Froma Harrop writes today in the Providence Journal comparing the Lamont-Lieberman primary against the Laffey-Chafee primary, notably saying, “The great difference between Chafee-Laffey and Lieberman-Lamont is the stakes for the national parties.” Harrop then goes on to say that while Chafee may have voted against confirmation for Sam Alito to the SCOTUS, and against Bush’s tax cuts, and even made it a point to not vote for Bush in the 2004 Presidential election, that he’s still worth something to the GOP. We’ve all heard this argument many times before, mainly following the logic that Chafee, while liberal, still fills an “R” seat and thus must be supported. Harrop then goes on to claim that Republicans abuse their moderates in this intellectully vapid rant:

“The (mostly Northern) moderates that Republican leaders ignore at best and abuse at worst are paying the price for their party’s radical politics. The Sunbelt “conservatives” who run Washington should understand that if the Yankee Republicans go down, they go down with them.”

Harrop ignores the fact that “Sunbelt ‘conservatives’” don’t run Washington; rather, the opposite is true. The House (a notably more conservative chamber) recently succombed to pressure and instead of voting to eliminate the estate tax, as it has many times in the past, settled for a compromise Trifecta bill that would decrease the estate tax while increasing the minimum wage by over $2 an hour. Luckily, Democrats in the Senate refused to grant cloture to the bill in opposition to the oh-so-frightening decrease in the estate tax.

What Harrop and others refuse to acknowledge is that so many “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” Republicans from the Northeast aren’t fiscally conservative at all. Lincoln Chafee is a liberal masquerading as a Republican merely because his father was one.

What Harrop and others label as “radical” policies of conservative Republicans are basic beliefs in the free market; this is shown in conservatives’ opposition to excessive private industry regulation, opposition to socialist wage-fixing in the form of the Minimum Wage that would, in fact, hurt the very poor that the policy seeks to help, and conservatives’ belief in the truths of the Laffer Curve: that is, the higher taxes go, the lower productivity and nationwide economical growth get.

These aren’t very difficult concepts to grasp. Rather, liberals such as Chafee and apologists such as Harrop refuse to recognize that such “radical” policies are what the founding of America was all about (free market, less intrusion by the government, etc.). Not to mention, to compare Lieberman, who has been in the center of his Democratic caucus in the Senate in regards to voting with his party, to Chafee, who has long been a thorn in the GOP’s side and even refused to support the Republican President for his reelection is laughable.

Give me a break, guys. Don’t you get it? The “moderates” in the GOP control Congress; that why the past 6 years have frustrated movement conservatives so much. If “sunbelt conservatives” controlled Congress, why would there be such a push to out Chafee? If his voice was minimal, and the effect of his service so minimalized, why would there be so much carping on the right about his service?

Hey Harrop, get this: this “sunbelt conservative” Congress and President has seen an increase in spending unlike that seen in years, even moreso than LBJ’s Great Society programs. So quit being intellectually dishonest and at least acknowledge the real problem with the national Republican party: the unwillingness of leadership to actually adhere to conservative spending virtues. Don’t act like the “sunbelt conservatives” that you love to tar and feather are getting tired of dissidents to their all-encompassing rule in Congress. The very opposite is true: the grassroots, mainstream, movement conservatives are sick of Republicans acting like Democrats-lite in the legislative and executive branches.