Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
Syndicated radio host and attorney Hugh Hewitt draws an apt parallel between today's Republican House leadership and the timid general in charge of the mighty Army of the Potomac during the Civil War. George McClellan was always preparing, never fighting; a perpetual frustration to President Lincoln, who had his sights set on actually winning the war.
The Tea Party volunteers and the GOP activist base worked all through 2010 to provide the House GOP leadership with an army of freshmen, but now the Speaker refuses to use it. In early 1862 Lincoln remarked about his ever-preparing, never-moving general that "[I]f General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time.” This is where the Tea party patriots find themselves now, and not just them but millions of voters who see in Chris Christie, Scott Walker and John Kasich the model of political leadership they expected and who are pressing for the Speaker to get to the inevitable confrontation
Hewitt cuts to the heart of the matter: How can we win when the newly empowered Republican leaders are too shy to even make the conservative case?
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
The perfect metaphor. What will we do? If we are smart, next go-round we will, again in the primaries, vote the SOBs out. My own congressman, Doug Lambourn, voted for the just passed continuing resolution. I've already emailed him that he can count on me... to oppose his reelection in the 2012 primaries. And, in the general election, if he is nominated, I make no commitment to vote for him.
I will wait and see if there is a Libertarian or other opposition candidate that I might prefer to waste my vote on. In other words, my ONLY commitment to the GOP is that I will look for a new guy or just walk away from them.
Third party is the absolutely desperation move, but I remember that there was a guy named A Lincoln who was one of the founders of a third party, the Republicans.
THEY DO NOT OWN ME!!!!!
Jul '10
Re: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
When Republicans are elected something happens when they go to Washington. They become friendly with Democrats and before long arms are linked and they are part of the political class. Send a conservative to the capitol and five out of ten times he or she becomes a RINO. Seen it happen time after time.
Jul '10
Re: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
While what the House GOP can actually accomplish is constrained by the fact that the Democrats still hold the Senate and the White House, that is no excuse for not making bold gestures, such as Rand Paul's proposal for $500 billion in budget cuts.
And it's certainly no excuse for not de-funding Obamacare, doing away with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and promptly de-funding Planned Parenthood.
It's a huge flaw in our political system that, while the Tea Party was instrumental in delivering a House majority, the leadership positions went to the Old Guard.
Aug '10
Re: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
I disagree with Hugh. They may not be fighting Sherman's War, but one might argue whether they ought to or not. I don't mind the slowly flaying away. It reminds me of Washington's strategy in the Revolutionary War. The Dems have the inertia of a huge bureaucracy behind them and whittling away at that bureaucracy is going to be far more successful than agitating them to their full power.
All or nothing attempts usually amount to nothing. The secret to the success the Progressives have had in expanding government is they keep doing "just this one thing...and only temporarily." It turns out to never be just one thing, or temporary. It is time to take ground slowly and steadily. That is the most sound and effective strategy, especially when you only control one house of Congress.
But then, I'm just a no good NeoConservative RINO. What do I know?
Sherman laid waste as he defeated the South. He won, but at what cost? Grant's full frontal assaults at Vicksburg weren't successful until he decided to lay a siege. Sieges are dull and slow affairs, but they are steady and demoralizing.
Jun '10
Re: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
Nathaniel Wright: ....All or nothing attempts usually amount to nothing. The secret to the success the Progressives have had in expanding government is they keep doing "just this one thing...and only temporarily." It turns out to never be just one thing, or temporary. It is time to take ground slowly and steadily. That is the most sound and effective strategy, especially when you only control one house of Congress.
But then, I'm just a no good NeoConservative RINO. What do I know?
Sherman laid waste as he defeated the South. He won, but at what cost? Grant's full frontal assaults at Vicksburg weren't successful until he decided to lay a siege. Sieges are dull and slow affairs, but they are steady and demoralizing.
You're saying, the boss (the constituents) are wrong on strategy. But WE are the boss. We hired them, the politicians. DO what we sent you there to do. If I hire an attorney, I don't expect her to accept a plea without asking me, convincing me, that it's the right approach. I'm NOT convinced, don't accept the plea. I want to fight, and here my attorney is surrendering.
May '10
Re: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
Nathaniel's sense of urgency in addressing our fiscal problems & mine are a universe apart. I do not believe that we have time for a slow and steady, drawn out campaign before we hit the wall. Every day we procrastinate makes the eventual cost to us all just that much higher. I would prefer a debt capped, non essential services Govt. halt to our current insanity, where our deficit (debt increase) in the 28 days of Feb. was significantly higher than the whole 2007 year.
We can not accomplish all of our goals from our present position but we sure can accomplish some of them - and we are not seriously trying to do so. I think Hugh's Mc Clellan comparison is exactly right. I hope that if the current pace doesn't pick up, we have a revolt & change of House leadership.
Aug '10
Re: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
It isn't that my sense of urgency is a universe apart from yours, but they are different. I am of the first generation that will have to pay for the excesses of the current set up -- which has existed for some time. My children are, I fear, of the last generation that will have to pay for the excesses -- and not in the positive way -- if things don't change. I merely believe that it is easier to change behavior $2billion a week rather than in $100 billion chunks. A single vote of $100 billion, while absolutely necessary, seems to our enemy a line in the sand worth fighting for, while $2 billion a week doesn't. Let's take advantage of that.
I am more persuaded by etoile who argues that the representatives should comply with the wishes of their constituents who are -- as he rightly notes -- the real source of power in democratic republics. Where I might quibble with etoile, as would my good friends Edmund Burke and James Madison, is that the immediate passions or strategic plans of those constituents might not be the best means to achieve the ends they so badly need.
Aug '10
Re: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
I do have a question, and it is a legitimate one since I don't know the answer but believe a fellow ricocher might.
"Is the $700 billion used for TARP still included in the 2008 deficit?"
"Has the money loaned from TARP been paid back to the TARP fund?"
"If so, are those funds still being held as a slush fund by the executive along with the $120 billion from HCR?"
"If so, why aren't we asking the Executive to reimburse our economy $820billion?"
That would be money that would require no cuts...at least if the above is true. As I said, I don't know and would like to know the real status of the TARP funds. I keep hearing that people are paying us back with interest, but if that were true one would expect those deficits to drop as the money came back.
May '10
Re: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
I agree 1,000% that cuts of $2 Billion per week are a lot easier than more meaningful amounts. This is especially the case when what is being "cut" is unspent money from the census, unspent, unplanned allocations that go back years and a few penny ante programs that few have even heard of and no one is willing to fight for. The problem is that over the course of the year it only adds up to $104 Billion. Our current deficit is $1.6Trillion and we have $4Trillion of short term debt coming up for re-financing, where every 1% increase in interest = $40Billion..............and at least the Japanese are not going to be terribly interested in buying dollar debt.The biggest bond fund in the world just announced last week that it would no longer hold US bonds. Others will be following. We do not have a the luxury of a lot of time before we hit the wall.
I simply think that either we attack the spending problem now as if our future depends on it, or our future will be bleak.
Jan '11
Re: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
Hmmmm. The choice is between small insignificant cuts in a morbidly bloated budget and worthy but futile gestures.
And over that empty choice Hugh Hewitt launches an attack - on Republicans.
Its the same old thing: faced with a still unified, well-funded and experienced opponent (the Democrats) who kicked our butts in 2006 and 2008, conservatives react to their first victory over that opponent in years by turning on themselves.
I have a question for Mr. Hewitt, and it isn't who is going to be our Grant.
Who does he nominate to be our Hooker and Burnside?
You remember them, right? The aggressive, ready-to-fight generals that wise Abe Lincoln put in charge of the Army of the Potomac after McClellan, and who got their asses kicked.
That's the next step in this "apt parallel," friends.
Edited on Mar 19, 2011 at 4:20amSep '10
Re: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
McClellan had the ability to bring overwhelming force to bear. Unfortunately it is not yet clear that we have that level of force. It appears more likely that the Tea Party is a majority of Republicans and a significant number of independents. We have to win back the Presidency before any real spending reform is possible. The TARP question is an interesting one since many of the banks have repaid it. I suppose that money has gone back into the Treasury but it fails to account for the vast sums spent on Fannie and Freddie as well. At least that is the way I understand it.
Dec '10
Re: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
Although a fan of Hugh Hewitt, I think his analogy is misguided. Both Freesmith and Nathaniel point out two significant things. This will be a long arduous process and conservatives haven't found their Grant yet. Furthermore, McClelland was a Democrat and a fan of Jomini who believed that government should take a backseat to military affairs once the war begins. For all his faults, he was credited for preparing the army that Grant took to war and eventually achieved victory.
Mar '11
Re: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
Nathaniel Wright: Sherman laid waste as he defeated the South. He won, but at what cost? Grant's full frontal assaults at Vicksburg weren't successful until he decided to lay a siege. Sieges are dull and slow affairs, but they are steady and demoralizing.
Actually, Sherman's Army of the West suffered minimal casualties. Sherman's purpose was to demoralize the wealthy plantation owning citizens of the South, who had been relatively unscathed for most of the war. Sherman meant to show them that their lifestyle came with a cost, he he was the one to make them pay it. Once Confederate citizens were demoralized, support for the war was lost.
The point being that winning the public debate is key, and aggressive debate without apology or retreat is a winning debate. The cornerstone of the public debate is showing our citizens what the opposition truly is by confronting Democrats with real, effective cuts. Force Democrats and wimpy Republicans to oppose. Bathe them in the light of truth until America is repulsed by the sight of their deceitful, squirming visages.
Compromise is always a win for the left. That's how they will, successfully, spin it.
Edited on Mar 19, 2011 at 8:42amMay '10
Re: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
Wanna bet we're going to end up refighting the Civil War on this thread before too long.
The parallels between McClellan & the House GOP Leadership are striking though.
McClellan had "the slows," House GOP Leadership has "the slows."
McClellan was always after Lincoln to send more troops and supplies. House GOP Leadership is always after us to SEND MORE MONEY. In both cases it's as Lincoln observed "Like shoveling fleas across a barnyard."
Now if only we could find a cache of cigars wrapped in the Dem's plan for 2012.
Dec '10
Re: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
I'm a fan of Hugh Hewitt. No one in media does a better in-depth interview. However, when he takes off on a tear like this, he seems so unreasonable and panicky.
I see this budget battle like dieting. I understand the urgency of accumulating debt at $4 billion per day (or roughly the mean annual income every second). And even though the Democrats, and particularly Obama, have increased the rate of gain such that we require a whole new scale of measurement -- we didn't get here in a day or even half a presidential term. Republicans have to do whatever they have to do when they can do it. I'm grateful that many of them seem to understand they may have to sacrifice their political careers and are willing to go that far.
Considering the debt obligation represented by the "special issues" transferred from the fed's left hand (social security) to its right (treasury) isn't even tallied in the national debt figure, I'd suggest Hewitt and others get a grip. It's going to be a helluva ride.
Edited on Mar 19, 2011 at 8:35amDec '10
Re: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
There are many problems with this analogy. Just to mention one, McClellan possessed overwhelming and dominant force and the means to win if he used it. He did not want to fight at all and when practically forced to do it he continually hesitated, dragged his feet, and retreated in the face of inferior forces, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory on several occasions.
The Republicans only have the House. The analogy would be more apt if the GOP leadership was behaving this way while holding the Presidency and having solid majorities in the Senate and the House.
Edited on Mar 19, 2011 at 7:48amJan '11
Re: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
Is there a snowball’s chance in hell that we’re going to get Chuck Schumer’s vote? No.
The political handlers tell us that we should try to get the independent vote. But they don’t want us to persuade the independents of conservative ideas (apparently that would enrage independents). Instead, the handlers want us to put on sheep’s clothing and pretend to be in the middle. They want to get the independent vote by making us “independent” ourselves. Handlers would love it if everyone was in the middle.
The one position the handlers don’t want politicians to pursue is conservatism … you know, the position that got them elected in the largest victory in generations.
Edited on Mar 19, 2011 at 7:52amRe: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
I think we would be much further ahead if the House leadership made the moral case for budget cuts--the burden on future generations, the increasing risk of economic collapse, the late unprecedented run-up in "stimulus" to no effect--at each and every opportunity. Instead, the entire debate is occurring on the Democrats' turf. All I hear is that "We must avoid a government shutdown." And even here the details--no more social security checks, an end to basic services-- are mainly misinformation.
And after Nancy Pelosi bends and breaks every House rule and tradition to ram ObamaCare through, the current speaker won't allow amendments to defund it, even though the $105 billion in automatic appropriations were purposely hidden in an authorizing bill in order to disempower future congresses, a stunning break with constitutional norms.
We can't beat something with nothing, philosophically; yet the defensive crouch seems the tactic of the hour.
Aug '10
Re: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
It isn't Sherman's casualties I was concerned with, it was his affect on national unity. He won the war and guaranteed that there was a wound that would almost never heal in the national spirit.
Dec '10
Re: Hewitt: The McClellan Republicans
I agree completely with making the moral argument. However, I think conservatives should not be making the claim (as Hewitt suggests) that if the government shuts down, no one will notice. My DOD contractor husband was furloughed in the last shut-down and, trust me, we noticed. Instead, conservatives should lay the blame for any shut-down at the feet of the incredibly irresponsible Democratic congress which didn't even bother to formulate, let alone pass, a budget last year. This argument would resonate with most American householders who are accustomed to at least having a budget (even if they don't live within it) and has the advantage of being true.
Republicans have a ready answer to the question "Why is the government shut-down?" Because Democrats didn't do their job last year! They were too busy inflicting Obamacare on us! Make the case.