Who You Calling an Anti-Tax Extremist?

Earlier I commented on a Bruce Bartlett commentary. Here is Wikipedia's entry on Bruce Bartlett. In his commentary Mr. Bartlett use the phrase anti-tax extremists. He then tries to tell us the loaded language he uses is not intended to describe the positions.

If I were Mr. Bartlett I would be careful using the phrase anti-tax extremist:

In January 1977, Bartlett went to work for Congressman Jack Kemp (R-New York) as staff economist. Bartlett spent much of his time on tax issues, helping to draft the Kemp-Roth tax bill, which ultimately formed the basis of Ronald Reagan's 1981 tax cut. Bartlett's book, "Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action" appeared in 1981 (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House Publishers). He also co-edited the book The Supply-Side Solution (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, 1983).

Source: WikiPedia &3150; Bruce Bartlett That is, Mr. Bartlett may with some fairness be called one of the original anti-tax extremists. I may be fairly called a part of the group Mr. Bartlett is calling out. However, I do not want a Hillary in power and if that means voting for Giuliani or (better yet) McCain then I will. However, it does "moderate" (lets reciprocate here, wishy-washy or even better yet RINO) Republicans no good when they choose their words poorly.

Rudy Giuliani did this lately sounding much like Howard Dean. Even when put into proper context the words do him no good.

I am convinced a goodly number of the people Bruce Bartlett refers to are perfectly willing to give the likes of Rudy Giuliani a shot, if they feel their views on cultural matters receive the respect the candidate feels their views deserve. Rudy has me wondering about that.

In the end I do not view conflicts over culture and policy as separate; they may be separate conflicts but they are part of the same struggle.

Virtue is liberty's oxygen, without virtue liberty is soon to die.

Chopping at the Tent Poles

The tensions I viewed within the Outagamie County Republican Party, the Republican Party of Wisconsin, and the national Republican/conservative movement are bursting into fatricidal warfare.

There is a tension between the tent and the tentpoles. One side has big cash the other side has zeal and time. One side poo-poos social concerns the other side from time to time veers into the poison of economic populism. One side derides the others as "blue blazer Republicans" or Country Club Republicans the other uses terms like ignorant and intolerant yahoos.

Now, many try to paint the fight as the far right getting too big for its breeches but what happens if the far right stays home? What happens is the still GOP loses and of late the social conservatives are feeling not excessively included but are finding their concerns being given short shrift. The arrogance Mr. Bartlett expresses is not done with the above comment but he goes on:

However, if the Republican party loses everyone except religious zealots, gun nuts, anti-tax extremists, and pro-life absolutists, then it is not going to win any national elections. That’s not a comment on the rightness or wrongness of the views of those I just listed...

Source: National Review Online Dealing with a Democratic Advantage
(The price of purity is political powerlessness.) a column by Bruce Bartlett What caught my eye was That’s not a comment on the rightness or wrongness of the views of those I just listed Then why do you use the following terms religious zealots, gun nuts, anti-tax extremists, and pro-life absolutists? That clearly expresses an attitude on on the rightness or wrongness of the views.

However, Mr. Bartlett has to consider the fact a Republican Party bereft of religious zealots, gun nuts, anti-tax extremists, and pro-life absolutists is every bit as bereft of electoral victory as a Republican Party bereft of big money.