At the risk of sounding boring, non-controversial, and (yeck)middle-of-the-road, I have to add that there is a balance between the two components of politics: operatives who want to win and the idea types. They get on each other's nerves everyday in Washington and state capitols (and perhaps the private sector too), but they need each other.

You're right, they need each other. That's why I say I fight to win (winning is important), but for a purpose. Here I'm denouncing those that win for winning's sake. Hewitt is one of those culprits and it can often be counterproductive to truly winning.

When I commented at one site that Bush looked presidential in the second debate, I had some Democrats jump on me. Same when I suggested that an incumbent president ought to be judged more on performance issues than character ones.

When I have dared to suggest that Kerry wasn't telling the truth about social security and that private accounts make a lot of sense, some treated me as if I had stabbed them in the back.

While I like Hugh Hewitt, I have to agree with you about his partisanship and his "winning at all costs" philosophy. Other examples of this are how he endorsed Schwarzenegger over McClintock in the California governor's race and his recent defense of Sen. Arlen Specter.

I understand Hewitt's point about not being able to accomplish anything unless you win. I even agree up to a point. But it won't do you much good to win if you've sold out your principles.

I think it's important to find a happy medium between pragmatism and idealism. If you get too pragmatic, you end up supporting anyone with an "R" (or a "D") next to their name as long as they are a sure-fire winner. If you're too idealistic, you end up wasting your vote on third-party nobodies because the major party candidate isn't "pure" enough for you.

I understand Hewitt's point about not being able to accomplish anything unless you win.

I still can't fully grasp what Hewitt wants to accomplish after he's won. Once he wins, then what? Whatever the politicos say? Is he simply a slave to the RNC?

Josh,

Well, one would hope that what he wants to accomplish is moving things in a more conservative direction. To him, Republican = Conservative. However, I agree with you that this isn't necessarily so. For example, Hewitt endorsed Schwarzenegger over McClintock simply because Schwarzenegger was a sure-fire winner. But can anyone honestly say that Schwarzenegger is moving things in a more conservative direction in California?

Hewitt is a political warrior and I can be just as psyched (although I'm always filled with doubt) during the election season as well as big legislative fights(like HillaryCare in early 90s), but otherwise I can't keep that enthusiasm up 24/7 like Hewitt. He needs the battle.

The point of winning is POWER, pure and simple.

Fighting for principles is admirable, but politicians are not known for being principled. In fact, they must be very willing to compromise theirs (if they have any in the first place) if they hope to be elected.

As for politics falling off the radar, I think those left-of-center have resigned themselves to being out of the game for the next 2 years at least, with not much hope of "bipartisanship" showing up at all. Those right-of-center hold all the cards, so there is no challenge left in the game. Boring.

Jockeying for power and one's own ego will always be a factor in politics because it's a factor everywhere, including among clergy. Still, we can at least make a very human attempt to stick to principles and ideas. I've been sidetracked myself many times, but I'm at least willing to hear someone eles's rebuke to me for being partisan at the expense of principle.

Also, there's a personal factor that we can avoid. James Carville used to term my stomach when he would say things, such as he did about Bush the Elder in '92, "stick a fork in him, he's done." At the end of his life, Lee Atwater apologized for some of his most egregious moments in politics.

Deathbed conversions are easiest.

I'm also a conservative before I'm a Republican, and there are plenty of times that I'm not too happy with the GOP or its candidates, but at the end of the day, most of the time the GOP candidate has been a lesser evil than the Dem candidate.

Patterico rightly criticizes Hewitt for holding party above principle and doing everything possible to "win."

That sentence makes it sound as if Hewitt advocates cheating, which I did not perceive him as doing. If Hewitt's emphasis is just on making sure that the candidate with the closest views to his wins every election, well, I don't see what's wrong with that. We can all sit around on our weblogs griping about things all day long, but getting as many candidates elected with views as close to ours as possible will do more to actually implement changes. When it doesn't, then "our" candidates should be called on it, but you don't have a chance to implement anything until you win the election.

"But what is the point of winning for winning's sake?"

The Supreme Court.

I think everyone involved in the political process is fighting for something. Too many here are characterizing my remarks to suggest fighting isn't always good. The question is what you're fighting for - people that support your principle and ideology, or a party irregardless of those things.

Also, as a person I like Hewitt a lot, and never suggested he cheats. I'm really not sure how you got that one Bobby.

Mind if I jump in the fray? I’m sure I’ll get crucified for this…but I’ll take Hewitt’s side. The comment was made, “To him, Republican = Conservative”. I am a Christian (first), and a conservative Republican. I tend to advocate the Republican=Conservative agenda as well. I don’t think that Hewitt pushes winning for winning’s sake.

I obviously can’t speak for Hewitt, but there are those of us out here that disagree nearly point for point with the Democrat platform. Winning = pushing conservative agenda. Winning means (hopefully) having success in getting conservative judges appointed to the Supreme Court, etc.

I will concede that not every Republican elected official or candidate is the best…but if a person runs as a Democrat…then one must take into consideration that they support at least some of the platform of which conservatives so strongly disagree. To paraphrase an earlier comment it often comes down to choosing the better of two poor choices.

I certainly don’t agree with a win at all costs attitude (cheating). I do believe that it is fine to push your own agenda. If pushing your political agenda means being taking the party line for Republican candidates…I personally am OK with this.

I’m sure I’ll get some strong disagreements with this. That’s ok. Thanks for the great (and thought provoking post). I always enjoy reading your blog.

Ideological partisanship is good; partisanship of a personal and vindictive nature or that regularly puts party above principle constitutes the harmful.

Still, there will always be disagreements as to when we are standing for principle and when we are standing for party. For example, if a legislative body hangs in a one-vote balance, it is to be expected that many if not most would favor a candidate farther from one's own ideological perspective if it would help maintain control, because the fight for being in power can't avoid all compromises.

When President Bush favored Senator Specter in the primary was he sacricing ideology and/or principle or looking to the greater good of his own chances of carrying Pennsylvania in the presidential race? I think that is a close question on the basis of an individual race. However, if one repeatedly puts party above principle, lots of would-be participants in the political process may become disillusioned.

Josh, I didn't think you were suggesting that people not fight, only that it be on a more principled plane related to issues over personalities and more narrow party interests. Barry Goldwater and John F. Kennedy fought hard against each other's ideas, but they remained strong personal friends. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that there are fewer of those types of friendships today.

Just want to clarify a couple of things...

When I said "win at all costs", I was not at all saying that Hewitt believes in cheating. What I meant was placing the importance of winning above ideology.

Also, I actually agree with Thunder Runner that most of the time the Republican is more likely to push things in the conservative direction. But there are some exceptions to this, and it's those exceptions I was referring to.

Also, as a person I like Hewitt a lot, and never suggested he cheats. I'm really not sure how you got that one Bobby.

I'm not saying you meant to suggest it. I certainly don't think you did. I'm just pointing out that the phrasing could suggest it. "Everything possible" could certainly include cheating, unless some metaphysical event has occured recently that makes cheating in our universe an impossibility...

Also, to answer your question of "how I got that one," I generally "get that one" from whatever statement I've placed in italics immediately before beginning my commentary with "That sentence...," which indicates I'm referring to the sentence that was highlighted and placed immediately before my comment.

I concede.

Sorry for getting snarky with that last comment...

In the '76 presidential campaign, Gerald Ford claimed that "Jimmy Carter will say anything, anywhere" to be elected president. That saying was meant to express a theme, not a literal truth.

Oh, wait, my candidate has conceded. Now I'm supposed to move from support to trashing.

Yes, and I need to get busy thanking Diebold for their assistance in my win... ;-)