Eminentoes
Dead Wrong
The attacks on Rush Limbaugh are a distraction by conservatives without credibility.
Newsweek’s favorite conservatives are either dead or not very conservative. Its obituary of Bill Buckley serves as exhibit A. The current David Frum-penned cover story, featuring a muzzling “Enough!” that covers talk-host Rush Limbaugh’s moneymaker, is exhibit B.
“I’m a conservative Republican,” writes Frum. “I volunteered for the Reagan campaign in 1980. I’ve attended every Republican convention since 1988. I was president of the Federalist Society chapter at my law school, worked on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and wrote speeches for President Bush — not the ‘Read My Lips’ Bush, the ‘Axis of Evil’ Bush. I served on the Giuliani campaign in 2008 and voted for John McCain in November. I supported the Iraq War and (although I feel kind of silly about it in retrospect) the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I could go on, but you get the idea.”
Indeed, he could go on. Frum supported the banker bailout. He wrote last September, “I say ‘aye’ to the proposed national debt bailout — and a big shout out to Rep. Barney Frank, one of its early authors, who has been a prescient early voice on the need for a big solution to a big problem.” He is pro abortion-rights: “I am not pro-life. I think abortion ought to be legal for the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy and available to protect the health of the mother during the weeks thereafter. I don’t see this as a matter of fundamental human rights, so much as one of accommodating reality.” In his latest volume of advice to conservatives, Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again, he advises them to get over their fixation of lowering income-tax rates and offers a massive “carbon tax” as a way of promoting “green conservatism.”
David Frum, in other words, isn’t very conservative these days. One might say he has evolved. Twelve years ago, for instance, Frum brilliantly schooled Andrew Sullivan in an online debate over gay marriage. Now, despite ballot rejections of homosexual marriage in such deep-blue states as California, Michigan, and Oregon, Frum inexplicably argues that the gay marriage train has left the station and it’s time for conservatives to, if not get on board, at least get out of the way.
Frum’s embrace of various liberal positions doesn’t make him a dummy, or an unskilled writer, or someone who should be excluded from a necessary conversation among self-identified conservatives about the direction of their wayward movement. It just makes him rather hubristic to envision himself as a general giving marching orders, or as a pope issuing excommunications, to a movement he no longer has much use for.
The piece suffers from the same delusion its writer has: the conflation of the cultural and policy objectives of the conservative movement with the electoral success of the Republican Party. The first six years of the Bush presidency, when Republicans controlled all three branches of government, have cured some conservatives of that delusion, but not Frum — as the article’s interchangeable use of “conservative movement” and “Republican Party” demonstrates. This common error does more to explain the conservative movement’s sorry state than any “aggressive,” “bombastic,” “cutting,” or “sarcastic” utterance of the talk-radio king.
Frum’s premise is one that nobody privately accepts: Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. As Frum notes, this is a useful notion for Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh. It allows the president to hand-select his opposition, with the hand-selected opponent naturally going along with the flattery. It’s good for the president’s Gallup poll numbers and the talkmeister’s Arbitron ratings. Unstated is that the situation also presents an opportunity for a writer to land space in a mass-circulation liberal magazine by trading on his credibility as a “conservative” voice to mouth ideas soothing to the editors at that mass-circulation liberal magazine.
Frum points out that Limbaugh is a fat, thrice-divorced, cigar smoker who once had a major drug problem. Ad hominem masquerades as argument, as so many talk-radio critics imagine it does on the airwaves, in the pages of Newsweek. The pot calls the kettle black throughout.
The Newsweek article informs, “In the conservative world, we have a tendency to dismiss unwelcome realities. When one of us looks up and murmurs, ‘Hey, guys, there seems to be an avalanche heading our way,’ the others tend to shrug and say, he’s a ‘squish’ or a RINO — Republican in Name Only.” Or how about an “Unpatriotic Conservative”? It neither occurs to Frum that he once served as the chief enforcer of the very real narrow-mindedness that he now castigates, nor dawns on him that the avalanche “heading our way” has already hit.
For Frum, it’s not the failed president he dubbed “the right man,” or the far-fetched utopian military crusades he advocated as “an end to evil,” but Rush Limbaugh who is to blame for the Republican Party’s sorry state. It’s worth remembering that Limbaugh is neither a new phenomenon nor at the apex of his influence (Remember the bestsellers? The magazine covers? The late-night television show?), which makes laying the blame for the Republican Party’s current woes on a radio host in national syndication since the Reagan years a rather dubious proposition.
Frum’s Bush-worshipping book, Torquemada-like intolerance of Iraq war dissent, and big-government conservatism is what got conservatism into the mess. Just as Rush Limbaugh serves as a useful distraction from the president’s economic woes, the radio yakker serves as a useful distraction from the destructive role Frum has played within the conservative movement during the Bush presidency.
When liberals adopt you as their token conservative, kiss your credibility among conservatives goodbye and say hello to writing gigs at the Atlantic, appearances on Keith Olbermann’s program, and lectures at the Kennedy School of Government. David Brooks, who serves as the house conservative to both PBS’s News Hour and the New York Times op-ed page, could have told David Frum this. To be the liberals’ favorite conservative is usually an indication of just how alienated from conservatism one really is.
About the Author
Daniel J. Flynn is the author of Blue Collar Intellectuals: When the Enlightened and the Everyman Elevated America. He blogs at www.flynnfiles.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (272) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Daniel J. Flynn
More Articles From Eminentoes
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/12/dead-wrong
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
drudge ette obama| 3.12.09 @ 6:24AM
Fum must be planning a new book or need a p.r. boost. Or maybe he needs a Rush-whippin', because that's what he'll get.
Frum has lost whatever nerve he ever had. He has floated down into the level of middle of the road comfort. That type never got people anywhere.
Deborah | 3.12.09 @ 6:29AM
These days, to me, a conservative is anyone who wants to stop the leap to the left of the Obama administration. Frum doesn't appear to be of that type. These "go along to get along" ideas have watered down the conservative ideal and have allowed this 360 degree firing squad inside the Republican Party.
If only those oh-so-smart "conservatives" would look at what is happening to this country by the Democrats in power instead of focusing on Rush or the "social" conservatives they want to expel, they might be an asset to the country. Instead, they are part of the problem.
Hey, Mr. Frum, Rush isn't the problem. Obama and the socialism he and Pelosi and company are cramming down our throats is the problem. Until you start criticizing what's happening instead of those who want to save the country from this uncertain future, then keep it to yourself. You are only helping the other side. And, I used to be a fan, but the bloom is off that rose.
Aaron| 3.12.09 @ 6:38AM
If it smells like a liberal, acts like a liberal and attacks like a liberal then... by golly give that man a PETA T-shirt cause I think he's been infected.
Trackback| 3.12.09 @ 7:02AM
Dead Wrong, on cultural, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
stu.b.con| 3.12.09 @ 7:23AM
Well said Aaron!
Perhaps we need a new moniker for these the times they are a'changin, Reagan is dead, aw come on abortion ain't THAT bad, "conservatives" . In the Republican party of course these personality types are referred to as "r.i.n.o.'s"
perhaps "neo-libs", cocktail party conservatives who abandon principle in order to hang with and be liked by the popular kids...
Robert Rosencrans| 3.12.09 @ 7:37AM
It appears to me that Rush Limbaugh has bought some of this political avalanche on himself by his insensitivity which is expressed daily on his popular show, and seemingly invincible audience.
Rush Limbaugh has many favorite nicknames for various liberal elements in our society, and although I have no particular problem with many of those nicknames for their accuracy, there is one area where Mr. Limbaugh, usually the consummate pro, has left him self wide open to criticism, and possible failure, albeit a small failure.
However, in this teetering economy, even Mr. Limbaugh would do well to spike up his game.
To be specific, Mr. Limbaugh has very likely insulted huge groups of Americans when he refers to or dismisses huge legions of sycophants around the country as butt boys.
In fact, many are butt boys and I think everyone knows the political connotation of butt boy. This is where I believe Mr. Limbaugh has made a mistake because, although I believe diversity and multiculturalism are failed social instruments that indicate failure wherever they are discovered, this is one time that Mr. Limbaugh must recognize where diversity is needed.
Instead of limiting himself to butt boy, he must expand his universe to include the usual litany of the victim class, without getting too windy.
At the very least he should refer to butt girls, particularly in light of the hormonal love fest going on over at the State Department, and butt victims, as a generic method of inclusion and so not to offend those who he is trying to define on a political basis.
It's quite evident that a certain percentage of his listeners qualify as Rush deniers, or outright Limbaugh haters, who listen only to justify their political differences with Mr. Limbaugh.
Mr. Limbaugh would do well to expand the term butt boy to include butt girls, butt LBGT and the myriad other classes of victims.
It's not Mr. Limbaugh's goal to appear politically sensitive, but sometimes you have to be aware of the possibilities of getting the other side to listen.
One way of doing that is to expand your terminology. It doesn't mean you're actually more sensitive, just more aware of the limitless possibilities and victim classes that can be combined with the word butt.
Mark Long| 3.12.09 @ 7:40AM
I agree wholeheartedly with Flynn's basic argument. But I do have one correction: so far as I know Limbaugh has never accepted the label "leader of the Republican Party." In fact, he vehemently denies it routinely. However, he is a leader of the conservative movement and that is much more important.
It is too bad that the GOP has not put forward someone who can take on a leadership role, leaving Rush to take up the slack. It is not his failing but the party's. At a time when we need real leadership, we have Michael Steele attacking Rush and then apologizing and now David Frum becoming a ventroliquist's dummy for the Left.
The GOP can start winning elections again when they start behaving like conservatives. Are you listening Congress?
stmichrick| 3.12.09 @ 8:13AM
It seems like Mr Frum is now primarily concerned about appearing 'un-hip' and 'in-sensitive' in the big media.
Maybe he has a new girlfriend.
Melvin| 3.12.09 @ 8:16AM
Conservatives cannot make this Country right until Conservatives make themselves right.
All Conservatives should be asking themselves, "Do we really need the Republican Party to continue to be the vehicle of advancing the Conservative Philosophy?
Liberalism is an incurable social disease that has infected the Republican Party and it's leadership to the point that there is basically no philosophical differences between the Republican and Democrat Parties.
The proof of this is right in front of Conservatives, Collins, Snow, Specter, McCain, and the list grows larger every day of Republicans who would rather advance a Liberal agenda than a Conservative one.
Bluntly, the Conservative movement needs to discard the Republican Party because it has been so infected from the rot of Liberalism that it needs to be amputated from the Conservative Philosophy.
Conservatives need to form their own political party, draft a Conservative Party Constitution that will force it's leadership to strictly follow the Conservative principles and Party policies that will act as an inoculant to Liberalism. And lastly not to allow the those alleged Conservative/Republican parasites to cross over and seek a new host in the Conservative Party.
They chose to make their bed with Liberalism and the Conservative Party needs to force them lie in it.
This is a chance for the Conservative philosophy to wake up to a new dawn and to be free from the shackles of a corrupt Republican Party leadership to once again have this great Country of ours follow the Constitution as our forefathers had intended.
frost| 3.12.09 @ 8:29AM
Can't help but shake my head in wonderment, if, indeed, that is the term -- Frum's pro-Choice?
So, he should be 86'd? And perhaps he's not quite as dogmatic about those pesky stem-cells and gay-crap as the more Christian brethren? It's stuff like these priorities that have caused me to become an independent Independent with more than a few Libertarian leanings, and far less sympathetic to the GOP (aside from the obvious wimpyness of the immediate past-president and the Earmark-happy spendthrifts who compound the supercilious party)...
Perhaps Frum actually has his priorities straight, maybe?
Suffocating, sanctimonious statements from the hard right are chasing more people away than you might imagine -- this "purity" factor kinda stinks, and the Democrats are always charged with being intolerant?
Philoktetes| 3.12.09 @ 8:40AM
Rosencrans,
Stop whining. Rush hasn't alienated anyone.
Pingback| 3.12.09 @ 8:48AM
Frum is dead wrong | Babalú Blog: an island on the net without a bearded dictator links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Gordon Plumber| 3.12.09 @ 8:54AM
LOL! Another Limbaugh addled arm chair "Conservative" works to exclude another high profile "RINO"! Thank you!
You Limbaugh worshiping twits have managed to chase anyone with a brain out of the "Republican" tent, which is rapidly shrinking into the Republican Umbrella, under which only dittohead bigots are allowed! Go Mr. Flynn, whoever you are! lol
Ryan| 3.12.09 @ 8:57AM
Frum looks like he's in that group of Republicans who is falling for the Obama semi-conservative rhetoric, while ignoring the actual actions of the administration and the lefties in Congress.
The way I see it, there are four "parties" right now in Congress: Real conservatives; moderate Republicans; Blue-Dog (two-or-three conservative issues) Dems; leftist Dems.
Well, Five. John McCain.
Well, Six. Joe Lieberman.
Wicked Dickie| 3.12.09 @ 9:10AM
Perhaps Frum has lost his mind or his kids are being held hostage. In any case, he reminds me of those folks like the self-excommunicated "bishop Pelosi" proclaiming: "I'm a Catholic, but". (I believe in baby murder, Homesexual "marriage", etc.)
Gordon Plumber| 3.12.09 @ 9:11AM
Oops! Better add Jack Cafferty to your list of "RINO"s! :
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/cafferty.republicans/index.html
Clearly, Cafferty is another *poser* who must be cast out from under the Republican Umbrella, along with Brooks, Buckley, Frum, Schaeffer, et al! lol
Ran| 3.12.09 @ 9:20AM
""I'm a conservative Republican," writes Frum. "I volunteered for the Reagan campaign in 1980." "
Um, yeah Dave... note Hillary, too, was a Goldwater Girl.
Ran| 3.12.09 @ 9:23AM
"the "Republican" tent, which is rapidly shrinking into the Republican Umbrella"
[scratches head] Uh, seems to be plenty of room for libertarian conservatives. Is there a problem?
whiterb| 3.12.09 @ 9:27AM
I believe George Will echoes Frum on gay marriage, says it is like being left handed to younger people who will be majority voters of the future. Frum's major sin seems to be that he wants a second party that can actually win elections. The conservatives with whom he disagrees seem to have no interest in this ever happening. Or, they insist like Rush does that the GOP is just not conservative enough. The string of defeats for candidates who do it their way-Santorum, Pearce, Allen, Talent are realities they ignore. A tough abortion law tossed in pro life South Dakota, they ignore. Addicts ignore reality and shun help. They hang out only with other addicts, and go deeper and deeper into trouble. The GOP is now controlled by conservatism addicts. The party is going to go down with these ideology junkies having so much sway. They are a stone lashed around its' neck, as the party tries to swim dangerous waters. The GOP needs to form a conservatives anonymous , and help these folks.
Ran| 3.12.09 @ 9:28AM
"Suffocating, sanctimonious statements from the hard right are chasing more people away than you might imagine -- this "purity" factor kinda stinks, and the Democrats are always charged with being intolerant?"
Flowers attract only bees. Your philosophy, Bob, is the one that attracts flies, dung beetles, ants, maggots...
Robert Rosencrans| 3.12.09 @ 9:29AM
Philoketes: You're a butt whiner.
HomelessLeRhino| 3.12.09 @ 9:33AM
Melvin I'll donate to any entity that'll get people like you to leave the GOP. Just go. Please just go.
Pingback| 3.12.09 @ 9:38AM
Oh, me likey : Brigitte Pellerin Online links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bill R| 3.12.09 @ 9:39AM
Good point showing Frum to be the narrow minded "enforcer" he now assaults. Also I'm surprised that very few have called Frum out on his hypocrisy about Rush:
A friend e-mails a point I surprisingly haven't seen made:
David Frum enthusiastically supported Rudy Giuliani for president. How does Rudy match up with Barack Obama’s manifest virtues cited by Frum? Frum praises Obama as “soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry” and notes that he is an “apparently devoted husband and father” who epitomizes the ideal of “responsibility.” Rush Limbaugh is faulted for being “aggressive, bombastic, cutting and sarcastic” and for his “tangled marital history.” Frum has the gall to criticize a radio host for allegedly failing to measure up to Obama having backed for president a thrice-married, angry and aggressive adulterer who also (gasp) smokes cigars?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2M1YjU3MzhjMWM3OGZkZTQ5MmI1YmMwNzEwYmU4M2Q=
Shows that Frum is just an opportunist hack that goes wherever his career prospects are best.
Anthony| 3.12.09 @ 9:41AM
Frum has become a get along, go along, "conservative" controled by his task masters at Newsweek , with a national circulation of 150. Limbaugh's audience numbers makes those leftist editors at Newsweek retch each and every day, and Frum has been thrown into the pit to do their dirty work. Throwing fellow conservatives under the bus has been de rigueur for these hidebound "conservative" elites for some time now, especially if they don't want to feel the pull on their leashes by their liberal masters. Mr. Frum, if any world has a tendency to dismiss unwelcome realities, it ain't us pal. Want proof? Walk over to your cohort, Mike Isikoff's office, just ask Mike, he'll tell you. But don't bring your Koran, he just might flush it.
A.C.| 3.12.09 @ 9:42AM
Wow...this has been one, long, "ad hominem" attack against Frum, and does nothing to rebut the theory that Rush is bad for the party. But as a Independent, I don't really care how pure the GOP wants to be, in its right-wing conservative values. For the way things are going now, they will be a pure, clean, conservative movement, OUT OF POWER for so long, they will be forgotten. Their choice.
JP| 3.12.09 @ 9:56AM
All that this Limbaugh kerkuffle does is divert attention away from the Dems daily onslaught on the national purse.
Let's face the brutal facts;s many youngish personalities in the GOP ran the Gravy Train for all it was worth. Frum, a Canadian from a wealthy family was schooled in Toronto and the Ivy League. As a student, conservatism, or shall we say lip service to conservatism was where it was at. William Buckley had many friends which spanned the political spectrum. He mentored both liberal and conservatives alike. As long as the person was bright and witty and showed rhetorical talent ( spoken or written), he was willing to help thier careers along.
Two up and coming young conservatives, Katheleen Parker and David Frum took advantage of Buckely's genorosity and made a very comfortable living for themselves. Now that Buckely has passed on, these 2 self described conservatives have shown thier true loyalties. I'm sure there are more out there. We need to recognize the sad facts and move on.
This episode hasn't hurt Limbaugh in the least. As a matter of fact, some advertising tracking polls have indicated his audience increased by 20% last week to 25 million. Not bad for a man on the brink. The GOP is in dire need of leadership. Where it will come from is anyone's guess.
stmichrick| 3.12.09 @ 9:57AM
A.C.,
I'm not sure what the criticism of Rush and his fans means. He should shutup and cease to make a living? I think he speaks for more people than you want to deal with.
If you stop to think about it, 'right wing conservative values' are what most of us (educated folk) were brought up on, even if you came from a Democrat household.
NO; not how they are demonized now, i.e pro-life is extremism, chasing terrorists is imperialism, requiring ID to vote is rascist, etc..
As an Independent, you exist to pile-on the bold positions of either side, as if you had a meaningful solution. At least a liberal has a thought process.
Middle of the Road=Road Kill
Son Of Sam | 3.12.09 @ 10:06AM
Stop waving your "credentials" at us, Mr. Frum: its time you had them RENEWED. I don't give a frogs fat rear end what you did back in 1980; what matters most is what you are doing right now. From where I sit, you fit the classic Thomas Paine description of someone who "licks the hand that feeds you." Well Mr. Frum, to follow up, I agree with the immortal Paine and say that you should GO, "and we will forget that you were EVER our countryman".
Don't let the door hit you on the way out
until freedom dawns,
Son Of Sam
http://www.geocities.com/samadamssos
Diana Grant| 3.12.09 @ 10:13AM
The problem with Frum and the Newsweek article is, as you point out,largely one of false advertising.Its subtext is that a "conservative" has been found to side with Obama's White House plumbers against Limbaugh, whereas Frum is, in not, in fact, a conservative.He would be very much at home in the Democratic Party of LBJ, so his critique is one that would be reasonably expected from any hyper-ventilating liberal hack.Dressing him up as something he isn't is done to lend him a cloak of undeserved credibility
A.C.| 3.12.09 @ 10:13AM
stmichrick
No one said anything about Rush shutting up, or anything like that. He is free to do what ever he wants in regards to his talk show.
However, if he manages to be the "face" of the GOP, again, if that is ok for the GOP, then fine. It's a free country. But, if that face is so repugnant to the point that a smaller and smaller amount of people vote for the GOP...is that Rush's problem, or is it the GOP's problem?
My point was simply this (and it was made without any personal attacks against you, which is a talent you can learn). The GOP is free to do what it wants, but I believe that what the GOP is doing will consign it to a long period of opposition. Remember your history...the longest term of one-party rule in modern times was the 20 years that the Democrats held the Presidency under FDR and Truman. But I'm sure the GOP at the time were happy, because their party was ideologically pure...
Gordon Plumber| 3.12.09 @ 10:14AM
Uh oh! Better include Steele in your list of "RINO"s that need casting out! Apparently when he isn't busy apologizing to Rush Limbaugh he's *pro-choice*!
I'm sure the bigots are heaving a sigh of relief!
Basil Plumley| 3.12.09 @ 10:22AM
Frum, like so many others who cater to the Left, would rather be loved by his enemies than respected. The sad reality is that at the end of the day (or their usefulness), they will have neither.
It is sad when someone would rather live on their knees than die on their feet.
Grant| 3.12.09 @ 10:22AM
David Frum long ago joined the short ranks of my list of Canadians-we-do-not-want (along with Neil Young and Peter Jennings). There seems something unreliable about him. Will he next (or has he already) come out in favor of legalized drugs? That kind of unreliable.
He married the shiksa (or it certainly appears so), and we are all entitled to form our own opinion of that. She blogs at the HuffPo, the daughter of journalists. That kind of unreliable (present company excepted).
At this stage, let's have Charlton Heston!
Skep41 | 3.12.09 @ 10:23AM
So lemme get this straight; Limbaugh is bad for conservatism and W is great for conservatism? Hmmm. Would that be the same W who was in power for eight years, four of those eight with control of the House and Senate as well, who didnt achieve one single conservative goal during all that time? The guy who sucked up to Fat Teddy and the educrats and signed 'No Child's Left Behind' , effectively federalizing education, and then sat back for eight years accepting the blame for that disaster? In fact Bush sat quiet through eight years of viscious attacks on him and his allies without ever answering his critics or impugning motives which were vile and at times came close to treason. The list of Bush's sellouts to conservatism is as endless as is Limbaugh's 100% commitment to conservative ideals. Frum's proud embrace of the mildly left-of-center W and his proud boast that he 'voted for McLame' as conservative credentials give him a place, with David Brock and Howard Phillips on the bus to 'Hope And Change' Chavez-style socialism. At this point one has to ignore so much scientific evidence to believe in the socialist myth of Global Warming that advocacy of a 'Green Tax' more or less defines you as a liberal. As does a cover story in Newspeak Magazine. W and McLame came close to killing the Republican Party, its taken Barak Obama and Nancy Pelosi, helped by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and a horde of other yakkers and bloggers to bring back a sense of identity and purpose. The tepid response to this nonsense by Rush (he spent a few minutes on it and then moved on) shows how irrelevant this liberal nematode and his failing magazine venue have become in the era of Obama.
Bilwick| 3.12.09 @ 10:27AM
The "Uncle Daves" (Frum and Brooks) just want to assure Massa 'Bama that they're not like those uppity conservatives who threaten the Plantation.
Deb B| 3.12.09 @ 10:30AM
Flynn you are a nasty piece of work aren't you? You managed to trash not only Frum but Rush and Bush too.
tonypal| 3.12.09 @ 10:30AM
Gordon Plumber:
So, dittoheads (a term which I bet you cannot even define) are bigots? Evidence please. Merely stating something, without something to back it up, is nothing more than an empty assertion. It also shows, to reference something you said, that not all the brainless people are inside the republican party.
stmichrick| 3.12.09 @ 10:34AM
A.C; my 'personal attack' is on the 'Independent' point of view, which has no point.
Nothing personal. I'm sure you are a fine human being. You've confused my criticism of opinion with personal attack.
You are equating being a party of principle with a party of 'purity.' The muddled soft conservatism of McCain failed because it timidly deferred on some issues (immigration, taxes) to a strong ideologue (with charisma) like Obama. To the extent that the Republican Party accepts the visions of the left, they are simply Democrat Lite and ineffective as even a check-and-balance to the party in power.
I remember the 80s.
WM| 3.12.09 @ 10:37AM
Frum had better jump overboard, because this boat is steering hard right.
4rbish| 3.12.09 @ 10:43AM
What's the fuss? Frum is young and ambitious, he's just looking for opportunity and his place in the society of mainstream media and political popularity. He's no different than so many others who turned on the conservative movement when the going got tough. Just write the guy off as a liberal and move on. It's counterproductive to even bother with him.
mfalatko| 3.12.09 @ 10:47AM
Frum, Brooks, McCain and Bush are the poster children that the conservatives and the Republican Party should use every time they want to lose an election or forfeit the wins (such as 1980, 1984 and 1994) that they fought so hard and long for and then let the Frum's, Brooks', McCain's and Bush's take away from them. Conservatism is a winner. Conservatism only loses when it ceases to be conservative.
stmichrick| 3.12.09 @ 10:47AM
Right on 4rbish;
Any conservative which is considered acceptable to speak on NPR is suspect.
Gordon Plumber| 3.12.09 @ 10:47AM
tonypal mewled:
"So, dittoheads (a term which I bet you cannot even define) are bigots? "
Firstly, dittoheads are Rush Limbaugh listeners who say "ditto" to whatever dope addled ranting their porcine God emits. Did you not know that?
"Merely stating something, without something to back it up, is nothing more than an empty assertion."
Kind of like your totally made up assertions about me?
Secondly, the fact that Limbaugh is overtly racist would tend to indicate that the "dittoheads" that consider his every word as gospel are also bigots.
I suppose you expect me to "prove" Limbaugh is a bigot, as if "Barack the Magic Negro" wasn't enough for you. Okay, just to drive home the point, here's the Living God of Conservatism himself:
“I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark." [Actually, we had slavery in America for over 300 years, but Limbaugh never lets facts get in his way.]
"You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed."
"They're 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?" [referring to the percent of Americans that are African-American]
"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back" [said to an African-American female caller to his show].
"I think it really goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy." [On Senator Obama to be the Democratic Party's nominee]
"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."
Rush Limbaugh appeared on Fox News and insulted Los Angeles’ Hispanic mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Limbaugh said the first time he saw Mayor Villaraigosa he thought the Latino was a “Shoe Shine Boy.” He was shocked to learn this Latino held such a high office and was, in fact, the Mayor of Los Angeles.
“If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people–I’m serious, let the unskilled jobs, let the kinds of jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do–let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.”
Typical of your ilk, you expect me to prove what everyone already knows while making baseless accusations that you *can't* back up.
Or may be you just like the tast of your own shoe leather.
Casey| 3.12.09 @ 10:48AM
Isn't it interesting how some so-called "conservatives" keep calling for the true conservatives to give-up, back off and back down from the very things that make them conservative (sane). Opposition to gay "marriage," abortion, Obama; you name it, they are suppose to give in to the leftists and go along with "popular opinion." In essence they are suppose to commit political and moral suicide or risk being run over by the progressive liberal "train" since apparently they won and we lose and they really make some sense after all according to turncoat Frum, who is no conservative by ANY stretch of the imagination. I'd sooner listen to Ayers or Obama's beloved Rev. Wright who at least do not pretend to be something they are not (they are quite upfront about being a terrorist and a racist).
Suddenly Rush Limbaugh is the demon under the Republican/Conservative banner and his millions of listeners and the GOP are suppose to turn their collective backs on him after twenty odd years in the public eye and after the "President" targeted a private citizen for exercising his right to free speech.
What is this obsession with the right side of the political spectrum by the left, anyway? Conservatives are not in control of the country, the Democrats have free reign, yet the mad preoccupation with the mostly powerless Republicans and leaderless conservatives appears to haunt them still. The fact the opposition still exists at all is apparently unacceptable. They just cannot be happy 'til conservatives/Republicans/Christians/whatever are wiped out and forever silenced.
Personally, the problem with Republicans is all too often they want to act like Democrats and the few times they show some guts, they are all too quick to apologize for it (no doubt always thinking of the next election). Limbaugh often just says what Republicans leaders should be saying themselves and they know it.
I sure hope people have enough God-given common sense not to listen to people like Frum, because he brings only the message of defeat for our nation wrapped up in personal attacks against another; a wolf in sheep's clothing, poorly disguised.
Howard| 3.12.09 @ 10:50AM
Frum reminds me of when Jews changed their names to WASP sounding ones like Smith and Frank, so they could be part of proper society. Unfortunately, they were still not allowed into goyish country clubs in spite of their new names. Frum can coo to the liberals all he wants by dumping on conservatives, but he will still not be part of their club.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.12.09 @ 10:59AM
Here's an interesting take from Newsweek.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090311/us_time/08599188428900
It is not a smart battle for the reformers to fight. Most of their differences of opinion with Limbaugh do not really rise to the level of principle. (Whether global warming is happening and what risks it poses are empirical questions, not ideological ones.) Moreover, the vast majority of conservative voters agree with Limbaugh, not the reformers, on most of these questions. If Limbaugh were to disappear tomorrow - which, by the way, he is not going to do - most conservatives would still put upper-income tax cuts at the top of their agenda. It's not as though they believe what they believe because Limbaugh told them to.
It would be destructive for the traditionalists to attempt to purge the reformers, who have some good ideas. But for the reformers to attempt to purge the traditionalists, who outnumber them, is just plain batty. If the reformers succeed, it will be by persuading traditionalists such as Limbaugh, not bulldozing over them. (See the screwups of Campaign '08.)
Besides, Limbaugh plays a valuable role within conservatism. His show, like Fox News, is not as high-flown as conservative intellectual journals such as The New Criterion and First Things. But those publications have small circulations. Their influence is long-term and indirect. Conservatism needs mass media, too, to affect day-to-day politics: to jam phone lines; to pull the national conversation rightward. It needs Limbaugh and the many like-minded talkers elsewhere on the airwaves. Doubtless they could do their jobs better, as could the conservative writers who scorn them. But if Limbaugh did not exist, conservatives would have to invent him. And it would be hard to do - as liberals have found when they have tried and failed to come up with their own successful radio shows.
Talk radio is the only medium that conservatives dominate in America. Is it really shrewd for conservatives to begin their political exile by attacking the leading figure in that world? To ask is to answer.
Limbaugh and his conservative critics have more in common than they think. The political import of the last two weeks of Limbaugh-mania is this: The Republicans' decline is now entering a phase in which its members are more emotionally invested in attacking each other than in attacking Obama. As long as that holds true, the White House can safely ignore the opposition, no matter how loud it gets.
Anthony| 3.12.09 @ 11:05AM
It appears a number of posters here also tend to conflate conservative principles with Republican Party election success, or more to the point, failure. I reject the argument being made by some here that conservatives are rigid ideologues intolerant of any deviation from the "core principles" that have helped dilute the ranks of the Rs. You folks sound awfully eliteish, like Frum, Parker, Noonan, Brooks, et al.
Frankly, I'd like to know what the "core principles" of the Republican Party are, I'm a bit confused. But what really gets me is the liberal-like stubborn stupidity echoed by some here, that conservatives have turned the R tent into an umbrella. Listen, McCain wasn't our guy, he was, I guess, a genuine R, what ever the hell that is today. We (mostly) supported him, yet he got his butt kicked. Before you shout at me, remember, it was the Colin Powells of the R Party that really threw McCain under the bus, not us. The Rs lost Congress for some of the same reasons; neither fish nor fowl gets you Democrat delite. Liberal-lite is not the answer. What we need is for someone to come along who can conflate Republicanism with conservativism; then we truly have a chance of retaking our country back from the hard left, which is what the Ds have become. I'll be the first to give to that person's campaign and his/her statue.
norethug08| 3.12.09 @ 11:09AM
This is so funny. I love how the word socialism is thrown around on these sites. You should really go and do some research before spouting off.. One thing I know for sure, the Republican party is dead. The party of jesus, guns and corporate lobbyists needs to get in touch with a new reality.
Gill O'Teen| 3.12.09 @ 11:10AM
I believe in the values that both my parents instilled in me as a child. These values are based on the universal, eternal truths contained in the Holy Bible, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.
Abortion is wrong because it kills babies.
Gay marriage is wrong because by its very nature it cannot continue the human race and is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.
If this labels me a close minded conservative, so be it. I don’t pass wind worrying about the opinions of others. I worry about whether or not Saint Peter invites me through the Pearly Gates and whether or not his Boss will allow me to remain, not whether barney frank gets bonked by his boy toy.
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
(King James Bible Mark 8:36)
Nick| 3.12.09 @ 11:21AM
A.C.,
One of the reasons FDR won 4 elections was because the GOP kept running the McLames of their day against the commie sympathizer.
Bilwick| 3.12.09 @ 11:21AM
Pray, enlighten us "northug08" (probably the last four letters there are significant) and on the true nature of socialism. This should be good.
Truth to Power| 3.12.09 @ 11:25AM
"Barack the Magic Negro" was making fun of deep thinkers like Gordon the Plumber. President Obama is just an incompetent, inexperienced, leftist politician who took advantage of race obsessed Americans to grab the ring. I wonder if that is what really makes Gordon angry. The parody was mocking mostly white liberals who made a racist huckster from corrupt Chicago their messiah. I don't listen to Rush but read the parody on the internet and could immediately see what was being mocked. Why is it that the left have such underdeveloped senses of humor?
Deborah | 3.12.09 @ 11:27AM
Mr. Plumber, please cite your references for the above "quotes" from Rush. Many times he is taken out of context or is totally misquoted by those who hate him.
Rush is not a bigot. He just does not believe in being politically correct. Please show me where you found those quotes...probably from some left-wing site or some e-mail.
Just FYI, his call screener, Mr. Snerdley, is black and has been with him as his friend and supporter for many, many years. Not that that will mean anything to someone who has already decided who Rush Limbaugh is.
By the way, it was a black, liberal writer at the LA Times that called Obama the "magic negro." Look it up. Rush was lampooning all of those folks who didn't think Obama was black enough when he first tossed his hat in the ring...remember them? They were all Democrats! He was lampooning them, folks like Al Sharpton who were worried that Obama was going to mess up their race-card racket.
Admr. S.O.B. Buniontow VI| 3.12.09 @ 11:30AM
Frum wouldn't make even make a good pimple on Rush's rear end.
rwilliams1961| 3.12.09 @ 11:30AM
The author implies that if a conservative deviates from the current party line that he no longer has the right to speak about conservatism, that he has lost his credibility. Doesn't that attitude summarize the problem the Republican Party faces today? If it cannot respond to the current paradigm with new ideas, hasn't it become or isn't it on the way to becoming irrelevant? Ronald Reagan was a man for his season. He presented ideas the nation was hungry for not because they mirrored Goldwater, but because the ideas he [Reagan] brought to the table were carefully crafted for that day.
What Frum offers is reality: conservatism, as with every philosophy and movement, must consistently adapt.
That does not mean that the GOP must abandon its core principles. In fact, the conservatism of Goldwater, the modern heart of conservatism - the stark, philosophically consistent conservatism that inspired Reagan and others - could actually be the spark that the GOP needs to regain its footing, if the party is willing to once again become truly conservative.
While embracing the conservative religious movement in the 1970s was tremendously advantageous to the Republican Party, that same relationship is now at the core of the party's current weakness. That marriage has robbed the party of the flexibility it needs to respond to the new culture we live in. Does anyone but the evangelical truly believe gay marriage is bad for society; that stem cell research is harmful; or that evolution should be challenged in our classrooms? Do true conservatives believe that the government belongs in our bedroom, our doctor's office or our house of worship (or that our house of worship belongs in our government)?
The GOP cannot grow without an infusion of the high school and college-aged citizens of today. Yet, as long as it embraces the moral code of a mere ten percent of the U.S. population to the exclusion of reason and science while religious adherence simultaneously declines among the young, the party will grow increasingly out of touch with the priorities of the voter.
While I did not support the man, it's no coincidence that Ron Paul won over so many of the youth during the last election cycle. His message was simple. It was conservative. It placed responsibility upon each individual for their own actions. It was based in reason and a clear set of consistent principles. Most importantly, it reconnected with a conservative philosophy that restored freedom to the individual, even when that freedom allowed them to make bad decisions.
Angelo Z| 3.12.09 @ 11:31AM
The left train has departed from the station, and Mr Frum is clearly on it. He thinks that conseravtives ought to embrace bigger government, global warming, and yes "read my lips" higher taxes, and these are all positions put of the Democratic party. Placing emphasis on the looks, and perceived weaknesses of Limbaugh, is the left attempt to demonizing him and conservatives to obliviate any oposition liberals have, and with his article, Frum sets himself squarely on the liberal side.
Asher| 3.12.09 @ 11:44AM
The future debate on abortion will not be whether or not women will be allowed to have one, but which women the government will be forced to have one. The civilized world has a burgeoning worthless class, and forced abortion, along with sterilization, is the solution to the problem.
The right will make a comeback, just not a conservative one.
Nick| 3.12.09 @ 11:54AM
The main reason the Republicans lost the last two election cycles was because they totally BETRAYED those of us who put them in power back in '94.
How many of you were like me back in '92? You considered yourself an independent because you were sure both sides were a bunch of crooks. You didn't vote for GHW Bush because (insert your reason here). You looked at Perot, but quickly saw he was a little nuts. You knew bubba was a draft dodging pervert and Shrillary the Hut was a power hungry crook. You were sure Bush was going to win, this country wouldn't vote in a degenerate, of course.
But they did, well 42% did anyway. And it scared the hell out of you. So in '94 you said: " I'll give the GOP one more chance." Actually, I gave them until A.D. 2000 to show me they could be trusted. And I kept extending the deadline.
We hoped GWB wouldn't keep his spending promises. We hoped the budget would finally be slashed. All we got were some judges. And a strong defense of the country.
You can't slap the people who gave you power in the face and expect them to say, " Thank you sir, may I have another."
It took 40 years for the GOP to figure out how to gain control of the Congress. It only took them 12 to loose it.
Gordon Plumber| 3.12.09 @ 11:56AM
Anthony said:
"I reject the argument being made by some here that conservatives are rigid ideologues intolerant of any deviation from the "core principles" that have helped dilute the ranks of the Rs."
Reading the comments here would tend to indicate otherwise. Cries of "RINO!" can be heard across the Republican landscape.
When you speak of deviation from the "core principles", it begs the question: which core principles? From my perspective "Social Conservatives", who would marry Church and State and enforce their whims on other people's personal lives are at odds with Conservatives who reject government interference with individual liberty. Just as you would scorn Frum et al as "elitist", so again are those who call them RINOs, etc. Then there is the fact that recent Republican presidents have been decidedly not Conservative about expanding government, defecits, etc., again begging a question: Who, exactly *are* Republicans? Neocons, contrary to traditional Conservatives, believe in pre-emptive war. That is the polar opposite of the "mind our own business" isolationism of Conservatism, just as Bush's (and Reagan's) giant government was an affront to Conservatism.
People who say McCain lost because he wasn't Conservative enough seem to be overlooking the Palin factor, or that the Rovian team of muckrakers he hired (who had previously spread rumours about his daughter) to run his campaign. While you can rightly complain that he was himself moderate, the fact is that his campaign and the rhetoric around it were decidedly old school, hard right ugliness. Whether it was his "moderate" status, Palin's unmoderate status, or general hatred of Bush that lost the election is debatable.
I think there are more than two kinds of Americans. The disparate groups calling themselves "Conservative" are at odds. How about a third party? Maybe the moderates could form a Progressive Conservative party. Maybe the Dominionist religious types could form a Social Conservative party. You are right in that it would be great if someone came along who could conflate the Republican party with Conservatism, but the problem is that "Conservatism" currently has several conflicting meanings.
notmypresident09| 3.12.09 @ 12:00PM
Maybe Frum has started dating David Brock. That would explain his current direction. We will know for sure if he apologizes to Hillary.
Dai Alanye | 3.12.09 @ 12:01PM
Frum started out his political life as a conservative but slipped into go-along/get-along RINO-ism. From a belligerent he became a collaborationist. Once was a Chetnik but has now chosen to be a Lavalist. Disgraceful!
As for Rush, he needs no defenders because he does such a good job of spreading his principles, making far more converts than the few prissy weaklings his raucous humor scares away. But he's not the leader of the Republican Party, or of any party but his own. He has chosen to be a prophet rather than king, and we conservatives, even if we cannot agree with him in every detail, must appreciate all the good he does for our cause.
For those inclined to be doubtful about the worth of conservative principles, let me offer a bit of recent history. Eight years of Reagan—regardless of a few mistakes—left the Republican party in fine shape, and it would have been better yet had he selected a conservative VP instead of Mr Kinder-gentler.
Eight years of Dubya—regardless of a few successes—have left the party in a daze, and it would be worse yet had he not chosen a strong conservative VP.
Pay attention to the facts, dear RINOs and so-called independents.
Asher| 3.12.09 @ 12:04PM
The problem with the conservative movement is that it is a movement of principles, which is fine if you have a principally-homogeneous society. But we do not. America is a disparate, far-flung society with no shared sets of values. In such a political environment it's either rule or be ruled, and the only type of political movement that can survive in that environment is a party based on interests, not on principles.
If the Republican party wants to be relevant again then it needs to be a party of interests, the objective, material, class-interests of the middle-class. What is good for the middle-class is bad for the underclass, and what is good for the underclass is bad for the middle-class. So, it is in the objective, material, class-interests of the middle-class to have class-warfare, war on the poor. The Republican party can only be electorally relevant by promising the middle-class protections against the rapaciousness of the politically-connected and the social degeneracy of the underclass.
The war on poverty needs to become a war on the poor.
Bilwick| 3.12.09 @ 12:06PM
I'm a libertarian, and don't really pay much attention to Mr. Limbaugh, but I'm favorably disposed toward him as a result of his appearance on libertarian Drew Carey's sitcom. It was about censorship of the Internet, which Drew's snooty upper-caste Republican boss was in favor of, and Drew was against. He brought Limbaugh in on his side. The boss was a big Rush fan and expected him to take her side, but Rush (avoiding the usual conservative trap of seeming to be pro-freedom in all things yet coming out in favor of censorship) confounded her by opposing censorship.
Even if I hadn't seen the show I'd be favorably disposed toward RL just by the enemies he makes. Note that the Staat-shtuppers have hated for him for years, and now the "Uncle Daves"--the non-threatening "house" conservatives--don't like him either. Judging Rush by the enemies he makes, it would seem to me that his biggest "sin" is being too pro-freedom.
Hank Rearden| 3.12.09 @ 12:15PM
What I don't understand is how Frum and others that follow his line of thinking don't see how centrism doesn't work. The party offered up (arguably) its most centrist/reformist candidate ever and he lost; for the most part because Republicans didn't show up. People like an original, not a watered down Democrat.
Roy| 3.12.09 @ 12:16PM
For the benefit of the kind of people who see this kind of dispute and say oh, Frum is really a conservative, he just , like me, despises those religious wackos who give a hoot whether the unborn are sliced, diced, and served on salad:
As was said by Mark Steyn, I'm relaxed about hatred but don't get too invested in it. If all somebody needs to do is say they hate religious wackos and you believe everything else they say you are a sucker. It worked in the anti-Palin campaign, so why would they not keep on trying it?
Frum produced a book essentially saying that Republicans should drop their "reflexive" opposition to big government and instead try to choose big government policies that would help the lower middle class. They should do this so as to buy lower middle class votes, because the lower middle class no longer cares about the size of government and therefore must be bribed if we want to implement any tax cuts at all. The point of these tax cuts is not greater freedom but to keep the economy going to as to confront China.
Freedom was not on his agenda.
Republicans did not instantly fall into line, so he has gotten ever more hostile.
b| 3.12.09 @ 12:28PM
The Republican movement is dead. You are not going to revive by refocusing attention on social issues like gay marriage (California would have passed it was it not for the super active and equally well funded campaign run by the minority majority of socially conservative church goers). You all will not rebuild your national party by focusing on abortion (Only a small segment of the population once again conservative church goers view this issue in pure black and white terms.) While supporting these issues are well and good you will not build a national party on these issues. TO build a coherent message and national party that cuts across the social, economic, political and class spectrum, to build a coalition that is not just the necessary opposition to Obama, conservatives need to return to their roots in Libertarianism. You all could take a few cues from Ron Paul, people are hungry for the Libertarian message they have to have the right people communicating the message and they have to have selfless leaders who truly want to devolve the power of the government over the lives of individuals.
Gordon Plumber| 3.12.09 @ 12:30PM
Deborah said:
"Rush is not a bigot. He just does not believe in being politically correct. "
Thanks for clearing that up. I mean, how could anyone mistake statements like
"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it." for racism, right?
*whistle*
Deborah | 3.12.09 @ 12:33PM
Once again, Mr. Plumber -- cite your references or stop slandering Mr. Limbaugh.
b| 3.12.09 @ 12:34PM
Oh yeah Rush is not a leader he is a radio show host who has never been in a position of real leadership, he has no decisions to be accountable for other than his loud mouth, it is easy to have all of the answer in the world when you are in Rush's position.... the only thing he really cares about is his rating, that is what gets big pappa paid,.. more power to him but he is still not a leader.
tonypal| 3.12.09 @ 12:48PM
Gordon Plumber:
As I said, you don't know what ditto head means. It simpley means that the caller is a long time listener and loves the show and hopes it never goes away. That's pretty much it.
By the way genius, it was only one statement, not multiple, and you stand corrected. So it wasn't really an assertion, it was a fact. If you don't believe me, try googling dittohead if that's not too much of an imposition.
As for the rest of it, most of what you have there is b.s. In fact, I would wager that you are utterly incapable of thinking for yourself, instead depending upon smear merchants such Media Matters for America and other such sites for your "quotes."
Now, let me explain "Barack the Magic Negro" for you. Early last year, a liberal black writer for the LA Times wrote a story talking about Obama's relationship with guilty white liberals, such as yourself. The point of the story is that Obama represented a safe black guy into whom guilty white liberals, such as yourself, could place all their hopes and expunge their guilt. Rush read the story on the air, giving full credit to its author.
Afterward, as is his style, he lampooned the story and guilty white liberals, such as yourself, by having a guy impersonating Al Sharpton yelling into a bullhorn singing the song. The reason he chose Al Sharpton, and the reasoning behind the song, was Sharpton's complaints that Obama was not an authentic black guy because he didn't grow up in the 'hood like Sharpton. If you spent a few minutes researching the matter, you would know this already.
So there's the explanation. Pretty simple if you take the time to find out what the hell you're talking about. Now, I think I hear your mommy calling you to go make your bed, so pull up your pants and do what mommy says.
Gordon Plumber| 3.12.09 @ 1:07PM
Deborah said:
"Once again, Mr. Plumber -- cite your references or stop slandering Mr. Limbaugh. "
Good Lord. Okay, here is the link to Rush saying
"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."
Note that this isn't from "Media Matters for America and other such sites", as the apoplectic Tonypal seems to think. It is from Rush's own website:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack_12_13_06/the_classless_nfl_culture_.guest.html
Of course, tonypal will continue to hail me with feeble insults, and you will continue to demand "proof". Tony will continue to try and tell me what "dittohead" means. Look at the word, genius - "ditto" means "what he said". A "dittohead" is someone who agrees with Rush 100%, as all Republicans are expected to, or be forced to apologize and kiss his ring.
Tonypal is convinced that because I dare point out that his dope addled hero is a bigot that I am a "guilty white liberal". Charming. So, if I am against racism, I am "guilty"? Interesting. And I must also be white for some reason. And, funniest of all, I must be a liberal. Why is that, Tony? Only liberals aren't racist? Only Republicans/conservatives/right wingers/whatever the hell group you think you represent are?
You have *no idea* what you are talking about do you? Did it ever occur to you that maybe a conservative might find racism unacceptable? Apparently not. Thanks for clearing that up.
Bob| 3.12.09 @ 1:07PM
As a dedicated truth seeking, fiscal conservative, socially libertarian, "RINO", I wholeheartedly agree with Frum, Brooks, Will, Parker, Powell, etc. I want Republicans to win again and they can't if they follow the path of Limbaugh and Fallwell. I did not want the bailouts and think Obama's budget is far overspent, but I want you bible thumpers to get out of my bedroom and let me be proudly pro-choice.
What no one talks about, are the numbers. As far as I can tell, you win by getting more votes than your opponents. Registered Republicans are between 29-33% of voters depending on your source. Within that group, social conservatives are about 18% or 60% of the Republican party. THE PARTY IS GETTING SMALLER AS "MODERATES" MOVE TO BECOME INDEPENDENTS. There is no question about that trend. Meanwhile, Democrats have grown to 39% of the voting public. Therefore, in order to win, Republicans must appeal to Independents, moderates, and RINO's to a far greater degree than Dems. When this swing group have become independents since the Republican party no longer represents their views, how do you change that?
Here's the dirty fact. Social conservative Dem haters can't win without moderate RINO/independent "let's get along" voters and vice versa. At least if a Democrat wins, our RINO social values are upheld.
The problem, then, is mathematical and the ideologue idiots above can't seem to add. Remember, if Reagan ran today, given the demographic changes of the past 30 years, he would not have won. He only received 50.7% of the vote in 1980. Demographic changes alone would account for about an 8% drop in voters given the growth in Hispanics, blacks and young voters.
So, guys, let's continue to fight among us, not look at economic truths, hate each other's social values, so we can continue to lose election. It looks to me like a political version of the Bloods and the Crips.
Pingback| 3.12.09 @ 1:12PM
The Farm Report › links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
stmichrick Hater| 3.12.09 @ 1:14PM
stmichrick, et al.,
So your saying the world can only be black or white, right or wrong, left or right....and you call yourself educated?
Compromise, finding a middle-road, and understanding that the world is by definition a diverse environment is what keeps western society from collapsing on itself. Pick a third-world nation which embraces only one extreme or another, to understand my point.
You people are blind, and are chopping holes in an already a sinking ship.
stmichrick Hater| 3.12.09 @ 1:16PM
Bob: Preach on!
Bilwick| 3.12.09 @ 1:18PM
So basically, stmichrick hater, what your saying is that those of us who consistenly prize liberty should just bend 'em, spread 'em, smile, and learn to like it . . . correct?
frost| 3.12.09 @ 1:26PM
Whew! The extreme right zealots excluding we "unwashed" and any/all who disagree on those Big-Three... the only things which apparently matter in their warped Priorities: abortion, stem-cells and gay-crap.
The really important stuff? BahHumbug, doesn't matter. Silly stuff like budgets, borders, huge government and pending socialism/Marxism???
They pale in comparrison to those cherished values which apparently transcend all other (very legitimate) arguments: pro-CHOICE people are nasty, in their view, as are we who shrug at stem-cells and the gay bunch. Priorities?
Shut the door, go home, and forget the 2010 elections and beyond....
That's sufficient.
stmichrick Hater| 3.12.09 @ 1:28PM
Bilwick,
Your question doesn't even make sense! We all prize liberty. I'm in the business of doing my part to defend it. So, I gotta ask again, what are you talking about?
Robert Rosencrans| 3.12.09 @ 1:29PM
I see the claims that you should head for the center, whatever the Hell that means, abandon your principles, and dive into the deep end of the political pool are being passed of as intelligence.
While you're at it, start ladling water from the deep end of the pool, into the shallow end. You won't have changed a thing, but you can pretend that you are clinging to a political life, while you are actually drowning.
I would rather never have any political power, then compromise my principles one ounce.
Come to think of it, if you compromise your principles haven't you lost it anyway?
BD57| 3.12.09 @ 1:30PM
Frum wants to chase "moderates" by driving away conservatives he considers "too far out there" - hard to take the shots he's taking at Limbaugh & religious conservatives any other way.
The problem for him - "success" (as he seems to define it where policy is concerned) will drive the Republican Party's vote totals down ... the "riff-raff" he wants to get rid of outnumber the "moderates" he'd like to sign up.
While it's true a political party can't win "with the base alone", it's just as true that it can't win WITHOUT the base. Both are needed.
Talk to "moderates" and you discover such things as disinterest & disdain for political ideology, pride in "having none", etc.; they talk about themselves as "pragmatists" who "just want things to work"; and when they vote, it's about history, not the future (as in "Do I like the way things are going right now?" If "yes," then the incumbent party gets the vote; if "no," then the challenger wins out). They say things like "It can't get any worse," etc.
Trying to build a party that appeals to them is - to be cliche - like nailing jello to a wall. Unless you can guarantee they're going to like what happens between now and the next election, you can't count on them for support in the future.
Frum ought to take a lesson from Mayor Guiliani - while he doesn't agree with social conservatives on a variety of issues, he treats them with respect, recognizing they agree more than they disagree.
At this point, Frum is approaching Kathleen Parker territory.
It's embarrassing.
R. Dittmar| 3.12.09 @ 1:34PM
I guess I'm just dense, but I can't understand why you have a picture of George Costanza at the top of the page.
Jeremiah| 3.12.09 @ 1:41PM
David Frum makes a pretty sober and reasonable argument.
That you are so eager to strip him of his "conservative" credentials and declare him without "credibility" says a lot more about you and your movement than it does about Frum.
Frum and Brooks are two of the last conservative public intellectuals. The rest are content to throw red meat at the crowd and get them whooping and hollering.
Where do you think your movement's spiritual Godfather, William F. Buckley, would fall on this question?
I doubt he'd be coming down on the side of buffoons like Sean Hannity, or radio satirists like Rush Limbaugh.
Lord knows no one is forcing you to agree with Frum on everything. But why is your response so hysterical?
stmichrick Hater| 3.12.09 @ 1:45PM
BD57,
Is your characterization of "moderates" based on two people you had beers with? Look at what the definition of a modern Independent is: young, educated, socially liberal, fiscally conservative (maybe not by the strict "no new taxes" definition held by the majority on this page), and understand and cares about the future of the planet. These are not "jello" principles (did you get that Rosencrans?). Sorry that abortion, gay marriage and a misunderstanding of the definition of socialism don't fall onto the top portion of that list.
The irony of your point about Guiliani is that the majority of the people here would denounce the former Mayor as being a RINO.
To conclude, just because moderates and liberals don't share YOUR narrowly defined list of principles doesn't make them any less fond of liberty, less concerned about the future, or without principles of their own.
Bob| 3.12.09 @ 1:45PM
BD57, you are really funny. Take a lesson from Guiliani? He obtained a large number of votes, didn't he? The fact is that he never held a national or statewide office and it showed.
Rosencrans -- you are consistently wrong about economics and wrong about RINO's. We are as fiscally conservative as you, perhaps more. The difference is that people like you don't use reason, you just use belief and believe that what drives you is "divine" in nature. That is the textbook definition of bigotry.
Reason forces those of us who live in the real world to go for the possible, and then a bit more. I'd rather the country be 10% more fiscally conservative than give the country to the libs. You would rather lose that 10% and give more control to the libs.
You see what has occurred when the Limbaugh Lemmings rather support Rush's income than make the country better. Right now, Republicans have no voice at all and there are no new ideas. Use your head, Robert.
Armando| 3.12.09 @ 1:54PM
"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way." Ronald Reagan - 1975
Joe Schmuckateli| 3.12.09 @ 1:55PM
"House Conservative"
BRILLIANT!
You could say an "Uncle David" too. Or maybe an "Uncle Arlen", but "House Conservative" nails it.
Ain't my B----.
b| 3.12.09 @ 1:56PM
Stating the obvious: there is an underlying battle going on here, a battle between traditionalist conservatives and progressive conservatives,... those who want to evolve major policy stances that they feel have become out of date/touch to become more in step with the "perceived" new reality of the times and those who want to bring the corrupted machine and its compromised policies back into step with a past time/era that they perceive to be "more true". I think that conservatives of any stripe, from so called RINOs to Libertarian and social conservatives, fall on both sides of the debate. In my opinion both of these camps, those who seem to worship the Reagan years as some era of heaven on earth and those post-Bush conservative intellectuals who think the party needs to be drastically pulled in a new direction, are equally romantic takes on reality and in an sense departures from reality... There are certain principles that people must strive to always uphold but at the same time history should show us all that the progression and evolution of institutions and societies has done more to secure freedom for the individual and to free the individual from tyranny, poverty and desolation than any war or any relief program. My question to this forum is what is sacred to you all, what absolutely needs to be upheld and what ideas can evolve? (Anyway tis better than bantering on about Rushbo, he gets enough publicity)
Ryan| 3.12.09 @ 2:00PM
Bob,
As much as I'm a "vote for the lesser evil" type guy (occasionally), the problem that I find with many "moderate" (which typically - with variances - means ambivalent towards social issues and occasionally big-government) types is that they REALLY don't pay attention to national politics.
We conservatives get blamed for the party's failure, when history really bears the exact opposite in many circumstances - Republicans tend to win by running to the right, and MOST Dems have to placate the right wing in non-primary elections. Dole and McCain were centrists. Bush I was more centrist than Reagan. Bush II won on a conservative platform, and looked to be a little further right than his dad.
The other part is that we HAVE to keep the party looking right, if not just to keep ourselves honest. We've seen what happens when we don't follow through like we should have in 2000-2004. We WON in 2000 pretty much because of what we started in 1994, and threw it all away.
If we lean left - particularly with the Dems in power - they get to win. They don't "get along" when they're in control like Republicans have the past few years.
tonypal| 3.12.09 @ 2:02PM
Gordon Plumber:
Again, you simply do not know what you're talking about. I gave you the definition of a dittohead. As I am one of them, I think I know of what I speak. But if it makes you feel good about yourself to believe as you do, far be it from me to stand in your way.
As for your assertion he is a bigot, you offer no proof except for your lame "quotes," which are either taken out of context or made up entirely. Hell, you didn't even address the "Barack the Magic Negro" explanation. Why don't you tackle that?
You refer to him as dope addled, but of course you know that he had an addiction to oxycontin that he dealt with. I wonder if you know anyone in your life who has had a substance abuse problem. Do you remain friends with them or do you make fun of them?
The reason I know your politics is that you resort to all the classic liberal attacks. Conservatives don't spend any time calling each other bigots because we get that from brain dead liberals every day of the week.
As for your "apoplectic" comment, my post was very calm and dealt directly with the issues. You're the one who is pounding away furiously on your keyboard hurling insults at anything that moves. So chill out and learn a thing or two. Your inability to understand the meaning of dittohead speaks volumes as to your honesty and intellect.
Great Point| 3.12.09 @ 2:04PM
b,
Great points. Only flaw is that you used the word "progressive" in conjunction with "conservative." Based on the majority of the posts, I think most here can only do simple math, mainly: progressive = liberal = made up definition of "socialism" = evil. So, I doubt a constructive conversation can be had.
Nice try, though! Now, back to Rushbo!
section9| 3.12.09 @ 2:04PM
What the go-along, get-along crowd hasn't figured out yet is that all politics isn't static. Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt abslolutely. Obama and the people around him are creatures of power and they will do as they wont with it.
The Democratic Congress is as corrupt a vehicle for the movement of money as has existed in the history of man, and has been since 2006. There's little difference between them and the DeLay Republicans.
What is important is for out-of-power Conservatives to reject the me-too-ism of Frum and Brooks and understand that while they are in exile, they must become again the party of spending restraint, limited government, national security, and national sovereignty. The Democrats won't be, as they don't have a cohesive ideology save that which will temporarily gain them power.
What the Lace Curtain Republicans forget is that successful Republican movements almost always have occurred as a result of a Revolution from below. Goldwater failed, but his failure led to Reagan. A conservative comeback will have, as its foundation, both a rejection of Obama's National Socialism and a firm rejection of Frum and Brooks' beguiling Bush Republicanism. There isn't a damn bit of difference between the two; smart Republicans understand that if given the choice between coke and pepsi, most voters will choose the Real Thing.
This will entail being in the wilderness for a period of time. That's okay; opposition gets rid of the deadwood. It also raises a new group of people who are ready to govern. Lastly, it exposes the corruption and double-dealing inherent in a Party that wants to superimpose the State in everthing that people do.
Our time will come again, probably sooner than people think.
Z| 3.12.09 @ 2:08PM
tonypal,
How can anyone who refers to themselves as a "dittohead" be taken seriously? "Understand the meaning of dittohead...?" Really?
Deborah | 3.12.09 @ 2:13PM
Thanks for the link, Mr. Plumber. Like I said, taken out of context. And, you didn't provide any other links to the other crapola you put out there, but this one was enough.
From a long discussion about the Classlessness of the NFL in January of 2007:
"Now, LaDainian Tomlinson to me is the classiest player in the National Football League. He doesn't do a dance, he doesn't spike the ball when he scores. He and Marvin Harrison are the two most classy individuals playing in the National Football League today, in skill positions. They just hand the ball back to the referee. They act like they've been there and done that, like scoring a touchdown is no big deal, they don't taunt, they don’t act like they've been dissed or any of this. Let me tell you, the Chargers would not have lost that game were it not for a bunch of -- I gotta be very careful here. It's not just irresponsible, but there is a cultural problem in the NFL that has resulted in a total lack of class on the part of professional players.
"There was a play where Brady was third and long, he was sacked, fumbled the ball, the Patriots recovered it, it will be fourth and long, forcing an interesting decision late in the game by the Patriots. After the play is over, a Chargers player gets in the face of a Patriots player, head butts him and starts jawing. This is the reason these guys are getting shot in bars, folks, late at night. Fifteen-yard penalty, automatic first down. So for the Chargers to complain about the lack of class by the Patriots, I found laughable. I think something ought to be done about it, because I love the game of football, and I don't like the kind of culture that's taking over, that "you can't diss me, you can't disrespect me." After every sack, players are acting like they've won the Super Bowl, and they're prancing around with these idiotic dances. The latest thing is to act like they’re making a jump shot in basketball. It's all done to taunt; it's all done to taunt the other team's fans.
"I don't want boring football. I don't want the no-fun league, but you can certainly have great football games without a lack of class. I don't know how it's been allowed to happen this way. I guess the coaches don't feel confident to continue -- this was very rare for the Patriots to act the way they did, and who knows what led to it. I don't think of Belichick as that kind of coach, but Tomlinson's words reverberated around the league. A lot of people said, “I'm glad he said something, because Belichick is getting away here with an image that he doesn't deserve.” I've played golf with Belichick; he's a mild-mannered, soft-spoken man. I even saw him at a cocktail party here in Palm Beach before dinner one night. That whole organization to me exudes class, as does Tom Brady, and you don't see them doing this kind of stuff.
"One of the reasons the Pittsburgh Steelers had trouble this year was a total lack of discipline, in addition to all their turnovers, total lack of discipline, 15-yard penalties, unnecessary roughness, taunting after plays are over, after successful defensive stands, they blow it. There's something culturally wrong here that is leading to all this. It’s gotta be dealt with at the top, because it simply is classless. I can I understand LaDainian Tomlinson being upset because he doesn't do this stuff. But in the current NFL climate the best way for the Chargers to prevent that from happening is win the game and keep this insidious, ridiculous, boorish, classless behavior to a minimum so that you don't lose it on account of that. It's just disappointing, and it's a mystery to me why it's being allowed to continue. Well, actually, I understand partially why it continues, and that's because of ESPN.
"ESPN lives off this. ESPN created Terrell Owens. Terrell Owens is who he is, but if Terrell Owens weren't constantly on television with his antics after touchdowns -- I remember, I called this. You remember the Monday night game on ABC and Seattle when after scoring a touchdown, T.O. playing for the Fort'iners, pulls a Sharpie out of his sock, autographs the ball and gives it to somebody. I said, “Folks, this is going to lead to nothing but trouble.” Everybody said, “Come on, Rush, lighten up, that was funny.” It was classless. Go back and look at the greats who played this game. They would not do anything of the sort, maybe hand the ball off, but not pull a Sharpie out. Everybody started to talk about how much fun that was, ooh, how cool, how creative. Then we get Joe Horn of the United States Saints after he scored a touchdown pulling a cell phone out of his socks and faked making a phone call. Well, guess what shows up on ESPN? So these guys get validated, everybody wants to stand out, they want to get endorsement deals and so forth. So television, making stars out of people who engage in classless behavior helps lead to it and contribute to it. No question in my mind about it. I'll bet the guy that called from El Paso did not expect this as an answer.
"Look it, let me put it to you this way. The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it. "
buffo| 3.12.09 @ 2:13PM
section9: what is up with you people and the idiotic references to Nazi-ism? "National Socialist?" Z is right...this is EXACTLY why you cannot be taken seriously anymore.
b| 3.12.09 @ 2:16PM
Great Point: I know it is risky to use the term progressive, but I do so not ignorant of its political definition these days, but I guess more I use it with more of a McKinley-Roosevelt-Taft context, being progressive is a tradition that both parties can claim we simply have to loosen it from the linguistic concrete it is stuck in.
rwilliams1961| 3.12.09 @ 2:19PM
Jeremiah and stmichrick Hater and Bob,
I had just written a post when I refreshed the screen and saw yours. Really no need for me to put my two cents worth in because you made the point perfectly - but I'll throw them in anyway...
I miss true conservatism, back when ideas were everywhere and the energy level was through the roof. Men like Buckley used to capture me on Saturday afternoons when I was a teenager. Man, those ideas!
Sadly, that seems to be gone now. It appears to have been replaced by name-calling and absurd charges and loud mouths who don't have a clue about merging conservative ideas to modern problems.
Instead, what do you hear? Tax cuts? For everything, the single solution is tax cuts. It's like in My Big Fat Greek Wedding when the bride's dad sprayed everything with Windex. Voters see through that lack of depth - so, got any other ideas for us, boys?
What about dependency on foreign oil? How do we solve that? Terrorism? The outrageous prices of medical care and thief-like lack of insurance coverage? Blue collar jobs hemorrhaging to other nations. The falling household income within the middle class. Answers, anyone?
These are the things that Americans are having to deal with. What does the Republican Party offer for solutions? Where are the bright minds who used to bring solutions to the table? Where is the public discussion that brings new people to the debate? And why is the conservative base crucifying those conservatives who are trying to come up with solutions? They're evil because they don't fit perfectly into your mold? Because their ideas are raw and in need of being refined? Is that the GOP's stance - kill new ideas in their infancy?
So instead of new ideas, the GOP offers the big three social issues plus tax cuts. Each of these is gospel and not open to being questioned.
Wake up, ladies and gentlemen. You're watching your ship sink. Do you even care? Let us pray.
tonypal| 3.12.09 @ 2:19PM
Z:
?
Z| 3.12.09 @ 2:25PM
tonypal: just as I thought.
Bilwick| 3.12.09 @ 2:40PM
Re "progressivism:" statism is to progress what crack-cocaine is to good health.
In the 1970s revenge-thriller, RO(LLING THUNDER, a returning POW (William Devane) tells a friend about the ordeals he suffered as a "guest" in the Hanoi Hilton. One regularly-inflicted torture involved a rope. His friend, horrified, asks him, "How on earth did you survive?" The Devane character says, "You have to learn to love the rope." What the Obama-friendly "house" conservatives--the "Uncle Daves"--and the Staat-shtuppers who are posting here with "helpful" suggestions on how to "improve " the GOP and/or conservatism are basically telling us in the pro-feedom camp: "You'd better learn to love the rope."
Gordon Plumber| 3.12.09 @ 2:42PM
Deborah:
Thanks for pasting the entire article.
Now, explain to me how pointing out the racist statement at the end is somehow "taking it our of context". Do you feel that, if you attempt to dilute it by placing it "in context" that it is somehow less racist? For someone who demands that I waste my time proving the Limbaugh is a bigot, then demands that I cite every quote, you certainly are lazy about articulating your own reasoning. Apparently, for you it is okay to say something racist *in the context* of complaining about the lack of "classy" behavior by football players. Classy indeed. I mean, Rush is the epitome of class! lol
Thanks also for vindicating my prediction, just as Tonypal did, what with his feeble insults, which I will deal with in another post.
the-gunslinger | 3.12.09 @ 2:42PM
b...there is no "Republican movement". There is a Republican Party, which is in retreat and in disarray not because it is too Conservative, but because it is not Conservative enough.
If The People want liberalism, they will vote for the Democrats. They will not vote for a "Democrat Lite" Republican Party, which is all we have offered lately.
Conservatives are not well represented in the Republican Party. Many so-called Conservatives within it embraced the "politics" of conservatism to ride the coattails of Ronald Reagan...but never really embraced the Principles and Values he stood for.
And it was the abandonment of those Principles and Values that cast the Republican Party into the wilderness...
Corruption, big government, big spending, earmarks, pork, becoming part of the "Beltway Insiders" club instead of being the Peoples' Representatives is why the Republicans failed.
That is also why the Democratic Congress has such low, low approval numbers. Even while the press was publicizing President Bush's low approval rating, Congress' was much, much lower.
What the People want are honest representatives that represent their interests in Washington.
I believe Republicans are held to a higher standard than Democrats...for obvious reasons. And when they fail to measure up, they are more severely punished.
Republicans have the opportunity to learn that lesson. If they reclaim the integrity and plain speaking, the principles and values of conservatism...and prove they will walk the walk as well as talk the talk, I think they will reclaim the trust and affection of The People.
Conservatism is not out-dated or outmoded, or unpopular...it has been nowhere to be found...in the halls of power for 16 years.
And the hysteria of the Left over a radio guy is proof how clearly it understands the power of conservatism and it's appeal to The People, and the danger it represents to itself.
Cedar Ashoak| 3.12.09 @ 2:43PM
Why is it that individuals seem unable to discuss/debate an issue without resorting to childish name calling and/or logical fallacies?
Check out this website and find yours... http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
"I saw of course the cliff, I saw the turbulent ocean blue; but everyone else was going that way, so I thought I would too". - Larry Lemming
Philip Mella | 3.12.09 @ 2:51PM
Dear Sir or Madam:
For reasons best left to the department of political forensics, many so-called conservatives are turning yellow just as the battle heats up. Given our age's disdain for authority, absolutes, and principles, that's hardly surprising, but the curious amalgam of politics they would install in conservatism's place reflects the veneer-thin depth of their thinking.
If fiscal restraint, individual responsibility, the protection of human life, support for the 2nd Amendment and a robust military, and an abiding believe in American exceptionalism, are unpalatable to the likes of Frum, the left will certainly welcome him as the latest intellectual quisling, and exploit him for their own political designs.
As for Rush, he's certainly not the head of the party, he's just a consistent conservative soldier beloved by 20 million Americans each week.
Best regards,
Phil Mella, Editor
www.clearcommentary.com
b| 3.12.09 @ 2:53PM
Bilwick: your point about progressivism is weird an totally unqualified (You cannot paint the world and history in such broad general terms, would you call Teddy Roosevelt [who was as progressive as they come] a statist or a fascist?)... it seems to me you might think that the ability of the state to bring about any positive progress in society, to bring about greater and ensure greater freedom for the individual is a totally false idea.?, and by that token that only individuals and private enterprise left to its own devices can solve the ills of society? If that is the case then I would challenge you to read or re-read the history of Republican progressivism from McKinley to Taft and ask you if you have the same opinion of their advances in policy, institutions and governance.
Further to draw an analogy between POW's in the Vietnam war and the progression of our society well is...odd and not all together accurate or useful. Are we at war with ourselves, and if so then who are our captors?
Bob| 3.12.09 @ 2:54PM
Hey, section9, you might need a section 8. Reagan won because the economy was in a mess, Carter was blamed, and Reagan seemed like a nice, comforting, older guy who honed his acting skills. As any political operative will tell you, people vote their pocketbooks. IT IS NOT ABOUT IDEOLOGY. Do you remember "It's the economy, stupid"?
Bush43 won as a "compassionate" conservative, but he did not govern (if you can call it that) as a conservative, did he? Kerry and Gore were cigar store Indians and Bush was likable.
So please stop this revisionist history about Reagan -- it is a fairy tale.
Ryan -- again, it is a fairy tale told by persuasive right wing zealots that Republicans lose when they don't run to the right. Again, people vote their pocketbooks. If Carter would have turned around the economy, he would have won. If Bush41 didn't run into a recession, he probably would have won.
The argument here is that it is NOT about the social issues for a vast majority of voters, it is about their pocketbooks. This is especially true for we "RINO's". We believe in fiscal conservatism or else we would have become independents or dems by now. The problem is that you right wing zealots can't accept our social views and thus devolve into calling us names when we could be working together.
The other mistake you ideologues make is to eschew fact when it gets in the way of ideology. For example, Reagan created a huge debt -- more than any other President except Bush2, and yet you consider "Reagonomics" a success. Even economists in his administration didn't consider Reagonomics a success. You talk about tax cuts being stimulative when the facts disprove it. You talk about "running to the right" when all data shows the country running to the middle. You have the three monkeys perspective -- hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil -- when it comes to Reagan, Limbaugh, and the conservatives. No one wins by not looking at the truth.
We need fiscal conservatism in this country because our children and grandchildren will pay for our misdeeds. That is immoral in my perspective. If we can't get past the truth and social issues, however, it won't be done.
the-gunslinger?| 3.12.09 @ 2:59PM
the-gunslinger,
"The hysteria of the Left over a radio guy?" Do you live in reality. It is hardly the left who has a monopoly on drooling all over this stupid story.
I especially like the new distinction "right-minded" people are making amongst themselves. "Oh, no, no...I am not a Republican! They are really just liberals in red clothing! I'm a Conservative...." Right.
Here's the bottom line: the extreme right is just as worthless as the extreme left. Pro-life at all costs = PETA at all costs. Jesus HAS to be in politics = God doesn't exist. No more taxes = Please Uncle Sam, take my wallet. The difference, "the-gunslinger," or whatever your name is, is that the right for some unfathomable reason has lashed their extremist movements around their neck like a two-ton anchor. And before you try and counter that democrats have done the same, let me just say, your wrong. There are plenty of stupid, cookie people in that party, but they don't have anywhere near the voice that pro-life at all coster's, and jesus in your bedroomer's do.
You folks are gonna drown if you don't open up and listen to folks like b and rwilliams1961 (or Frum and Brooks, for that matter). Maybe that would be for the best, anyway.
John II| 3.12.09 @ 3:03PM
Philip Mella is right, of course, in both senses of the word. I'm not worried much about the internecine strife current among conservatives of various hues--I mean, the kind of strife reflected in these responses to the Flynn piece. Frum and Brooks and Will have exhibited little more than conservative temperaments for some time now--they apparently like the perceived benefits that come with spelunking in the liberal culture. No biggie. What is going to bring all stripes of conservatives together within the next year or so, from the most principled to the most libertarian, is now sitting in the White House. The preposterous Barack Obama is clearly destined to become for the various "conservatives" of America what communism was up until about 1990. He is rapidly revealing himself to be a common enemy, a common threat that we can all agree about.
b| 3.12.09 @ 3:08PM
Gunslinger: If there is no movement then the party is dead already. Without a movement the party becomes static with nothing to keep their philosophies relevant with the problems of our time, the party becomes a formulaic cliche machine as Rwilliams1961 pointed out, throwing out responses that this is how Ronald Regan dealt with this and that, like he was Zeus.
Second, what is a true conservative, is there one archetype that we can all look to? So many traditional Republicans rejected Ron Paul as a liberal lunatic yet so many more found serious problems with the way Republicans treated Ron Paul precisely because so many people thought that he was a real, libertarian conservative. So what is a true conservative, from my central Missouri upbringing I was taught that real conservatism in its most pure form had nothing to do with social issues but had everything to do with the issues Libertarians consistently bring up election after election.
Bob| 3.12.09 @ 3:17PM
John II -- you should study a bit of history. If the economy turns around -- and that is almost a certainty prior to 2012, Obama will win by a landslide just like Reagan did in 1984. Reagan and Bush grew the debt more than any other President and they got reelected. Obama will do the same because the debt does not affect voters, and their pocketbooks, right now. The more that you and other conservatives hold this fairy tale view of "communism" and "socialism", you will be seen as goofy extremists -- which you are, of course.
Gordon Plumber| 3.12.09 @ 3:21PM
tonypal said:
"Again, you simply do not know what you're talking about. I gave you the definition of a dittohead. As I am one of them, I think I know of what I speak. But if it makes you feel good about yourself to believe as you do, far be it from me to stand in your way."
No you didn't. You *made up* a definition of "dittohead", which, let's be honest, isn't even a word. Using the usual technique of *looking at the word itself* for its meaning reveals the obvious. When someone says something, and then someone else says "ditto", it means "what he said". Hence, those who agree with everything Rush says are called "dittoheads". What are you, some kind of DINO (dittohead in name only)? Are you saying that you *don't* agree with everything Rush says? That would disqualify you from the club. How dare you call yourself a dittohead while opposing Rush?! I can't believe we are having this conversation.
tonypal said:
"As for your assertion he is a bigot, you offer no proof except for your lame "quotes," which are either taken out of context or made up entirely. Hell, you didn't even address the "Barack the Magic Negro" explanation. Why don't you tackle that?"
Golly, Tony, if Rush saying overtly racist things doesn't make him a bigot in your eyes, what, exactly, would suffice for you as proof? As for the feeble explanation for Barack the Magic Negro - pure sophistry. Seriously. I read his lame excuses and am embarrassed for him. Limbaugh calls Obama a "Halfrican", then insists that only Dems are racist. His assertion that Powell backed Obama because of skin color alone wasn't the rantings of a bigot? Perhaps you are a dittohead (as you insist) after all! I provided the equally deluded Deborah a link to Rush's own site, where I got the quote in the first place, and she pasted the entire article, yet neglected to explain how that absolved Limbaugh of his overtly racist comment. Another dittohead insists that really it is a lack of a sense of humor that causes people to think Limbaugh's racism isn't funny. Perhaps it's a lack of racism. I know I find you hilarious, so I must have *some* sense of humor.
tonypal said:
"You refer to him as dope addled, but of course you know that he had an addiction to oxycontin that he dealt with. I wonder if you know anyone in your life who has had a substance abuse problem. Do you remain friends with them or do you make fun of them?"
I have had dope addled friends. Of course, none of them told millions of people on their radio shows that drug addicts should be jailed, as Rush did like the incredible hypocrite he is. Also, none of them were caught smuggling Viagra on an all male trip to the Dominican either. In fact, due to having known dope addled people, I can state that Rush was obviously wired out of his mind while bobbing up and down and perspiring profusely during his "address to the nation" recently.
tonypal said:
"The reason I know your politics is that you resort to all the classic liberal attacks. Conservatives don't spend any time calling each other bigots because we get that from brain dead liberals every day of the week."
I call bigots bigots regardless of political affiliation. You have *not one clue* about my "politics". You apparently are having a hard time "knowing" your *own* "politics". I am a "liberal" because I pointed out that Limbaugh is a bigot? What happened to the "white, guilty" part you cast at me earlier? Have you abandoned those accusations between that post and this one? If I told you that I am conservative, I am certain that you would brand me a "RINO" for having the temerity to not be racist. You, sir, are a million laffs.
tonypal said:
"As for your "apoplectic" comment, my post was very calm and dealt directly with the issues. You're the one who is pounding away furiously on your keyboard hurling insults at anything that moves. So chill out and learn a thing or two. Your inability to understand the meaning of dittohead speaks volumes as to your honesty and intellect."
Oh yes, Tony, you were so very calm when you said "Now, I think I hear your mommy calling you to go make your bed, so pull up your pants and do what mommy says." Yes, that really "dealt directly with the issues". LOL!
So where are these "insults" you are braying about? I though you considered yourself a "dittohead", so that can't be it. Or are you referring to me calling the bigot Limbaugh a bigot? I can't see why that bothers you when his racism doesn't.
Lastly, even though this edifying exchange with you and Deborah reveals the sad state of "Conservatism" as practiced by "dittoheads", I have seen other comments here that signal that not all self identified conservatives are as ignorant and hostile as you are. Had you bothered to read my reply to Anthony instead of worrying about Limbaugh's honor, then you might begin to get a clue as to what my "politics" actually are.
Jason| 3.12.09 @ 3:22PM
This article reminds me of a Point/Counterpoint printed in The Onion a few years ago. In that article, the author writing the "Point" stated an arguement, and the author writing the "Counterpoint" rewrote the entire arguement but added things like, "I disagree," or, "No, that didn't happen," after each sentence. It is clear that you disagree with the Newsweek article, but you do not submit you're own ideas about the subject. This mentality is exactly what's wrong with conservatives. They disagree with everything not writen (or spoken) by one of their own, yet, they don't have any ideas of their own. If conservatives don't like what's happening, submit alternative ideas that aren't more of the same. Tax breaks don't solve all problems. I don't consider myself liberal, but at least I've heard ideas from that side to solve some of our problems. Give me something ideas from the conservative side that don't sound like they were hatched in 1982!
ScienceMan| 3.12.09 @ 3:24PM
The republican party is obviously suffering from a serious schism / identity crisis. Perhaps it is time for true conservatives to clearly define themselves and form their own party, instead of allowing moderate republicans to define and contradict them. A divorce is looming. Israel has a number of political parties that seem to reflect a wide spectrum of political principles, ideals, and values from the religious right to the labor party. The idea that the two-party system is the only one that works is simply not true. The Democrats should also split up into Labor, Progressives, Blue Dogs, etc. We have all been brainwashed over the last 100 yrs into thinking that the two-party system is God's gift to politics, when most of the time there is not dime's worth of difference between the two!!!
b| 3.12.09 @ 3:25PM
What would a real conservative do to end the credit crisis?.. which at this point involves the unregulated global trade of mortgage backed securities and credit derivatives (namely credit default swaps [to just pick a starting point]), and which the total outstanding debt owed by American and Western institutions is at this point over 30trillion dollars. What would a real conservative do with AIG (largest holder of credit default swaps) and its trillions of dollars in debt, just let it fail and let trillions of more dollars in wealth be destroyed and removed from our country. This is not just a recession this is a system wide failure, doing nothing and letting the market correct itself is equal to making every American a debt slave beyond our wildest imagination to the Chinese, Belgians and other foreign nations and interests? If you say just let it fail, you might want to examine yourself because you have some seriously sadistic and nihilistic thinking. What would a true conservative do?
Bilwick| 3.12.09 @ 3:33PM
Have read all that stuff, b. Teddy R was certainly a statist by any definition of the term I know of. Eevrything I've read about him, and virtually all the quotes attributed to him, reek o thef power-worship that is at the heart of the Cult of the Dtate. He despised the classical-liberal tradition in American political history. What have you read about him? Apparently not much that actually quotes the things TR said or the positions he took. What are you saying--that he was a Jeffersonian? If so . . . what color is the sun on your planet? Do you know who Herbert Croly was? One of the biggest State-fellators in US history, and the founding intellectual father of Teddy's brand of Progressivism. Of course, compared to a completely-indoctrinated State-cultist like Obama, Teddy was a veritable Lysander Spooner. But that's more of a comment on how collectivized our society has become rather than on any libertarian tendencies on TR's part. Given that he coupled his love of Big-Stick Government with militarism, Teddy was a fascist by any historical definition of fascism, even if his fascism never devolved into the brutal forms seen in Europe.
I'm guessing you're probably quite the little State-shtupper yourself, b., because you use a tactic that seems common among statist message posters on pro-freedom blogs. It's when someone pro-freedom, such as myself, uses metaphor or simile to make a rhetorical point, as I did with ROLLING THUNDER, and then to feign density with regard to simile or metaphor or analogy or pop-culture references, and take it literally. Or are you really dense? Ok, let's operate on that fact that you really don't get what I was saying. My "captor" would then be any0ne who claims the right to rule me and threatens my life, libveerty and property with coercion. Is that simple and clear enough for you, b?
John II| 3.12.09 @ 3:35PM
Hi Bob. Thanks for the response. Actually, I study history all the time because that's how I make my living--I teach the stuff. I am also by avocation a logician (which is hard to avoid when you're teaching history), and I would respond to your false analogy by suggesting that Reagan and Bush pursued policies that helped increase the debt but simultaneously pursued policies that vastly increased wealth, so that the debt as a proportion of GDP at least became more manageable. Obama is not pursuing the latter policies.
I'm really only an "extremist" in the attention I give my family over my career, but I may indeed be "goofy," as some of my students will attest. But the goofiness is deliberate: how else can you secure the attention of jaded college kids when you're teaching boring stuff like history?
Anyhow, we need only wait about a year to see if I'm right in the specific prediction I made. I think I am--seems as if we've all been there before, historically speaking.
Anders Hopkins| 3.12.09 @ 3:40PM
Am I truely to believe that clear-minded, objective, anaylitical thinking is dead in this country? The Dem's bailout plan is hardly socialism, and to label it thusly gives the argument an instantly negative connotation that Dem's will refuse to argue about. Why not call it what it really is, so we can have a serious discussion about its pros and cons? Before I start spewing venom and delude myself into thinking my comment will convince anyone of my agenda, I would like to say this: What subject can anyone take seriously when no one from either side (The Dems are to Republicans) wants to approach it using logic and reason? What is happening to this country?
Anthony| 3.12.09 @ 3:43PM
To Gordon Plumber; It is disingenuous hyperbole to state that social conservatives want to merge church and state to enforce their "whims". on the rest of society. Apparently, you think social conservatives are precluded from participation in the public arena of ideas and when they dare express their beliefs, well, that's vulgar in your face right wing conformity. "Violating my space" is, I believe, how you leftists describe it. Yet, secular Marxists, who worship at the alter of secular humanism are free to demand our society transform itself in the name of global warming, partial birth abortion, and wealth distribution ect, ect. Sorry, social conservatives get to participate too, well, until Obama shuts them down.
You disappointment me when you cling to the worn out carnard that McCain lost his election because of Gov. Palin. Spare us your imitation of our threadbare elites, Ms.Parker and Mr. Frum. And those "Rovian" tactics McCain engaged in, could you remind me of them, as I seem to have missed all those dirty tricks the Marquis of Queensbury, McCain, played on Obama.
But back to the article, the MSM and the Dems are engaged in a concerted effort to re-define conservativism, a la Saul Alinsky, in order to marginalize and discredit it, because it poses the single danger to Obama's new world order. Frum & Co. are merely useful idiots willing to sling their "erudite" slop in order to stay relevant while serving the masters that pay them. However, unlike Bill Clinton, when the left is through with Frum & Co., they won't offer Frum any ice to "put on it".
Bob| 3.12.09 @ 3:47PM
John II -- I would suggest you read this piece by one of Reagan's chief economists:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html
If you are truly an historian, you would recognize it is NOT what one PURSUES, but the RESULTS one ACHIEVES. So here's a chart showing debt creation by President:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
You also talk about wealth creation. We look at economic growth on a country wide basis by watching GDP growth (especially in real dollars to normalize for inflation). Here is a chart of GDP growth in both actual and real dollars:
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230
You'll see that the greatest growth in GDP came from the tax increases in the Clinton administration.
Furthermore, measuring wealth creation is problematic. As an academic, you would look at it two ways -- average wealth creation and the distribution of that wealth. Over the past 30 years, there's has been a growing disparity in the distribution of wealth. In fact, the middle class has seen a decline in disposable income given the rise in health care costs.
By the way, I would take a second look at a chart of debt as a proportion of GDP with special attention to 2008. The President that made the greatest improvement in this measure was Clinton.
If you are truly a history teacher and value your ability to use logic, you will have an open mind and look at the actual data.
Robert Rosencrans| 3.12.09 @ 3:47PM
Whoa! If you respond to Bob now you're a bigot! Bob, you've been caught in several lies and misrepresentations. An internet Alinskybot not to be taken too seriously.
Jeremiah| 3.12.09 @ 3:54PM
The question becomes, if people like Frum and Brooks are not the intellectual leaders of the Republican party, who is?
Certainly Limbaugh is not because Limbaugh is a talk radio show host: he doesn't present position papers or enter into an actual intellectual fray or debate.
If Ann Coulter, Sara Palin, and Rush Limbaugh are the sum total of your brain power, do you think you're really still "the party of ideas."
Newt Gingrich is still an ideas man, which is why I respect him. There are a few others. But the tired chorus shouts down all discussion, chanting:
Drill baby drill!
Tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts!
Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve!
It gets tiresome, and clearly the American people are looking for more.
If all you care about is shrinking the government so that it could be "drown in a bathtub," how to you remake education so our children can keep up with the 21st century economy: I goddamn guarantee you other countries aren't shrugging off education as a secondary concern to tax cuts.
And what about the complex realities presented by terrorism: there's more to fighting terrorism than bombing Iraq. If conservatives are out of ideas on that, why should we listen to them at all?
What about coming water and oil shortages? Conservatives respond: what water and oil shortages? We don't believe in those, because they're not mentioned in the book of Genesis.
What about a family going bankrupt every hour because of medical costs? If you think the solution is simply to feed them to the free market, you're insane and know nothing about the issue.
Ruh, Roh| 3.12.09 @ 4:01PM
Bilwick: don't try and mask your ignorance by referring to yourself as "pro-freedom." Surely you are not so blinded by your narcissism as to truly think that Conservative's have a monopoly on patriotism. But, perhaps, and sadly so, you are. The fact as, you pretty much sound like an elitist...oh no, wait, according to the loudest of the right, you have to be liberal to be elitist. No, I suspect you are just a douche bag.
John II: with all do respect, you must also be a fortune teller. After only a month and a half of Obama history under our belts, how are you to know if his policy pursuits won't increase wealth in the long run as well? The investment in health care reform, energy and education will undoubtedly produce wealth in the future. Not to mention make the nation more secure. Drawing a conclusion on 50 some odd days of history doesn't inspire me to sign up for your class, sir.
Gordon Plumber| 3.12.09 @ 4:07PM
Anthony said:
"Apparently, you think social conservatives are precluded from participation in the public arena of ideas and when they dare express their beliefs, well, that's vulgar in your face right wing
conformity."
Umm, did you read my post? I suggested that perhaps, considering that Social Conservatives do indeed want to enforce their religion informed whims on society, that perhaps what is needed is a Social Conservative party promoting that agenda.
Anthony said:
""Violating my space" is, I believe, how you leftists describe it. "
Actually, Anthony, the fact that I would rather not have the government interfere with my individual liberty is a decidedly conservative idea. Of *course* you would label me a "Marxist", as you, like many others of your ilk, seem to think you have psychic powers in that department.
Anthony said:
"You disappointment me when you cling to the worn out carnard that McCain lost his election because of Gov. Palin. "
Actually Anthony, what I said was "Whether it was his "moderate" status, Palin's unmoderate status, or general hatred of Bush that lost the election is debatable", but don't let those pesky *facts* get in the way of your righteous indignation!
Anthony said:
"Spare us your imitation of our threadbare elites, Ms.Parker and Mr. Frum. "
Again I am compelled to ask whether you actually read my post before replying. I suggested that perhaps what is needed is another party (or two) to accommodate the various disparate versions of "conservatism" that undeniably exist. How is that an imitation of Frum?
"And those "Rovian" tactics McCain engaged in, could you remind me of them, as I seem to have missed all those dirty tricks the Marquis of Queensbury, McCain, played on Obama."
So *where were you* during the election? You missed the robocalls, the hysterical (and ongoing) claims of "socialism" and "Obama is a Muslim!" You missed that McCain hired the same gang of ghouls that went after him previously? Please. I see this is a typical tactic with your ilk : "Prove the obvious!" Deny, deny deny. How about a little honesty?
Anthony said:
"But back to the article, the MSM and the Dems are engaged in a concerted effort to re-define conservativism, a la Saul Alinsky, in order to marginalize and discredit it, because it poses the single danger to Obama's new world order."
Sure. So how about you define "conservativism" for us right now?
lol
Bob| 3.12.09 @ 4:10PM
So, Robert, you continue to call people who disagree with you "liars". That's an adult (and typically socially conservative) response. That's just what I would expect from someone who can't utilize reason and intellect. Thank you, again, for proving my point about the social conservatives in our party.
b| 3.12.09 @ 4:10PM
Bilwick: you response is hysterical, you should rename yourself the Oracle. It is useless to argue point by point by point, or any point because it seems like to me you believe the world went to hell a long time ago... You call TR a fascist, cult of the state stuff come on man leave the infowars behind, everyone who has read a bit of history knows that TR loved himself some TR, he was beyond a glory hound, but he also made significant and real contributions to our nation and our government, some so obvious they really do not deserve enumerating. You arguing is like that of a very rabid and angry person that has some serious angst to others who offer a challenge to their ideas, give me a break.... do you know who this is and that is,... why dont you leave the insults behind.... the fact that we are all here commenting on the INTERNET should be evidence enough that we are freedom lovers too, pull your head up and brighten your world a bit man not all is lost.
John II| 3.12.09 @ 4:15PM
Hi again Bob: H.L. Mencken used to keep a pile of pre-printed penny postcards on his desk, which he would hand-address to each of his angry readers in response to a piece of hate-mail, to wit:
Dear _________,
You may be right.
HLM
Consider yourself in receipt of such a card. But don't forget my prediction a year from now. Heck, I need to get credit for SOMEthing.
My dear Ruh, Roh: In fact, we have about 20 years of "Obama history under our belts," except that few people seem interested in looking under their belts. So study his political career since about 1988, and then try some fortune-telling on your own. You may be amazed to learn that you can see into the future.
Ruh Roh| 3.12.09 @ 4:23PM
John II: I'll issue you the same card offered to Bob. However, I too believe I'll be standing on the properly forecasted side of history. The point of who is "right" is fodder for message boards. I, like you, only hope the best for this great country of ours.
Loulou| 3.12.09 @ 4:37PM
Frum/Brooks/Megan McCain/John McCain--what's the difference? They are not conservatives. They are Democrat enablers. I'll stick with Rush. And Levin. And Coulter.
Loulou?| 3.12.09 @ 4:40PM
Good luck with that, Loulou.
Bob| 3.12.09 @ 4:41PM
John II -- hopefully I provided facts, not hate mail. It does offend me when individuals eschew knowledge and learning in favor of fairy tale ideology. The Republican party has become anti-intellectual ever since Reagan. That is one way to disregard facts, but I don't believe it will lead to a better country. I actually want a smart, academically successful, President as an example to our children and grandchildren. It concerned me greatly that both Bush and McCain bragged about doing poorly in school. Our children are our future. Presidents should set examples.
Having a background in business and economics, I believe there is a high probability that you will see a turnaround by the end of this year/beginning of next. The market fundamentals are there for this to occur. However, the high Obama deficits will probably result in slower growth thereafter. Thus the arguments about spending have little to do with how quickly we turnaround -- in fact, more spending with hasten the recovery. It does effect the speed of recovery thereafter, and that is my great concern -- especially for our children, and in my case, grandchildren.
Politically, this means Obama will be a success in the next 2-4 year time horizon. Unless we address entitlement spending and health care spending, however, the country will be hurting a decade from now. People don't vote for 10 years from now, they vote for today.
RJS| 3.12.09 @ 4:45PM
Gordon plumber @ 10:47am writes:
“I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark." [Actually, we had slavery in America for over 300 years, but Limbaugh never lets facts get in his way.] "
Phony quote. Limbaugh never said that. You were saying about "never letting facts get in his way"?
"You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed."
Another phony quote. Limbaugh never said that either.
"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back" [said to an African-American female caller to his show]. "
This one he did say, before he became famous. This was on Kansas City radio when he was a local host. This line was given to him by management because they wanted him to be a shock jock, something he didnt want to do and wasnt comfortable with.
"I think it really goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy." [On Senator Obama to be the Democratic Party's nominee] "
This is not a racist statement by any stretch of the imagination.
"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."
Another non-racist statement.
"Rush Limbaugh appeared on Fox News and insulted Los Angeles’ Hispanic mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Limbaugh said the first time he saw Mayor Villaraigosa he thought the Latino was a “Shoe Shine Boy.” He was shocked to learn this Latino held such a high office and was, in fact, the Mayor of Los Angeles. "
He also mistaken the guy was a secret service agent. Dont try to get selective editing on us.
"Or may be you just like the tast of your own shoe leather. "
Since you gave us phony quotes, how do you like your shoe leather? Fried or broiled?
MT| 3.12.09 @ 5:02PM
Pull your pants up, Gordy Plumber, your crack is showing.
Angel| 3.12.09 @ 5:04PM
Loulou, you go, girl!
Robert Rosencrans| 3.12.09 @ 5:13PM
Bob: You are a liar. It's been proven on several occasions. And when adults observe people like you lying it's OK to say so. Were you the neighborhood bully when young, only to get older and find yourself out of your league, therefore all the pretense about your alleged expertise?
If you were an expert at anything you wouldn't be so defensive at anyone who questions your alleged knowledge.
Dai Alanye | 3.12.09 @ 5:27PM
"You'll see that the greatest growth in GDP came from the tax increases in the Clinton administration."
This should qualify as the most stupid statement on this thread, and is typical of Bob-the-selector-of facts. After Clinton's '93 tax increase the economy tanked, and low prices of both stocks and bonds in '94 assisted in the Republican takeover of Congress.
Gingrich and the other Repubs saved Willie's bacon by turning the economy around and partially reforming the welfare system. Willy was smart enough to see which way the wind was blowing, and cautious enough to go along with conservative policies. A Democrat Congress in '94 would probably have led to a Clinton loss in '96, even against Bob Dole.
Bob likewise gets the Reagan phenomenon backwards, as usual. Reagan won the Cold War while salvaging the Carter economy. The biggest economic difficulty Reagan had was the savings and loan debacle, which was caused by a major alteration in tax policy that affected commercial real estate. Blame Bob Dole for that one. But that problem was quickly solved, while the one we are now in probably won't be.
As for this character Gordon Plumber (apparently Joe the Plumber's evil cousin) he's just the typical troll, getting his talking points from the DNC and its surrogates. Not worth taking seriously anything he says, folks.
Jeff| 3.12.09 @ 5:32PM
For Gordon Plumber...
It appears you are unaware the "Barack the Magic Negro" was a slap at the race-baiting anti-Semitism of Al Sharpton. You are excused.
John II| 3.12.09 @ 5:41PM
Hi Bob even again yet. The term "goofy extremist" is not factual because it CAN'T be factual--it is merely abusive, with no possibility of precise definition. If, by contrast, you had referred to me as a "short, dumpy, deservedly underpaid, useless college prof," your expression would be abusive but could also very possibly be factual.
Perhaps the real division between us is one of interest. You say your background is in business and economics; my own background is in history and literature and language. I fuss over the misuse of terms like "hopefully" and the confusion of terms like "effect" and "affect" to the point where I suspect the intellectual integrity of people who don't; you fuss over charts and tables and graphs to the point where you apparently believe that facts and figures "speak for themselves" (as the expression goes) independent of analysis and interpretation.
We thus both have our biases acquired by a mysterious mixture of disposition and experience. But would I be expecting too much if I suggested that you're off point, even if you're not interested in the point I originally raised?
To recapitulate: Within a year, I herewith predict (with, say, an 86.2% chance of accuracy--if the number makes you happier) that conservatives of all stripes will have closed ranks against a common foe. Which, I predict again (with, say, a 93.5% change of accuracy) will be the ONLY debt of gratitude the nation will retrospectively owe to the lightweight intellectual popinjay we now have for a president.
And by the way, the term "lightweight intellectual popinjay" is not merely abusive--although it would take a considerably longer discourse, with footnotes, to define it properly.
b| 3.12.09 @ 5:44PM
Dai, Bob:
The boom in the late 90's had more to do with the explosion of the greatest innovation in the history of mankind besides harnessing fire, domesticating animals, the advent of precision time keeping, flight and mass production,... it was the INTERNET. The Internet and its development and adaptation in the private sector led to this wealth creation bubble far more than cutting back on entitlement programs or tax policies (though one could add that the govt moratorium on internet sales taxes has greatly aided its development).
Jeremiah| 3.12.09 @ 5:55PM
Dai Alanye --
The idea that the booming economy of the 90s had anything to do with "welfare reform" is simply, and completely, and absolutely false.
Welfare was a destructive and bad policy, generally, and getting rid of it as it had been used was a good idea.
However, it didn't really save very much money, and it certainly was not responsible for any economic growth.
Welfare just didn't account for very much of government spending or of the tax burden.
What did cause the boom of the 90s?
Several things, chief among them an astonishing growth in worker productivity (again, this had very little to do with Newt Gingrich), the tech boom (which WAS the result of massive government investment), and a good season for global finance.
Clinton managed the economy well -- that is, he and the Republicans in Congress didn't do anything to hurt it.
But thank you -- the idea that reducing welfare rolls contributed to the largest peacetime economic boom in history was an entertaining idea. I needed that at the end of a long day's work.
Your better than Hannity. Keep it up.
Bob| 3.12.09 @ 5:57PM
Dai, the data does not support your contentions. Here, again, since you seem to have difficulty reading actual data, is the chart on GDP:
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230
It is obvious that the economy did not "tank". Furthermore, here is the DJ Index:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?Symbol=$indu
Please note that there was no decline in stock values. Perhaps you and Robert consider the actual data a lie?
I know you and Robert don't like the facts, but they are stubborn things and no amount of historical revisionism will change that.
John II, I encourage you to take the factual information in the charts and interpret them in a different way. I find it fascinating that a college prof who talks about being logical fails to provide a factual defense of his position based upon real data and not hyperbole.
Now, I was pulling yours and Dai's leg a bit regarding tax cuts, since all of the data I've studied over the years indicate that tax cuts, and for that matter spending, have limited influence over the growth of GDP. We give far too much credit to government for economic growth. It is private enterprise that is the engine of economic growth, not the government. That is why the numbers don't support the "tax cut" stimulative effects propounded by extreme right, non-logical, ideologues.
Bob| 3.12.09 @ 5:58PM
b, I couldn't agree more. Read my last post.
John II| 3.12.09 @ 6:16PM
Yo Bob even again yet already. Thanks for another example. The term "extreme right, non-logical ideologues" [revised for incorrect punctuation] is not and, both logically and empirically, cannot be a factual term. And you seem to have a particular fondness for such terms. So you're not all that enamored of facts after all. QED. And what a relief.
Now don't forget to call me on it if conservatives haven't closed ranks by, say, February 2010. If I'm wrong, I'll eat crow. If I'm right, I'll . . . well, I'll sip slowly and smugly through a bottle of Maker's Mark. In either case, I shall expect a groveling apology from you for ignoring my original point. I am, sir, your servant.
Nick| 3.12.09 @ 6:30PM
Bob,
"We give far too much credit to government for economic growth. It is private enterprise that is the engine of economic growth, not the government."
Rush couldn't have said better himself!
Gov. over-taxation and useless regulations are to the economy what lead weights are to a swimmer, a hindrance. Get rid of the superfluous weight and the swimmer takes off like Michael Phelps. Your beloved, well educated B.O. is handing the swimmer an anvil.
Erin| 3.12.09 @ 6:36PM
I arrived at this site via a link from RealClearPolitics. I must say, it's amusing to read conservatives argue among themselves as to what actually qualifies as conservative. May I humbly suggest that when the best you folks have put forward recently is Sarah (I'm winking!) Palin, John (can't turn the tanning machine off!) Boehner, Eric (my eyes never blink!) Cantor, Paul (I'm channeling Mitt Romney!) Ryan, Mitt (I'm pro-choice, I'm not pro-choice!), Michael (I'm pro-choice, I'm not pro-choice!) Steele, Joe-the- (I'm acutally not a plumber!) Plumber, and Rush (I'm a thrice divorced, drug-addict, sloth kind of conservative!) Limbaugh...well, I actaully kind of feel bad for you. But not really.
b| 3.12.09 @ 6:37PM
John II: One would hope that by 2010 the Republicans have closed ranks around some core group of leaders/leader or against the Obama and Democratic regime who will lead them into 2010/12 and beyond. That seems like it would be as natural as the sun shining for a party that has lost power and is now in the opposition. So I don't think anyone is going out on a limb by predicting that they will, you should dial your powers in just a bit and venture to vision whether or not the closing of the ranks will be successful for their party and for the country. Will they have a message and a movement to propel them into the future like Obama and the Dems began creating in '05, '06 and now '08, or will the Republicans be an anti-Obama party much like the Democrats were an anti-Bush party 02, and 04.
My opinion is that the republicans will whither and dither around the next four years taking stands against Obama just for the sake of it, all the while trying to convince themselves otherwise. Obama will win 2012 by a landslide (most people I think just want to feel like things are on the rebound by 2012) and it will not be until then (2012), when the collective sting and pain are deeply felt that conservatives and Republicans will by force of nature begin to rebuild a new national and grassroots movement. This is how national political pendulum swings back and forth in my opinion. Repubs have to spend some time in the wilderness before they begin reforming and rebuilding there party and coalition in a principled yet relevant way.
Bob| 3.12.09 @ 6:41PM
Nice come back, John II. Now, if we could only get Republican candidates who would be as grammatically correct as you and as analytically correct as me. My undergraduate fields were mathematics and chemistry. My specialty field in mathematics was algebraic topology. Having grown up in South Central with parents of very limited means and education, mastery of English grammar was never on the radar screen. I had to establish very high grades in math and science to offset my poor grades in English in order to graduate with honors.
Therefore, I present you with the Grammar Correction Blogging Award for Off Topic Remarks.
Kidding aside, thank you for your corrections. For your student's sakes, however, do study the data and come to your own conclusions. After grad school, I spent a 35 year career as a business executive developing these conclusions. It took me a while after Reagan (who I supported), to develop an economic view of his presidency which was not colored by ideology.
My backing of fiscal conservatism comes from the intersection of politics and economics. You get elected by spending money on your constituency. That's why the budget is almost never cut. Therefore, you must develop a strong fiscal conservatism to counteract the natural tendencies of politicians. An example of this is the pork in the current omnibus budget bill. Most Republicans say the earmarks shouldn't be there, but they also say that they still want to spend money on them in a separate bill. How does that make sense?
Aaron| 3.12.09 @ 6:41PM
I think that Gordon Plumber has his panties in a bind because he is charge of the PETA T-shirt rationing.
Bob| 3.12.09 @ 6:49PM
Nick, although I agree with Rush -- and for that matter, most Republicans -- concerning private enterprise, I also believe in fiscal responsibility. If you are not going to cut spending, you at least need to pay for what you spend. Since tax cuts are not stimulative, it is hard then to ask for tax cuts before you cut spending. That's where I disagree with you and Rush. First, we must cut spending. How would it be if you came home and told your wife to go out and spend as usual even though you don't make enough to pay for it? It is a simple concept.
Furthermore, having worked in financial services, I can say that we absolutely need the right regulation (which we do not have). The purpose of regulation should be to prevent abuse and wrong doing and insure that things like capital requirements and oversight is possible. Regulation should not provide any incentives or special tax breaks. Let the market take care of that. Right now, we tend to do the latter and not the former.
b| 3.12.09 @ 6:57PM
Nick:
"Gov. over-taxation and useless regulations are to the economy what lead weights are to a swimmer, a hindrance. Get rid of the superfluous weight and the swimmer takes off like Michael Phelps."
Some of the regulations we feel are useless are very necessary, and regulatory measures are not in and of themselves bad. Take the credit crisis now, which has everything to do with the credit derivatives and credit default swap (CDS) markets. Because of technology and the internet were able to amass exponentially more information than ever before in human history new financial tools were created by the folks at JP Morgan (Blythe Masters essentially created credit default swaps in 1997-1998), Goldman Sachs and the like, you know the financial wizards of our civilization. Well these new financial tools and the markets that grew around, to make a long story short, were never allowed to be regulated because big bankers lobbied/bribed congress not to do so in 2000, and after. As a consequence the CDS market alone grew by factors 10 or 20 times that of our GNP every year. It turned into a wild west credit speculation market that no one to this day understands. The speculation that grew this industry by trillions every year in our country alone, and multiple trillions a year globally, (I think that the CDS market today is valued at over 60trillion dollars,... in 2000 there was no CDS market) was based on an abstract fantasy nothing in reality... (CDS started essentially as 3 party insurance for an investment and turned into the greatest speculation tool in the history of the world.) Well when the domino's began to crumble as they always do in these wild speculation schemes (because something fails somewhere along the line and some smart investors start cashing out there fake assets for real ones) it left companies like Bear Stearns, AIG especially, Lehman, it left pillars of our economy holding trillions of dollars in debt. And that is where we are at now with AIG and the credit crisis, essentially holding trillions of worthless CDS contracts, and one failure away from a credit collapse.
So you are right, get rid of the regulations and the commerce takes off like Michael Phelps, but that can also mean that fake economic bubbles can be created that are far more damaging to society and the world than govt. regulations ever could be, lookup the south sea bubble, or the tulip bubble or the Mississippi bubble and you will begin to see that this is a problem repeated over and over again.
Proper regulation that keeps up with ever changing markets and technology is needed to protect the interests of all involved.
Basil Plumley| 3.12.09 @ 7:30PM
Thank you Daniel Flynn for writing an article that brought out all the loony-toons (except Interloper the MIA). I even saw some new folks.
I saw a Plumber who extensively quotes Limbaugh, yet, denies it came from Media Matters. Ahh, the willful suspension of disbelief. You overplayed your hand. I really enjoyed how you accused folks what you yourself are guilty of.
Nice eFFort.
As usual, Bob the fraud (yes, Bob, there is no more doubt), blazed away with his "facts" to ever prove his meager points. When he is called on it, he resorts to hysteria.
Seriously Bob, Frum needs your posts more than we do. Your bashing of Reagan and Social Conservatives is really freaky. You really need to work on that misogyny problem of yours. You are still getting schooled by folks with a less glorious education. It has to be Harvard's fault.
Erin, you do flush after you compost, right? Horrible eFFort.
Sorry b, the battle begins in 2010, not 2012. I think the Conservatives/Conservatism will lead the GOP to victory. Thankfully, History is not on your side. You were also doomed when Bob agreed with you.
Nick| 3.12.09 @ 8:08PM
b,
I wrote "get rid of the [USELESS] regulations" on purpose. I also used the word "supefluous" intentionally. And I was speaking in general about regulations, not specifically about this current crisis.
Laws have but one purpose, to protect people, and thereby society. As it pertains to business, laws against fraud and theft are necessary.
But there are so many useless regulations foisted on business that suck money out of the economy and therefore produce nothing. From enviromental regs, to OSHA, to tax subsidies; many are unnecessary.
One example: When GHW Bush signed the "Clean Air Act", based on the same garbage science that gave us "global warming", he and congress made everyone who uses A/C and refrigerators spend more money than they had to before. Why? Because all refrigerant had to be recovered and put in tanks, where before it would be released to the air if it couldn't be saved. HVAC companies had to pay for special equipment, certify their techs, and charge their customers for this unnecessary service.
I'm no expert in finance, nor pretend to be. From all I've read, I understand your point on derivatives and agree rules should've been implimented and enforced. New innovations almost always result in bubbles.
Ran| 3.12.09 @ 10:28PM
Mr Flynn, thank you for the article. You've exposed a side of David that his own articles never mention.
Basil P.,
Sir, your thoughts, please: Why is it that principled Conservatives are tagged as the ones who "drive away" others when empirical evidence of precisely the inverse is before us?
Republican "moderates" who supposedly hoped to "appeal to the middle" granted us Bush II and McCain. With these "compassionate conservatives" on the ticket, why, we were to be flooded at the pols by votes from "undecideds" and "independents" and "moderates" and "centrists." Yessiree, the clearly Left-leaning Democrats didn't have a chance with the "middle" in '04 and '06 and they were going down in shame in '08. Until it, er, didn't happen.
What happened, I'll argue here, is that it was RINO flue that drove away campaign donations and involvement - and ultimately needed votes - from libertarians and conservatives in the base. I'll extend that argument to include an alienated statistical component of the muddle who had their wallets and freedoms in mind. Why waist a swing vote on McCain, when Obama was selling (conservative!) tax cuts better than McCain himself? Hell, even swing-voters and confuseds and non-aligneds were looking for a real menu option.
This is one area where I think Frum's analysis has it exactly backwards: The great moderate middle ground is highly fractious, and thus does not comprise a predictable "majority" of anything. To win a significant element of these people, we must appeal to them as we do libertarians and conservatives by appealing to the person and the person's long-term best interest.
CH| 3.12.09 @ 10:35PM
The squishy middle/the mushy middle; Frum fits the bill.
Cottoneyed| 3.12.09 @ 10:37PM
An earlier c0mment stating that Rush was not the leader of the Republican Party but is the leader of the Conservative movement is spot on. His devoted audience would say that they are American's first, Conservatives second. The GOP is infected with David Frumism, and as such has little in common with true Conservatives, who make up Rush's audience. Frumism's result was in evidence, last Nov. 4. The GOP would do well to take heed of a Rasmussen Poll taken right after the election. It found that 59% of respondents agreed with Reagan's assessment that "government is not the solution, government is the problem". Only 28% disagreed. But what was truly amassing was that it found that by a margin of 44% to 40%, even obama voters agreed with that sentiment! 43% of voters view it as a positive to describe a candidate as being like Reagan, while just 26% considered it a negative. Being compared to Reagan was rated higher than being called "moderate" , "liberal" or "progressive". Ronald Reagan is still extremely popular, and the GOP would do well to recognize this fact. Frumism is the polar opposite of Reaganism. One is an overwhelming "winner", the other an overwhelming "loser". Anybody who has listened to Rush knows that he daily, espouses Reaganism with clarity and gusto. Frumism or Reaganism, not really a difficult choice, is it, "David"!
Ran| 3.12.09 @ 10:58PM
Cotton - Thanks for bringing that to our attention. If the Rasmussen pol numbers are reliable, it appears to reflect the idea that "moderate" McCain was less appealing to many swing voters precisely because he lacked Reagan's Conservative message. Your thoughts?
ThinkTank| 3.12.09 @ 11:51PM
And he's not even one of us - he's.... Canadian!
That's right - he's - ONE - OF - THEM!
TROBOB| 3.13.09 @ 12:04AM
There is a reason we lost this election. Most Americans believe that if the choice is between a liberal and a pseudo-liberal such as John McCain acted like during the campaign and has acted like in the last ten years, the people would just as soon have the real thing. Basically, I look at it as a wake-up call. Obama's election may just turn out to be a good thing in the long run, because it might just wake the GOP out of its slumber. At least I hope so.
If not, we were just going to slow the bleeding enough to die a torturous death.
BD57| 3.13.09 @ 12:07AM
Love the description of "independents" - "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" ...
Is Harry Reid "socially liberal, fiscally conservative"? Nancy Pelosi? Chairman Cholly? Teddy Kennedy? Joe Biden? The President?
Who, exactly, have Democrats been running to draw this "demographic" to their party?
Where are the elected officials who embody this "philosophy"?
If "social liberal / fiscal conservative" is where victory lies, why aren't the Democrats pursuing this "middle way" now that they control both houses of Congress and the Executive? Why do they seem hell bent on the whole spectrum of "social & fiscal liberal" policy when "social liberal / fiscal conservative" is the way to go?
Basil Plumley| 3.13.09 @ 12:46AM
@ Ran
What we Conservatives have to realize is that we are at war. It isn't so much a conventional war as much as an asymmetrical war.
We are treated to pablum from overt Lefties like Jeremiah, Interloper, Jharp, and others. We are also subjected to posts from phonies, frauds, and poseurs who like to claim they are "moderates", "independents", demoralized fiscal Conservatives like Bob, Erin, and a few others.
The former are basically adolescent "hair-pullers" with no regard for truth, facts, or political reality/history. The latter are basically the same except they specialize in the half-truth. Bob is quite exceptional at this dishonest tactic. It is one reason he never really defends his premise while making personal attacks or denigrating one's education. He claims to be a success in the business world yet seems to have a stridency that is unmatched. Bob hates being challenged.
In the business world, he would have to undergo hours of sensitivity training or be let go.
I also tend to notice he never posts on articles concerning bad economic news such as Dow breaking the 6500 barrier. He never picks on Obama yet I have read several of his posts claiming Reagan is a myth. His economic ideas are solely tax and spend. Yet, he claims to be a conservative. Riiiiggght!
They can never beat us with ideas or principles so they resort to the next best thing; demoralization. They impugn the sins of the RINOs on the Conservative Movement (yes, some Conservatives did not do the right thing). They engage in the politics of personal destruction. They take a line out of context and try to gin up hate. They prey on the emotions of people and rely on envy to carry the day.
They try to lead us to the "leaders" they want us to follow (See John McCain, David Frum, et al.) and away from folks who are really embrace Conservative principles. Thus, Limbaugh is drug addled, fat, blah, blah, blah and McCain is the best/only hope the GOP have to beat the Dems in November. McCain will appeal to Dems and Moderates (yeah, he went over really well, didn't he. What did you expect; no leadership).
However, ask yourself one question; why is it they never want Conservatism to succeed?
The answer is rather simple; it makes Liberalism irrelevent.
The Left is worried, why else do they grace us with their presence. Divide and Conquer.
They never tell us who they really are until they gain power.
The Left is worried that we Conservatives can have a Renaissance. The right leadership and conservative ideas will do the trick. Bad and/or ineffectual leadership will doom us and this country. Hence, the attacks from the Left.
Don't let the bastards get you down.
ruth| 3.13.09 @ 12:58AM
Basil, eloquent summation. Thank you. ----Bob irritates me the most----
sk42| 3.13.09 @ 1:36AM
I thought David Frum was spot on in his article. I don't know this Republican party anymore and I don't think Barry Goldwater would either. He and Reagan had intelligence and integrity. Rush Limbaugh should not be the spokesperson for the party -- he is a clown and a showman. How the Christian Right can stand by mute when he is ranting his outrageous rhetoric amazes me. Their silence is stunning -- and telling. I am a Christian and his views and rhetoric offend me. I left this party last year and won't be back until many of the narrow-minded hypocrites who are running this party are gone.
CH| 3.13.09 @ 2:03AM
We don't want whiny losers like you anyway, 'Christian'. You belong in the party of infanticide, and your silence is stunning and telling. Shame on you, Monster.
Deborah | 3.13.09 @ 6:12AM
Thanks so much, Mr. Plumley. Yeah, after a while, all this crapola that is spewed on this website by the left becomes a serious distraction. That's when ignoring becomes necessary.
Like I said the other day -- they want us to hang separately. Our country is the most important thing. That's what conservatives, Republicans and normal Democrats (as opposed to the crazy left-wingers that are currently running it) should be able to come together on. Along with libertarians and whatever group I've left out.
Cheers!
Pingback| 3.13.09 @ 7:14AM
Greatest Hits: Mar. 13, 2009 - Whatever Is Right links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
aware| 3.13.09 @ 7:14AM
Bilwick...You have peeked behind the curtain and will never believe the Wizard(State) again. Most posters here are mesmerized with the sham of the Left/Right political horse race. They believe the campaign promise of "conservatism" about smaller government and "Constitutional constraints". But the reality is that government gets bigger in their hands too. They aren't as worried about the State itself as they are what it is doing(and who it is doing it to).
Nor do they understand that every page added to the Federal code book is another milestone in the loss of personal liberty. Every rule amended to the Federal tax code means more money taken at gunpoint from the rightful earner of that money.
Their noses have become used to the stench of systemic corruption.
It is painfully apparent that modern conservatism is shipwrecked for one simple reason...it has not lived up to its promise. It has sold its principles in the pursuit of power. As you can tell by some posters here, it is being pushed to abandon the last vestiges of principled honesty to engage in a bidding war with the Left to hand out money and favors at the Federal trough. Only more "pragmatically" by the use of "intellectual rationalism"(anti-anti-intellectualism).
This will prove to be futile as the Left has more experience and is plainly better at taking with both hands from you and giving back between two fingers, all the while convincing you that it has done you a great favor. In fact, that you could not even survive without its largess.
Robert Rosencrans| 3.13.09 @ 7:34AM
The end of welfare put people to work and saved billions in tax dollars. How is that not productive?
Pingback| 3.13.09 @ 7:46AM
Dead wrong | rockmycar links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Robert Vollowitz| 3.13.09 @ 8:06AM
BD57, you said this:
"If "social liberal / fiscal conservative" is where victory lies, why aren't the Democrats pursuing this "middle way" now that they control both houses of Congress and the Executive?"
As long as Republicans move closer to social conservatives, they don't need to go after the middle. With Dems around 39% and Republicans about 30% of voters, they just need to do enough to pull in about 1/3 of independents/RINO's to win. On the other hand, Republicans need to bring in 2/3rds of this group to win. The numbers, as usual, tell the story.
Basil, you are clearly wrong about "half-truths". I bring data to the analysis and break the lies (or stupidity) that you and others tell. Regarding not going after Obama, how many times have I said that the bailouts were wrong and that his budget is fiscally unsound? You are so biased you can't even read properly.
If Republicans would be fiscally responsible by paying for what they spend, I would vote for the Republican candidate in a heartbeat even if that candidate was a social conservative. That's why I show the charts so often.
HarryB| 3.13.09 @ 9:32AM
Since the Prez is a workoutaholic, cigarette-smoker, who used to have a drug problem, and is guilty of at least the sin of omission, if not flat out lying, I guess Rush and Barry have a lot in common, especially the messiah complex.
Bilwick| 3.13.09 @ 9:58AM
So let me get this straight, sk42: You dislike the current Republican party because it doesn't embody the philosophy of Barry Goldwater (which was essentially pro-freedom and anti-statist), correct? But you agree with the Uncle Daves that we should accept, or even actively collaborate, with the Alinsky protege in the White House? Aren't you in kind of a contradiction there?
Basil Plumley| 3.13.09 @ 10:11AM
@ Robert Vollowitz
If you are the same person who posts under the moniker Bob, then you are resorting to revisionism.
That Bob has repeatedly endorsed tax and spend policies to boost the economy. Tax cuts are bad or worthless. He also has a poor attitude about Social Conservatives. Any rebuttal by Bob never fails to cite Bob's academic prowess.
Your argument about "going after the middle" falls flat statistically as well. Obama won the "moderate" vote overwhelmingly and still won by 6%. Wasn't that the group of voters that was supposed to glom on to McCain?
How many Conservatives sat home because McCain did not appeal to them? A hint--it was a lot. Obama also got 20% of folks who voted for Bush in 2004.
My point was this is the time for Conservatives to unite on common ground; on common principles.
This is not the time to be petulant about the missed opportunities or blame this or that group of Conservatives. Folks like Bob desire to Divide and Conquer conservatives. They are willing to set apart the various Conservative factions.
Folks like Frum and others see Conservatism solely as an opportunity. With the vacuum of leadership, they set to change the Movement to their opportunist vision.
If you enjoyed the W years of leadership and missed opportunities then glom onto Frum and his merry band of pied pipers. I prefer to follow the vision of Reagan except with a 1995 GOP-led Congress.
The question then is for the Libertarians; will they get involved or find reasons to withhold their support? Can they afford the Left's ideas and rule?
Biwick1| 3.13.09 @ 10:14AM
B.--I don't see what's "hysterical" about pointing out historical truths, but I guess that's what makes for "hysteria" in the Bizarro Universe of your mind. (Where Teddy Roosevelt w3as apparently a Jeffersonian.) Read some Earth One history and get back to me. I recommend Arthur Ekrich's THE DECLINE OF AMERICAN LIBERALISM on how Croly, TR, Woodrow Wilson and other "Progressives" paved the Road to Serfdom here in America, or the sections of Jonah Goldberg's LIBERAL FASCISM on Croly, TR and Wilson, the influence of Bismarck. and the Progressives' admiration for European-style dictatorships. If, however, you want to stay in your Platonic cave and think so little of yourself and your own liberty that you like being under the heel of Daddy State, so be it.
Bob| 3.13.09 @ 10:26AM
Basil, I have never promoted tax and spend policies -- that is something you never read from me. I have said that tax cuts are not stimulative -- which is true given the data. I have also been against the bailouts and said that the Obama budget is not what I would do, but that some of the spending is stimulative. You need to re-read my posts.
McCain didn't get the middle because of Palin. If you look at the polling trends, Palin immediately gave him a boost because of the 30% of Hillary supporters that were angry at Obama. After the interviews with Gibson and Couric, most of those came back to Obama. At the end, the crossover vote was only 8% -- which was about the same as the crossover vote of Republicans for Obama (mostly RINO's like me).
As for social conservatives, my opinion hasn't changed. They're needed for votes but if they have their way, the party will never win again. If they are willing to compromise for a coalition, then Republicans can win. That's all that Frum is really saying.
b| 3.13.09 @ 11:07AM
Bilwick:
you are an anarchist or a nihilist or both I dont really know for certain nor do I care that much. Your view, and some other s that post here, of the role of govt in the modern world is frightening, I liken what I read coming forth from some of these posts as something akin to Chuck Palahunik's character Tyler Durden in his work Fight Club. Returning people closer to the original state of nature, that cold, unforgiving, and harsh world, (I have a very Hobbesian view of nature as opposed to Locke and his paradise) were govt. is virtually meaningless is not the world that I want to live in, nor a majority of Americans or human beings for that matter. So you can sit their in your cold, unforgiving and paranoid wilderness of the rugged self and be happy with that and disdainful of all of us slaves. Please do remember us and this modern world every time you spend cash though, or hop in your car, or use a medical service, or listen to the radio, or turn on your lights or post a freaking blog on this page, or fly in a plane, or ride on our highways or look at the images of space and amazing images of life at the bottom of the ocean. Yep, govt and the modern world is simply and invisible prison for us all, no other way to look at it.
Myself I do believe in the power of govt to do good things, to ensure and secure freedoms for individuals.. govt. and freedom are not mutually exclusive, that does not make me a statist or a fascist it simply makes me reasonable, which is exactly what your type of politics is not and that is what is hysterical about folks like you.
b| 3.13.09 @ 11:15AM
Jonah Goldberg...! give me a freakin break, you see I am a reasonable person I try not to fill my brain with nonsense.
b| 3.13.09 @ 11:28AM
Bilwick, Bilwick1: Since you disdain liberals and liberal as nothing more than American Fascists destroying personal freedom and enslaving the population why dont you read or reread if you have already, the history and some works by Edward Bernays, he was hired by lots of classic conservative businessmen to do the same things that I feel that you all believe people like herbet croyl and other liberals are responsible. Both sides engineer consent in this society and have for a long time, both liberals and conservatives manipulate and have manipulated public opinion to their ends throughout the 20th century,... by many of the same stanards Jonah Goldberg uses Ronald Reagan was also a fascist,.. all that being said do you think it is just liberal leaders "enslaving our country" or do you implicate leaders from across the spectrum, if you do indite all of our leaders throughout the 20th century then you must identify with the Tyler Durden character.
Rick | 3.13.09 @ 11:31AM
Frum is an insufferable elitist RINO, not a conservative. He admits he is willing to sacrifice any principle to get power. I don't care if the Republican party ever wins another election. It is not a conservative party. In fact, I hope it goes out of business, because Frum and his ilk are the enemies of conservativatism. RINOs are doing far more damage to the Republican party than even the liberal fascist propaganda outlets he writes for.
S.L. Toddard| 3.13.09 @ 11:46AM
JEREMIAH AND BOB: FYI - I haven't been posting here in over a month, since maybe Feb 2nd. There is a troll here who adopts other people's names and posts as them. I never called Bob "blow-bob" or whatever. I saw you also got into some scraps with him, Jeremiah. None of it was me. I don't use terms like "lib" or whatever else this clown said.
Imagine doing that - being that pathetic? Logging on and pretending to be someone else you only know through the internet? It's sad and the sort of thing one would expect of a stalker.
Anyway, none of the posts under my name - S.L. Toddard - have actually been me since the first couple days of February. It's been that same, sad, lonely troll.
Nick| 3.13.09 @ 12:04PM
Bob,
You need to re-read your posts.
In our past debates you have argued that we need to cut spending first. At the same time you say congress will never cut spending because they need to get re-elected. And it isn't moral to saddle our posterity with debt, so we have to pay for the spending with higher taxes. Also, didn't you recently question my morals because I don't believe taxpayers should be forced to pay for society's medical bills?
You may not like the moniker, but it sounds like "tax and spend" to me and to others.
And do you honestly believe after 220 years a presidential election was decided by the choice of vice-president?
It will always be you RINO's who compromise. You will have to decide which is more important to you: Your money, guns, and security(foreign & domestic); or abortion, euthanasia, and the mainstreaming of perversion?
b| 3.13.09 @ 12:14PM
Nick: What is wrong with compromise when it comes to policies? Do you really think that you have the magic bullet proscription, the all knowing wisdom of what is good and bad for our nation on any number of issues, don't you think and folks that hold such dire belief think that your own views if they were cemented into policy would also be a little fascist?
b| 3.13.09 @ 12:23PM
It will be us folks who are reasonable, who see the complexities of the world, who don't view everything in the world in pure black in white terms, it will be us who are humble enough to admit that our own take on reality is and always will be incomplete and that only through working together and yes compromising at times and taking stands at other times, seeking knowledge even though it may contradict our beliefs, it is these open minded folks that do the work of building a stronger nation out of 300 million, the only thing that I hear offered from types like you is nihilism and destruction.
b| 3.13.09 @ 12:25PM
nihilism and destruction couched with terms of freedom lover, true patriot blah blah blah
Bob| 3.13.09 @ 12:35PM
Nick, your assumption is that a "cutting spending first" position would result in spending not being cut? Here's what I would propose. Instead of politicians taking a "tax cut" pledge, have them take a "cut spending pledge" along with a "balanced budget" pledge. As I've said many times, cutting taxes only results in increased debt. I also assume that if people actually had to pay for things like the Iraq war, they might think twice before doing it. If you think that sounds like "tax and spend", then you've got something clogging your synapses.
Also, I talked about the morality of letting people die because they can't afford health care as a comparison to the morality of the abortion argument. Are you saying it is OK with you if the lack of preventative care causes a person who can't afford health care to die? By the time they go to the emergency room, it is too late. I believe that moral comparison is more than valid.
You cannot have a democracy without some compromise. It always takes a coalition to win an election unless you are a congressman in a solidly one-sided district. By the way, I've always been a hawk on security, I just believe pre-emptive war is un-American. In addition, I have never called for restrictions on gun ownership -- I certainly have one. Regarding the "mainstreaming of perversion", I don't have a clue what you mean. On abortion and euthanasia we disagree. My wife was the administrator of a nursing home and I've seen plenty of death in terminal cases. If my time comes, I don't want to be kept alive by artificial means unless there is a significant chance that I could have a good quality of life. If not, I'm just wasting medical dollars that could go to some young person who needed it more. I've told my children that when I die they should have a party and remember the good times. If my body parts can help someone else, then take them. Life after death? Hocus pocus.
Nick| 3.13.09 @ 12:37PM
b,
Not if they truly know what the definition of a fascist is.
And is everything negotiable? Is there not somethings that are off limits? Just because 50% + 1 say they want this or that doesn't make it right. That would be democracy. The Founding Fathers gave us a Republic. It requires moral and virtuous people to work. Certain truths are inviolate.
S.L. Toddard| 3.13.09 @ 1:02PM
I agree with Mr Flynn that the cause of the GOP's downfall were shabby stewardship of the un-conservative "failed president (Frum) dubbed "the right man,"" and the equally un-conservative "far-fetched utopian military crusades (Frum) advocated as "an end to evil,"" but blame must be placed equally on the credulous GOP base, who fell hook, line and sinker (yet again) for the standard (and now undeniably false) Fiscally Responsible and Conservative GOP vs Unpatriotic Liberal Democrat narrative they've been fed on talk radio for the last number of decades. As long as the - ahem - "conservative" base is so easily led by the leaders of this party of slick-talking used car salesman and snake handlers nothing will change.
In short, if you supported the un-conservative George W Bush, and if you cheered on the un-conservative War in Iraq, then YOU are to blame. Accept it.
Deborah | 3.13.09 @ 1:03PM
For those who believe in the benovolence of government, I suggest watching this short film on political systems: dictatorship, oligarchy, democracy, republic and anarchy. Short, to the point, excellent. Here:
http://www.flixxy.com/political-systems.htm
S.L. Toddard| 3.13.09 @ 1:05PM
"Nick, your assumption is that a "cutting spending first" position would result in spending not being cut? Here's what I would propose. Instead of politicians taking a "tax cut" pledge, have them take a "cut spending pledge" along with a "balanced budget" pledge. As I've said many times, cutting taxes only results in increased debt."
PRECISELY. If one cuts taxes without cutting spending, one has not really cut taxes - one has only *postponed* them. A conservative realist has two choices and two only: raise taxes to pay for government or decrease government to fit within the budget.
Nick| 3.13.09 @ 1:13PM
Bob,
You misunderstand my point.
Either vote for the democrat party, and lose your property, guns, and security; or vote for socially conservative Republicans, and MAYBE lose a bad supreme court decision (Roe), redefining marriage, sexual perversion of all kinds, the Culture of Death, etc. There is only so much a politician can do constitutionally to fight the culture wars after all.
Nominate a mushy moderate, who doesn't stand for much of anything and wouldn't give people a reason to vote FOR him, and you lose.
The democrat party is the party of death, pornagraphy, perversion, and appeasement. That's what you voted for, Bob, live with the consequences.
Again, you may have made your choice based on Gov. Palin, most people didn't. The GOP plank says it is a Pro-Life party, has since 1980, I think. Why is it such a problem now?
b| 3.13.09 @ 1:24PM
Nick: That is a big if,... don't you think you are arbitrarily assuming the best in human nature with those that might hold your view of power and politics (that they will get what fascism is and thereby avoid it) while with the same breath assuming the worst in human nature in RINO's and liberals, (they are stupid and don' get fascism so will succumb to it)? There are educated and uneducated folks on all sides.
Further I would like to define American fascist a bit further... now TR, Wilson, Taft etc might have been authoritarians, glory hounds, total elitists, what have you, to equate them with fascists in its Italian/Mussolini sense I think is way off base. It is as natural as the sun rising for groups of humans to galvanize themselves around an intelligent, charismatic and powerful leader or common league of leaders, this dynamic goes back to the dawn of history and most likely well into prehistory. So there is nothing sinister or conspiratorial about strong leaders rising up and galvanizing popular support based on nothing more than the person, the personality and the hype, Julius Caesar was more hype and hyseria, to put it cheekily (we see this again with Obama's rise to power). Our "fascism" as you put compared with that any other that has risen in the world has certainly freed more people from poverty, freed more people from tyranny, extended the rights of citizen in this country alone to more folks,... anyway maybe you get my point...
As far as what is negotiable and what is not that is an endless debate. Take guns for example, I fundamentally believe in the INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms to protect ourselves with the system disintegrates (like it did during Katrina) and to check the total power of govt. of local communities, and individuals. I also recognize that in many areas guns have become a serous public safety issue, i.e guns in urban areas that unleash wonton killing (160 inner city deaths in my hometown last year). Now I do not think that we should take guns away from citizens because our inner cities are be destroyed by this kind of violence,nor do I think that the problem is solely a gun issue (war on drugs, education, poverty, the broken family structure all contribute to this situation) but I do believe something has to be done,... we cant just let kids die by the hundreds in inner cities every year and do nothing because of the individual right to bear arms... so what do I think should be done , I think it should be like Dodge City and Wyatt Erp so to speak, if you wanna live in the urban areas where thousands of people are living piled up on top of one another, then maybe you should have to check your guns in with the local authorities or some modern take on this kind of policy.
Now with guns another huge issue, some of the most lax gun laws in the country exist in the border states, Arizona, Texas, NM. I have seen websites based in these states where you can buy an AR-15 with an RPG launcher attached to it (thankfully you cannot buy the grenade rounds).... Now I am all for responsible citizens owning these kinds of weapons, as a matter of fact if I had the spare cash I would probably pick one up, but the flip side of this is that Mexican drug gangs are outfitting themselves with these weapons, destroying that country quite literally and threatening the security of our own nation every day. Now should Arizona and Texas be able to sell these weapons as freely as they do given the crisis in Mexico and on our side of the border, should they be able to sell these weapons freely like they do knowing that these multi billion dollar a year drug gangs are going to outfit themselves like a paramilitary force and fight the US and Mexican authorities with them? I do not see how anyone could justify the gun laws in those states now, the Governors in those states should have acted long ago to stem the tide of weapons into Mexico.
So Nick would you compromise your belief in the individual right to bear arms a little bit given the fact that there is a public safety crisis in our inner cities and a total problem along our border?
Dai Alanye | 3.13.09 @ 1:39PM
Curses! I see I was too early in picking the most stupid statement in the thread. Here's the new #1: "Since tax cuts are not stimulative…"
I fail to see how any rational person could spout such nonsense. It's like saying that stopping a protection racket won't increase the prosperity of the businesses being bled by the criminals. And yes—the analogy is deliberately chosen.
Bob| 3.13.09 @ 1:41PM
Nick, if I vote Republican I am supporting a platform I think is partially wrong. If all RINO's like me continue to vote Republican, there will be no change in the party. Furthermore, for me, tax cuts without spending cuts are immoral and that's what happened with both Reagan and Bush. From a spending perspective, I don't see much difference between the parties. Therefore, I will not vote Republican until those like you on the extreme right realize that a coalition is necessary for the party to win. Besides, I just disagree with you on social issues.
The polls taken during the election were right -- Republicans are NOT fiscally responsible. When Republicans start pledging balanced budgets, I will come back EVEN if the candidate is a social conservative. Fiscal issues are far more important to me than social issues.
I did not base my vote on Palin. However, I thought she was totally unqualified to be VP because of her severe lack of knowledge. However, I was talking about an analysis of the polling data which showed she ended up being more of a negative than a positive in the election.
Palin is not dumb and is probably a lot brighter than McCain. If she spends this next 3 years learning something about national government, defense, economics, health care, etc., she could make a comeback. If not, don't expect my vote and people like me.
As I've stated many times, I also have a problem with presidential candidates who have not done well in school. Our children need examples and saying that school is not important to achieving the highest office in the country is a very poor example.
Bob| 3.13.09 @ 1:45PM
Dai, some people look out their front door and think the world is flat because it is "obvious". Do you? Why not?
I would like you to show me the graphical data (not a two point analysis), that proves your point that tax cuts are stimulative. Typically, the argument is that if you put more money in people's hands, they will be more productive than the government. But that is not proved in any of the data. GDP does not show that tax cuts cause an increase in the rate of growth and more importantly, that tax increases show the same or better increases in GDP.
So please let me know you are not devoid of analytical ability and show me how tax cuts grow the GDP and tax increases do not.
S.L. Toddard| 3.13.09 @ 2:17PM
It's that stupid leftist troll with Obama knee-pads posting under my name again. Stop stealing my moniker, thief! Stop your whining pretending to be me, the great S.L. Toddard.
S.L. Toddard| 3.13.09 @ 2:32PM
First off the above post ^^ obviously isn't mine.
Secondly, Bob, I agree with pretty much everything you've said in your last two posts, except for your decision to cast your vote for Obama. If you voted for Obama then you voted for a platform as well, and one which as un-conservative as the GOP's (if only more honest about it). If you were going to lodge a protest vote, why not vote for someone with whose platform you agree? I cast mine for Bob Barr, who I revile as a person but whose platform I supported 100%. Why did you not do the same?
Bob| 3.13.09 @ 3:01PM
S.L., because voting for anyone else is throwing your vote away. I refuse to support a party whose leaders are Limbaugh and Coulter, that doesn't have an alternative plan for the future, that won't recognize the reality of tax cuts without spending cuts, and that has been hijacked by religious whackos. To support this dysfunctional group would be akin to buying Oxycontin for Limbaugh.
When the party loses by a large margin in 2012, perhaps we shall see a change.
aware| 3.13.09 @ 3:08PM
"Your view, and some other s that post here, of the role of govt in the modern world is frightening"... we're not the ones with the nuclear pistol to your head, B. Your acceptance of your masters is not only scary but typical of "compromise". I ask you, with 9 Federal agencies
and several tens of thousands of bureaucrats in charge of "regulating" our economy, how is that working out?
In the 20th century 200 million people were "liquidated" by their own governments, not including wars. And most of the time the "people" selected their own butchers because of a naive belief in the benevolence of the State.
They believed, like you, that the State is the engine of civilization only to find out that it really represents the forces of barbarism. I won't even get into the concept of total war that your "modern" State has blessed us with. And if you think that our current central government would be considered anything but a nightmare vision to the Founders think again.
S.L. Toddard| 3.13.09 @ 3:10PM
Throwing your vote away? What does that even mean? Do you live in a battle-ground state?
Regardless, Obama would have won without your vote, therefore it was by definition inconsequential and "thrown away" anyway. Apart from that, you voted for a big government liberal who will appoint, if able, left-wing judges to carry out his agenda long into the future. You actively condoned and supported Great Society democratic-socialism - the very brand of democratic-socialism that has left our economy in ruins, our nation in debt and our military haplessly stretched across the globe. Granted, a vote for McCain would have been a vote for the exact same thing except in a more aggressively imperialistic and violent form, but why support an anti-conservative agenda at all? A vote for a third party would have been no more "thrown away" than the one you cast. On the contrary, every vote cast for a third party - especially one with a conservative platform - is one cast against the bloated, omnipresent, all-encompassing totalitarian welfare/warfare state. Instead you voted to further extend and empower it.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is like voting for the nicer of two Nazis.
S.L. Toddard|| 3.13.09 @ 3:12PM
@ Aware:
Have youread Sobran's "Reluctant Anarchist" piece as I just did? It's excellent, though I personally do not go so far as him.
S.L. Toddard| 3.13.09 @ 3:22PM
There you go again, Blow- Bob. You should know better than to throw your vote away. Idiots like you put Obama in office.
aware| 3.13.09 @ 3:23PM
Yes and I could say the same as he, maybe more. While I'm not an anarchist(neither is he) I am anti-state and pro market. I'm done with the mirage of the State as bringer of good.
I'm also a recovering "conservative" (whatever that is these days) and done with the Republican party(done with the Democons 30 years ago).
b| 3.13.09 @ 3:30PM
aware: it is impossible to have a discussion with folks like yourselves, you are fundamentalists and extremists, and as I mentioned earlier and you keep reinforcing it, you are on top of being a fundamentalist a nihilist. "200 million were liquidated by there own govt" so does that mean we do away with our own govt.
Added to that you obviously are totally ignorant of some of the factors that led to this crisis, read my earlier post about Credit Default Swaps (the real culprit in the credit crisis) it was precisely the lack of good govt regulation that led to the credit speculation bubble which had everything to do with the housing bubble. You seem to implicate anyone who believes in govt. as a Nazi, a Stalinist and that shows how truly ignorant you are.
You people are nihilists, or worse... what the hell kind of freedom that you want? One in which you never have to pay taxes for something that you do not agree with, one were you are your own supreme executive, legislator and judge? You all are very good about telling others how dumb they are, how idiotic the MS version and philosophy of freedom is, yet every time, at least on this forum someone tries to approach y'all to raise the level of the debate, to inquire as to what the hell your folks concept of freedom is you attack attack attack. So what s your concept of freedom and why do you have such a problem with the mainstream and modern idea of freedom?
b| 3.13.09 @ 3:36PM
Hey aware: markets and economy build nations do they? The market and private business will always know what is best for society huh? Markets and business that drive the economy will build a highway system, regulate interstate commerce, standardize our currency, provide for our common defense, sandbag levies, fight multi state forest fires, provide Hurricane relief, protect our coastal waters from over harvesting of resources, control air traffic, build the framework for the internet. To be anti-state, you are essentially anti-civilization, the state in whatever form it has manifested itself throughout history, goes back to the beginning of history and civilization. Without a state how can standardizing forces arise that give rise to economy and greater trade? Don't be such a generalizing idiot.
aware| 3.13.09 @ 3:53PM
b... the State was founded in violence and it sustains itself though violence. You show your contempt for people with your slavish praise of the State. In case you don't know the market was around long before the State. And so were people.
You give no credit to individual achievement and also show a shallow understanding of history and political theory.
And notice how I didn't call you an idiot. That's because I have no desire to have my view accepted by you. Just because you are ignorant as to the true nature of the State does not make me want to call you names. I just drop the pearls, trample if you wish.
Just keep believing in your Wizard and one day you too will find yourself on a flooded overpass with nothing but sign demanding that SOMEONE help you.
aware| 3.13.09 @ 3:59PM
b... kinda funny, you have the State you want. not me so why are you so angry?
S.L. Toddard| 3.13.09 @ 4:02PM
I'm anti-state (and anti-statist) as well, but consider it a necessary evil. As such, I believe the state must be decentralized and greatly reduced. The question is - and that Sobran addresses - how can one constrain the state, when the state is the ultimate arbiter? State nullification, a re-assertion of the right of secession, and a repeal of the 17th Amendment so that senators are no longer elected but appointed by their state legislators seem to me to be the best way to start. Localization is the key - we must empower the states against the fed, and empower the people against the state.
aware| 3.13.09 @ 4:08PM
Added to that you obviously are totally ignorant "of some of the factors that led to this crisis, read my earlier post about Credit Default Swaps (the real culprit in the credit crisis) it was precisely the lack of good govt regulation that led to the credit speculation bubble"... The Federal Reserve led the charge into the valley of death. With out artificially low interest rates(not set by markets) and expansion of the money supply this would not even be possible. In a true free market malinvestment is choked off long before it can wreak the whole economy.
Didn't you see my post about the 9 Fed agencies (U S Gov website)that rode herd on this from the beginning? Would 10 have made the difference? A 100?
Bob| 3.13.09 @ 4:08PM
S.L. -- you don't seem to understand. While I am fiscally conservative, I am socially libertarian/liberal. I will actually prefer the judges that Obama picks for things like abortion and gay marriage. The court has more to do with social issues than fiscal issues, right?
Furthermore, I want out of Iraq -- a place that a true conservative never would have entered.
All of this talk about socialism is fear mongering. Medicare is socialism, social security is socialism, the military is socialism, income taxes are socialistic, etc. We need solutions for health care which represents 16% of GDP. If we can't get that down to 10% or so we cannot compete on the world manufacturing markets and will continue to lose jobs. What Republican/Independent has that on the agenda? That will require a radical change. I want the U.S. to be competitive so that jobs will return here.
The Republicans need a health care solution or our fiscal health will never be competitive. We need a more educated electorate (which Republicans do not seem to want because of their anti-intellectual beliefs). Vouchers are not a solution for education reform -- they may help, but they are not a solution.
I have conservative alternatives on each of these that are far better than Obama's options, but the Republican party can't think of one. For example, I would get completely rid of the corporate income tax and instead, put in a revenue neutral sales tax (not a VAT). That would bring in taxes from foreign companies selling here that we now don't capture and help our competitiveness with exports. There would be an interim mandatory price reduction so that corporations would not have a windfall. For health care, I would look at systems like Taiwan where individual choice is still there but we get tremendous efficiencies and preventative medicine. However, I'd only include basic care and not advanced care -- I'd still have an insurance based system for that. For education, I'd provide full scholarships based solely on merit and financial need with twice as much offered for science, math, and health care for state schools where we have the greatest needs. In return, I'd have those graduates serve the country in some capacity for an equal number of years. I'm loaded with ideas based on merit and competition and productivity and individual responsibility.
The Republican party right now has absolutely no vision -- they can only look back to Reagan. That time is gone and the world has changed. We need new ideas.
aware| 3.13.09 @ 4:27PM
S.L. Toddard... I fundamentally agree. Though b. seems to think I'm for law of the jungle(something I suspect I would be better at than he ) that's not what I advocate. Power, to be kept in check, must be exercised at the most local level possible. Otherwise there is a wall of separation between the ruled and the rulers, as we have now.
I reluctantly agree with Sobran that the Articles of Confederation was superior to the Constitution, not in theory but in application. I would have no problem with our "necessary evil" if it followed the Constitution. But it doesn't and hasn't since almost the beginning and furthermore it has no intention of doing so. That is why it is a farce.
b| 3.13.09 @ 4:44PM
Aware: the state is an administrative apparatus and goes back to the earliest of and protoype for civilizations, the Sumerians, they had priest-kings that administered the state functions. There was no market before the state, civilization and the rise of elite classes of people within those civilizations. Before the state and civilization people were advanced hunter gatherers and most likely did not organize themselves into groups that were controlled by elites. It is the desire of elites for certain precious objects that is the driving force that started trade as we know it, and there were no elites in any real sense of the word in those ancient cultures that did not begin to practice the arts of civilization.
As far as the state being all about violence that is simply not true. The Sumerians did not build a civilization and a state based on violence, the earliest Egyptians did not found their state and civilization on violence, of course violence and war followed theses civilizations once they had been created but those were not driving forces in the establishments of those civilization. Now of course the state, the governing apparatus of civilization must have a monopoly on violence, you ever read any John Locke (or is he also part of the conspiracy against true freedom?)?.. you cannot have individuals collected together being their own jury and executioner.
As for the Federal Reserve, I used to think as you are professing now... so maybe that is one of the reasons that I am engaging in this debate with you, I am not trying to convince you anymore than you are me, but I do know that by debating like this both of our points of you will be strengthened and we both come away with a deeper sense of our own convictions (maybe you can understand it this way: I disagree with what you say but I defend to my death your right to say it). Anyway I came to the conclusion myself concerning the Federal Reserver that a)It is not some sadistic institution run by insane bloodsucking sadist who are hell bent on enslaving and harming people
and that b) these conspiracy theories are just to neat and tidy and have all of the benefit of hindsight and selective readings of history. I have read many books and articles about our banking system, fractional reserve lending, Jews and Templars, many crazy some very legitimate.. I have seen money masters, and may other documentaries trying to find the truth about the nature of our civilization etc. etc. (IF anyone has not seen this series I highly recommend Adam Curtis: the century of self), but all of these works present history in such neat and tidy terms, they ignore the fact that history does proceed indiscriminate of anyone one person or group of peoples will and that a majority of history is made up of us reacting to this endless march of time. Is the FED perfect, hell no, I do not see why our US Treasury should not be the ones earning the interest/profit made from the issue of currency and credit but I also am not afraid to admit that I am not all knowing and all wise and so maybe I miss some things here and there. I do know that the FED and its issuing of a fairly stable currency and credit over the last 75 years has done more to free our own people from abject poverty, to raise the standard of living in this country than any other institution, this cannot be argued though I am sure that you will. Now you may just call me a slave, blah blah blah, but for me freedom is not what clothes I can buy, or what kind of car I can drive, or what the state can do for me (though I do not know how I would have financed college with out the Dept of Education ...you see my family is poor, poor hillbillies rural folk from southern Missouri they would never have been able to finance my way through school.. and so I am grateful to society for that ability to pursue a higher education...) freedom for me is something much more intrinsic and non-physical, metaphysical almost.
b| 3.13.09 @ 4:52PM
Aware: it is hard to believe that you do not want the law of the jungle, you seem to barely have faith in the constitution and look to the articles of Confed. as some more pure form of political organization, though I wonder if you were living under the articles if you would blame all of the problems that that system did and would have based on the same argument you use against our current system, and that your next step back towards a more pure government would be maybe the Iriqouis confederacy or the monarchy, and so on and so on. So you do not want to revert to the law of the jungle (and yes you are right I would probably suck living in a world such as that but I am alright with that, I know my limitations [lol])
Nick| 3.13.09 @ 6:01PM
b,
You seem to have confused me with someone else. I never wrote we are living under fascism today.
Also, I would really like you to show me an AR-15 with an RPG launcher attached. Maybe what you saw was an M-203 grenade launcher?
It is precisely your myopic view of our murder problem and your willingness to give up some rights for a little security that has brought this country to the depths it has sank.
Were you being serious about checking in your firearms with the local authorities?
So let me get this straight: FELONS, who by law can't possess guns, but run around with them anyway, and have no qualms with killing people, felons are going to turn them in to law enforcement when they come home? Can I sell you something? Anything?
Here's a crazy idea, try locking them up and throwing away the key. And for the ones who are a danger even in prison (like gang members), execute them.
There was a time in this country when serious crimes were punished like this: 10 years first offense, 20 yrs. 2nd, 30 yrs. 3rd. That's 60 years for 3 crimes for those of you in Rio Linda. That is how you end the "gun" problem. It was a lot better than 3 strikes and your out.
Nick| 3.13.09 @ 6:21PM
Bob,
I understand perfectly well that a coalition is needed to win.
I know that people like me will not support someone just because they have an "R" behind their name. We will not support people whose views are antithetical to our God given rights.
I also know that people to the right of me have a much lower threshold of what will trigger their support being withdrawn.
Lastly, I know you guys in the middle will usually pick money over abstract points of constitutional law and metaphysics.
aware| 3.13.09 @ 6:54PM
b... What I want is for, not only the people, but the government to live UNDER the law. This it clearly is not doing and now we have a problem. Because we have ceded so much power and control to the State and the State is now the ultimate arbiter(No real checks and balances with judges legislating, executives sending bills to Congress, and Congress believing that Constitutionality means whatever the consensus of the moment is) how do you convince it to reform itself and become a law abiding(i.e. Constitutional) entity? This brings us to another ugly reality... the Welfare State is incapable of any meaningful reform. Such States soon or later collapse under the weight of promises it can no longer pay for( Roman retrenchment from 240 through 450 A.D., Byzantine collapse from late 800's through mid 1400's as two examples).
The State expands itself through perpetual crisis. This is a prime example playing out now.
The banks don't need deposits to make loans thanks to the Fed. Savings instruments pay nothing in the way of returns, and it's been that way for a while, because they don't need your money. Banks have to pay for the money to make loans. With savings(actual money) it must pay 2 to 5% to loan on a mortgage that returns 5 to 8 or more %.
Through the fractional reserve system the banks can "borrow" from the Fed at what is now effectively 0%. But this "money" has to come from taxes or printing(fiat) or borrowing(just a promise of a future tax). It is basically taken from the person who earned it, who could have deposited it and made a profit on the bank loan. Instead the bank and the government are the only ones doing that and it is not even their money, the real owner gets nothing but he threat of imprisonment or worse if they don't pony up the right amount at the right time.
And oh yeah, they will be deciding what that amount and time is to be.
With this money(mostly borrowed) the Fed, with some help from the gov as judge of "fairness" types, then flooded the credit markets with cheap money, and lots of it, in applying the standard interventionist weapon against the recession of 2000 to 2001. They opened a bar then invited the drunks. Now that the cops are here they're blaming the drunks AND bailing them out.
They are trying their level best to invite them back to the bar even as we speak.
This is just one thing and it's already too long a post, but I could say even more on too many other things the State claims it does to keep the wolves from tearing we poor people to pieces.
But just from this can't you see how utterly corrupt this is. And how it spreads its corruption and makes it "legal". No it is dirty and rotten to the core. It is immoral on a gigantic scale. And it causes otherwise good people in join the immorality, even compels them!
I can truly say it is the only thing I loath and hate.
aware| 3.13.09 @ 7:11PM
Also b., some of the examples in your earlier post did not have political systems that can be considered as States, in the modern sense.
This monster version was born in the French Revolution and is strongly intertwined with the growth of modern Leftism. It is their weapon to remake the world into Utopia and the key to stopping their mischief. If we cannot subdue the State we will never subdue the Left.
Bob| 3.13.09 @ 7:45PM
Nick, that is a wonderful explanation which characterizes our differences. It also characterizes the differences we see on this board. You believe you know the truth, and I am always in search of the truth with the knowledge that I will never know fully. That's why you social conservatives cannot accept data that conflicts with your positions. So when I show concrete data that tax cuts are not stimulative, you must say that I am a fool because you believe Reagan was a mini-God. But I let the data lead me to a conclusion. It would be easy to take the "world is flat" approach like you guys do -- whether it is with Reagonomics or evolution. I can't do that. I was trained as a mathematician and scientist. I look at the data and try to connect the dots. I look for evidence to prove why those dots behave as they do. Therefore, I don't rely on ideology.
Over four decades ago in college, given that I was a theoretical mathematician, I wrote a paper on the definition of "The Good" using set theory, n-space topology, and probability theory. Obviously, it was in a philosophy class. It was based on the premise that societies operate in a fashion to create the least friction through adaptation.
Thus, I could never be an adherent of either the extreme right like you, or the extreme left who also utilize ideology over reason and discovery. You've seen from my posts that I am not "mushy" at all. I "believe" in the rational logic and deduction that comes from analysis and cling strongly to that view. I go where the data leads me. You guys err if you think that people like my can't make up our minds and we vasilate. We don't. We look for people to use non-metaphysical logic and data to change our minds, but in the absence of that data structure, we are not movable.
No one here has shown a mathematical correlation between tax cuts and GDP growth. For you, it is a belief based on the "flat world" theory. That is, if you look out your front door and the world appears flat, then it is obviously flat. You can't seem to understand that the obvious viewpoint that more money in the hands of businesses is stimulative might not be true when you step back and get some perspective.
The usual reason for that is that other factors are more influencing than the specific factor you are considering. In the case of GDP, business innovation, a mutually exclusive variable, is much more highly correlated. This explains the productivity increases in the 80's, the internet boom in the 90's, and the housing bubble in the early 2000's as they relate to GDP growth. In fact, in this system, tax cuts may be a negative effect as the increased debt resulting from them help fund other countries through them holding our debt.
You believe the country will be better through your metaphysically based ideologies, and I believe an open search for the truth, unbiased by ideology, will lead to a better world.
How's that for a metaphysical discussion?????
S.L. Toddard| 3.13.09 @ 10:45PM
You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the a$$, clown. Blow-Bob.
Nick| 3.13.09 @ 11:30PM
Bob,
I've told you before, I'm no expert in economics and believe alot of it to be hocus pocus. That is why I don't debate you on the financial threads.
Your bias against people of faith clouds your thinking. In our first row, after I mentioned my Roman Catholic faith several times, you castigated me that this wasn't a Catholic blog (I never claimed it was), thus showing your prejudice. So call us "whackos" all you want, we expect as much.
You attribute to me things I never wrote. I don't subscribe to a "flat world theory". I go where the data lead me also. I have to in my line of work, heating and A/C repair. Electro-magnetism, properties of gases, fluid dynamics, mechanical engineering- no room for belief there. It either works or it doesn't.
Except for my faith, I'm a "believe it when I see it" kind of guy. Although I've seen some miraculous things in my day that confirm my faith.
In my youth I believed in UFO's, ghosts, ESP, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, evolution, the JFK conspiracy, etc. Why? Because I wanted them to be true. Now I demand proof to accept anything.
MT| 3.14.09 @ 12:18AM
Trust but Verify! The brilliant Reagan's hallowed words ring again.
Weed| 3.15.09 @ 12:28AM
Glad you told David about the whole joke of Rush being the head of GOP. Apparently he is only one who did not get it.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 3.15.09 @ 9:57PM
If David Frum is a conservative, then I'm a transsexual Bolshevist.
Pingback| 3.16.09 @ 4:42AM
Secrets Of Wealth » Blog Archive » Responsible wealth links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.17.09 @ 9:40PM
Secrets Of Wealth » Blog Archive » Listen to gospel music links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.18.09 @ 1:13AM
Secrets Of Wealth » Blog Archive » Main points of wealth of nations links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.14.09 @ 11:34AM
Horses, Flies And Parasites: A New Approach. | 7Wins.eu links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 6.11.09 @ 1:05PM
Frum bad to worse « JimEltringham.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 8.23.09 @ 8:34PM
California Chem Clouds | Chemical Agents links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 9.17.09 @ 7:52PM
Online Nursing School and Career Prospects « Wicked Blogging links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
jhjhg| 11.26.09 @ 9:43PM
Mac TOD Converter,
TOD Converter for Windows
Trackback| 1.4.10 @ 8:05PM
Wedding Planning On A Budget, on Wedding Planning On A Budget, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.18.10 @ 6:13AM
Michelle Malkin » The uniter: Scott Brown’s center-right-indie coalition links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Hotels InToulouse | 4.8.11 @ 1:33AM
Hotels InToulouse