Sunday, April 26, 2015

This Is Rich. The National Review Just Called Thune and Rounds Supporters "Saps."

     From the "Come Again?" department, I just saw a piece in the much-adored fanzine of the
SD Senate Tag-Team
Who Knew Their Supporters Are "Saps?"
(photo from
American right--The National Review--that characterizes South Dakota supporters of our Senators John Thune and Mike Rounds as "saps."
Talk about a double-take.  I still have a crick in my neck from the way my head snapped back to that phrase after I read it. Andrew McCarthy, a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute, is so enraged by the successful confirmation a few days ago of President Obama's nominee Loretta Lynch as the U.S. Attorney General that he roughed up a handful of Republican senators who made Lynch's ascension possible.  Of the twenty Republicans McCarthy excoriated in yesterday's piece titled "The Disgraceful Republican Cave-in On Loretta Lynch," our usually consistently partisan Republican Senators Thune and Rounds were named as two of those who participated in "the GOP's now routine parliamentary deception:  vote in favor of ending debate, knowing that this will give Democrats ultimate victory, but cast a meaningless vote against the Democrats in the final tally in order to pose as staunch Obama opponents when schmoozing the saps back home."

    According to mad (and I use that in both senses of the word) man McCarthy, Lynch is "an
NR's Founding Icon Bill Buckley
Remember When NR Writers Could Think, Not Rant?
(photo from
Attorney General who won't uphold the Constitution."
This, of course, is the completely crazed ranting of a committed ideologue who reads the Constitution as a document suited to his peculiar predilections, whatever they are, not as an organic body of ideas and principles that needs constant re-interpretation by a society that persists in the process of becoming. McCarthy's inflexible obsession with a document that must be adhered to as he sees fit makes his fist-shaking rage against the Republican machine predictable and cloying.  I suppose there are some self-styled committed Constitutionalists in South Dakota who go along with this solipsistic nuttiness, but for the most part, Republicans that I know here tend to be pragmatically, not ideologically, driven.  

     I'm kind of glad that Thune and Rounds did the dance as described in The National Review.  They've certainly earned their fair share of criticism (Thune for selling out to his big contributors, ala net neutrality) and disdain (Rounds for his lackluster record as Governor and atrocious oversight when EB-5 erupted), but at least we don't have to deal with a couple of Cruz-like nutjobs who approach government as the fulfillment of some kind of Constitutionally-blessed mission to reshape American social and political culture.  Being called "saps" by The National Review for sending these two guys to the Senate just shows you how unforgivingly committed to their own reality that this country's leading conservatives can be.  Far as I'm concerned, the wider the wedge between our two Republican senators and these self-styled purveyors of ideological purity, the better.  

1 comment:

  1. Not one of your better articles..

    Whether people are a conservative or a moderate like you, shouldn't we expect these two to do what they say? How is cutting back room deals and voting for cloture, supporting a terrible nomination, not worthy of the scorn that the conservative arm of the party is heaping on these two? Especially since they both campaign and claim to be conservatives to fool SD Republicans into voting for them?

    I have to agree with the author. Conservatives who pay attention in SD, and moderates who do like you, knew Rounds is no conservative.

    They both deserve the scorn and public condemnation they are getting.