Republicans ... get smart.

Neal Boortz.com

Observation:  Here's a piece that is a good comparison and contrast with E J Dionne's supposed appeal to moderation on the Washington Post yesterday.

Question:  What does it tell us?  First, let's do a few excerpts from Boortz's piece:

• It’s time for a little harsh dressing down.
• We have a president who was not raised as an American.  He lived in Indonesia ... lived in Hawaii too, and I can tell you that as a student in Hawaiian schools you weren’t exactly saturated with American culture and history.
• Our president thinks that American greatness comes from government.
• Newt Gingrich ...suggested that we might not want to be rounding up people ...As soon as those words were out of his mouth Michelle Bachmann – desperate for a way to ignite voters – started screeching about “amnesty.”
• a bit of realism needs to creep into this conversation. 
• There’s a lot of anger on this issue. ...leaders who have steadfastly refused to do anything ...And when a state (like Arizona) does try to address the situation, our federal government sides with the Mexican officials
• Shut off the water. Close the borders.

Comment:  There is a difference on the issues.  Dionne is talking about the deficit, Boortz is talking about immigration.  Boortz doesn't wrap himself in the flag as it were, of moderation.  He does appeal to reason, but to partisans in his own group.  Dionne is appealing to those on the fence who he believes may jump back to his side.  But the key is Dionne is pretending to be the voice of reason, while he is trying to shore up the base, as it were.  He doesn't want to appear partisan, but he is partisan.

There are similarities:  1) Dionne expresses his displeasure with those policies that disagrees with, and so does Boortz and 2) Both raise the spectre of the consequences of defeat - and why the opposition should be opposed- in short, the emotional aspect of an appeal.  Boortz like Dionne doesn't want to appear partisan either.

However, he is making an appeal for moderation on the basis of policy, which is not appealing to partisans.  Dionne just blames the opposition for not being reasonable.  Boortz doesn't go that far, but he does blame them for being indifferent.

I think Boortz is more honest than Dionne.  He's not putting on a halo and claiming innocence while demonizing the opposition.  He is critical of the opposition, but also of his own sides' excessive partisanship. So, I think this is a better appeal to reason than Dionne's, if that is what you are interested in.  If you are interested in a slick promotion of yourself as an imminently reasonable man while being totally unreasonable, Dionne takes the cake.

Too bad Boortz didn't do this in 2006.  He wanted the Republicans to lose back then so that they could be taught a lesson.  He didn't like their high spending ways back then and felt that a loss was necessary to put them back on track.  Boortz wasn't serious about winning in 2006, but he may be late too late to that cause.