-
My Rahm Reunion
May 16, 2013 | 16 comments
-
The Left Hates Us
May 9, 2013 | 143 comments
-
Such a Dynamic Duo
May 2, 2013 | 49 comments
-
The Continuing Crisis
May 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Calvin Coolidge: His Times Are Our Times
April 26, 2013 | 22 comments
The Current Crisis
Return to the Wilderness
Remarks delivered at The American Spectator’s annual Robert L. Bartley Dinner last Wednesday night.
(Page 2 of 2)
IF YOU WILL ALLOW ME a moment of self-satisfaction, I saw it all coming. As early as 2006 in finishing up my book on the Clintons’ post-White House extravagances, The Clinton Crack-Up, I prophesied that a new generation of Democrats was emerging to challenge Hillary — at the time, the so-called “inevitable” Democratic nominee. I made the point very publicly. Check the transcript of Brian Lamb’s May 2007 interview with me on C-Span. There I predicted, “Hillary’s going to have real problems getting the nomination. A new generation’s come up….” I suppose that went down with the mainstream moron media as but another extravagant canard from another tiresome Clinton Hater.
Truth be known, I hate no one. The American Spectator hates no one. We greet the challenges ahead with cheerful anticipation. Our aim is to be the rallying point for a revitalized conservative movement. At the beginning of the conservative movement, Henry Regnery was one of the movement’s founding fathers. He was also his son, Al’s, predecessor on The American Spectator’s Board of Directors. Conservatives such as Henry Regnery laid down the principles of a movement that has moved from obscurity to capturing the White House, spreading the message of individual liberty throughout the world, even into lands once crushed under Communist tyranny, lands liberated by our message of freedom and our military resolve. We shall fight on for personal liberty. And if this president will lead us we shall follow him. Either that or we shall find another defender of liberty.
I look forward to seeing you next year. My gratitude to you all for your support and involvement with The American Spectator.
About the Author
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (85) | Leave a comment
More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
More Articles From The Current Crisis
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/05/return-to-the-wilderness
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Franklin Meunier | 12.5.08 @ 7:59AM
Mr. Tyrrell,
We are in for some rough times. We as in the 'American people'. When you look at the credit markets you have to shake your head! But ofcourse the solution to our problems will be for the Federal Government to borrow $500b from the credit markets to stimulate our economy. Mr. Reagan did no such thing, in fact he allowed the recession to run its couse without constant government intervention. The Democrats made gains in the Senate due to that recession, but the country has prospered ever since. (until now that is!)
Michael L. Hauschild| 12.5.08 @ 8:24AM
Mr. Tyrrell Jr. has exhibited incredible focus and insight, with no possible doubt as to his communication credentials. Within the upbeat tone, the name-dropping accompaniment associated with marksmanship, his bottom line mentality asserting the priorities of defense, lower taxes and libertarian economics lay our priorities. His assessment of the upcoming administration was also spot on, highlighting its history, strengths and exploitable weaknesses. Most importantly (please take note SoCons) he did not make one single reference to abortion, gay marriage, religion, or intolerance.
Bob| 12.5.08 @ 8:56AM
Takeouts:
1. Mr. Tyrell was on target concerning policy.
2. He gave so-cons the place they deserve in the party -- no mention.
3. He misread polling results concerning "conservative" vs. "liberal" as they don't necessarily relate to voting preferences.
4. Everyone has a problem with government -- big or otherwise. So the analogy to Reagan's comment is flawed. In fact, Republicans were rated lower than Democrats on this spectrum.
5. While people may not like government, they still want "stuff" from them.
6. The context regarding Tyrell's comments on Palin had very little to do with competence -- except in being "cute" and shooting guns. He was right, you can't take her seriously.
7. He overtly mentioned his libertarian leanings -- something the party should do.
Bob| 12.5.08 @ 9:03AM
A couple of more thoughts:
1. While much is made concerning the concept of a "living Constitution" vs. precise reading of the text, this is not as clear cut as it may seem. In fact, both sides of the court interpret the Constitution in their own image.
2. The amount of time Republicans are out of power is directly related to Obama's success. I, for one, hope he is successful for the benefit of our country. If he governs to the middle, he will. If he governs to the left, he won't. He will get re-elected because this recession will take several years to get through no matter who is in charge.
malm| 12.5.08 @ 9:44AM
In all due respect Mr. Tyrell, what you need most from LL.Bean is a new compass, since the one you own offers just one setting South. South is of course the direction conservatism is heading, and the only part of America still somewhat conservative. You need a more comprehensive map and compass Mr. Smug. One that shows a much more in depth, and complex view of life and America, so one then can truly know America. Obama and his crew look to the stars, and believe they can lead us to paradise. Your side is camping. America is simply asking can somebody do something about the black flies and mosqitoes. A pragmatic third party anyone ?
Bob| 12.5.08 @ 10:07AM
Malm, you can't have a more complex view of life in America unless you bring in intelligent people as candidates -- ones that value education and knowledge and not eschew it. Not only does the compass point south geographically, but it also points south intellectually.
Karen Jones | 12.5.08 @ 12:41PM
I shall carry my LL Bean catalog in the zippered compartment of my laptop case. It sems I am able to get an internet connection darn near anywhere these days. I will cheerfully assert conservative ideas and demonstrate my conservative values in the way I lead my life. Great job putting things in perspective Mr. Tyrell.
Chinaman| 12.5.08 @ 1:05PM
How come America not so good? How come you do so bad with dollar? The China is Number 1. The USA is not so good, sorry, but it will fall down much more, already behind Europe. I think Bush is to blame, ok?
Obama Rules| 12.5.08 @ 1:30PM
Did you guys hear what Captain Obvious said today?
From the AP:
"Our economy is in a recession," Bush said flatly, speaking to reporters on the South Lawn only hours after the release of a government report showing the biggest month of job losses in 34 years. "This is in large part because of severe problems in our housing, credit and financial markets, which have resulted in significant job losses."
"It's important to make sure that taxpayers' money be paid back if any is given to the companies."
Thanks, Captain Obvious. Jeez, be gone already.
malm| 12.5.08 @ 1:48PM
Bob, Mr.Tyrell is super intelligent and super educated. Dopes like me are counting on people like him to lead the way, so many in the conservative elite ranks seem stuck in mud, or trapped inside self constructed steel boxes. To my mind job one is to win elections, and defeat the political beast that is the DPPM(democrat party political machine). For conservatives the answer to all our problems, especially those ofpeople struggling financially, or besieged by health care cost is to say "let them eat our ideology". Try for once, for a few months at least ,to not be know it alls. Be like the late Mr. Crichton, and be agnostic on politics, and start asking questions, especially about your own ideas, your own sense of reality. But, I am with you Bob we need a new breed of politician, and they should be educated and smart, but more than that they must have courage and integrity to truly go against the tide, and speak the truth. To my mind this would be an enormous task. It would be essential to take the people back to square one and say things many simply do not want to hear. Ideologues on the right and left would be most angered by the truth, and these are often the media people who especially would destroy intelligent, honest new thinkers and leaders. Still in my dream world of politics had somehow a third party of substance competed with say a Petraeus/Crichton ticket, I believe we would truly be living in interesting times. How can these be interesting times politically ? Look at the current caste of leaders ? Look at the Obama show, Please its a "To Sir With Love " remake. You know who is playing the Sidney Poiter role, and Oprah, Madonna,and Babs are dueling each other for the Lulu part. It is sickening to behold.
Marc Jeric| 12.5.08 @ 1:51PM
Both Bushes, father and son (God bless them) have been wimps in their belief that if they behave as gentlemen the Democrats will too. No way! In their profound ignorance of the enemy they failed their country and us all.
Bob| 12.5.08 @ 2:05PM
Malm, you underrate Obama. Don't look at him as the McCain campaign positioned him as an empty suit and showman. He's a hard nosed, intelligent politician who can give a good speech. He ran a superb campaign and can use the Presidential bully pulpit to good effect. Never underrate your competitor.
He will govern towards the center -- just watch. We had a smart guy running -- his name was Romney. But the dumb anti-intellectual people in our party (which includes the so-cons), decided not to back him strongly enough. Then they chose the anti-intelligent Palin as a running mate. There could not have been a worse choice.
MJ Turkelson| 12.5.08 @ 2:12PM
Right on Bob! Being among the few that have had the courage to relentlessly pursue the Clintons, seems as though you will continue to have the honor for a few more years. Recently I have begun to notice similar snottiness as the comments above that are the obvious spewing of the left, in Conservative locations like the Spectator. Good example is the clown that now holds forth in the Editorial pages of the WSJ (one who treasures his "friendship' with Ayers among other nonsensical ravings ). Strange. Thank God we still have you, Regnery, Rush, Ann et al to dog the respective trails of the slobering left! Have you heard the great new song "Banking Queen" ?
Long live Robert L. Bartley!
Michael Roush| 12.5.08 @ 2:27PM
I was hoping to see some honest reflection in this article. Instead, I got;
1. Lust for Sarah Palin
2. Hate for the Clintons
3. The same old, tired bromides that pass as "principles" among the non-Davidian branch of conservatives.
Enjoy you catalogs and fantasies about Palin. When you have some worthwhile analysis and a few new ideas, let me know.
Todd Showalter| 12.5.08 @ 4:43PM
Bob,
Like you I was a big supporter for Romney as he has actually accomplished things in the real world and could actually communicate his ideas and philosophy in an understandable and logical way. McCain has no philosophy other than he reaches across the aisle to the detriment of the Republican Party and is a maverick of course, which grew more and more tiresome as the election went on. Your insistence that Palin is to blame for the loss is without merit, she was the only reason it looked like McCain could win before the bottom dropped out of the market.
Obviously you consider yourself a great intellectual and look down on Palin for not being an Ivy League graduate. She is no idiot like you insist, I am sure many of her adversaries (former Republican politicians and oil exec's) in Alaska can vouch for that. Yeah, she probably doesn't read the New York Times or Time magazine like you (thank God) but she has shown the ability to understand how to handle the issues she has faced as the Governor of Alaska. I am sure you don't think much of Alaskans since they are not sophisticated like you beltway types. I rather have someone with her common sense in Washington rather than the so-called genius's like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank who have pushed our financial system to the brink with their coddling of Fannie Mae.
It is true she could use some more exposure to the World at large and that will come but she is more than a pretty face. Frankly, your constant derision of her comes across as being sexist and is very tiresome. Personally, I feel that Bobby Jindal will be the best candidate for the Republican Party to rally around in 12 along with Romney but Palin is a force to be reckoned with whether you like it or not.
Mrs. Jackson| 12.5.08 @ 5:54PM
Huzzah Mr. Tyrell!
As charming and captivating as always. Although I do shudder to think of you trading in your Opera Pumps for Bass Blucher mocs but thankfully, I've been shopping at LL Bean's since the days they sold real made by the indians (and not Native American) Spruce Gum for 10 cents a box. If I could enjoy that gum, which was not anything like gum, then *sigh* I guess I can enjoy your new wilderness footgear.
Bob| 12.5.08 @ 6:05PM
Actually, Todd, my insistence that Palin was one of the major factors in McCain's loss has nothing to do with opinion, but with fact. I assume you can do analysis. Take a look at the RCP trend and then mark events on the timeline. You'll see that McCain rose significantly when she was chosen, but the graph shows two large drops afterwards. The first happened on the day of the Gibson interview and the second on the day of the Couric interview. On top of that, 60% of the people in exit polls thought she was unqualified. She was also the major reason people didn't vote for McCain followed by Bush. Facts are stubborn things and I encourage you to do some homework (which is part of being intellectual).
I don't consider myself to be an intellectual -- after all I spent my entire career as a line executive in business. I do have an excellent education for which I worked my tail off.
There is a difference between state office and national office. What bothers me is that Palin didn't have the intellectual curiosity to find out about foreign policy, the Constitution, the Supreme Court, etc. This is one of the big complaints about Bush. It means she will only learn if she is forced to learn. That's a problem.
By the way, I like Jindal. He was a Rhodes scholar. (Sorry I mentioned that. He is far more of an intellectual than me.)
DaveS| 12.5.08 @ 6:29PM
McCain undid McCain when McCain-Feingold passed and B. Hussen Obama decided to outsmart the FEC and its sieve reporting rules.
Palin was a gift; the sub-prime opportunity for McCain was God-sent - and he blew it.
Jeremiah| 12.5.08 @ 7:33PM
As a liberal, tax and spend Democrat, all I can say is I hope you all listen to Mr. Tyrrell.
I hope you all join him in the Sarah Palin campsite's tent -- if you can fit. If you don't qualify as not coming from "real America." (As an urban American, I know I'll never be welcome in Palin's "real" America.)
I hope you chase David Brooks out of your camp and invite Joe the Plumber to be your resident economic and tax policy theorist (what he was used for in the McCain campaign) and foreign policy expert.
I hope Rush Limbaugh continues to inspire the hyperbole and hysteria of your political rhetoric.
Because I'm thinking all this adds up this one thing: Obama / Biden victorious in '12.
Todd Showalter| 12.5.08 @ 7:38PM
Bob,
Let me say first there is nothing wrong with an Ivy League Education, my oldest brother is finishing up his executive MBA at Cornell for which he is paying an enormous amount of money. It is more the elitist attitude of the Ivy League liberals there that seem to believe that they know best for everyone else and should be given absolute power over our economy and Barack represents those kinds of people.
About Palin, McCain's handlers set her up for failure and I think there is little doubt that the liberal media establishment launched an all-out attack to discredit her in anyway possible. An example is the Bush doctrine question asked by Gibson, intentionally misleading to make her look foolish. You can make a good case that she does not have a great deal of experience but you can make just as good an argument for Barack and he was the top of the ticket. Frankly, I think she was handicapped by having to speak McCain's talking points and the whole maverick thing which wore thin.
The Couric interview was not the big turning point you are trying to make it too be though it was the worst moment for Palin but I don't think too many people made their minds on who they would vote for based on the VP's. How many ridiculously stupid things did Biden say after all and that didn't hurt Obama much because people vote for the President on not the VP. No, McCain blew it when it the crisis came right before the debate and made himself look ineffectual. The polls were just about even than but after McCain fell behind and never recovered. It wouldn't have made a damn difference who McCain picked because he was a weak candidate himself, the unpopularity of Bush and the faltering economy.
Jeremiah| 12.5.08 @ 8:15PM
Todd --
Your defense of Palin is gallant, but it's completely off base.
Gibson asked one -- one -- question that doesn't seem to hold water, which was the Bush doctrine question. If you look at what his follow up question was, it seems clear he made a mistake (i.e. I would imagine he was going to ask something like, "What is your understanding of the Bush Doctrine? Because there seems to be some disagreement about what it is -- if there is one at all." )
If you think that my alteration would have been an unfair question, then you are one of those people who think that every question Palin was asked was unfair.
What newspaper do you read?
Unfair.
Do you disagree with any (any!) S.C. decisions other than R v W?
Unfair.
What are your qualifications to be commander in chief?
Unfair.
It is downright Un-American to side with a politician -- and let's remember folks, she's a POLITICIAN, not Mom of the Month -- over the press.
The press is the essence of America. It is the spirit of '76. We like to tear politicians down to size and let them wallow a bit with the unwashed before ascending to high office, and journalists are there to do that.
God bless Katie Couric. She asked firm, fair, good questions. Palin blew it because a) she's arrogant; b) she's uninformed; and c) she wasn't well prepared by the campaign for the interview.
Jeremiah| 12.5.08 @ 8:21PM
I know conservatives have let themselves be convinced by lobbyists and disc jockeys that the press is somehow wicked. But I say it again: it is the heart of this country. Think about it: they put it in the FIRST amendment, not the 9th or 8th or 10th:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
These men valued CONSCIENCE, LIBERTY, the LIBERAL EXCHANGE OF IDEAS, and THE PRESS as the foundation upon which American civilization is built.
And next time Palin runs, I hope they savage her again -- and anyone else that runs, Democrat or Republican. I say NO QUARTER.
Alan Brooks| 12.5.08 @ 9:35PM
Bob,
i know you don't want rationalism from a moderate con when you're having an angry (honest) discussion, but not all of us so cons are knuckle draggers.
Todd Showalter| 12.5.08 @ 9:44PM
Jeremiah,
If you are of the opinion that the mainstream press is unbiased, it is because you are a completely partisan liberal and consider pathetically biased hacks like Matthews and Olbermann to be real journalists. There is little doubt that many of the journalists for ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC (worst of all) made it their duty to cheer lead Obama to victory. Of course you only see the bias at Fox News because they do not conform to your worldview you get from watching MSNBC. Can you honestly tell me that the media gave Obama the same treatment as they showed unto Palin? I can give study after study that demonstrates the bias of the mainstream media towards the Democrats but it will make no difference with you anyways.
Jeremiah| 12.5.08 @ 10:18PM
Todd --
First, I find it odd that the people who claim to form the party of accountability and personal responsibility are so quick to blame everyone but themselves and their candidates for their loss.
Second, I do believe that the press is "biased" often. I think MSNBC is awful, and I think Fox is awful too. I think there is such a thing as a good bias, however. The WSJ is slightly "biased" to the right, the NYT to the left. They're still on balance excellent news sources. (There's a reason why the president -- yes, even President Bush -- reads the Times.)
Unbiased reporting -- "fair and balanced" -- is not necessarily the best reporting. The whole argument about the media that's leveled by so-called conservatives like Limbaugh is cacamamie.
What is it that you have to fear? For the last 28 years, conservatism has dominated national political discourse. No press "bias" is responsible for that. Powerful, persuasive politicians like Reagan are responsible for that, just as politicians like Roosevelt created an area of liberal dominance (when the press, by the way, was much more conservative...).
I think you guys like to whine. Now, everyone likes to whine. But you guys are always claiming you're so tough. But the fact is, you like to whine and moan and complain.
Katie Couric was mean to Sarah Palin. Well, isn't that too damn bad. Let's mope for a while about it.
Now, did the press favor Obama?
Sort of, yes. But he was by far the better candidate. McCain's campaign was a disaster. It was disorganized, rash, and irresponsible. His message -- as many conservatives point out -- was all over the place. It was inconsistent and confusing. The man sounded senile. Palin sounded mentally challenged in interviews and refused to give press conferences. They looked like amateurs. Are you old enough to remember Reagan? How do you think he would have faired in the Katie Couric interview?
Three weeks of wall to wall Jeremiah Wright coverage last May wasn't necessarily pro-Obama coverage, nor was the endless, mindless, pointless, foolish, and completely screwball Bill Ayers obsession. I can't say that was pro-Obama coverage. But in the end, you're right: they liked him better. Just like the press liked Reagan better than Carter and Mondale. They liked him better because he was more likeable. Go figure. It's part of being a good leader, Todd.
So cry as much as you like. You've got four years to recover and find yourselves a better candidate. Gawd, I hope it's Palin. But I doubt it will be. You'll need someone tough and smart this time around.
Alan Brooks| 12.5.08 @ 11:04PM
It isn't right for conservatives to compare Palin to Rush Limbaugh, Limbaugh is much smarter
Alan Brooks| 12.5.08 @ 11:42PM
Bob is right,
Obama will be re-elected because the recession will drag on for at least 18 months, and Republicans will nominate another old f-rt in 2012.
or Palin. or Jeb Bush.
or Neil Bush
Robert| 12.6.08 @ 1:41AM
I recommend watching Thomas Sowell's video on Youtube about his book Conflict of Visions. I've noticed for the last several years that Liberals put a great emphasis on intelligence. That's because they believe that the reason government fails is because the wrong people are in power. If only the really smart, righteous people were in power it would work. Intelligence is way down the list of qualities needed to be president. Conservatives know that wisdom matters more than intelligence and principles more than rules. Obama spent years preparing himself as a Washington insider to run for president. Palin was busy living her busy life including being Governor. Obama is a very smart fool. They laughed at Reagan's simplemindedness. They laugh at her. We'll make them choke on it.
Alan Brooks| 12.6.08 @ 1:56AM
You can't compare Palin to Reagan.
Your mistake is thinking intelligence is the sum of intellectual "assets", gifts. Coolidge, Eisenhower, and Reagan had great intellectual assets that Palin does not have at this time.
Now she can develop these assets, but that might take longer than four years, and four years itself is a long time in politics.
i bet you a dime to every donut that someone else besides Palin is GOP candidate in 2012.
Jameson Campaigne| 12.6.08 @ 2:25AM
> On January 20th he will be sworn in as the first Chicago Alderman ever to be president. <<br />
He was never an alderman -- that would have been a hoot -- only a rookie state senator. Otherwise a highly enjoyable talk.
Jameson
ruth| 12.6.08 @ 2:37AM
Well, look at all the 'sensitive' liberal men savaging Sarah Palin (again). Nothing new here under the sun. But that's okay, weenies, the Governor will be back--and this time she'll be ready. So, continue your mindless bleating; you define yourselves as the nasty, sexist wimps that you are.
malm| 12.6.08 @ 9:35AM
Bob, I do not underestimate Obama. He is a fine performer, so is Poiter. But he really is just the face of a great political machine. He gets away with mouthing an energy policy that will surely lead to brownouts and blackouts, but the machine has conditioned the people to buy into any and all going green nonsense. He could not have survived a smart, tough questioning on energy, but the machine in place protects any real tough questions on this issue, or any other on tangible matters. Conservatism, the only alternative counter force is lost in matters of ideological purity, and somehow by living in the woods and camping, until a second coming of Reagan makes it safe to rejoin the real world. We must deconstruct the the liberal artificial universe. This is a massive effort and conservatives alone cannot do it.
Gazinya| 12.6.08 @ 9:36AM
In my opinion The Obama is not intelligent, he is devious. He is clever, not honest. He is not thoughtful but calculating. He won the election, he did not steal it. Like a magician who uses tricks of the trade to hide the trick he slid around the truth. He has his aides and his helpers and his managers to make the show look well. He is not an empty suit but he is devoid of character. He has said and will continue to say, to the audience, whatever it takes to make them smile. He is the compendium of seventy years of a 'living Constitution' political viewpoint. He is, to me, the front man for the " Were Gonna Get Ya Sucker Traveling Road Band."
I don't think he is anymore rotten than any other politician but he is better able to lard the rails with his greasy, smiling, narcissistic, blather. These rails and the train that glides on them have only one stoppping place. Ruination.
In a society that has been so systematically dumbed down as our has, he sounds really articulate. And he's clean. He did not need to beat the bushes for his helpers to make the show even better. He found his entire entourage in the Clintons' old road show. These cast of characters know how to put on a show for the dumbdowned. It was The Obama that said he was a 'born again' Chirstian but he certainly didn't buy into ALL that Jesus stuff. And the dumbdowned said 'yea, me too'.
I don't like the term Libertarian Conservative. I didn't like the term Compasionate Conservative. I guess if I was to want a adjective for my form of government it would be 'Constitutional Conservative'. I keep asking people 'is a stop sign a living document.'
Bob| 12.6.08 @ 9:42AM
Todd -- I see you didn't actually do the hard numerical analysis on the election polling trend. If you did, you'd realize it was Palin's interviews with Gibson and Couric that drowned McCain, not the economic crisis. I can understand why you don't want to believe the numbers and reality -- because it undermines your position. You represent the heart of anti-intellectualism -- saying that results and analysis are wrong. It's like saying that you believe that GM can't go bankrupt because of the Chevy Volt and therefore they don't need a bailout.
Ruth -- We are about as sexist as you are racist. You are also inferring that women shouldn't be held to the same high intellectual standard as men. I think it is you that is being sexist against men.
Mrs. Jackson| 12.6.08 @ 11:26AM
To accept the notion Sarah Palin is as dumb as she was portrayed to be by Katie Couric or Charlie Gibson, is to also accept the folks in Alaska who voted for her and like the job she is doing there, are even dumber. Sorry guys, that doesn't fly because, thanks to the (liberal) pollster John Zogby, we learned the truly uninformed (read stupid) voters in the last election were the ones who cast their votes not for Sarah Palin but Barack Obama.
And it was because Obama's supporters as a whole are uninformed or improperly educated, that Chambliss was able, with his double digit win of his Senate seat, to give Obama his first big defeat (and it was a big defeat not matter how Katie Couric or Charlie Gibson described it otherwise) as President less that one month after being swept into office on a tide of feel goodism by the do gooders of this country.
Bob| 12.6.08 @ 11:40AM
Mrs. Jackson, I see that you, too, lack reason. First of all, the Gibson and Couric interviews did not portray Palin as "dumb", only as not knowledgeable about economics, the Constitution, the Supreme Court and foreign policy. It also shows a lack of intellectual curiosity.
Secondly, the Zogby poll was considered flawed by Zogby himself as the questions presented untruths as being correct, i.e., "trick" questions. Furthermore, no similar poll was conducted of McCain voters so there is no benchmark. You can say that Obama voters were not, on average, knowledgeable, but you can't say they were less knowledgeable than McCain voters.
As far as Chambliss is concerned, Georgia is strongly Republican so his win is rather meaningless in proving any ideological point. Since you don't understand these points, it puts you in the same general frame as Obama voters.
Jeremiah| 12.6.08 @ 12:02PM
Mrs Jackson -
How is it exactly that Palin was "portrayed" as being dumb by Couric or Gibson?
Darling, an interview by a journalist is not a soap opera or a Friday Night Movie on the Family Channel.
Palin is a politician. She was running for Vice President of the United States. Answering questions from the press isn't an option. She wasn't doing us a favor.
So, she was allowed to choose any environment she wished for the interview. She was allowed to choose the length of the interview and the time of day.
What she couldn't choose were the questions she was asked.
Now, the fact that she couldn't answer questions in a way that inspired confidence in most Americans does not reflect poorly on Gibson or Couric. All they did was ask questions.
Palin chose how or even whether to answer them.
Do you think Reagan would have been stumped by Katie Couric -- even in '76. Even in '68? I doubt it.
So grow up, Mrs. Jackson, and do something to help your friends grow up. Whining about the press is ignoble and weak.
Shooter| 12.6.08 @ 12:20PM
Not bad Mr. T, not bad at all. My only suggestion; next time substitute Cabelas catalog for Bean's. Real men (and some real women) shop at Cabelas and those are they that are the true Conservatives.
Jane| 12.6.08 @ 12:30PM
Ruth: I’m with you--except that it wasn’t only liberal males who dismissed Sarah Palin, but socially superior conservatives like Byron York and Bob and elderly gentlemen who continue to refer to Gov. Palin as the “curvaceous governor.” These soi disant conservatives refused to support the GOP ticket because Palin was the VP nominee—even though she was the only conservative on either ticket! The first battle in the GOP realignment wars is between these effete, elite conservatives and the rest of us hoi polloi Republicans.
Ann Coulter was only partly right when she said McCain alone must take the blame for the GOP loss. To the misogynists who dissed Sarah Palin, a curse on both your parties!
Bob| 12.6.08 @ 1:14PM
Jane, you missed the point completely. An idiot can be a conservative, but that doesn't mean they automatically qualify as Presidential material. It is not sexism to say someone does not have the knowledge of America to be a President. In fact, it IS sexism to think that just because she is a woman and a conservative, she deserves to be on the ticket. There is nothing elite about having knowledge and education. And having high requirements for Presidential candidates is not elitism. You've made your point -- Sarah neither has the knowledge or education to be an "elitist". You really need to go back to school....
Jeremiah| 12.6.08 @ 1:41PM
Jane --
I'm really going to have to ask that you define "misogynist." The danger is that the word entirely loses its meaning if you simply hurl it at absolutely anyone who disagreed with Sarah Palin.
The governor of Alaska struck the MAJORITY of Americans as not qualified to be president in every major poll taken in the weeks before the election. Are they all misogynists?
ruth| 12.6.08 @ 3:02PM
Jane, I was referring to the bloggers on this thread only. Both Bob and Jeremiah are liberal weenies but not necessarily misogynists. They use sexism to attack SoCon women because they think they can get away with it, especially Bob. They hate SoCons, female or otherwise. And in a million years neither of them could get a woman like Palin. They don't have the nads.
Bob| 12.6.08 @ 4:23PM
Ruth, I wouldn't want Sarah -- I like to have INTELLIGENT discourse with my wife. By the way, my wife is the best person on the face of the earth, is highly educated, and I hit the jackpot when we found each other.... You're right on one account, I don't deserve her...
There are smart so-cons out there -- but they don't seem to post or write articles on this board.
Jeremiah| 12.6.08 @ 5:35PM
Ruth --
I have to say, your speculation about my ability to "get a woman like Palin" was lame and foolish.
I don't sexualize Palin (as you implicitly just did) or view her as an example of a woman I'd like (or like not) to "have."
That's misogyny.
Rather, I'm taking her seriously enough as a very ambitious professional politician to critique her on the basis of her intellectual preparation (which is poor) and what I perceive to be her ability to lead (which is low).
It's you and people like you who insult Palin (and other women politicians) by talking about them in terms of their sexuality. (This is done -- supposedly in a joking way -- constantly by conservatives, who are supposedly also the people who are going to teach us all about proper sexual morality....).
I'm sure Sarah Palin's a fine person. I have no trouble believing it. And obviously she's a good mother. What of it? It just has nothing to do with politics.
ruth| 12.6.08 @ 6:41PM
Ha ha, I knew it wouldn't take long for the liberal boys, Bob and Jeremiah, to defend their masculinity. Too late, weenies.
Alan Brooks| 12.6.08 @ 9:00PM
Liberals have it wrong, the problem isnt so cons, so conservatism is the only card cons have left in the age of govt bailouts. i'd take Palin as prez, but America wont accept her because they wont think she has what it takes. The voters are very cautious.
Remember, Reagan got to be president running against a very weak candidate in 1980.
ruth| 12.6.08 @ 11:12PM
I agree that Carter was a weak president (boy, was he weak!), but I also think that Reagan blazed the trail for the possible success of Palin. Who knows? It's just been such a long time since a politician inspired me, someone who could articulate conservative principles, that I was blown away by Palin's energy and conviction. May be it's not Sarah--but the others seem so bloodless to me; they lack charisma.
Dosser| 12.7.08 @ 12:52AM
Ruth, there's no point arguing with the libs on this site. They truly stick to their 'religious' dogma of media talking points and their narrow-minded world view. It's a waste to argue about someone else's intelligence when we don't even know the person except through stump speeches and interviews. GWB is a highly intelligent man but, as they'll attest, intelligence doesn't translate to a great leader, likewise people like Condi Rice. By definition, then, Hussein is not necessarily a good leader either. A good leader, as someone else put it, is measured by wisdom and fortitude.
I'd like to argue as well that being a good mother and fine person is definitely good politics. Why? Because the media and politicians have made character an issue that seems to resonate with the populace, like it or not.
Observing "discussions" like these on the board makes it more obvious that the divide between libs and cons is quite vast and can never really be bridged since both world views are diametrically opposed to each other. Actually, there are compelling arguments from both sides depending on which side your world view is on.
So, principles, therefore, are what guides voters and rhetoric stirs them up. Just look at the emotion people place in these elections. Both sides feel they're rational while the other is irrational.
Intelligence is also an abstract word, like, 'change' - very difficult to quantify especially looking at the source of education of that said 'intelligence'.
Lastly, I would like to say that my wife and I are highly intelligent professionals in the scientific field with IQs in the genius level. What does that prove? Nothing. It doesn't make me a good leader. Whichever side I choose there will be people on the other side thinking I'm obtuse. Why? Because of their differing world view. As much as liberals like to think that they're intellectually superior, they are still driven by their base instincts driven by their world view.
Alan Brooks| 12.7.08 @ 1:03AM
nothing wrong with Palin, but cons today have to make up their minds. do they think social conservatism is real, or is it not the same as it was?
Can we be liberated to do what we want? no prejudices? share and share alike? no borders? no more old fashioned morality? Marry a relative? marry an animal? Live free like... Michael Jackson?
ALL of us will have the freedom to do our own thing?
Alan Brooks| 12.7.08 @ 1:13AM
i brought the last post up because libertarians are serious on economics, absurd on social issues, they would destroy all morality, libertarians have an influence-- due to their seriousness and economic ability-- far beyond their numbers. Libertarians are not conservatives or radical conservatives, they are radicals, but they are real.
too real.
Jeremiah | 12.7.08 @ 1:14AM
The Conservative Comedians Have Arrived:
1. Being a good mother means you'd be a good president.
2. George W Bush was intelligent but a bad leader. (Yeah, right. His troubles came because like Hamlet, he thought too much.)
3. Reagan "blazed the way" for Palin. That's right: Reagan will be remembered for being the forerunner of Sarah Palin, she who could not name a single Supreme Court case.
You people are so deluded. It's hilarious. Get a grip, folks!
Jeremiah | 12.7.08 @ 1:14AM
The Conservative Comedians Have Arrived:
1. Being a good mother means you'd be a good president.
2. George W Bush was intelligent but a bad leader. (Yeah, right. His troubles came because like Hamlet, he thought too much.)
3. Reagan "blazed the way" for Palin. That's right: Reagan will be remembered for being the forerunner of Sarah Palin, she who could not name a single Supreme Court case.
You people are so deluded. It's hilarious. Get a grip, folks!
ruth| 12.7.08 @ 2:00AM
Isn't that quaint! Jeremiah was so impressed by his cogent, witty comments--that he posted them twice! Thanks, Jeremiah, one of you just wasn't enough.
ruth| 12.7.08 @ 2:02AM
Libertarians want all of the rights with none of the responsibilities. Yeah, that'll work.
ruth| 12.7.08 @ 2:32AM
Mr. Dosser, I argue with libtards because they are cleaning our clocks politically--and someone has to fight back! I am cerebral by nature and I also value scholarship, but as I survey the political landscape around me, I have ascertained that the streetfighters (Chicago street thugs, if you will) are winning. President Bush is a good man, and I am so very grateful for his courageous and brilliant national security policies that have protected us since 9/11: But his naive notion of gentlemanly discourse with his opponents has served our party and our nation poorly. His reticence has allowed the feckless left to define him and his policies in the most negative and dishonest way. So I've decided to get a little thuggy and mix it up with the big bad liberals on this site. Time to push back. I love my country too much not to fight for what I believe is right and too many have died for my most fortunate blessings. Besides, I grew up in a large, fractious Catholic family, and I know how to bring it!
Osamas Pajamas | 12.7.08 @ 2:55AM
I find no humor in the ascendancy of Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer, and I look forward to his overthrow by whatever means are necessary to remove him as a source of Bob Tyrrell's amusement. Only then shall I laugh, viciously. Until that glorious day, I shall eat broken glass, and plot and conspire.
Yi Ha ***
Minister of Information
Peoples' Capitalist Republic of Whizbangistan
*** Pronounced "YEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!"
Bob| 12.7.08 @ 8:34AM
Let's see, Ruth... You value scholarship (cough, cough), but don't support people who have shown scholarship. You think that streetfighters are winning when it's actually the intelligent, strategic, people that are winning. You don't value discussion with those who think differently and think you have an open mind. You are the poster child for the intolerance and small minded thinking of the current Republican party. You show the sexism you so eschew.
I'm glad you post so much here so people can reflect on what the Republican party has become... White, old, dogmatic, intolerant, fractious, religious, and closed minded. Boy, that's sure a formula for success. I hope that know nothing Barbie Palin does run in 2012 so the party can finally dump you guys and build a real conservative vision of America.
MJ Turkelson| 12.7.08 @ 12:24PM
Bill Buckley once wrote to me that the "struggle availeth". And it does. But we progress NOT, engaging in discourse with lunatic leftists on our turf, whether its in re their insults to Bob Tyrell, Sarah Palin, Reagan or other of our icons. We do not (they do) encourage our children when they are being bratty--so too, for the leftist nasties above. Shall we end the nonsense on that positive note??
Jeremiah| 12.7.08 @ 1:05PM
Turkelson, it probably does not harm to ignore "leftists" when the "insult" anyone -- whether it be your "icons" (since when is it American to have "icons"?) or anyone else.
Political discourse in this country would be greatly improved -- and along with it the health of the republic itself -- if conservatives and liberals had more robust and more thoughtful debate. I'd say we'd all be better off if we kept the Limbaughs and the Michael More's of the world in their place -- as entertainers -- and looked to more serious intellectuals as models for "engaging in discourse."
William F Buckley -- who would be appalled by the anti-intellectualism of many conservatives today -- would do as well as anyone to serve as that kind of model.
I cover my eyes and weep when I see conservatives putting Sarah Palin in the same sentence or category of leader as R. Reagan, as you do above. It's like comparing Britney Spears to Johnny Cash.
But I guess there's no arguing taste.
Shooter| 12.7.08 @ 5:06PM
I think that the sooner we dispense with the idea of S. Palin as head of our ticket in 2012 the much better. VP? Maybe.
Time is already wasting. We must identify and coalesce behind a strong leader soon.
Michael L. Hauschild| 12.7.08 @ 5:33PM
So, who would you rather be marooned on a desert isle with, Ronald Reagan, Britney Spears, Johnny Cash, Bob or Ruth?
ruth| 12.7.08 @ 6:20PM
Mr./Ms. Turkelson, what is the purpose of the blogs if we don't engage the lunatics such as: Bob, Jeremiah, Obomber Rules, Daffy Daphne, etc.? Part of my blogging is for sport because a lot of these people might make me mad, but they make me laugh, too. They are Americans like me and sometimes it's fun to mix it up with them. Bob sounds like a snob, though, talks too much about his intellectualism. Give it a rest, Bob, it's more important to have a good heart. Leftist nasties, that's a good one!
Jeremiah| 12.7.08 @ 7:55PM
Ruth --
It had to happen sooner or later. You said something humane and decent about liberals: "They are Americans like me."
And I agree: it is good to mix it up and scrap with opponents: in the end, we're all Americans.
Even if Sarah Palin doesn't think my gritty east coast urban environment is "real America," at least now I can say, Ruth does.
And I only weep for those who think Palin's of the same caliber as Reagan when it comes to politics and leadership. The idea is completely foolish.
Jeremiah| 12.7.08 @ 7:56PM
Ruth --
AS for grouping me with Daphne and Obama Rules....that was the unkindest thing you've ever said about me.
ruth| 12.7.08 @ 11:26PM
Jeremiah, you know the drill--I might fight with my brothers or sisters but if any one else messes with them--they will have to go through me first. Like it or not we are all Americans and we have to find a way to figure things out. Sorry about Daphne & O.R.--it made me laugh. Sarah is not done, Jeremiah, just mark my words. And don't mess with her--she's my sistah!
ruth| 12.7.08 @ 11:37PM
Bob, I drew blood when I assailed you for your sexism toward Governor Palin, didn't I? Don't think I haven't noticed that you've toned down your sexist rhetoric toward the Governor: I have. Now you're calling me a sexist! That's a good one and totally unfounded. Weak, Bob, weak.
Bob| 12.8.08 @ 8:34AM
Ruth, you are living in your own little world, aren't you. I have never been sexist -- you have. Being un-knowledgeable has nothing to do with sex -- you must have some sort of psychological problem if you think it does. And yes, you are a sexist for bringing that issue into a non-sexist argument.
ruth| 12.8.08 @ 4:36PM
I just didn't care for your nasty, personal attacks against Palin, Bob. It just seemed like bad form, petty and mean-spirited, if you will.
Jeremiah| 12.8.08 @ 10:30PM
Ruth --
Maybe you can help me. Give me an example of something -- anything -- that might conceivably be said that would be construed by you as a fair criticism of Palin that is not a "nasty personal attack."
ruth| 12.8.08 @ 11:31PM
Jeremiah, after months of the Left's personal attacks against the Governor and her beautiful family, I was already upset. But when Bob compared her to Lindsay Lohan--I was really corked off. It was just so disrespectful with absolutely no acknowledgement of her achievements and I had the sneaking suspicion that he used sexist attacks against Palin because she's a SoCon, and he thought he could get away with it. WRONG! We are all entitled to respect--even Daphne. He claims he's a Republican, and that made me even madder, especially since he wouldn't let up on her. He also snarked about her on unrelated blogs, calling her Barbie and such. I felt like he was trying to de-humanize her and it upset me. You know, women have been on the wrong side of male power and dominance for a very, very long time, and though I'm a Conservative woman, I'm still a little sensitive on behalf of my sisters. I thought Hillary was treated unfairly in the primary, (MSNBC in particular, Olbermann most disgustingly) and I started to admire her for her courage and tenacity. I don't really nail you on Palin stuff because I think you are pretty measured in your criticism. I'm consistent: Bullies have always made me mad, you know, the underdog and all. I won't pick on Bob anymore--but I still think personal attacks are unfair.
ruth| 12.8.08 @ 11:36PM
Hauschild, you are a creep.
Daphne Kenward| 12.9.08 @ 11:37AM
If Donald Duck was running, as long as it was a Republican, there are some that would vote for it.
Where is the politics in that?.
Francesca| 12.12.08 @ 11:13PM
Apparently in Ruth's version of Queensberry rules personal attacks are fine, except against Sarah Palin or George Bush. Jeremiah and Bob, thank you for your reasoned discourse. As for Palin, pragmatic Dems like me will kick off our shoes and break out the champagne if she is the Republican candidate in 2012. Only Bobby Jindal, who, while impressively well educated, holds extreme far-right social views could be more welcome. Either of these candidates will bring in the blessed base but,take another look at the map, folks, fail to appeal to the Independents and centrist Republicans and Democrats a presidential candidate needs to WIN.
Trackback| 1.4.10 @ 8:19PM
credit repair alaska, on credit repair alaska, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: