What's with the Scott Brown Hate?

For the purpose of this post, you can replace Scott Brown's name with any other Republican who doesn't vote in lock step with your personal definition of the GOP platform.

I don't get the vitriol against Scott Brown, and more specifically toward those who support / supported him as Senator from MA.

Let me first set the baseline for my position. I think that Republican "infighting" at this point in time is a good thing. You can go back and read my very first ever political blog post if you want proof. It was this issue of fighting to own the mandate of 11-02-10 that inspired me to begin political blogging. I believe that we can and must provide the direction for the party in the few short months before primary season for 2012 begins.

I also believe that if you clearly communicate your wishes to your elected officials, and they fail to follow through, you have the right, even the responsibility to hold them accountable through your words, your financial contributions (or lack thereof), and your vote. If you don't, you are either un-American or just plain lazy.

I write the previous two paragraphs to highlight the fact that we SHOULD be having this discussion. The remainder of this post will highlight the fact that we may have a style problem in our discussion.

So on the Scott Brown issue, first a couple of questions to my fellow uberconservatives (I'm thinking this should be our new label. UberCons. I like it. RINOs vs. UberCons...)

1. Did you really think that Scott Brown was our kind of conservative? If you did, I can understand your extreme disappointment. I certainly did not. He did not claim to be. And in fact, other than driving that red pick-up truck, he bears little resemblance to my idea of a "real" conservative. I knew that going in. You should have too.

2. Do you really think that MA Republican voters will nominate a more conservative candidate than Scott Brown? I mean, it's MA... Not to disparage any MA UberCons out there. You keep at it! You are a voice in the wilderness, and I support you! If you manage to get a "real" conservative in a position to win the nomination next time around, let me know, and I will be on board!!!

3. Do you really think that the Democrat alternative was better than what we got in Scott Brown? If you do, I might have to start a counter-witch hunt against you...

The fact is, the Scott Brown election was historic and tide-turning. It came at the perfect time prior to the 2010 primaries. First off, it showed Republicans that anything was possible. If we could put a Republican in that seat, the "Kennedy seat," we could put a Republican in any seat. It lit a fire among conservatives who had begun to think that all was lost in U.S. politics. It illustrated the idea that people all over the country could have an impact in elections many states away. The adage says, "All politics is local." This election, having united conservatives all over the country, presented an addendum, "But no politics is only local." In my personal experience, I have always sat by and watched elections in other states, but never thought that I could have an impact, since I wasn't a resident of those states. The Scott Brown election taught me otherwise. Since that time, I have been more involved in promoting conservative candidates in other states.

I would argue that no matter how Scott Brown votes on anything during his entire tenure, the process of his election changed the outcome of the 2010 elections. By teaching us that anything was possible, and that we could work together across state lines, his election fueled the fire of the Tea Party movement, prompting previously disengaged voters to active involvement.

That said, Scott Brown does have votes to make, and he should be held accountable for them. We should be vocal about letting him know what we think of his votes. And we should engage in the fight for the future of the Republican party. Now is the time, and we must not shrink from the fight.

However, the style of the fight is lacking, in my opinion. Calling one another names (ahem... RINOs) and excommunicating those who would otherwise vote with us is a losing strategy. FOR THE RECORD, this same type of mud has been slung in the other direction in the not-too-distant past, but I won't go into that now... I'll share a personal story about in-house name calling. In my House race this last time, there was an independent candidate who was vying for the position. I assume he would have liked to convince me to vote for him, since that's kind of duh Campaigning101. I began a discussion with him on Twitter. During the course of the conversation, I pointed out a fallacy in one of his arguments. He called me a liberal. Those who have known me for more than 10 minutes can guess whose vote he didn't get. He could have argued with me on the issues and stood a chance of changing my position. But once he called me a liberal it was all over. We're doing the same when we call fellow Republicans RINOs.

Do I think we should do away with the term RINO? Nah, probably not. There are those for whom the shoe fits. Case in point, if the GOP ever serves up some garbage like John McCain for another Presidential candidate, I will NOT, under any circumstances, vote for him or her. I have made my solemn vow in writing to every GOP elected official who represents me, and I am a woman of my word. It's the widespread application of the moniker that is at fault. How about a moratorium on the use of the label for the next few months while we hash out the direction for the new and improved (or back to the basics) Republican party?