Thursday, October 19, 2006

Anti-Strib goes Anti-Anti-Strib?

The blog Anti-Strib has taken the unusual step of role reversal…applauding (rather than chastising) the silliness of the Star Tribune, particularly on the editorial page. At issue is the STRIBS ‘Letter of the Day’ for October 17th:

According to the media, a conservative -- or a Republican, for that matter -- has to be someone who is a white Evangelical Christian who cannot stand the "immorality" of the left, and is a champion of government advocating spirituality and "values."

I am a conservative, and I am a Republican. Yet I am none of the above. I am a Barry Goldwater conservative. I value limited government. I don't care whether you are gay and want to get married because I value a limited government. I do not care what name you call God and how often you go to church, because I value a limited government.

Goldwater had it right when he said that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell need "a swift kick in the ass."

I value the free market and the entrepreneur. Lower taxes are the way to achieve this. Low taxes are the essence of the limited government that I value.

I also value a strong national defense. I value an engaged foreign policy in a post-9/11 world. We cannot sit idle while others think of ways to attack.

These are my core Republican "values." I want my party back.


Anti-STRIB, which bills itself as a conservative blog, praises this letter as “A Letter Of The Day That I Think We Can All Agree With!!!”

What follows is the response I posted in their comment section. I reproduce it here, since I’ve seen this rather strange sentiment before…

Garrick's letter is nonsensical; it can be summed up thus; the GOP will be "back" once they embrace gay marriage like they used to.

Trouble is, the GOP Garrick (and apparently Anti-STRIB) pines for never existed. It's historical ignorance to insist that the GOP, or for that matter the pre-80s Democrat party, was not guided by "values." HHH extolled rhapsodically on the value and virtues of the nuclear family. Neither party would have supported gay marriage; the unanimity prevented it from becoming an issue. Goldwater didn't support it either during his political life. All the other issues Garrick wants are still part and parcel of the GOP (except for the Chafee wing, of course, which is hardly 'conservative'...)

Perhaps his error is rooted in the faith that "the media" is giving out the straight (no pun intended) story. No wonder the STRIB called it The Letter of the Day. What is confusing is why 'Anti-Strib' thought it worthy of praise...

Too many accusations here not to post a response.

First, my letter cannot be summed up as "the GOP will be "back" once they embrace gay marriage like they used to." That is twisting what I said into what you wanted it to say.

What I said, or the meaning of my letter, was that I don't want my party to make a central issue out of gay marriage. Recently, gay marriage initiatives have been put on ballots as a means of getting Christian evangelicals to come out and vote. Anyone who thinks that allowing homosexuals to marry threatens the fabric of American society doesn't have faith in that very fabric. This issue does, and should not dominate the Republican party.

"It's historical ignorance to insist that the GOP, or for that matter the pre-80s Democrat party, was not guided by 'values.'"

It's hypocritical to accuse someone of "historical ignorance" and then call pre-1980 Republicans "Democrats." Republicans started to shift away from the Democrats exactly during the 60's and 70's, which was exemplified by the candidacy of Barry Goldwater against Lyndon Johnson and the monsterous expansion of government welfare under LBJ.

What my letter said was this. Low taxes, rolling back the welfare state, a government that stays out of our personal lives, and a strong national defense is the core of the Republican party, and is antithetical to the Democratic party.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?