This is a post we wish we did not have to write. Criticizing a friend and former colleague from our days as a RedState contributor brings us no joy. But after reading Erick Erickson's front page post "I’m staying with Chuck DeVore," we could not let it go unanswered.
The piece is so heavily laden with condescension that, frankly, we had to check the byline twice to believe that this stuff was coming from Erick. This seems so out of character for Erick that we wonder if someone else had posted it using his name. In the past, he has been both supportive and critical of Sarah Palin, but in every instance he was fair. Even when he slammed the governor for speaking at the National Tea Party Convention and SRLC instead of going with the flow to CPAC, he at least tempered his criticism with follow-up posts based on personal observations.
But Erick's DeVore piece directly insults Gov. Palin's intelligence:
"You can say all day that she doesn’t have the 'intellectual curiosity' to be President — which is to Palin as 'Cheney’s gravitas' was to Bush — but you cannot deny this woman is fundamentally conservative, Christian, and would be a heck of a lot better than the present guy in the White House. For all of you who deny her intellect, you cannot deny her gut is conservative."Conservatives never look more ridiculous than when they mimic left wing memes, and the old "intellectual curiosity" fake pearl comes right out of the DKos/DNC plastic jewel box.
That Sarah Palin is intellectually curious is a fact that she has proven time and again. She been photographed holding one of her two copies of Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny, and lest one believe that book was nothing more than a prop, Gov. Palin has cited Thomas Sowell, the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon, Dr. Stuart Weinstein of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, Thomas L. DiLorenzo of the Mises Institute, and a number of Heritage Foundation scholars in her op-eds on Facebook and in newspapers from The Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post.
In her arguments, she has challenged and refuted President Obama and no small number of his surrogates, from Vice President Joe Biden to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel on issues from energy security to health care rationing.
She has been praised for her intelligence by politicos from Charlie Black to Newt Gingrich, pundits from Fred Barnes to Camile Paglia, and intellectuals from Victor Davis Hanson to Yuval Levin.
We still can't believe that Erick even brought up the left's "intellectual curiosity" straw man when there was no reason to do so in the context of his argument. It was completely gratuitous and the sort of thing we would expect from The Huffington Post, not from RedState. When will conservatives learn that repeating leftist talking points, unless one is making an argument to refute them, only serves to do damage to the conservative cause? We know Erick is no elitist, so it is puzzling to see him going down the path already well worn by David Frum, Kathleen Parker and others of their ilk. We know that Erick is better than that.
As for his argument for Chuck DeVore, Erick never mentions that California is a blue state. It's not your father's California, nor is it Ronald Reagan's anymore. There are Conservative bastions there, but it has become difficult for a conservative to win an election of national significance in the land of fruits and nuts. No Republican was won a race for the U.S. Senate in California since Pete Wilson did it back in 1983.
You can safely bet that the Golden State's shift leftward was one of the primary factors Sarah Palin weighed in her decision to endorse Carly Fiorina. Just as Scott Brown was about the best conservatives could have reasonably hoped for in a U.S. Senator from blue Massachusetts, Gov. Palin reasoned that Fiorina is the best we can expect to defeat Barbara Boxer with in California. And defeating Boxer is one of the keys to prying control of the U.S. Senate out of the hands of the overreaching Democrats. Against Boxer, Fiorina's poll numbers are trending upward, while those of Devore and Campbell are in decline. This too, was likely part of the Palin political calculus.
All of the positive things Erick had to say about Gov. Palin in his diary were reduced to just backhanded compliments because he played the "intellectual curiosity" card from the bottom of the left's stacked deck. It's a place where Erick didn't have to go, and we are sadly disappointed that he felt the need to go there. As we said, we have always rated Erick as better than that, so we're at a loss to explain why he did it. If you can't make the case for DeVore without dissing Sarah Palin, then perhaps you have no case at all.
- JP
One must be wary of one who takes a job in the enemies camp. That says it all for me.
ReplyDeleteI despise the progressive liberal agenda. If
Obama came to me tomorrow and offered me a job in his administration I would not take it because it would offend my sense of ethics about what this country is about. CNN reports what the progressive liberals want America to hear.
I wouldn't take a job there either.
It is possible that 'intellectual curiosity' was brought into the equation by Red State defensively, simply because Fiorina is way ahead of DeVore in terms of it. The fact that a candidate is more conservative than another does not automatically make it the best choice for conservatives. Factor such as 'intellectual curiosity', character, etc. must be taken into account. Sarah Palin did.
ReplyDeleteI like Red State and visit there regularly, but I have noticed recently that Eric and his minions have a tendency to not be entirely open honest about their reasons for making a particular argument. For example Red State's criticism of Governor Palin's decision not to attend CPAC this year was a bit dodgy because of their direct involvement and association with CPAC and its organisers. Like wise their criticism of the Governor's decision to endorse Carly Fiorina over Chuck DeVore is also suspect because of their direct involvement with DeVore and his campaign.
ReplyDeleteAs Film Critic Leonard Maltin said:
"If I were less than honest as a critic, I think people would spot that right away, and it would destroy my credibility".
I liked the way you destroyed that myth with all the links and factual information you provided.
ReplyDeleteOne factor that has not been analyzed in the decision to back Carly over DeVore is MONEY. Unfortunately, the ability to raise money is critical to a candidate winning in California because of its huge size. With over 33 million people (1/9th the size of the US) campaigns have to be fought almost entirely through expensive TV adds (both negative and positive). Therefore, you need a lot of money to win even if you are a good candidate with a good message.
ReplyDeleteSo let's take a look at the state of the candidates' finances in this campaign. Go to the following web site:
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/srssea.shtml
Then enter and click (1) candidates' campaigns; (2)scroll down to California and click; (3)click US Senate; and (4) click send query. This will give you the current state of the candidates' finances at March 31, 2010.
Currently, Boxer has $5.75 million of cash on hand. Since she doesn't have a serious primary challenger, she doesn't have to spend much of this and will take most of the $5.75 million into the general campaign. Also, because the Democrats will stop at nothing to defend this seat expect her to raise at least another $8 million for the campaign. This means she could have upwards of $14 million to spend on the general election.
To date, Chuck DeVore has raised only $1.8 million and has only $400,000 of cash left to spend in the primary. If he wins the nomination he will be essentially broke going into the general and there is no way he can raise $14 million in four months to be competitive with Boxer.
On the other hand, Carly has raise $5.3 million to date and has $2.8 million of cash on hand. To be fair, $2.5 million of this is a personal loan to her own campaign (click on a candidates' name for details).
If she wins the nomination she will have several million dollars still left to take into the campaign. She, unlike DeVore, also has the business contacts to raise further large sums. Finally, Carly and her husband are very wealthy and have already shown they are prepared to spend large sums of their own money to finance the campaign. This is the reason the NRSC chose her as she can self fund, and this is very important as the Republicans will have limited funds and be unwilling to put the large amount of resources necessary to win in California given the "iffy" nature of winning this seat.
Therefore, Carly is the only one capable of raising the money necessary to beat Boxer. DeVore will be crushed by Boxer because he will not have the money to respond to the barrage of negative TV adds Boxer will launch against him.
While I don't like it, money has to be a consideration in who we select as the nominee in an expensive state like California. Carly can raise the money to be successful - DeVore can't. Therefore, given that Carly is at least acceptable as a conservative, she needs to be nominated over DeVore if we are to have any chance at defeating Boxer.
If I'm not mistaken, "intellectual curiosity" is also something Jeb Bush keeps throwing around when it comes to Gov. Palin.
ReplyDeleteFollow the words and the boundaries are being set.