Clint Didier, the Republican third place finisher in Washington State’s “top two” primary offers “an open letter to all Republicans” in which he attempts to justify his petulant refusal to endorse #2 finisher, Republican Dino Rossi.
In a blue-state race that promises, under the best of circumstances, to be close, Didier has announced that his endorsement is conditional upon Rossi’s agreement to never, ever vote to raise taxes, never vote for a program that will increase Federal spending and to introduce Rep. Ron Paul’s “Sanctity of Life” bill in the Senate.
Didier is concerned that, if elected, Rossi will compromise and make deals for political favor. In order for Rossi to prove that he’s not the kind of politician who will do that, Didier wants him to, you know… make a deal for a political favor.
I’m all for electing to office citizens who are not career politicians or beltway insiders, but I do insist that they possess some intelligence. Didier is not one of those. Didier is a special kind of stupid.
Didier’s “open letter”
I want Patty Murray to lose in November as much as any Republican. That is exactly why I have chosen the course I have in making a conditional endorsement.
“I want Patty Murray to lose so I’m going to insist that the candidate running against her in a liberal state take a hard anti-abortion stance.” Okay, not following that logic.
Those more heavily involved in Republican Party politics know there are two camps within the GOP. One camp is more concerned with fiscal issues, while the other believes in both social and fiscal causes.
Clint, those only cursorily involved in Republican Party politics know that there are two camps within the party and that there are even subsets of those. You’re not breaking new ground here.
We know that the ideal of limited government is rooted in our founders’ belief in individual liberty – which was the very reason for the birth of the GOP in the first place. Yet, every time Republicans have been in control in recent decades, they’ve abandoned these ideals and left us with bigger government than Democrats.
Wait… Remind me which party you’re a part of again? Even if this were true (it’s not), it’s nothing compared to the size of government that we’ll end up with if Patty Murray and Obama get to continue unabated. We’re already looking at legions of new IRS agents to enforce health care provisions and a 1099 form for every flat screen TV sold at Wal-Mart.
I placed a phone call to Dino Rossi the night before my press conference offering him my endorsement upon his agreement to make a public commitment to honor [my wishes]. He refused.
Look, Clint… You got 12% of the primary vote. It’s a hell of a lot better than “Good Space Guy” managed but it’s not exactly “clout,” you know?
Under the Bush presidency and a Republican controlled congress, we saw the largest growth of spending in federal government and the biggest loss of personal freedom in our history.
No, when you say “largest growth of spending and biggest loss of personal freedom in our history” you’re thinking of Patty Murray, Obama and the Democrats. You know, the bailouts? Nationalization of private industry? The health care takeover? Try to keep up, buddy.
To all those who are saying I owe Mr. Rossi an open endorsement I say: it’s time to ask Dino Rossi to either honor these simple platform planks or get out of the way for those who will.
The time for making those kinds of statements was leading up to the primary. We’re past that. Move on, buddy. Screw this up and we get Patty Murray who, and I can guarantee this, won’t honor any of your planks.
Ronald Reagan’s message to Clint Didier
The bottom line here, Clint, is that if you had studied your Reagan, you’d know how far off base you are with this stunt. Reagan addressed this very issue way back in 1977. Learn at the feet of the master:
You know, as I do, that most commentators make a distinction between [what] they call “social” conservatism and “economic” conservatism. The so-called social issues — law and order, abortion, busing, quota systems — are usually associated with blue-collar, ethnic and religious groups themselves traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. The economic issues — inflation, deficit spending and big government — are usually associated with Republican Party members and independents who concentrate their attention on economic matters.
Now I am willing to accept this view of two major kinds of conservatism — or, better still, two different conservative constituencies. But at the same time let me say that the old lines that once clearly divided these two kinds of conservatism are disappearing.
In fact, the time has come to see if it is possible to present a program of action based on political principle that can attract those interested in the so-called “social” issues and those interested in “economic” issues. In short, isn’t it possible to combine the two major segments of contemporary American conservatism into one politically effective whole?
…[Ideological purity] always conjures up in my mind a picture of a rigid, irrational clinging to abstract theory in the face of reality. We have to recognize that in this country “ideology” is a scare word. And for good reason. Marxist-Leninism is, to give but one example, an ideology. All the facts of the real world have to be fitted to the Procrustean bed of Marx and Lenin. If the facts don’t happen to fit the ideology, the facts are chopped off and discarded.I consider this to be the complete opposite to principled conservatism. If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free from slavish adherence to abstraction, it is American conservatism.
This is not about you, Clint. It’s really not even about the Republican Party. It’s about what you and I owe to our grandchildren. We owe them our very best effort at reversing the course that Patty Murray has helped to set us on. You cannot do that by playing games with your supporter’s loyalties.