Ace expounds on a proposition I don’t think I can really agree with:

Now, I can say that most moderates and centrists are really politically stupid and, in many ways, politically childish. They might be quite smart in other ways, but in this area, whether through lack of interest or lack of brainpower, they’re dumb.

I can say that because I’m talking to a group of partisans who are informed and interested in politics.

Limbaugh can say that — and indeed has said it — for the same reason.

Michael Steele cannot say that.

He knows it, same as you. But he cannot say it. And if Limbaugh says something along those lines, of course he’ll immediately have to say how silly that is and that Rush is just trying to be provocative and that he’s incendiary and so forth.

Like I said, I don’t think I can buy that, or more accurately, into the thinking that underlies it. Limbaugh is of course an entertainer first and foremost, and there’s nothing wrong with that, or with acknowledging it. But the idea that we can’t or shouldn’t say things that are objectively and obviously true is, I think, a big part of why we’re in the mess we’re in right now.

Mealy-mouthed doublespeak, euphemisms, and milquetoast dodges uttered to placate so-called “moderates” (who are merely people who don’t have any real conviction, or the courage to own up to it, in a time when conviction in defense of American liberty is desperately needed) are uninspiring at best, and serve to define the person uttering them as just another political hack who’ll say anything for votes.

Think of it: how many of you were frustrated, by the end of Bush’s tenure in office, by his refusal to defend perfectly defensible positions and ideas against dishonest assaults from liberals, especially in the media? How many of you think that kind of unfortunate reticence has cost us all dearly, especially in the conduct of the now-moribund WoT? How many of you scratched your heads or cussed out loud at McCain’s Mavericky foolishness in plaintively sucking up to a liberal media establishment that clearly only liked him when he was bashing conservatives?

Ace winds up with this:

Hypothetical: Suppose during the campaign it had come out that I was in communication with McCain’s internet guys, and it became a two-day story that McCain was in communication with a homophobic, “eliminationist” Islamophobe and all that.

Now many of you like me and wish me well, and of course I’m deeply appreciative of that. It’s a great feeling.

But, if, hypothetically, McCain had to denounce me, how much could you hold that against McCain? I mean, what’s more important, getting a Republican president or my hurt feelings?

Again: wrong. Feelings don’t enter into it, so it’s the wrong question. The question ought to be this: what’s more important, getting a Republican president who will righteously and unequivocally assert conservative values — Constitutional values, AMERICAN values — or getting a liberal with an R after his name, who will suck up to all the right DC dirtbags and a media establishment that is clearly antipathetic to those values? Put yet another way, what’s more important: doing our level best to see an honest, staunch, and forthright defender of liberty elected President, or settling for some R-cipher that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Ted Kennedy can “reach across the aisle” and work with, and that they consider acceptable?

If you’re puzzling over the answer, here’s a hint: one outcome is absolutely the only way America That Was can be restored. The other is just more of the exact same thing that got us here in the first place.

Choose wisely, folks. Some things are worth fighting for, and some folks are not worth the effort of placating and, frankly, damned well need to be offended. Unvarnished, plainspoken truth is one of those things worth fighting for — vigorously, in such a way that no mistake can be made about our commitment to them. Dumbed-down mush from the mouths of drones frightened of giving offense to the ignorant and/or spineless — the “politically stupid and, in many ways, politically childish” — is not. And it’s high time somebody stood up to the liars and forced them to deal with the truth directly, rather than tiptoe around it just for the sake of being polite.

Update! A related assertion from Bill:

I am coming more and more to realize that in a situation where the the leadership of both parties favors variations on the same theme of big-statism nanny-government, then the formal political realignment in this country will probably entail the destruction of both major parties as we know them today.

From where I sit, that looks more and more like the only real hope we have.

Updated update! Also related: Paul Ibrahim knows the score:

The fact is that the GOP has been doing precisely what it claims it wants to do now – helping moderate and liberal Republicans it sees as more electable, at the expense of conservatives. Cornyn’s plan is nothing new. It has been tried and it has failed.

It is non-conservative Republicans who have gotten the party to where it is today. It is the massive spending and government enlargement that have forced a significant part of the base to abandon the GOP. It is the pork projects and the related corruption of “moderates” that have dragged down the Republican brand. The people who have decidedly not been the downfall of the Republican Party are its conservatives.

Precisely. Republicans need to try real leadership for a change, instead of continuing to me-too liberal/socialist initiatives and placating so-called moderates. Part of leadership is not watering down the message to appeal to people who either don’t pay attention until just before election day, or are never going to agree with conservatives in the first place.

The idea behind most of the “big-tent” calls is that it’s the only way to win elections, and winning is better than losing, even if winning means continuing along the same old big government path. But the GOP has been using that approach for years now, and, as Ibrahim states, they have failed utterly. They have to decide whether they really want to lead, or if they want “moderates” to continue leading them…right over the cliff.

Clarification (hopefully): After considering this post again carefully, I realize I didn’t make my point as clearly and coherently as I might’ve. It’s essentially this: conservatives have allowed themselves to lose the initiative and instead be placed on the defensive by their opponents, and nobody ever won a war that way. It doesn’t have to be so, and I can’t see any reason why any of us should stand still for it. To use Ace’s own hypothetical: no, none of us would blame McCain for disavowing him publicly after accusations of “homophobia” and “eliminationist Islamophobia” — if the accusations were true.

But, see, that’s just it: as with so many of the incidents of yelping outrage from the Left — against Ace, against Bush, against Limbaugh — they patently AREN’T true. And what’s worse, these accusations are not made sincerely, in good faith; they’re a tactic, a particularly underhanded and devious one. When we meekly allow ourselves to be maneuvered into the aforementioned defensive, by responding to false charges with an eye primarily on not offending the mushy middle — well, at that point the game is lost, and deservedly so.

Michael Steele may well consider Rush “incendiary,” “ugly,” and generally offensive; if so, he might’ve said so back when he was appearing on Limbaugh’s show to advance his political career, as I seem to recollect hearing about a while back. But I don’t think he really does; I think he was tailoring his message to the audience he was appearing in front of. Anyone who’s seen Limbaugh’s CPAC speech knows that he wasn’t “angry” or “rage-filled” or hateful; by responding to dishonest liberal accusations of such with a denunciation of Rush, thereby implicitly agreeing with them — rather than explicating and condemning both the smears and the mendacious thugs making them — Steele lost a valuable opportunity; allowed them to once again frame the debate in dishonest terms; played right into the opposition’s hands; and made himself, and by extension the rest of us, look weak and foolish, if not downright disgraceful, for ever having associated ourselves with such an egregious cad at all.

If you really think that’s a winning formula, well, I’d suggest you think again. It isn’t; it might be suck-butt politics as usual (Allahpundit says, “pandering to centrists is a political fact of life for politicians,” but I don’t know too many people who prefer pandering to real, honest leadership, and I would hope there aren’t too many of them on our side of the divide), but I doubt I’m the only one who’s good and tired of that sort of thing, and would like to see it brought to the inglorious end it so deserves.

As I said earlier: how’d all that pandering to “centrists” work out for McCain, anyway?

Maybe I’m being too naive here, but as far as I’m concerned, if the current Republican leadership isn’t willing to confront the liars, dismantle their false assertions, and stand up for those who speak clearly and directly for what’s supposedly their base, they deserve to keep right on losing. We the people want more honest and courageous leaders; we’ll eventually find them. And if the GOP wishes to remain an obstacle to plainspoken integrity and American values rather than vigorously defending them, we’ll ignore them — like they’ve ignored conservatives for years.

The statists are on the attack, and they’re driving us as if we were green, berry-picking Union troops at First Manassas. It’s well past time for our supposed leaders to start fighting back, rather than sheepishly staring at their shoe tops and muttering fainthearted apologies.