Seeing Bias Where it doesn't Exist--Part 2

Generally I think that a blogger should be left to defend themselves on their own blog. Once in a while the attacks on a blogger are able to demonstrate a larger point or issue. This is the case with a recent exchange on Marty's blog.

Marty posts frequently a feature called "Random Link 'o the Day". Literally it is just a link of interest. Once in a while there might be an explanation but usually not. Last Wednesday he posted Tim Pawlenty's campaign link. The next day it was Sue Jeffer's campaign link.

First response came from a blind loyalist looking creating a case of bias anywhere they can.

Drinking the "Tony Garcia" Kool-Aid, eh?

Guess having the most conservative, electable governor is recent history just isn't good enough.

Somewhat unrelated, any surprise about how her campaign site does not say whether she is pro-life or have her position on gay marriage? Hmmm...noticably absent. Or is that just because the losertarian crew believes killing babies is our constitutional right?

Now, first thing these people will tell you is that the GOP candidates whom they defend are not going to agree with 100% of the supporters or the platform. That is a necessary compromise in order to win (party over principles, in my view). So notice that this response is attacking Jeffers (and indirectly Marty) for positions that are not there...because they really are unable to address the positions that are there. Basically, Jeffers is running on a fiscal conservative platform...which is exactly the group most disappointed with Pawlenty.

Before you say that this person really supports the "life platform" and wants it in every candidate you need to understand more about this person. As Marty points out over two comments:

[Y]ou would have me support Jim Ramstad who scores between 30%-60% (depending on the year) with NARAL and Planned Parenthood and who supported funding "planned parenthood" abroad; who also scores an "F" with the NRA because of his support for gun control.
...
[He] has no right to lecture me on social conservatism since I remember him defending Jim Ramstad.

Ah, yes, Marty is pointing out the ol' double standard that his detractor holds in the name of carrying the flag for "party". THIS is why I classify this bunch as "Party over Principles". The most important thing to them is the Party...more than even the principles they claim to hold dear to.

Race to the Right friend Psycmeister throws in what actually is the real attitude of the GOP.

Though not perfect in the purist sense by any stretch of the imagination, T-Paw is the best we got--and a helluva lot better than our last "republican" governor, Arne Carlson.

Let's understand this. First, this is an example of how the loyalists have been actually admitting in a number of blogs that they are settling on Pawlenty. That is a disasterous thing because without the excitement for a candidate there is not much of a way to raise support from other people. "Settling" does not breed excitement...and excitement is what builds the electorate on your side.

Second, the GOP has been in a terrible habit lately of running races that they are not in. Kennedy refused (and the GOP aided) to run the race within the GOP instead acting as if it did not exist. Now the Pawlenty supporters are refusing the discussion about Jeffers v Pawlenty. Instead they pick every other matchup. In this case it is 'vote Pawlenty--he's better than Arne Carlson.'

The next comment that deserves a little examination is this one:

You know, once upon a time the Grand ol' Party was a unified body full of starry-eyed idealists who's sense of common unity greatly outweighed it's points of division.

Yes, it was unified because everyone had a voice regardless of their viewpoint. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers were allowed a place in the party, as a delegate, as a candidate...they generally accepted that they agreed on most of the platform in other places. The Big Tent was not "membership numbers" but in ideas. Hearing more ideas, differing ideas and debating them within the party kept the unity because it was easy to accept being in the minority on certain views but at least being heard.

Now the party is about unity in message. No, not unity. They are about staying in line. Follow this theme, this candidate, these few positions. Anything else means you are not a good conservative, not a good GOP member and thus are the enemy.

The comment continues on with more truth than it realizes:

Now it kind of feels like disgruntled siblings clamoring over who gets what in Daddy's will-ashamed to admit they are in the same family with each other, but not dareing to disown themselves becuse it would cost them a shot at being the favorite son.

And many are even afraid to speak up for fear of being attacked...not attacked on their positions, but attacked personally.

For years the GOP complained about the Democrats attacking the person instead of the issue. The GOP loyalists now mimics that. Just in the comments quoted here you can see that. Want a refresher:

Drinking the "Tony Garcia" Kool-Aid, eh?

Guess having the most conservative, electable governor is recent history just isn't good enough.

Somewhat unrelated, any surprise about how her campaign site does not say whether she is pro-life or have her position on gay marriage? Hmmm...noticably absent. Or is that just because the losertarian crew believes killing babies is our constitutional right?

Yep, those bold face comments are personal attacks that do not (and have not) addressed issues or topics. DING! Double Standard #2. The Democrats suck because they attack Republicans instead of debating Republican ideas/issues...yet the Republicans are doing the same thing. (Go read Pair O' Dice or Residual Forces for regular examples of this.)

Next is this comment:

I guess I'll join Dan on the Tony Garcia enemies list for my ethanol support and Pawlenty support.

I'm not certain anyone can make a determination on my response to anyone based on the ethanol issue...I do not have enough information to feel comfortable advocating a position on this topic. Yet the effort to put words in the mouth of others continues rather than having an intellectual debate. I am increasingly moving to the conclusion that many of these people are unable to have any intellectual discussion, let alone one with someone they disagree. But let's examine the end of that comment:

Face the facts, as gas prices rise, ethanol becomes more viable. California, Ohio, Georgia, etc are all raising their ethanol quotas for regular gas. Increased demand for ethanol. At the same time, government needs stay away from corn price involvement.

DING! Double standard #3...or to use the overplayed vernacular of partisans: Flip Flop. What is the principle in this comment? "I support Pawlenty, trust him on ethanol. Look at the facts, ethanol is becoming more viable and quotas are good. Long live government involvement...except in corn pricing." Hardly a small government sentiment...so I have to conclude this person is actually a big government type. His enduring support for Pawlenty while offering big government justifications should give one pause about Pawlenty's balance of big government vs small government. A legitimate issue...which will not be discussed at all by the commenter, I guarantee.

"Finding bias where it doesn't exist, part 2"
Marty truly has not decided who to support. He has been fair...I mean, he had mentioned Jeffers & Pawlenty equally in his "random links posts" and suddenly because he gave a non-GOP incumbent the time of day he gets barraged by moronic statements. Well, Marty, it is only on ONE issue which you are bucking the GOP machine so you will not feel the full force of their hateful attacks. But, welcome to the island of misfit toys.

What is 2006 about for conservatives? The choice for conservatives is similar to their choice in 1992 for Pres. The choice: Incumbents who spat upon the base OR 3rd party/nothing/Democrats/anyone else for candidate. In 1992 the choice of enough "unloyal" conservatives did something that is needed in the GOP now. It sacrificed 2 years for a demand of refocusing. It led to the 1994 revolution because the GOP had to refocus on what it took for granted (though little changes have actually been made as promised by that class). Similar to what happened in Minnesota in 1998...disgusted with the politics-as-usual and the candidates perpetrating that there were enough people who went to Ventura. In 2002 the GOP got refocused and selected a candidate some believed was conservative. A sacrifice of another couple of years is needed to get the GOP focused on the base that got them elected in 1994, 2000, 2002 and 2004. The sacrifices might not be so frequent if the incumbents would stop abandoning their base...and the loyalists would open their eyes to their principles once in a while instead of strictly the needs of their party.

Until then...just consider that a good chuck of conservatives will likely sit out or back other candidates. And the more dissent within the party is blocked or shouted down then the better bet that the exodus out of the GOP will continue...maybe even become more public in the numbers of people wanting out.

I'm reading the "respones" of the GOP loyalists (more like wagon circling attacks on any disagreement) and realizing that the GOP is internally in worse shape now than in 1992.

Finally, the flavor of the Tony Garcia Kool-Aid: Objectivity, Logic and Reason...with a splash of Angst and Venom. People who drink it don't like to admit it but they are better for drinking it and they know it.