Notable Quote: Cicero on “Republicrats”

by Mike

We frequently remark here upon the fecklessness of RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) as they negotiate with, and occasionally vote with, Democrats, in a bipartisan effort to grow the Progressive State.

Steve Deace has a book, too - click to buy!

Steve Deace has a book, too – click to buy!

Over at Townhall.com, Steve Deace describes a much more dangerous breed – the ‘Republicrat’:
Republicrats are far more dangerous because they’ve learned how to campaign on conservative talking points. Unlike the RINO who campaigns and governs from the middle-left, the Republicrat campaigns as a conservative and then governs middle-left. Once in office the record of the Republicrat is virtually indistinguishable from the Democrats regardless of the rhetoric, either because of cowardice, deception, or a combination of both.

He then invokes Cicero:

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious.
But it cannot survive treason from within. OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAAn enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation (or movement), he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

Deace continues:

Republicrats like Karl Rove, and the generation of bratty technocrats he’s currently spawning within the GOP, believe you win to lead. Those of us in the grassroots believe you lead to win, and there is a difference.

If you begin with the premise you win to lead, then you base your campaign on the technique or craftsmanship of the messaging (i.e. fundraising, polls, focus groups, talking points, etc.) rather than the merits of the message. This brings us to my definition of a technocrat: someone who is only or primarily concerned with the political process itself and not the principles at stake.

To paraphrase former NBA all-star Allen Iverson, “We talking about process, man. Not the principles…not the principles, but the process.” All Rove and his technocrats talk and care about is the process.

Amen, Brother – That’s exactly the same argument we get from the “unity gang”, and (not so) coincidentally, from Scott Brown – read Deace’s whole article, and check out his book.

Leave a Comment

  • balencesto

    Steve Deace . . . isnt’ that the 20-something hack who filled in for Howie Carr one day a couple weeks back? I heard his “interview” with Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. I couldn’t believe what I was listening to. Heck, he even had “Margaret” mention her relationship with H.G. Wells – which was fitting, since Deace’s carefully crafted piece of political propaganda disguised as radio drama was akin to Orson Wells’ radio version of H.G.’s “War of the Worlds.” Both were completely false and both riled up unintelligent radio listeners. I wrote an email to Cooksey, WRKO’s director of programming complaining. He wrote me back and said he was as appalled as I was that Deace used Howie’s show as a bully pulpit for his personal anti-choice crusade. I was thrilled when Cooksey told me that others had complained as well and that they would never again be hiring Deace to fill in for Howie. Thank God! It was the worst besmirching of the Howie Carr brand I’ve ever seen in 14 years of listening to his show. Howie is way to smart to try and pull off a stunt like that. Unfortunately, as many of the callers who phoned in after Deace’s little “theater piece” showed – the listenership of WRKO is not quite so smart.

    Steve Deace . . . a marginal writer, a marginalized “radio talent” . . . a wet-behind-the-ears hack who doesn’t mind playing fast and loose with the truth in order to foist his personal agenda on the rest of the nation – or at least on his tiny little chunk of the talk radio universe.

    • Thanks for pointing this incident out – I’ll look into his background.

      On the other hand, with regard to the breed of false conservatives which he describes, and their preference for the process of filling the seats rather than the principles which would attract the voting base, he hits the nail on the head, and all of the writers here can tell you similar stories.

      Example: When asked about the second amendment, and his lackluster defense thereof in MA, Scott Brown waffled about his record, and then pivoted to the statement that “if you give us a majority in the Senate, that kind of thing will never come up!” – but not “I’ll guarantee to fight any infringement to my last breath” or any strong statement of principle.

      Like I said – we know the kind of people Deace describes, and I think he’s on the money in that article.

      • balencesto

        While he may point out a truth about politicians who waffle(and God knows they ALL do at one time or another) he has no credibility with me. When you take a woman like Sanger(dead since the 60s) and have an actor portray her in an “in-studio interview”, sprinking in just enough facts about her life(she toyed with Eugenics), leaving out other important facts(she was dead set against any sort of state-sponsored Eugenics) and then making gigantic leaps based on the few facts you do use and the absence of other facts that would make those leaps unjustifiable(i.e. Margaret Sanger IS a NAZI – notice I said “IS” not “WAS” because he was trying to pass her off as still living.) . . . anything you say is suspect. Period. I even emailed Deace himself at his website about this. I got a scripted “out-of-office” type response which simply said, “thanks for listening, God bless!”

    • Did some further background reading – he’s not 20-something, and he seems to be well reviewed by many of the right people. You may be maligning the wrong guy.

      David Limbaugh didn’t need to write a glowing foreword for the book, but that’s exactly what he did.
      The excerpts I have read so far back up the article, and are well written.
      Not only that, but the article which first got my attention, as well as the book excerpts align well with the experience of the Grok writers.

      • balencesto

        Please cite the source you used to prove he’s not “20-something.” Because I’m pretty sure he’s not yet 30 years old.

  • Scott Morales

    Bravo. How many immediately thought of McCain while reading this?

    Drat, the animated gif I uploaded is…well…not quite animated. Booo!

    • Virgil Hilts

      How did you put that photo IN THERE?? I tried…wouldn’t take.
      KRAP! Mucked that up! Sorry. If anyone can remove one of those..please do! It’s Embarassing!

  • Virgil Hilts

    This applies to the subject.

Previous post:

Next post: