Not All Republicans Are Cool

At least according to Eric Ulrich. He is one of only three Republicans serving on the City Council in Queens, New York. He is also a douchebag.

Explaining his Republican status in in New York Magazine, the 24-year-old says:

“Republicans aren’t all religious fundamentalists from Alabama; some of us are just normal working-class Catholics from Queens.”

Newsflash, Mr. Eric “Cool Republican” Ulrich: Catholocism is a religion with some pretty die-hard followers. And, you might be surprised to know that a few people in Alabama are part of the working-class, too. I mean we can’t spend all of our time spewing religious fundamentalist rhetoric and blogging about hypocritical bastards like yourself.

Ulrich goes on to establish his cool cred by saying that he watches Family Guy! Gambles his money away via three-card poker!! Recently bought a Chevy Impala!!! And, may or
may not be cheating on his fiancée with a mistress!!!! (The "exclamation points" are actually "coolness-factor points." )

Great. All the things I know that I look for in my city councilman. Who cares about where he stands on policy issues if he watches Family Guy?

If justifying your participation in the Republican party by disparaging part of it’s core constituency – those types that “cling to their God and guns” – is what’s "normal," then, Mr. Ulrich, I'm glad I’m not normal.

Update 1: Another abnormal conservative with close Alabama ties adds his thoughts on the Young Hip GOP Douchebag.

Update 2: Protein Wisdom just returned from a sojourn down South and has got some things to say on the subject.

Update 3 (my personal favorite, probably because he includes a picture of me): Defending Sweet Home Alabama from a Damned Yankee Republican.

Update 4: Red Dot in a Red State does his part in calling Mr. Ulrich to the carpet. And also gets bonus points for including a picture of me.

Update 5: Linked by the New York Daily News Blog.


  1. "Newsflash, Mr. Eric “Cool Republican” Ulrich: Catholocism is a religion with some pretty die-hard followers."

    Thank you.

    My 20 year old son tells me that caring about being cool immediately renders you uncool.

  2. Quasi-Southerner here clinging to my guns, my Christianity (of the Protestant variety), and antipathy to liberals. Count me in as an abnormal conservative.

    I do like Family Guy, though...


  3. This guy is a perfect example of what;s wrong with the GOP. Rather than retain it's heritage there are those "middle of the row" (read traitorous) members of the party that would sacrifice tradition on the alter of cultural relevance and still claim to be conservative. Conservatism IS tradition. When tradition is discarded for the sake of trendiness we cease to be true conservatives. The sooner the GOP discards these ungrateful ignorant political stepchildren the better.

  4. I'm not interested in whether my public servants are cool or not. A little bit of integrity, and intellectual substance, would be nice though.

  5. Anonymous28.4.09

    Family Guy sucks anyway, South Park is much better.

    I hope Eric Ulrich will remember, a southern man don't need him around anyhow.

  6. As a pissed-off Alabamian, here's my response to Ulrich: http://www.examiner.com/x-9094-Huntsville--Libertarian-Examiner~y2009m4d28-Defending-Sweet-Home-Alabama-from-a-damned-Yankee-Republican

  7. Hipness is a great topic. If the MSM or this NY sl%&$bag can talk about hipness there is that much less time to chronicle NYSB's or Obama's failures and near total lack of success. Plus. not much leg work or journalistic ability is required of whoever is droning on about irrelevancies.

  8. Anonymous29.4.09

    A great response as always.

  9. O.K. I guess I'm missing something here. I mean aside from the douchebag "Republicans aren’t all religious fundamentalists from Alabama" thing, what's so awful that people are calling him "traitorous" and advising all to discard him and his ilk?

    One of the most important aspects of conservatism, for me, is the inclusiveness of it. A person is judged by their own actions, their beliefs, and not their handy race or "type." It champions leaving people alone to allow them to develop themselves the way they wish. Liberty and freedom are far more important than tradition.

    I mean this 24 yr. old POLITICIAN is floundering around trying to be popular to his constituency and clumsily being a dork about it in this very brief interview by the NEW YORK MAGAZINE (when was the last time they tried to make any Republican look good? Do you think they're trying to now?). This does not seem to be cause to become angry and close ranks.

    Is this guy an idiot? Maybe... but we do we know about this guy outside of this tiny write-up?

  10. Yukio - a small but important follow-up to your response: this wasn't an "interview" in New York Magazine. He WROTE these words himself and submitted it to the mag. It wasn't a slip of the tongue during an on-the-spot interview, it was a formulated justification for his Republican-ism. No matter what we do or don't know about him beyond that statement, the circumstances by which it was made tell me that this guy is a snobbish, dare I say elitist, douchebag.

  11. S.logan-- Hmmm... Point taken. I was under the impression that it was an article designed to look like a personal write in, but I believe you're right. Alright, so this was a self-important disguised as self-effacing (Oh, I'm just a city councilman and there were younger city councilmen than me...), douchey write up.

    But I still stand by the inclusive nature of conservatism, etc. And I still think it's a jump to disown all the GOP who think independently (this is not what you suggested in your post, but what has been suggested within the comments).

  12. yukio ngaby - respectfully, you might need to re-examine the basis of your presuppositions on the "inclusive nature of conservatism." Traditional conservatism is "adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried" -Kirk. While this adherence to tradition does render conservatism inclusive of all things based on tradition, it still rejects all things not based on tradition. It is not independent thinking itself that is rejected, but rather that thinking that rejects tradition.

    Another point worth noting is that individualism is not a tenant of conservatism, but rather of liberalism. That is not to say the individual has no place within society or is in any way unimportant. It is to say, however, that the individual is not the basis for society. It is liberalism and not conservatism that grants moral and political primacy to the individual. Conservatism does not hold that all ideas are equal or equally valid. So, once again, it is not independent thinking that is rejected but thinking that is antithetical to conservatism.

    Another point worth noting is that Mr. Ulrich is a member of the republican party and a public servant who represents the republican party. As such he should be held accountable for misrepresenting the conservative ideology of the GOP. One of the biggest problems with the GOP today is the inclusion of liberal ideologies, that even go beyond neo-conservatism, in the midst of an identity crisis. There are those who would seek to redefine conservatism in a new way in an attempt to be more culturally relevant. In doing so they would reject the very tenants conservatism is based on. Rather that redefine conservatism republicans would do well to remember truly is and return to the traditions it is based upon rather than continue to move away from them.

  13. Anonymous30.4.09

    Please don't think that snot nose Eric Ulrich represents the mindset of New York City Republicans. Eric is most certainly a douchebag and an arrogant little bastard. He won the seat because the front runner was kicked off the ballot due to a minor legal technicality. Can you believe he even wanted to be a priest at one time? There are several rumors why he failed at that venture. NYC Republican are NOT like Eric Ulbitch. Thanks for exposing the fraud. God Bless America

    Juniper Park Patriots

  14. GNHVII-- likewise respectfully, you may want to examine the history and reality of the modern American Right. Conservatism was redefined in the US in the 1960s & 70s (although it began the evolution to it its current state much earlier). As socialism became the predominant factor of Left politics, the Right, conservatism, readapted and redefined itself into the more modern shape incorporating classical liberal values. That is one reason why so many contemporary conservative policies and values closesly resemble those of John F. Kennedy, etc. Neo-conservatism is another tenetive step beyond even this readaption.

    If you are advoacting or wishing a return to the days of Herbert Hoover and isolationism as the conservative tradition, then I wish you luck, but this is unlikely to happen short of a comet hitting the Earth or soemthing equally apocolyptic. Even the term "liberal" has been redefined (decades ago) as a tenant to promote socialistic, "big mommy" government ideals and policies. It is not a lie that the "American right-wing, unlike European, is based in classical liberalism." And that the American right-wing is currently defined as "conservative."

    I would be curious (and I'm not being sarcastic here) if you were to list these conservative traditions somewhere. I mean we know what you believe they are not... but what are they? And how would they be instituted into governmental policy?

  15. Anonymous30.4.09

    He wasn't saying he's cool, he was saying he's a "normal" new yorker, which usually doesn't mean being a Republican. Given his audience, the comment makes perfect sense.

    You should ask yourself why it bugs you so much...

  16. Anonymous30.4.09

    HA and this is why your party is DYING! You finally do have one cool Republican in an impossibly Democratic area, and instead of supporting him you trash him - Well Done!

  17. yukio ngaby - I should begin with some clarification. In referring to "conservatism" and "liberalism" I was speaking of their traditional and classical iterations respectfully. I apologize for not having made this clear earlier. I tend to be too academic in my writing and often neglect the common use of the terms I use.

    As for your admonition: I will admit that I am not as well versed in the "history and reality of the modern American Right" as I am with the roots of conservatism itself. I thank you for the brief review. I'm not advocating a return to conservatism as defined by Hoover. I agree that is as improbable as it is impracticable.

    True, it is not a lie that the "American right-wing, unlike European, is based in classical liberalism." It is not wholly true, however. It is based in PART on classical liberalism but not in whole. There are those elements of the American Right - the place of religion, the scope of proper government, and the importance of community to name a few - that are traditionally conservative. This is one reason why there has always been some measure of disagreement as to how the American Right should be defined.

    In answer to your question at the end of your last post, I would refer you to Russell Kirk's "Six Cannons of Conservatism." As you noted in your previous post, I have said what traditional conservatism is NOT, but I neglected to say what it IS. This highlights an often frustrating aspect of traditional conservatism. That aspect being that traditional conservatism can only be defined in very broad terms and can only be narrowly defined negatively (what conservatism is not). In many ways this is somewhat fitting as traditional conservatism is reactionary in nature, specifically towards change.

    As to how these tenets would be implemented into governmental policy, this misses the point. Traditional conservatism is not about implementing specific policies but rather weighing policies proposed against tradition. Traditional conservatism cannot be implemented through policy, rather it is nurtured through preserving tradition. Traditional conservatism is a disposition and not a systematic ideology.

  18. GNHVII-- I am familiar with Russell Kirk's work and now that I understand that you are talking in terms of classical terminology, it clears things up a bit.

    The problem that I see is defining the traditions as well as the intent and meaning within the traditions as guiding principles for decision making. When do these traditions start? Why are they "good?" What are the thought processes and what is the source that defines the concept of "good?" Although one can say that traditional conservatism is not an ideology, it is in fact an ideology or based in an ideology, otherwise it could not answer these types of questions. It derives it value system from someplace.

    Secondly, by placing oneself as mere opposition one is set up for a thesis/antithesis confrontaion that Marx and socialists desire and believe in. A political science professor I know reflects the Marxist view of history by showing all world history divided into progressives and conservatives with, as you might predict, the progressives being all that is good and noble, and conservatives all that is bad and ignorant, etc. By reducing the world into binary opposition it gives socialist and Marxist thought great credence. I know that binary opposition was not Kirk's intent, but it is the eventual and, as far as I can see, the inevitable result in the current world.

    I'm actually in the middle of writing a post on types of conservatism, so this is an interesting topic for me. I'm sorry for going way off the Ulrich topic and too long on this cooments section.

  19. Anonymous1.5.09

    Jay Savino and Anthony Ribustello are also republican douchebags

  20. Anonymous1.5.09

    "This guy is a perfect example of what;s wrong with the GOP. Rather than retain it's heritage there are those "middle of the row" (read traitorous) members of the party that would sacrifice tradition on the alter of cultural relevance and still claim to be conservative. Conservatism IS tradition. When tradition is discarded for the sake of trendiness we cease to be true conservatives. The sooner the GOP discards these ungrateful ignorant political stepchildren the better."

    As a New York City Democrat I LOVE reading this!!!! You all conform to all the stereotypes that Northeastern moderates have about nutty and out of touch Southern conservatives. If your party adheres to this sort of ideological purity you're headed to oblivion. You'll be lucky to hold your 40 senate seats.

    Ms. Logan's introduction makes a mistake. Eric Ulrich isnt one of three GOPers on the Queens City Council, he is one of 3 (out of 51) GOPers on the ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL. The five boroughs of NYC are represented by 51 Council Members, I think about 60 assembly and senate seats, 5 borough presidents, 5 DAs, and three Citywide elected offices. Of these, exactly 9 are GOP (3 Council seats, 3 senate seats, 1 Borough President, 1 DA, and 1 Assemblyman). Of the 18 members of congress either wholly or partially representing NYC, not one is Republican. In fact, of the 28 congressman representing the entire state of NY, not one is a Republican. The GOP has lost all Statewide elected offices including the State Senate and just lost a Congressional race to a completly unkown (nearly sacrificial lamb) Democrat in a rural, gun loving upstate district with a 2 to 1 GOP registration advantage.

    Now I am going to assume that Ulrich and his fellow NYC Republicans have some strong conservative beliefs about where our City and State are headed. I disagree with them, but I dont doubt that they hold sincere Republican views and conservative values and are trying to do some good for the City and State. Now do you myopic Alabama fundementalists really think these people should be labelled as "traitors to your party" because they dont think exactly like you do?? Its fine by me, because there isnt anybody whose going to be elected to office in NYC or NYS on a platform of pro-life, prayer in schools, creationism and "praise the lord and pass the amunition."

    "Traitors to the Party." For all your right wing hysteria about socialism & communism (talk about irrelevant!!), you all do sound an awfull lot like Stalinists.

  21. Anonymous1.5.09

    I am convinced that Republicans want to become a regional party. Keep trashing the northern "RINOs" until there's none left. And then what? You southerners know that there are differences between the North and South. If I recall correctly, a war was fought on that premise. A Republican from Queens is not going to be one the same page as one from Selma, just as a Democrat from Helena, Montana won't be identical to one from the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Democrats can live with those differences, but Republicans can't. But no, keep purging your party until no one is left. Schadenfreude is great.

  22. Anonymous1.5.09

    Your posting about Eric Ulrich made the NY Daily News daily blog (we thought in neccessary to alert the media)

    great job!

    The Juniper Park Patriots

  23. Dennis P. Gallagehr4.5.09

    I agree, good job in going after Eric Ulrich.