Everything that is Wrong with Elements of the Conservative Movement in one Sentence

It is not hyperbole when Erick Erickson markets his Morning Briefing with the tagline "What Conservatives Read First." For the most part he is right; this is one of the newsletters that is opened regularly by many in the conservative movement before moving on to the rest of the day's business. It's not so much that this email serves as the talking points for conservatives but rather the email does what most good, must-read email newsletters do -- it gives you a few thing to chew on throughout the day. It is because of this platform and the influence/reputation that Erickson has in the conservative community that makes this one sentence stick out from this morning's email.

From Faulty Premises and Outlooks Formed:

In Delaware, many conservative, myself included, made the conscious decision that it would be far better to have the Democrat win than Mike Castle because of what Castle would do whispering in the ears of Republican leaders.

Take your time to read that again. It would be far better to have the Democrat win.... I understand the logic behind the argument. If you have an influential squish, as Erickson would put it, then potentially the rest of the party's elected leadership will listen to said squish and steer the party towards more squishy stances that will result in bad policy, fewer votes, and at the end of the day a stronger Democratic party and a weakened America. This thinking also assumes that in this particular instance 1. Mike Castle had influence over Mitch McConnell and 2. Had enough influence to not only convince McConnell that the GOP should not challenge Obama on ANY front but also the rest of the GOP senators.

The other theory that came to mind as to why someone in the conservative movement would openly advocate for a Democrat to win over a Republican (no matter how moderate/squishy) is that because the mainstream media primarily caters to low-information voters, having a Republican willing to slam his party repeatedly on camera would give the Democrats an edge is the public relations war that surrounds every policy decision. It's easy to see how the media would portray this "sensible Republican" as a "North Star of sanity in a town where compromise is the new 'c-word'" in an effort to further President Obama's agenda while taking a shot at Republican "grandstanding" (no matter how legitimate the opposition may be).

I can also see why, if this seat is not the difference between a majority position (or a filibuster-proof majority) and that if on big issues there is little daylight between the moderate Republican and the Democrat candidate, that you would prefer the Democrat win.

Actually, no, I can't.

Theories aside, I cannot read this sentence as anything other than one of the main reasons why the GOP is struggling to find its identity in the 21st Century. We are now apparently entering a period where you are only a true conservative if you vote for only staunch conservatives and it is ok to let the Democrats take a few seats if the other option is a guy who will only side with the Conservative movement 60% of the time? That unless you are backed by Red State and Jim DeMint and Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and Club for Growth you are a squish and it would be better if the left wins? Correction, in the words of Erickson it would be far better.

I understand that tea party conservatives are tired of being ragged on for Palin and Christine O'Donnell and more recently Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin considering that the successes of the tea party far outweigh the failures. I understand that it is important to get more people for whom conservatism is their natural language and philosophy to enter and win poltiical races. The key is knowing which battles to pick. Delaware wasn't one of those battles and the longer people think it was (and drag their heels in and write, frankly, stupid and unhelpful sentences like the one quoted above) the longer it is going to take for conservatives to get a battle plan for 2014 ready.

The larger point of the piece, about the Conservative Victory Project (whatever the heck that means) is spot on, but if this one sentence is indicative of how many conservative leaders and grassroots activists feel - that GOP primaries should be what the conservative movement focuses on and whatever happens in the general election is just gravy, then 2014 is going to be one bad year for conservatives.

P.S. - I'm not going to work Bill Buckley's oft-quoted line about nominating the most conservative, electable candidate, into this post because it is too obvious to throw in and it is a line that both the grassroots and establishment will use continuously until the end of time.

Also, I acknowledge that Erickson ends his piece with three paragraphs that are almost completely contradictory of the one I quoted...which is why I took the time to write this because even he knows that what he wrote is not the road map for a conservative resurgence in 2014.