HolyCoast: Conservatives Weeding Out the Fringe
Follow RickMoore on Twitter

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Conservatives Weeding Out the Fringe

Since the fringe is how the media try to portray the entire conservative movement the sooner we get the nuts out of the way the sooner the party can make real electoral strides:
After months of struggling to harness the energy of newly engaged tea party activists, the conservative establishment — with critical midterm congressional elections on the horizon — is taking aim for the first time at the movement’s extremist elements.

The move has been cast by some conservatives as a modern version of the marginalization of the far-right, anti-communist John Birch Society during the reorganization of the conservative movement spearheaded by William F. Buckley Jr. in the 1960s and 1970s.

“A similar effort will be required today of conservative political and intellectual leaders,” former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson wrote in his column in The Washington Post. “It will not be easy. Sometimes it takes courage to stand before a large crowd and proclaim that two plus two equals four.”

But for Gerson and other conservatives, this is not just an intellectual exercise. They have a very specific political goal: to deprive Democrats and their allies of a potentially potent weapon to use against the GOP in November.

“I don’t believe we should be giving [extremists] a platform or empowering them to do anything based off their conspiracy theories,” said Ned Ryun, president of American Majority, “because they give the left ammunition to try to define the tea party movement as crazy and fringy.”

The attempt “to clean up our own house,” as Erick Erickson, founder of the influential conservative blog RedState, puts it, is necessary “because traditional press outlets have decided to spotlight these fringe elements that get attracted to the movement, and focus on them as if they’re a large part of this tea party movement. And I don’t think they are.”

Until recently, organizers and activists mostly seemed content to ignore, or in some cases tolerate, extremists in their ranks, confident they’d be drowned out by the hundreds of thousands of activists who took to congressional town halls and marches around the country to protest big-spending initiatives pushed by President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress.

But inflammatory rhetoric such as former congressman Tom Tancredo’s racially tinged speech at this month’s tea party convention, reports of the involvement of right-wing militia groups and the continued propagation of conspiracy theories about Obama have sometimes cast the movement in an unfavorable light.

Erickson has advised new tea party organizers on how to avoid affiliations with extremists and this month banned birthers — conservatives who believe that Obama was not born in the United States and is, therefore, ineligible to be president — from his blog. (He has long blacklisted truthers, those who believe that the U.S. government was complicit in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — a conspiracy theory with devotees across the political spectrum.)

“At some point, you have to use the word ‘crazy,’” said Erickson.
I can't agree with Erickson more. I've been weeding the "birthers", "truthers" and Ron Paul nuts out of my Facebook friends list. I just don't have the time or desire to read their wacky rantings.

We can't let the fringe define conservatism, and given how the media flocks to the fringe and highlights them, it's won't be easy to get rid of them.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I mean the fact that Ron Paul won the CPAC poll just means that people voted for him, right? I mean, who needs people...when we have brilliant establishment Republicans we can listen to and take marching orders from? And most of those people were college students or, gasp, 25 and under! Let me tell you, we really need to start focusing on an older demographic in the Republican party--that's where the future lies...in the grave. If I knew how to use Facebook, I would delete all of those crazy people who post junk about the constitution and, like I said, who don't take their marching orders from the Republican establishment. That way, we can be an echo chamber of establishment views--You might post something, I don't know, like, "Say Obama decided to bomb Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel..." And then you could comment, "Oh, no - then Obama might get reelected!" And we wouldn't have any pesky constitutionalists mentioning strange things like the Rule of Law, what is that anyway?

Rick Moore said...

Only about 23% of CPAC attendees voted in the straw poll and Paul got 31% of those people. Not exactly a mandate. Anyone who thinks that was significant can go back and look at how well Mitt Romney did in 2008. He won the straw poll three years in a row and went nowhere.

You tell me we need to focus on younger voters and offer them a guy who will be 77 on election day in 2012. Brilliant...just brilliant.

Goofy Dick said...

It's amazing how some people are too weak to even put their name on their post but hide behind the Anonymous title. Anyway what most of them have to say carries very little value anyway, they just waste space.

Anonymous said...

That Anonymous post is a perfect example of what you are talking about Rick.

I've been trying to weed them out as well, and carefully check them when I get request. I want to establish a No Paulian Zone on my FB.