I think the opinion expressed in this piece, says it all.
It ought to be OK for conservatives to say that. But the conservative movement's principles have given way to partisanship. The words "conservative" and "Republican" are now interchangeable, and it's more important to protect the party than to hew to core values.
Or course, when Clinton was in office, the same could be said of liberal groups. For a great example, look at the response of NOW to Clinton's Monica Lewinsky scandal.
I'm not feeling you on the NOW response to Clinton. http://www.now.org/press/08-98/08-17-98.html
It seems to me that there was never anything more than a lukewarm endorsement of Clinton - based on the specific benefits which accrued to the group. This statement can hardly be construed as a typical Limbaugh-Hannity-Fox-fair and balanced fest engagement in pseudo-dialogue. Let's not start lumping folks in a pot to make a point that may or may not be related.
After all, it's not compelling or fair.
Posted by: Temple3 at September 11, 2005 12:47 PM
Excellent piece. I've had a number of play fights with so-called "independents" in the last year or so. They've been so afraid to declare a natural party preference. I see now that their issue with being seen as a member of [insert party of preference here] is that it is also supposed to mean blind allegiance.
Don't know why I didn't see what seems so obvious now. But it doesn't have to be that way at all. True independence doesn't mean no party preference, it really means reserving a) the right to criticize your favored party's leadership and b) reserving the right to vote for "the other side" if, on balance, some individual candidate from TOS aligns better with your priorities. It happens. And that goes both/all ways.
Posted by: memer at September 11, 2005 11:12 AM