April 21, 2014

Ladies and gentlemen: your “moderate,” “mainstreet” Republicans

The “Main Street” Republicans want to redefine conservatism as “center-rightism,” all while trying to paint actual constitutionalists as either secretly liberal (and they are, though only in the classical sense). This is what the big money establishment backers have come up with as a strategy to beat back uppity candidates they believe won’t play the game of pretending we have a two party system rather than what we actually have, a ruling elite the vies for control over an ever-growing federal government and is at its heart committed to cronyism and corporatism.

It’s one thing for moderate Republicans to attack conservatives as hypocrites or as purists who want to purge the party. It’s quite another for them to misquote conservatives on purpose to try to make them look like they’re really liberals.

The moderate Republican Defending Main Street SuperPAC is using footage from a recent AEI debate to imply that Club for Growth President Chris Chocola is a liberal who runs a left-wing group and loves Nancy Pelosi.

The footage appears in a new ad defending Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, against a Club for Growth-backed challenger, Bryan Smith of Idaho Falls. I was at the debate, which was moderated by the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney on Ash Wednesday at AEI. Chocola debated the Defending Main Street PAC’s boss, former Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio. Chocola said during the debate that he respected Nancy Pelosi because she had been willing to sacrifice her majority in Congress to advance her ideological goals.

His point was that he wished Republicans would be that dedicated to advancing conservative ideas. The Main Street ad takes the “respect for Pelosi” part of Chocola’s comments out of context to make it look like he’s simply praising Pelosi. The implication is that the Club for Growth is a liberal group backing Simpson’s challenger, Idaho Falls attorney Bryan Smith.

Main Street PAC today reported dropping $112,000 on this ad in Idaho’s Second Congressional District, according to FEC filings.

Taking quotes out of context, reconfiguring meaning — we expect this from the progressives, because the only way they can garner support for their agenda is to misrepresent its goals and policies.

And so really, we shouldn’t be surprised by “moderate” Republicans taking that same tack in their efforts to defeat constitutionalists. After all, they are themselves statists, and so they are more committed to damaging constitutionalists than they are progressive democrats.

Those types they can bargain with, you see. Whereas the troglodytes backed by “fringe” ultra-right wing free market fetishists? They’re just so damn unyielding, and as a result, they need to go. Like, yesterday.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 11:46am
5 comments | Trackback

Comments (5)

  1. Meghan’s coward daddy never ran any ads anywhere near this tough when he was running against Obama

  2. “The “Main Street” Republicans want to redefine conservatism as “center-rightism,” ”

    …which is always drifting left chasing after the red laser pointer dot of ‘moderate independents’ projected on the floor of policy, by the democrats and their ‘press’ allies. The republican party is compulsively adhering to the ‘strategy’ of a particularly obtuse house cat.

  3. A really smart political operative would work to redefine “center-rightism” as conservatism, thus relocating liberalism and progressivism outside the mainstream of American politics. This just plays into the notion that the Left naturally occupies most of the center, when clearly it does not.

    This Fredo Corleone smart.

    Wherein Fredo is played by Frank Stallone instead of John Cazale.

  4. Good ad, hitting back at Mark Pryor.

  5. ,i>A really smart political operative would work to redefine “center-rightism” as conservatism, thus relocating liberalism and progressivism outside the mainstream of American politics.

    THIS.

    But what is truly disgusting about the “Main Street” PAC is the utter dishonesty. It would be one thing if they argued that they can win where our Akins and Angles cannot and our Akins and Angles stick foots in their mouths, fine. We can disagree and note that a “victory” followed by a sell out is not a victory at all, but at least they are making an argument.

    But this? They have to lie about the Club For Growth?

Leave a Reply