Responding to Viguerie
Newsmax is reporting that
the White House has responded to ultra-conservative activist Richard Viguerie's Washington Post op-ed. Heres' how they responded:
Mr. Viguerie is a purist, which isn't worth a tinkers' damn in the world of real governance. I love conservative principles but if I can't get everything I want, then I'll fight hard to get most of what I think is best. Mr. Viguerie isn't interested in 'partial loaves'. He'd rather have all or nothing. To my way of thinking, that's harmful to America.
Using Viguerie's all-or-nothing vision, we'd have times when liberals would be in charge of government and undo conservatives' accomplishments. In Viguerie's world, letting liberals pick a couple of liberal Supreme Court justices is ok because it'll 'teach conservatives a lesson'. Likewise, Viguerie obviously thinks that letting liberals increase everyone's taxes is ok.
That type of thinking is foolish and it should be rejected. ASAP.
Posted Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:29 PM
No comments.
In an apparent attempt to deflect Viguerie's criticism by pointing out his dissatisfaction with an unmistakably conservative president, Ronald Reagan, Peter H. Wehner, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Strategic Initiatives, sent an e-mail message to an unknown number of persons. The message consisted of a series of quotes from Viguerie in the 1980s, including:Viguerie's response:
- "Just like Jimmy Carter gave conservatives the back of the hand, we see the same thing happening in the Reagan administration." (January 1981)
- Reagan "has changed sides and he is now allied with his former adversaries, the liberals, the Democrats and the Soviets." (December 1987)
- "The White House has slapped us in the face." (July 1981)
- "Eight years after Reagan's nomination for president, the conservative movement is directionless." (August 1988)
"Apparently the White House's response to my article in the May 21 Washington Post is to send out an e-mail from Peter H. Wehner consisting of six quotes by me criticizing Ronald Reagan during his presidency. "That's a lot easier than trying to respond to my arguments. That's a lot easier than trying to explain away the many examples I give of how Bush has betrayed the conservative movement. And that is standard operating procedure for this White House: Put the spotlight on the president's critic, rather than respond to the critic's arguments.Mr. Viguerie's response is laughable, to be blunt. It's easy deflecting his criticisms because, in Viguerie's mind, not even Ronald Reagan was conservative enough for his liking. Longtime conservatives remember that Viguerie torpedoed Chuck Percy's campaign, saying he wasn't conservative enough.
"Peter, I plead guilty to your implied criticism of me. I put loyalty to conservative principles above loyalty to the Republican Party or a politician." The job of conservatives, Viguerie argues, is not to be "mouthpieces" for any administration, but to give criticism where it is due. He concludes: "The remaining task for conservatives is to nominate and elect a president who will govern as a conservative."
Mr. Viguerie is a purist, which isn't worth a tinkers' damn in the world of real governance. I love conservative principles but if I can't get everything I want, then I'll fight hard to get most of what I think is best. Mr. Viguerie isn't interested in 'partial loaves'. He'd rather have all or nothing. To my way of thinking, that's harmful to America.
Using Viguerie's all-or-nothing vision, we'd have times when liberals would be in charge of government and undo conservatives' accomplishments. In Viguerie's world, letting liberals pick a couple of liberal Supreme Court justices is ok because it'll 'teach conservatives a lesson'. Likewise, Viguerie obviously thinks that letting liberals increase everyone's taxes is ok.
That type of thinking is foolish and it should be rejected. ASAP.
Posted Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:29 PM
No comments.