Conservative Donnybrook

It has been three months since I joined the fray here at the Donnybrook.  And, oh what a three months it has been.  Not only did I starve myself of conservativedonnybrook.com nourishment, but my diet turned to local politics, a less than healthy substitute for the conservative palate. Nonetheless, I learned a great deal and observed more than my share of the political culture.

I was one of 15 candidates for the Ventura City Council.  Four seats were available and all four incumbents ran.  As I have mention in a previous post, the amount of gross fiscal waste pouring forth from Ventura City Hall would make William Randolph Hearst blush.  In addition to the waste, the reverse Robin Hoods on the council proposed a ½ cent sales tax increase which, thankfully, was soundly defeated at the ballot box.  The rhetoric, as is expected, from the incumbents (all but one who choose to remain “neutral” but we shall get to this in a moment) was that if the voters rejected the tax increase that the city council would have no choice but to cut police officers, firefighters and other emergency services.  This sort of fear tactic is a favorite of the left: fear mongering equals the population swallowing tax increases.  Not one incumbent suggested that emergency services are a priority and that cuts, if any, should come from superfluous programs, redundant positions and/or civic initiatives first.  No, this would allow the voters to sleep at night and not fear the unrestrained and undeterred burglar from creeping through the window and robbing the voter blind…or worse. At any rate, the voters saw through this pathetic attempt to weasel more money from them and rejected the proposed increase.  Yet, for all the lies, waste and corruption at city hall, the voters sent three of four incumbents back to their seats.  Go figure. Continue Reading »

Doughboy seems to be under the impression that the New York 23 election was a round rejection of social conservatism. As always, his opinion is based on a blog post from Pajamas Media. Unfortunately, PJ Media got it wrong. The facts belie that position. Let us examine the facts. The PJ Media article focuses solely on the NY23 election.

First, it is not all clear that if Republicans had nominated Mr. Hoffman in the first place, the Democrat would have won. I think at least some of the votes that might have gone to Hoffman were diverted by Scazzafava’s endorsement of the Democratic candidate. Even if not, does the outcome of that single race mean the all voters in every sector of the country rejected social conservatism? Not even remotely.

Second, how did other social conservatives fare in this election? Chris Christie, who won the New Jersey governorship, is pro-life and anti-gay-marriage. Likewise, Bob McDonnell coasted to victory on a platform that included a pro-life stance, and a goverment policy which favored “married couples over ‘cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators.’”

In other words the two biggest wins on election night were for those who supported socially conservative positions. It is not at all clear that Hoffman’s loss came as a result of his socially conservative positions. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence that his loss may have resulted from Scazzafava’s endorsement of the Democratic candidate. Indeed, it appears that conservative positions won out over the radical Marxism espoused by Obama and company. Social conservatism is a part of the calculus that both Christie and McDonnell benefitted from and other candidates should not shy away from strong social stands despite what moderates at Pajamas Media might suggest.

Finally, I’d like to say a few words about the accusation, if not expressed on this website, that I seem to be always attacking the GOP. I find it interesting that Doughboy finds it acceptable to cast aspersions on conservatives’ traditional support of social values. And, yet, that to him does not equate to an attack on the Party. To the extent that the Party is abandoning traditional family values, it appears that Doughboy might be in the mainstream. Indeed, he seems to be in lockstep with fellows like New York Times columnist David Brooks who has been advocating a move to the Left for the GOP in order to create a Big Tent Party. Any attack on traditional family values, one has to admit, is a departure from the prior platform of the (more) conservative party and, as such, a move leftward. Abandonment of the social platform of the Republican Party of the past several elections can only be seen as a move towards the Democratic Party for blatantly political calculations that do not serve the best interests of the American people or their traditional culture. To the extent that I have attacked the GOP for their migration on this front, I proudly admit this transgression and offer no apology for having or continuing to do so.