2007 Tri-County Lincoln Day Dinner

Before I get too far I have to say this:

www.monoblogue.us

A proud Ronald Reagan Sponsor

2007 Tri-County Lincoln Day Dinner

Yes, I placed myself and my website on the sponsoring page. So if any of those reading are among the 100 or so who attended last night’s festivities, welcome to monoblogue. I think its reputation may precede it now. Among those who sat at my table was Delegate Addie Eckardt and her husband, which led me to state that I got to sit with a Delegate I agreed with 100% of the time! And I think she’s one of a growing number of monoblogue fans.

During the dinner, we had a number of speakers. We heard from all of our local GOP Delegates and Senators, plus State Senator Andrew Harris (District 7) who came down to join us for our event. We also had brief remarks from our National Committeeman Louis Pope and from John Flynn, representing the state party. We even had a nice short video presentation from Governor Ehrlich, who sent his sincere regrets on not being able to attend. But I wanted to focus on two speakers: our National RNC Committeewoman Joyce Lyons Terhes and our Congressman, Wayne Gilchrest.

To open her remarks, Terhes told us that “the time for discouragement is over” and we need to begin to fight again. Her take on the losses in 2006 was pretty simple: many of the Republicans who ran had lost their principles and were beginning to sound too much like the Democrats.

As a way of recifying the situation, Terhes suggested a number of ideas, which to me fall under the category of common sense. It’s no secret that Republicans have a set of principles, a platform that they need to follow to keep their base and attract the average voter.

  • She called upon some of those who lost close races (particularly District 38B candidate Michael James) to run again and for us to search out other quality candidates.
  • Having lost the prior elections, it was time to “think outside the box” and try some new ideas. Included among them was taking advantage of new technologies. (Hey, I know a reinventionist Republican blogger…)
  • Be involved in the community. Somewhere along the line I think I’ve said this too, but this does get a person’s name out in a not necessarily political context.
  • Put principles first. We all received cards that stated Republican principles. Perhaps they should’ve went out to those in Congress who failed to follow them; regardless it served as a timely reminder.
  • Finally, we have to earn the right to govern again. In my eyes, we have to use our current minority position both in Maryland and nationally to deliver an alternative message where we can, and occasionally work with the Democrats when they stumble onto something that’s helpful (for example, the Jessica’s Law legislation that was passed in the last GA session.)

The other speaker I wanted to mention was Congressman Gilchrest. The bulk of what he talked about was our involvement in Iraq. Regular readers know I have my disagreements with him on the subject; however, to be fair, I’m going to pass along two books that he suggested to us as reading on the subject.

First among these is a book he claimed to have used when he taught history about the Vietnam War. It’s called Why Viet Nam?: Prelude to America’s Albatross by Archimedes Patti. The book is apparently in limited supply (written in the early 1980’s), but I’m guessing most libraries own it.

The other book is more recent, called Fiasco: The American Military Adventure In Iraq by Thomas E. Ricks. This is more available so that may be the first one I read. (You can also check for them on Amazon, I keep a link to there from monoblogue. Help me make my server fee!)

But I’m going to reserve a right at a later date to request he read a couple books. Personally, I think the parallels he tries to draw between Iraq and Viet Nam play right into the hands of our enemy. As I look at the situation, unlike Viet Nam, our enemy isn’t driven by a political cause, but a religious one. Unfortunately, our enemies have learned the lessons of Ho Chi Minh better than we did and they’ve taken the upper hand in the propaganda war.

As for his dinner remarks, it wasn’t surprising that they drew probably the most tepid applause of any of our speakers. But despite the events that have shaken our party since our last get-together in June of 2006, we seemed to be in good spirits and plenty optimistic about our chances in 2008.

So the Maryland GOP, or at least the one in our corner of the state, is nowhere near buried as Mike Miller prophecized. It’s people like the ones in our tri-county area that are building the ladder to climb our way out of the hole the Democrats thought they had dug for us. Can anyone say Martin O’Malley, one term governor? Sure you can.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

4 thoughts on “2007 Tri-County Lincoln Day Dinner”

  1. I hate to say it, since I’m not a huge Gilchrest fan, but this is one of the few issues I think he’s on the right side. The parallels between Iraq and Vietnam are indeed strking. In his list of books to read he should have mentioned The Best and the Brightest by the recently-departed David Halberstam. The thinking of those who got us into Iraq is almost identical to the hubris of the Kennedy technocrats who got us into Vietnam. Unless we want to wage war like the Romans used to do, we are only going to have very limited success in trying to impose our values by force in this world.

    And those battling us, whether they are terrorists seeking to attack us here or bands of militants attacking our troops in the Middle East, are certainly motivated by a political cause. They are not fighting us because they do not like our religion; they are fighting us because they do not like our foreign policy. Sure, part of that dislike is informed by their religious views, but it comes down to a dispute over politics.

    Terrorism is certainly an illegitimate way of expressing your disagreement about foreign policy, but make no mistake, that is at the root of the terrorists’ cause. If we did not support Israel or have troops in the Middle East, we would have no terrorism concern. I’m not saying we should withdraw our support from Israel or pull out of the Middle East, but I am saying that we need to recognize the root of the problem. Saying that we have a problem with terrorism because “they hate freedom” or that it’s a religious conflict is to completely miss what is actually going on.

  2. Did the lovely Louweasel make the big bash — and, if so, did you lambast her for her switcheroo on Salisbury taxes?

  3. I think you’re being far too kind to Mr. Gilchrest, Michael. He is NOT one of us in any category anymore.
    There is, however, a significant parallel between Vietnam and Iraq.
    We are about to throw a significant victory away, just like we did in 1975, for the same reason..the American people have lost the will to fight the war (with help from the left). And in this case it’s rather inexcusable because the war was started right here on our home turf in front of God and everybody.
    I can say for certain that right after the bombing campaigns over North Vietnam, we had the North Vietnamese on their knees and ready to come to the table, but Nixon and Kissinger, seeing the continued public outcry fueled by the likes of Hanoi Jane and that Kerry fellow, were afraid to continue any longer and decided to pull the plug on it.
    Because of the constant drumbeat of the leftist media and the unfortunate ascention to the majority of surrender monkeys like Harry Reid, et al, we are about to make the same mistake.
    But the results will be dramatically different this time.
    In Vietnam, the communists moved into Saigon and renamed it Ho Chi Minh City.
    The jihadist enemy, emboldened by their ability to break the will of the American public, will move into our cities and destroy us.
    Anyone who thinks this is not about religion is completely deceived. We aren’t labeled ‘infidels’ because of our foreign policy.
    Just take a look at our movies and our music, then try to think like someone who prays 5 times a day.
    We are in the crosshairs because, in their eyes, our lifestyle and values are the complete antithesis of theirs.

  4. Crabb, I have to disagree. On Vietnam, the bombing campaign worked, as you said. However, Nixon did not “pull the plug.” They signed peace accords in 1973 that essentially won the war for the U.S. But the North Vietnamese broke the accords a couple years later and we, as Nixon put it, “lost the peace.”

    Regardless, the current conflict is certainly not a religious war in the sense that bin Laden and his ilk are attacking us because they don’t like our movies or music. And the militias in Iraq attacking our troops certainly are not doing so in response to our culture or our freedom. These folks are acting in response to our foreign policy, pure and simple. The Muslim world hates Israel and our support of it. Many also hate that we have a military presence in the Middle East. Quite a few are also now enraged at our conduct in Iraq. They only way they see to affect the U.S. foreign policy is to resort to terrorism or to support terrorist groups.

    Yes, they use the rhetoric of religion to whip up support for their cause. That does not mean that at its root it is a religious conflict. Leaders of causes often use religious rhetoric to sway followers. Look at the U.S. Civil War.

    If you read anything about bin Laden or anything about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, it’s pretty clear that this is not, at its heart, a religious conflict. Terrorists attack certain nations in response to those nation’s foreign policies. And the people in Iraq are fighting us because they don’t want us there. Once people understand that basic fact, we can start having a rational discussion of the so-called “war on terror.”

Comments are closed.