A Friendly Challenge
Conservatives have done a good job in new media. One “go to” site for me in the past has been “Red State.” However, I have not agreed with the direction of Mr. Erickson there . . . much as I appreciate any conservative voice and his willingness to take on the status quo.
Since they are all the rage: let me challenge Mr. Erickson of Red State to an online Lincoln-Douglas debate on the question: “Is Newt fit to serve?” An alternative question might be: “Is Mitt Romney a conservative?”
If he agrees, I promise a civil argument between allies in the bigger political fight. Perhaps this would help our community makes some decisions in the weeks ahead.
I am open to variations that he finds better. Of course, his on-line status is larger so perhaps he can find a foe more his equal, but I would love to see such a debate. Since I am not a political expert, I would be willing to defer to a better choice for the chance to see this issue discussed.
Posted in For Discussion, Uncategorized | 8 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
JLF9999 on 21 Jan 2012 at 9:03 am #
Is Mitt a real conservative? That is unimportant. Lables do not mean much at this point for most voters. What is more important is for us to know are the details of Newt’s troubles in Congress. What got him fired from his Speaker job? You know the Democrats have it and you know they will use it.
kurofune on 21 Jan 2012 at 9:22 am #
This sounds like one of those things that would be too good to possibly happen. If only it would, I might actually start following Red State again; the site seemed to derail itself from important issues and conservative mainstays in order to seek out an anti-Romney. I would welcome the old Red State back and a debate like this could only help.
JMReynolds on 21 Jan 2012 at 9:58 am #
I am willing.
And they have every advantage. I spend my days reading tedious books. They spend their days doing politics.
They argue for a living. I argue for fun . . . occasionally.
So let’s air out our differences and return to being allies!
sewinglady on 21 Jan 2012 at 11:17 am #
Yesterday my husband and I were at a restaurant where CNN was playing. I happened to see the political discussion, which included Eric Erickson of RedState. He commented that he believes Newt will win South Carolina, and then as he heads into Florida and other states “Evangelicals will support Newt against Mitt.” I was too sickened to pay attention to the rest of what was said.
Why would Mr. Erickson use the term “evangelicals” instead of “conservatives” unless this isn’t about religion? It’s sad and sickening at the same time. It is also inexcusable. I will still hold to the belief that many evangelicals will resist voting for Newt the thrice-married-ethical-violation-holding-Catholic-convert and will choose the upstanding, 42-year-married-Mormon, instead. Here’s hoping.
I think the debate is a great idea.
JLF9999 on 21 Jan 2012 at 3:22 pm #
Sewinglady brings up a good point which was addressed by Richarld Land of the Southern Baptist Convention today. Dr. Land was asked if he thought anti-Mormon prejudice was a significant factor in Mitt’s decline in popularity and he said it was not. It may be in certain circles but that was not what was driving the anti-Mitt stuff.
He said Mitt’s inconsistency with the homosexual agenda and some other social issues was at the core and that Mitt has not been Mormon enough. He explained that if Mitt had more strictly adhered to the Church’s standards on these things he would have been more acceptable. The program was on Fox News’ Wall Street Journal report today. It may have been taped though.
JMReynolds on 21 Jan 2012 at 3:25 pm #
So Mitt is inconsistent on moral issues, so we will vote for Gingrich?
Clue: Gingrich checks social issue boxes but has never led. Santorum would be the guy if it was just as Land said.
JLF9999 on 21 Jan 2012 at 3:38 pm #
JMR, I don’t think Land came to that conclusion. I took it to mean Mitt would have more support if he had not been inconsistent. The comment was about Mitt not Newt. Personaly I think Mitt was not clear but then all I have seen are the outtakes of a few YouTube clips. I don’t think I know what Mitt’s position is on some of those issues.
Retrocon on 22 Jan 2012 at 3:42 pm #
I love John Mark’s challenge. Too often people hide behind simplistic phrases to justify their support or opposition to a particular candidate. In this case, opposition to Romney and support of Newt.
With Romney you hear “He’s a liberal — he’s a moderate”. From there it ends with “support of abortion” and “RomneyCare”. But these can be dispatched rather easily for an objective thinker.
For Romney’s early statements on support of abortion rights, the other side will have to explain Romney’s actual record when in office as Governor. Also, is promising a constituency not to mess with certain laws on the books the same as advocating those positions personally? Say, for example, in a small town a local businessman has advocated that the state build a prison facility near the town. The businessman sees this as bringing jobs and growth to the area. But overwhelmingly the townspeople are against a prison in their town. Now say this businessman — who really is civic minded — decides to run for mayor of the town. Some are suspicious of him, but the businessman is willing to make a concession to the voters: “I will not push for the building of a prison while I am mayor,” he promises, “I will not use my office to circumvent the will of the people in this regard.” Does this mean the businessman no longer thinks the prison would be good for his city? No. Does this make the businessman unprincipled? No. Does this make the businessman weak? No. After serving his term as mayor, say the businessman tries, once again, to push for a state prison to be built near the town. Does this make him a “flip-flopper”? Does this make him untrustworthy?
Regarding RomneyCare, the conversation would start with, “Wasn’t the Massachusetts Health Care bill passed in 2006? Why wasn’t this a campaign issue in 2008?” Say a mayor of a large city works with the city council and citizen’s groups to use city funds (tax money) for greenspace, parks, hike and bike trails, etc. Due to an economic downturn and some unpopular legislation pushed by the governor which usurps local power over such projects and reeks of cronyism, the public sours over the use of tax money on such “wasteful” ideas. Now the mayor decides to run for governor, but through the prism of the new statewide “mood”, opponents try to tar him with his previous support of the city’s greenspace initiative. Fair?