Politics: September 2006 Archives

James Webb, the Democrat challenging U. S. Senator George Allen of Virginia, wrote an article in the November 1979 issue of The Washingtonian magazine, called "Women Can't Fight." A graduate of the U. S. Naval Academy, he served four years in combat in Vietnam. The article argues against women at the military academies, on the grounds that the academies exist to train combat leaders, and women do not belong in combat:

Lest I be understood too quickly, I should say that I believe most of what has happened over the past decade in the name of sexual equality has been good. It is good to see women doctors and lawyers and executives. I can visualize a woman President. If I were British, I would have supported Margaret Thatcher. But no benefit to anyone can come from women serving in combat.

The function of combat is not merely to perpetrate violence, but to perpetrate violence on command, instantaneously, reflexively. The function of the service academies is to prepare men for leadership positions where they may someday exercise that command. All of the other accomplishments that Naval Academy or West Point or Air Force Academy graduates may claim in government or business or diplomacy are incidental to that clearly defined combat mission.

An entry on George Allen's newly-minted blog cites this article as part of Webb's "legacy of misogyny."

Did I miss something? Since when is it the conservative position to support women in combat? Since when do conservatives consider it misogynistic to recognize that in certain spheres of life there ought to be differences in the roles played by men and women?

I do want Allen to be re-elected, because I want the Republicans to retain control of the U. S. Senate and of its committees. And I'm not endorsing everything Webb said in the article and certainly not endorsing the other comments quote by Allen, or Webb's position on Iraq, but it's wrong for a Republican candidate to trash a conservative position on an issue for the sake of political advantage.

This seems to be another example where alleged conservatives are trying to run to the left of liberal candidates who happen to be conservative (or have been conservative in the past) on a certain issue, probably because they see the conservative position as out of step with the media. In Britain, the new Conservative Party leader, David Cameron, is running to the left of Tony Blair's position on the global war on terror.

Allen is said to be a leading candidate for president in '08. If this is any indication of the stuff he's made of, I'm not impressed.

So you have a Republican U. S. Senator who is facing a challenge from another Republican. The senator is out of step with the Republican party platform in every respect -- on social issues, fiscal issues, national defense, and foreign policy.

But, you say, the senator is a loyal Republican. If he backs the President, a Republican, and supports the Republican leadership in the Senate, surely that loyalty, that reliable vote, can compensate for ideological differences. It might, but this guy isn't loyal. He didn't vote for the President's re-election, and he's actively working to block the President's nominee to be UN ambassador.

But instead of treating this Republican in Name Only as an outcast, instead of backing a primary challenger who will be in step with the platform and cooperative with his fellow Republicans in government, the Republican National Committee mobilized its forces to prop up the RINO. The RNC paid for party interns to fly in and campaign for the RINO incumbent. The RNC mobilized the 72-hour task force -- the strategy designed to boost turnout and defeat Democrats in the general election -- but this time it was used to prop up the RINO incumbent.

The RNC succeeded in propping up RINO incumbent Sen. Lincoln Chafee and defeating conservative Cranston, R.I., mayor Steve Laffey by about 4,000 votes.

This is nothing new, just one more reason I urge you not to give money to the RNC, the NRSC, or the NRCC. If you want to help real conservative Republicans to win office, you should contribute directly to the campaigns of those real conservative Republicans.

Part of the problem, as I noted back during the 2004 Republican National Convention, is that the Republican National Committee -- the board of directors for the national party organization -- is structured to overrepresent small states with small, ineffective state Republican organizations. The big and growing Sunbelt states where Republicans have gained dominance are underrepresented. Every state (and each of several U. S. territories) has three votes on the RNC -- the state chairman, the national committeeman, and the national committeewoman.

Even so, there are still more red states than blue states, and if the national committee members from the conservative states banded together, they could stop the inappropriate actions that the RNC staff took in a primary in support of a RINO.

But for that to happen, grassroots conservative Republicans in those red states have to be sure their RNC members are conservative. And that those RNC members are willing to rock the boat, to come together in a coalition and to stop the RNC staff from putting its resources into a primary in support of a RINO.

The fact that there was no outcry from the RNC members, that no heads have rolled at the RNC, ought to tell every grassroots activist that he needs to pay closer attention to his state's national committee members. Are they not paying attention? Are they not conservative? Is it time to replace them?

RELATED: Scott Sala urged New York Republicans to take advantage of the rare opportunity to vote today in a primary. Party rules in New York encourage nominees to be chosen behind closed doors and anointed at conventions. Contested primaries are rare, but this year there was one in the race to challenge Hillary Clinton for re-election to the U. S. Senate.