AJ would compromise on the War on Terror (neither would I), or how about embryonic stem cell research? Or how about all those hard working illegals? Say there’s 20 million…let’s compromise…how about we deport 10 million of them and the other 10 million can stay? Maybe a lottery? That would be quite a game, don’t you think? Would they all agree to that? I doubt it. Or let’s say it’s time to appoint 3 supreme court justices. Let’s roll the dice and hopefully we get 2 conservatives and 1 moderate or better yet for “real” compromise how about at least 1 liberal? I love the Gang of 14 argument…”But they helped secure a lot of conservative appointments!!!” Without them playing the “compromise” game they may have been able to secure all their intended appointments…

    It’s all about expectation. When you go in with the attitude that you’ll take some, you missed the opportunity to get it all, when “all” may have been attainable. You start out by losing. It doesn’t mean that you never compromise…that isn’t reality but if you go in with low expectations you’ll always get less. You can win the “game” and still lose.

  20. wiley says:

    Whippet,
    It’s maddening b/c most who post here are generally conservative, some very much so, and for the most part we support the same policies. As evident by his postings across a wide spectrum of issues, AJ is very conservative but “independent” of a political party. So why is it that they are so eager to bend or abandon their principles? So quick to rail against us on the right who merely want to ensure conservative principle and positions remain core to the GOP? We’ll back McCain, but it sure would be easier if we weren’t being bashed over the head, non-stop (yet we’re the ones who are “fill in the blank” for unhinged or deranged).

    In the case of AJ it comes down to Bush. AJ is so enamored of “W”, that any criticism is met with a strong, knee-jerk retort. I like Bush, and know that you are a very big supporter of his, too. But he made some mistakes, and some of his policies and measures are not conservative. That doesn’t mean those non-conservative things were bad (some were, IMO), just not conservative. As much as we like Bush, and support the efforts to win in Iraq (a stable, pluralistic, friendly country), it is beyond dispute that Iraq and Bush’s low approval hurt GOP candidates in 2006 (as did the congressional scandals, profligate spending, inaction on stopping illegal imigration, et. al.). So when conservative bullhorns speak up, whether against Bush or the un-conservative ways of GOP legislators, there’s an instantaneous backlash here. If I didn’t know any better, I’d say it sure looks like they are going out of their way to look to be offended.

    Some of it is pretty amusing. On the one hand, they claim conservative talkers have no influence, they’re on the wane. They go to great lengths to show how these talkers & bloggers are in “meltdown”, yet they do it with words and tone far more vehement and vitriolic than their targets. So why do they care? And they wonder why McCain didn’t do better on Super Tuesday, and why Huck clobbered him in the southern & western primaries a few day later, and why Huck did much better than expected in VA. All the while the ratings for these same conservative talkers keeps going higher (Laura & Levin gaining big numbers, Rush & Hannity doing well or better than ever).

    In addition to illegal immigration, the one issue that strikes a nerve is the Miers nomination. Miers was a terrible selection becaues: 1) she was eminently unqualified while there were many, many well qualified conservatives to pick from (which he later did), 2) it showed cronyinsm, Bush picking one of his loyalists one time too many (like “Brownie” at FEMA), 3) it showed him reaching to please all constituencies, yet pleasing no one — a female conservative who wasn’t too conservative, so she was thought to be electable based on her minority/gender status and vague stance on abortion. Yes, the criticism was swift but constructive and passionate, and correct. I did not hear the hateful words that people here seem to recall, but I didn’t go into every rightwing nook & cranny looking to be offended. I did hear & read Lauara & Malkin during this time (not every day), and all I heard was passion.