E!! The True Conservative Story™

Not sure if you’ve heard that Tax Day Tea Party organizer and DontGo Movement leader Eric Odom said “thanks, but no thanks” to RNC chair Michael Steele’s request to speak at the Chicago Tea Party event?  Instead, Eric invited chairman Steele to come and mingle and LISTEN.  Which I thought was well-played and a great idea.

Now it seems the grassroots Tea Party effort is being portrayed as a project of the GOP.  Here is Eric’s response - which, as a volunteer Tea Party organizer here in NV, and an associate and friend of Eric’s, I can verify as true and genuine:

So, about that CPAC speech and the subsquent dust-ups over Rush Limbaugh.

Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs’ comments were obviously calculated.  Declaring Rush the de facto leader of the GOP put every elected Republican on the spot.  To agree was to admit taking your talking points from a radio talk show host.  To disagree and disparage Rush was to alienate his twenty-two million listeners, as Michael Steele so handily did on CNN.  Why so few Republicans went the obvious third way – giving Rush his just due as one of our country’s strongest, loudest traditional conservative voices while also pointing out that he is not running for office (or running the RNC) – is a mystery.

Unfortunately, some conservatives failed to love-their-neighbor and even went as far as to accuse Rush of being “bad” for the Republican party.  And many of the anti-Limbaugh comments were harsh.  David Frum got particularly personal and nasty, and I like him the less for it.  Why is Frum so concerned with policing conservative talk radio?  Is he now the self-appointed Roger Ebert of the airwaves?  Frankly, I find it silly that Frum would even enter the fray.  He made himself smaller in the process, and millions who had barely heard of him (and quite a few who had) now think he’s a royal jerk.

Some conservatives enjoy Limbaugh’s in-your-face style.  Not everyone does, and that’s fine.  It doesn’t burn a lot of calories to turn a radio dial.  As for Rush’s personal failings and struggles, we ought not to judge him by these things – lest we, too, be judged by our worst mistakes and most obvious flaws. 

What is important in the context of this intramural competition for The Party is that Rush is a (not “the”) star player who brings in the crowds.  He is unapologetically passionate re: his traditional, Constutionalist views; he swings his bat hard; and he is well loved for it.  At this point, there’s no doubt that El-Rushbo’s personality and following are Babe Ruth big.  His three hours a day on the field does far more good than harm for the conservative cause, if only to please the fans by kicking some dirt on the shiny shoes of an obviously biased referee:  the mainstream liberal media.

He ain’t high fallutin’, but I see no crime in that, nor any harm to The Party.  To my mind, and the minds of many conservatives with whom I talk from week to week, there is no real party at present. Indeed, while we argue amongst ourselves over What Happens Now, it seems to me that Rush is the glue holding together nearly half this country’s post-election conservative voters when they might otherwise have gone their separate ways in rank disgust.  As for the other half, if they want the reform and moderation the two Davids – Frum and Brooks – are selling, and if they like the pretty package it’s wrapped in, let ‘em have it.

For many of us, cow-towing to creeping social progressivism and big bureaucracy, advocating compromise on core conservative principles that must be unbending if they are to mean anything, and “reforming the message” by echoing White House attacks on widely-liked conservative personalities are vices far worse than any Rush has yet displayed – and are far more harmful to The Party.

I was rooting for Steele.

Here’s a good 2005 piece on Steele’s journey (and courage) by NR’s Jay Nordlinger.  If you don’t know much about Steele, you should read it.

Tip o’ the hat to Jay Nordlinger for referencing this piece at Slate.com entitled:  “If Obama Loses” and subtitled “Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.”

We’ve heard it before; we’re sure to hear it again.  If McCain wins, racism is the only explanation and the Decline of America is confirmed.

What a nasty Lie.

If the black nominee this year were a Republican, we wouldn’t be hearing a peep about Racism-As-Reason.  The liberal media would blithely loathe the Republican nominee, notwithstanding his blackness.  As Nordlinger points out:

The nominee would be just another Republican who needed to be defeated, like Lynn Swann, Michael Steele, or Ken Blackwell.  When Doug Wilder ran for governor of Virginia, everyone said, for months, “He would be the first black governor since Reconstruction.” It was also asserted, constantly, that the election was a test of Virginians’ racial maturity.

But earlier, the Republicans had a black nominee in my home state, Michigan – his name was Bill Lucas. No one said he would be the first black governor since Reconstruction. No one talked about the racial maturity of Michigan voters. Lucas was just another conservative politician who needed to be defeated.

And he was, by a garden-variety white liberal (Jim Blanchard).

I am sick of watching re-runs of the Whitey Hates The Black Man mini-series.  I am sick of accusations of Racism in America every time some person of color does not get what they want when they want it.  And I am sick to death of the over-simplification of issues and pseudo-polarization of our population via all Identity Politics.

If Obama loses this fall, it will be because he didn’t convince enough Americans that his governing skills and policies were better than McCain’s.  Period.