-
The Inoperative Jay Carney
May 23, 2013 | 135 comments
-
IRS Union Chief Stonewalls
May 21, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?
May 20, 2013 | 70 comments
-
The Liberal Union Behind the IRS
May 16, 2013 | 146 comments
-
Cumulus Media: Suicide of a Company?
May 14, 2013 | 64 comments
Political Hay
Is Sarah Palin the Next Ted Kennedy?
The ability to drive the other side crazy.
“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be
forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated
lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in
midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about
evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of
government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on
the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is
often the only protector of the individual rights that are the
heart of our democracy.”
— Senator Ted Kennedy
“And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The
sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I
know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down
Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so
his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of
their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy
of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”
— Governor Sarah Palin
The story is about Winston Churchill.
The British statesman was a guest at a dinner in a private home. The dinner hour arrived and the guests made their way to the dining room. Churchill moved to a chair along the side of the table. Mortified, the hostess was quickly at his side, gesturing to the empty chair waiting for him. “Mr. Churchill,” she said, “your seat is at the head of the table.” To which Churchill responded in typical Churchillian style. “Madame,” he said, “wherever I sit is the head of the table.” And with that — the Great Man sat down where he was.
The story comes to mind as Senator Ted Kennedy is laid to rest amid praise that he was the “Lion of the Senate,” a man of whom it is said that when he spoke, a nation listened. Neither the Senate nor the nation necessarily followed — but they did listen.
Whatever one’s view of the late Senator, it would be hard to dispute this assessment. The famous statement he made within minutes of President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court is perhaps a classic example of this. Conservatives assailed Kennedy at the time — and it has been cited all over again in recent days as one of his less glorious moments as a senator.
Yet in fact this criticism of Kennedy’s Bork statement misses a very Churchillian fact.
Whether you liked what Ted Kennedy said that day or hated it, whether you loved Ted Kennedy or couldn’t stand him — millions of people paid attention to him when he said it. In fact, in that instance for better or worse, depending on one’s politics, Kennedy’s statement signaled not just that Bork would have a difficult time being confirmed. His blunt remarks from the Senate floor set the stage for Bork’s outright defeat, something initially considered impossible at the time. After all, Ronald Reagan was a popular president and Robert Bork was commonly considered by even opponents to be a legal giant. With his startling speech from the floor of the Senate, the sheer power of Ted Kennedy’s personality and rhetoric changed the course of history.
This is precisely what Churchill meant when he (perhaps rudely) told his hostess the obvious truth of the evening. Winston Churchill was dining in her home, and no matter where he sat, no matter whether he was in office or out, no matter the other guests, he quite indisputably would have the attention of everyone else at the table. He was, after all, Winston Churchill.
This is a rare quality in political leaders. In reality it’s a human trait, not a political one. Your Aunt Sally could possess Churchill’s “head of the table” characteristic and not your Uncle Jim. Yet in the rarefied world of politics, where there is by definition a handful of nationally prominent politicians at any given moment, possessors of Churchill’s “head of the table” trait stand out.
They possess, as did Winston Churchill, an unquantifiable capability that can not just electrify a room full of supporters but send them into passionate fits of ecstasy — while simultaneously sending opponents into a furious, foaming rage. If these politicians master the art of using this quality, they can instantly play a huge role in anything from a winning political campaign to driving a piece of legislation across the legislative finish line. Or stopping it.
By now, a year after her emergence on the national scene, it is crystal clear that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has this “head of the table” gene in spades. She is, in a remarkable way, the real heir — make that heiress — to Senator Kennedy. She is charismatic, she has a decided point of view and she is a lightning rod for controversy. Just as Kennedy managed to sink a once sure-thing Supreme Court nomination with his famous Bork speech, Governor Palin has managed to explode Section 1233 of the ObamaCare House bill with her vivid description of “death panels,” severely damaging the President’s entire legislative priority in the process.
Ted Kennedy was in fact always one of 100 senators at any given moment in his senatorial career. Any one of the other 99 could have been a star at the same time. In fact, only a handful had any lasting impact over the decades, most simply treading water in the historic body leaving nary a footprint behind. Sarah Palin is one of a number of nationally prominent Republican leaders, a field that includes senators, congressmen, governors and party officials. Most Americans had trouble at any moment from 1963 until this past week identifying more than a handful of U.S. Senators — but everybody knew Senator Kennedy. So too is Sarah Palin an instant standout among her Republican leadership peers, most of whom are unidentifiable to the vast American public.
It takes nothing away from Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee or Tim Pawlenty and others who may be presidential candidates the next time around, all of whom have had criticism of ObamaCare, to say that it was Sarah Palin almost single-handedly who has dealt a once hugely popular president a stunning defeat on a major aspect of his key legislative program. A feat accomplished she accomplished with a simple Kennedy-esque “Robert Bork’s America” style posting on her Facebook page.
In an article applauding Kennedy’s Bork speech, written after the Senator’s death, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin says in the New Yorker that Kennedy’s speech “was crude and exaggerated, but it galvanized the opposition as nothing else, and no one else, could”
Toobin, a liberal, is applauding the result — keeping Bork off the bench — because he agrees with it. What he overlooks here is that what Kennedy also launched that day was a way of speaking in the television soundbite age that might be labeled as visual shorthand. Toobin describes it exactly, however — a “crude and exaggerated” portrait of the issue at hand. The one word Toobin left out was effective, which Kennedy’s Bork speech most certainly was. Like Ted Kennedy, Sarah Palin has demonstrated her mastery of this political skill. Have liberals taken offense at her death panel description? Are you kidding? They are beside themselves with anger. But in true sauce for the goose and the gander style, if this “crude and exaggerated” technique can be used by Ted Kennedy to keep Robert Bork off the Supreme Court, Sarah Palin is well within the boundaries of acceptable political dialogue to describe the Obama health care plan as promoting the use of “death panels.”
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (211) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/01/is-sarah-palin-the-next-ted-ke
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
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
stephanie| 9.1.09 @ 6:23AM
Thank you Sarah.
Good Riddance To Kennedy| 9.1.09 @ 6:59AM
Ugh! I hope she isn't. Last thing I want to hear about is some guy drowning off a bridge in Alaska somewhere... or a "waiter sandwich" with some bimbo senator... or a vote to abandon millions of Afghan "sand people" to the tender mercies of the Taliban.
Samuel af Ugglas | 9.1.09 @ 7:23AM
Please Mr. Lord, whatever a comparison to a Kennedy keep Mrs. Sarah Palin out of it. She´s far above that other persons maoral whose name is not suitable to mention in future references.
Big J| 9.1.09 @ 7:29AM
Whew! Just reading the title to this article started to get my blood boiling. I am happy to report said blood is back to normal.
Posters, don't miss the underlying point here. Palin is a lioness. When she roars, like it or not, people hear it. Everywhere.
Liberals plagued with PDS frothing at the mouth and spewing vile hatred in:
3...
2...
1...
Go on. Spout the hatred that even you can't justify the source of.
She cannot be stopped, plain and simple.
I think it's fantastic!
Pingback| 9.1.09 @ 7:41AM
Sarah Palin as the Next Ted Kennedy… « DaTechguy’s Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Melvin| 9.1.09 @ 7:43AM
Something to always remember about politicians or people in general. "No one is immune from themselves."
If people blow smoke up a persons nether regions long enough, that person tends to incline toward the, "Yea, maybe I am destined for greatness."
It takes a Strong will and code of ethics to resist these, "God" urges.
Could Sarah Plain turn into a Ted Kennedy? No one knows not even her.
But, eventually that path will present itself to her and it is up to her and her alone if she wants to go that direction or not.
Remember the old saying, "Power Corrupts."
Mary Louise| 9.1.09 @ 7:50AM
Not just you, Mr. Lord, but all other contributors here can't raise the profile of any issue the way she can.
One Obama fan here posted that the inauspicious August recess only portended success for the Democrats: it was their clever rope-a-dope stratergery. I thought it was really stupid as it was obviously a false bit of pep-talk.
Last week, can't remember who the author was (see what I mean?) who accurately summarized how the death panel tweet and what came of that was the real rope-a-dope.
Kennedy took some hits for his comment, and Sarah took some for her own. But she's in a position, much like Cheney. Like him or not, he can move conversation and issues.
Holder is going after Cheney. Krauthammer pointed that out in one of his columns last week. As he wrote, Cheney is Barack Obama and Eric Holder's white whale.
My money is on Cheney. I bet Carville's money is on Cheney too.
drudge ette obama| 9.1.09 @ 8:17AM
Mr. Lord, I am impressed with this article's premise. You've mixed psychology with history, here, and have done a very good job with it.
Nothing could be more delicious than to push this 'head of the table' concept by a comparison of Palin to Kennedy.
You can imagine the response from the NYT/NPR/Democratic Underground/Black Leadership Forum/Move-ON crowd which will scream, "how dare you?"
Infuse Kennedy idoltry with a dose of Palin and the mix will confound and confuse the public relations theme being forced on us all.
Pure animal magnetism is the quality that these people possess. They are interesting, fascinating to us all, and if they can harness their energies without self-destruction, a real challenge for the Kennedys, then they catapult to the top. The Kennedy name is not enough. We saw over the weekend a lot of BORING Kennedys, with Caroline leading the pack. It's a free country and good people have the right to be boring. Life would be exhausting, otherwise.
Keep making the comparison - it is highly effective in reducing Kennedy's post-mortem power and increasing the very alive Palin.
TennesseeVolunteer| 9.1.09 @ 8:24AM
Jeffrey, a home run. All of us great unwashed in the hinterland who went to everyday colleges, who work for a living, who hunt, who till our own gardens, who rake our own leaves have had it with the elite, hyper educated Haaarvaaard types.
Though this isn't your subject, Sarah resonates with us because she has common sense that everyday people have.
The backlash of the political elites is coming like a freight train, they won't even know what hit them.
I always kid many of my friends (not all!) that I would be more comfortable if they were President instead of Obama because I know they have earned everything in their life with common sense, hard work and honesty. They don't lie and they've learned enough about life to see both sides of the fence and to try to be fair.
People see this in Sarah. We know she isn't the smartest politician but she is honest and gets the big things right. You know, a lot of America admires her because of who she is, 'not who she says she is' like some politicians like T. Kennedy and our current President. And besides, she is one of the few people who has instant recognition when her first name is written or spoken. Everyone knows who "Sarah" is. Not even TK could say that.
Tim| 9.1.09 @ 8:39AM
Palin and Kennedy in the same piece? Rig for depth charges!
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.1.09 @ 9:21AM
Great Article! and some excellent comments as well.
I had to comment after Tim's comment. I burst out laughing!
WilliamInWien| 9.1.09 @ 9:23AM
Winston Churchill earned "the head of the table" based on his leadership during WWII. Not only that, he was an educated and sophisticated man who understood humor. Keeping in mind that a LION is a PREDATOR, the title fits the late Senator. However, one small incident I am aware of tells much of the Senator. When Teddy decided to challenge for the Democratic nomination, he was afforded Secret Service protection. For this task, federal agents might be drawn from numerous agencies. A colleague was assigned to Kennedy and spent many hours with the Senator and his entourage, providing security and protection. About a year later, after Kennedy dropped out, this agent saw the Senator at a "watering hole" in DC. Since he spent so much time assigned to Kennedy, he went up to say a simple "Hello". The Senator barely glanced in his direction and "blew him off", a professional who might have been in danger by protecting the Senator. Somehow, I cannot envision Churchill, Reagan or now, Palin, acting in such a manner. Oh, and we "idolize" people like the Kennedy clan because we only have movie stars and no real royalty in the US.
Mike Landry| 9.1.09 @ 9:24AM
Great article. I blame Kennedy’s Bork speech for the beginning of the politics of personal destruction. The difference between it and Sarah Palin’s health care description is that Kennedy aimed his colorful albeit unjust language at a person. Palin attacked an idea. I’ve read that at the time of the Bork hearings that after his vicious attack Senator Kennedy, in a private conversation, attempted to charm Judge Bork and his wife in the spirit of nothing-personal-it’s-just-politics. Mrs. Bork was incensed—this man had just attacked her husband’s honor and reputation and he wanted to be friends as though nothing happened. Whenever I hear about the late Senator’s legendary charm, I think about Mrs. Bork (and that fact that the Bork name has now become a verb, in part reflecting Kennedy’s despicable behavior).
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 9:48AM
Jeffrey -- interesting take. Yes, both Palin and Kennedy are/were populist ideologues appealing to the unintelligent among us. In that way, they are both like Glenn Beck. There is one big difference, however -- when Kennedy was under pressure, he never quit. When Sarah was under pressure, she folded like a house of cards.
But there is one more similarity -- populist ideologues can never win the Presidency because they will never win the vote of the moderates or educated in either party.
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 9:53AM
One more comment.... Both Palin and Kennedy receive attention just like reality television shows. People always like to watch train wrecks. They are just unindicted versions of Blagojevich or like the women in Real Housewives of New Jersey.
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 9:55AM
Bob...
One of our problems (obsessions?) in American politics is with the presidency. I understand why. But this obsession with who sits momentarily atop what Disraeli called the greasy pole obscures what is a serious truth. Some who never get there, or even tried (think Martin Luther King, for example) can do more than a president. Can, in fact, change the country dramatically from right where they stand without winning a single vote.
As to populist ideologues....I know what you are saying but in fact both Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt could be considered that...and they did make it, over virulent opposition.
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 9:59AM
Bob...
As to your second post....attention isn't just all, though, in the Palin/Kennedy case. Without question Palin's "death panel" comment - whether you liked it or hated it (and I loved it, having come to the same conclusion myself a bit earlier) - did some real damage to ObamaCare. That ability to move the ball - for better or worse depending on your point of view - makes these people much differnt than a Blago. Make no mistake about Teddy. His life may have seemed like a reality show, a trainwreck in waiting, but he was a serious guy who, like them or not, did serious things and moved the ball. That's a huge difference from a Blago.
Palin next, HAHAHAHAHAHA| 9.1.09 @ 10:05AM
Palin the next Kennedy?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH,HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Anthony| 9.1.09 @ 10:15AM
Your analysis of Gov.Palin is spot on, however you'd have done much better had you left out the tenuous comparison to the reprobate, Ted Kennedy, and stuck with Mr. Churchill.
I don't know what "gift" Ted Kennedy had exactly. He was heard because he was a liberal with a loud mouth with a famous name. The media gave this blubbering fool a platform that they refuse to give to Gov. Palin. Many of Kennedy's speeches morphed into incoherent rants, when he was off script. His more clever rhetorical devises were, I suspect, created by his bevy of speech writers.
Frankly, I resent the comparison to Kennedy, albeit, your attempt was well meaning. Gov. Palin has had to fight to be heard, all the while facing a disingenuous media, and a weak kneed Republican "intelligencia", ready at every turn to tear her apart. The gutless Ted Kennedy would have wilted decades ago if he had to endure the "Palin treatment".
If you're old enough, you might remember that after Chappaquidick, Kennedy was surrounded by an army of lawyers, that didn't allow Teddy to go to the bathroom without help. And when he did open up his mouth, he was appallingly incoherent. Kennedy always had a scrum in front of him when the going got tough.
If Gov. Palin had just 1% of the media fawning they gave Ted Kennedy, right now, she'd be planning an Alaska decour to the Oval Office, in advance of 2012.
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 10:31AM
Jeffrey, both Jackson and Roosevelt were war heroes like Grant and even Washington. Neither Sarah or Teddy were war heroes -- so I do not buy that comparison.
As you know, I think Sarah's "death panel" comment was simply dumb. Your support of that comment with stilted logic disregarding the preponderance of text (i.e., if it is 1% correct, it must be fully correct) is intellectually weak.
But to your second point that both Sarah and Teddy make an impact -- there is no question. Upon further analysis, however, the reason they make an impact is precisely because they are both populist ideologues who know how to excite their extremist base. In both cases, they have minimal impact on moderates and have have no impact on their opposing sides. In fact, they both get their detractors riled up. That's why both of their negatives are extremely high.
Watching both of them is sheer fun! It is just like waiting for Biden to make the next gaffe.
One thing you should note, however. It took many years for Teddy to learn how to manipulate the Senate. He was not effective, no matter what he said, during his first decade as a Senator. I doubt if Sarah has the patience to learn as Kennedy did. She will quit the first time she sees a hurdle or the road becomes too difficult to drive.
Off topic, however, I still don't understand why people don't use real logic and information to object to the public option and the health care legislation -- when you get into the details, it cannot work as a cost reduction tool. And cost reduction, is the major problem with health care in this country. Again, as a former insurance executive, I can tell you that there is no way to use public option rates as a cost comparison option since there is a huge difference in the census bases, i.e., since they cover different groups of people the rates will be different. Furthermore, there is no tort reform. Perhaps you can get a Phil Klein to talk to insurance actuaries to make this point in political terms.
Ken Silverstein| 9.1.09 @ 10:32AM
When Even Silence Is a Lie
All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting. -- George Orwell
From Ken Silverstein:
Katie Hussein Lauer | 9.1.09 @ 10:34AM
Great article. Sarah proves her effectiveness every time Keith Olbermann reaches for his smelling salts. I wish more people understood that; that the "disasterous interviews" said more about Katie, Charlie, et all, than it did about Sarah Palin. Then again, even if Obama had been Ghandi reincarnated Katie still would have been grumpy and shilling for her Bam Bam.
Michael L. Hauschild| 9.1.09 @ 10:48AM
Lord is lord (calm down, head of manner lord - small l). See Bob, I knew there was some reason I liked Palin, but Lord's allusion about Newt's being any thing representative of a table is at the wrong end of the alimentary canal.
stephanie| 9.1.09 @ 10:52AM
Hey Bob, thank goodness Sarah "quit" so she can speak her mind and point out the "death panels".
She couldn't have done that as Governor.
She is anything but a quitter. Sarah 2012!
stephanie| 9.1.09 @ 10:58AM
And Bob, we're all watching the over sensationalization of obama and his wife with the beautiful arms, gag me, just like those disgusting reality shows. Not because we want to, but because our freedoms are at stake.
The celebrity perpetrated by the MSM of the 1st mixed race prez is nauseating.
In some perverse way, I'm enjoying watching this train wreck.
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 11:01AM
PalinNext HA HA HA etc...
Thank you for proving the point!
wayfaring stranger| 9.1.09 @ 11:15AM
On face value, this was an interesting article. But I think "Palin next" had his "haha" key stuck in the on position. That happens when you don't have anything intelligent to bring to the party.
Comparing Ted Kennedy to Sarah Palin is just too much of a stretch. We've all read about Sarah's rise into the national spotlight. And Teddy's lifetime of despicable behavior is also well-documented.
The difference? Sarah's death panel comment was right on. Teddy's borking of a good man was just another pile of manure for someone to peddle.
Bengimin| 9.1.09 @ 11:20AM
What world famous men
said about the Jews
The Jews are the only people in the world who have found hostility in every country in which they settled in any numbers. The big question is - WHY?
Today it is taught in the schools that "Anti-Semitism" began in Germany in the 1930s after which they were deported. What is not studied is the fact that at one time or other the Jews have been expelled from every nation in Europe! When the Jews first began to immigrate to America the early colonialists in New York, Charleston and Savannah tried to ban their entry. Benjamin Franklin pleaded with the members of the Continental Congress to enter a specific ban against Jewish immigration into the U. S. Constitution to bar them for all time to come.
The Jews claim that they are "only" a religion. The truth is that the Jews are a RACE. Less than 30% are members of any Synagogue. Whether they are Orthodox religious, atheists, capitalists or communists - they still claim to be Jews - members of the Jewish race! Every race has inherited traits. In the case of the Jews they include trading, money-changing, usury, and a loathing for "productive labor" which is scorned as beneath the dignity of the Jews in their "bible" called "THE TALMUD."
The Jews have not changed since the days when Jesus Christ took up a whip and drove "the money changers out of the Temple." Jews have always united to form monopolies. Today they control all the department store chains and speciality shops along with the lucrative jewelry and animal fur trade. Jews dominate the fields of all precious metals such as gold, silver, platinum, tin, lead, etc. They will always ban together to drive Gentile competitors out of business.
Today America is being flooded with Jewish immigrants from Russia and even 20,000 per year leave Israel for the U. S. - all with dollar signs in their eyes. Jews have used their vaunted money-power to seize control of the Democratic Party and constitute over 50% of all its financial contributions. Today they are buying up more and more major U. S. companies. While only 3% of the population, the Jews control over 25% of the nation's wealth and this percentage rises every year. They are the only racial group totally organized to work for political domination over America.
Opposition to the Jews did not begin in Germany but dates back before the birth of Christ over 2,000 years ago! Study the statements made by "The world's greatest men." They reveal why the "wandering Jews" have made enemies out of every host country that ever accepted them.
CICERO (Marcus Tullius Cicero). First century B.C. Roman stateman, writer.
"Softly! Softly! I want none but the judges to hear me. The Jews have already gotten me into a fine mess, as they have many other gentleman. I have no desire to furnish further grist for their mills." (Oration in Defense of Flaccus)
Cicero was serving as defense counsel at the trial of Flaccus, a Roman official who interfered with Jewish gold shipments to their international headquarters (then, as now) in Jerusalem. Cicero himself certainly was not a nobody, and for one of this stature to have to "speak softly" shows that he was in the presence of a dangerously powerful sphere of influence.
and on another occasion Cicero wrote:
"The Jews belong to a dark and repulsive force. One knows how numerous this clique is, how they stick together and what power they exercise through their unions. They are a nation of rascals and deceivers."
SENECA (Lucius Annaeus Seneca). First century Roman philosopher.
"The customs of that most criminal nation have gained such strength that they have now been received in all lands. The conquered have given laws to the conquerors." (De Superstitione)
DIO CASSIUS. Second century Roman historian. Describing the savage Jewish uprising against the Roman empire that has been acknowledged as the turning point downward in the course of that great state-form:
"The Jews were destroying both Greeks and Romans. They ate the flesh of their victims, made belts for themselves out of their entrails, and daubed themselves with their blood... In all, 220,000 men perished in Cyrene and 240,000 in Cyprus, and for this reason no Jew may set foot in Cyprus today." (Roman History)
DIODORUS SICULUS. First century Greek historian.Observed that Jews treated other people as enemies and inferiors.
"Usury" is the practice of lending money at excessive interest rates. This has for centuries caused great misery and poverty for Gentiles. It has brought strong condemnation of the Jews!
BERNARDINO OF FELTRO. 15th century Italian priest. A mild man who extolled patience and charity in normal circumstances, he described himself as a "barking dog" when dealing with Jews:
"Jewish usurers bleed the poor to death and grow fat on their substance, and I who live on alms, who feed on the bread of the poor, shall I then be mute before outraged charity? Dogs bark to protect those who feed them, and I, who am feed by the poor, shall I see them robbed of what belongs to them and keep silent?" (E. Flornoy, Le Bienbeureux Bernardin the Feltre)
AQUINAS, THOMAS, Saint. 13th century scholastic philosopher. In his "On the Governance of the Jews," he wrote:
"The Jews should not be allowed to keep what they have obtained from others by usury; it were best that they were compelled to worked so that they could earn their living instead of doing nothing but becoming avaricious."
HILAIARE BELLOC, in the book THE JEWS, page 9
"There is already something like a Jewish monopoly in high finance ... There is the same element of Jewish monopoly in the silver trade, and in the control of various other metals, notably lead, nickel, quicksilver. What is most disquieting of all, this tendency to monopoly is spreading like a disease."
H. H. BEAMISH, in New York Speech, October 30, 1937
"The Boer War occurred 37 years ago. Boer means farmer. Many criticized a great power like Britain for trying to wipe out the Boers. Upon making inquiry, I found all the gold and diamond mines of South Africa were owned by Jews; that Rothschild controlled gold; Samuels controlled silver, Baum controlled other mining, and Moses controlled base metals. Anything these people touch they inevitably pollute."
W. HUGHES, Premier of Australia, Saturday Evening Post, June 19, 1919
"The Montefiores have taken Australia for their own, and there is not a gold field or a sheep run from Tasmania to New South Wales that does not pay them a heavy tribute. They are the real owners of the antipodean continent. What is the good of our being a wealthy nation, if the wealth is all in the hands of German Jews?"
POPE CLEMENT VIII
"All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor.
Then as now Jews have to be reminded intermittently anew that they were enjoying rights in any country since they left Palestine and the Arabian desert, and subsequently their ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live."
CS Lewis| 9.1.09 @ 11:29AM
A better article would have been: Sarah Palin, another Ronald Reagan? What the USA needs now?
Of course, if in your mind, there are no comparisons between RR & SP then such thoughts would not enter your mind.
Teddy was not fit to shine Sarah's shoes and I fail to see how you thought this would be a good comparison or even an interesting article. Starts odd and wanders all over the place.
And it made my blood boil just looking at the title because you were actually writing about the difference between good and evil. Might want to do a little work on that.
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 11:29AM
Stephanie -- so Sarah quit and she's not a "quitter". Brilliant logic. She couldn't do it as Governor? You're right -- she would not be reelected.
As for gagging, I have the same response when Fox News interviews Sarah or Cheney. According to the ratings, Fox News IS the MSM and the right wing extremists own radio -- so please get off that untruthful and incoherent rhetoric.
Rick| 9.1.09 @ 11:41AM
So we're supposed to praise Sarah for torpedoing something with a lie? Is that what conservatives stand for? Just wonderful.
Sarah Palin is a sorry joke.
green tea products | 9.1.09 @ 11:59AM
Pure animal magnetism is the quality that these people possess. They are interesting, fascinating to us all, and if they can harness their energies without self-destruction, a real challenge for the Kennedys, then they catapult to the top.
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 12:13PM
Rick...
And the lie would be?
Tim| 9.1.09 @ 12:23PM
It is precious how you can write something complimentary about Sarah Palin, and suddenly all over the net klaxons sound and lights flash, denouncers rush to the library, press the red button and slide down the batpoles ...
hardius| 9.1.09 @ 12:25PM
The way both sides are responding to this article proves your point.
xax| 9.1.09 @ 12:31PM
Good Riddance To Kennedy| 9.1.09 @ 6:59AM,
You beat me to it.
Fact Not fiction| 9.1.09 @ 12:43PM
Lexicon ▪ Special coverage ▪ Magazine
Anti-Semitism
Swastika in Zurich Photo courtesy of the Jewish Agency
Foxman: Anti-Semitism alive and well
Survey: 31% of Europeans blame economic crisis on Jews
Anti-Defamation League poll conducted in seven European countries shows almost half of Europeans believe Jews more loyal to Israel than countries they live in, 40% say Jews have too much power
Ynet Published: 02.10.09, 18:42 / Israel News
Anti-Semitic attitudes still prevail in Europe: An Anti-Defamation League report published on Tuesday showed that nearly half of the Europeans surveyed believe Jews are not loyal to their country and more than one-third believe they have "too much power" in business and finance.
The study further showed that 31% of the respondents across Europe blame Jews in the financial industry for the current global economic crisis.
Hatred
ADL sees 'pandemic of anti-Semitism' / Reuters
US Jewish leader Abraham Foxman says Israel's military offensive in Gaza answered with hatred, attacks against Jews 'from Austria to Zimbabwe.' Civilized world must stand up and say 'No' to condemn 'this vicious, hideous violence,' he adds
Full Story
The poll was conducted between the dates December 1 and January 13 among 3,500 adults in seven European countries: Austria, France, Hungary, Poland, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom.
Overall, 40% of Europeans in those countries believe that Jews have too much power in the business world, with more than half of Hungarian, Spanish and Polish respondents agreeing with that statement.
The findings were similar to those of a 2007 ADL survey that found significant percentages of Europeans continue to believe in some of the most pernicious anti-Semitic stereotypes.
"This poll confirms that anti-Semitism remains alive and well in the minds of many Europeans," said ADL Director Abraham Foxman.
"It is distressing that there seems to be no movement away from the constancy of anti-Semitic held views, with accusations about Jews of disloyalty, control and responsibility for the death of Jesus," he added.
"In the wake of the global financial crisis, the strong belief of excessive Jewish influence on business and finance is especially worrisome," Mr. Foxman added.
"Clearly, age old anti-Semitic stereotypes die hard, particularly on a continent which is witnessing a surge in violent attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions following the war in Gaza."
'Jews talk about Holocaust too much'
A comparison with the 2007 survey indicates that levels of anti-Semitism have remained steady in six of the seven countries tested.
The United Kingdom was the only country in which there was a marked decline. Meanwhile, the percentage of those believing that Jews "have too much power in the business world" increased by 7% in Hungary, 6% in Poland and 5% in France.
Advertisement
Overall, nearly half of those surveyed in the seven countries believe that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their own country. A majority of respondents in Germany, Poland and Spain believe that this statement is "probably true;" in Spain, it is 64%.
Large portions of the European public continue to believe that Jews "talk about the Holocaust too much." Overall, 44% of those surveyed believe this statement is "probably true". A majority of respondents in Austria, Hungary and Poland believe it to be true
Northern Rebel| 9.1.09 @ 12:47PM
I would have voted for Bob Barr or Ron Paul, before I voted for that weasel McCain. Instead, I voted for Sarah.
(Like it made a difference in the United Soviet Socialist Republic of New York.)
The libs are terrified!
section9| 9.1.09 @ 12:53PM
Actually, the way that Bob and other commenters quickly showed up to concern troll Sarah Palin into oblivion sort of makes the writer's point. She makes her enemies earnest to dismiss her, then when she won't go away, purple with rage.
Rick| 9.1.09 @ 1:16PM
"And the lie would be?"
Umm, death panels.
Kennedy 100% Palin - 0.01%| 9.1.09 @ 1:22PM
US Jewish group: Kennedy fought anti-Semitism
American Jewish organizations mourn veteran statesman, noting that throughout his decades in the Senate, Edward Kennedy stood by State of Israel's side. 'He was a staunch supporter,' wrote ADL's Abe Foxman
Yitzhak Benhorin Published: 08.27.09, 10:53 / Israel Jewish Scene
WASHINGTON- As the US mourns Senator Edward Kennedy, the Jewish community and friends of Israel expressed their deep sorrow at the passing of the veteran legislator, who had advocated for Israel throughout his 47 years in the Senate.
AIPAC published an announcement of the senator's death Wednesday in which it described him as "a staunch supporter of the US-Israel relationship and a true and longstanding friend of America's pro-Israel community."
Mourning
Peres: Kennedy death a loss to entire world / AP and Ynet
Israeli leaders pay tribute to last surviving brother in enduring political dynasty, one of most influential senators in history. 'He was one of Israel's greatest friends,' says PM Netanyahu
Full Story
"During his more than four decades in the US Senate, Sen. Kennedy consistently supported American assistance to Israel, particularly during the Jewish state's most trying times, in the wake of the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War," wrote AIPAC.
Kennedy spearheaded the struggle in Washington against weapons sales to Israel's enemies. He also vocally condemned the Arab League boycott against Israel, and sharply criticized the UN for isolating Israel. During his service as in the Senate, he pushed his colleagues to recognize Jerusalem as the unified capital of Israel, and cautioned against the threat of global terrorism.
The veteran statesman was one of the leaders of the struggle against Jewish persecution in the Soviet Union, a subject particularly close to his heart, even raising the issue personally in meetings with Soviet leaders during which he often requested that exit permits be granted Jews seeking to immigrate. He also demanded that the US provide Israel with loan guarantees to absorb the Jewish refugees.
Scott Martin| 9.1.09 @ 1:23PM
Great article.
I'll grudgingly accept your point about Teddy's gravitas, but what would he have been if his stronger and brighter brothers had not died young, and if the tawdry MSM had not propped him up? I venture to guess that he would have never come out of his bothers' shadows.
As for Sarah, the smartest thing she could have done was resign her governorship early, in order to do just what she is doing now: poking her thumb in the eyes of liberals.
Big J| 9.1.09 @ 1:25PM
Mr. Lord,
Of all the posts worthy of response, I would not have picked Bob or "Palin next ha ha".
I am sure you are aware by now that these are efforts in futility and a complete waste of valuable time.
As an aside, and great risk to "tooting my own horn", did I call it this morning or what?
So predictable.
Don't forget: T.E.A.M. America is almost up and running. A great place to go for a brief escape from the likes of Bob.
bring on the foolPalin, please| 9.1.09 @ 1:27PM
Bring on Palin, it would be good for the Republicans. The more foolish they are the better the chances for a win. Ha ha ha ha hahhahhah hah ha ah hah ah.
Oldefarte| 9.1.09 @ 2:05PM
The Kennedys were/are WINDBAGS who dupe ignorant morons into following them off the cliff of common sense. They have never WORKED FOR A LIVING but instead lived off of Old Joe's bootlegging fortunes and the government teat. They Pied-Piper their moronic lemings with their asininely worded tunes of HELPING THE POOR; and any/all Americans brainwashed by same are simply STUPID. Palin did not inheret money, and has worked hard for her meager financial fortunes in life. Her words are common-senacle and to-the-point; and that is why she is so popular. Kennedy made NO SENSE, whereas Palin is COMMON SENSE!!!!!
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 2:07PM
Big J -- Lord understands that I am a strong fiscal conservative. In your dint of nonobjective thought, you associate anyone who is a social libertarian to being a liberal. That is clearly a function of rudimentary comprehension. Teddy developed and passed more legislation than any other Senator in history. I don't happen to agree with his liberal stands on fiscal issues, but I can grant that he was effective. Palin is a quitter and intellectually lazy. She is simply the Paris Hilton of politics. I would not have voted for Teddy Kennedy under any circumstances and would not vote for "Paris" Palin under any circumstances. Why not try someone competent, like Romney. In the last election, I gave him my support and my money. If McCain would have made him VP, I would have voted for McCain. Palin was a game changer for me.
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 2:14PM
Oldfarte -- when you say Palin has "common sense", what you are really saying is that she lacks intellectual capacity. She is very popular among the right wing idiots just as Kennedy was very popular among the left wing idiots. Furthermore, when someone indicates another person has "common sense", it usually means that they happen to agree with them -- an intellectually lazy argument.
Joshy Painter | 9.1.09 @ 2:21PM
Bob, Ted Kennedy "quit" at Chappaquidick, and a young woman died because of it. When Sarah Palin resigned as governor, there was no loss of human life.
- JP
L. Ross| 9.1.09 @ 2:23PM
Palin for President!!!
Why not the MILF?!!!
Dai Alanye| 9.1.09 @ 2:32PM
An insightful article.
And you could have predicted, Mr Lord, that any positive-sounding statement about Sarah would bring out The Boob in his usual posture of political pundit, now posturing as an insurance expert as well.
We must never forget that Boob, despite his claim to be a fiscal conservative, was taken in by Barrack Obama—Messiah and Generator of Earthshaking Deficits. There can be no excuse for such a glaring mistake by any rational person. An intelligent child over the age of twelve should have seen through the hollow claims of The One.
Given this grotesque error, no-one should ever take the Boob seriously enough to attempt to reason with him—an act, in any case, equivalent to reasoning with a petunia.
PALIN FOR PRESIDENT 2012| 9.1.09 @ 2:41PM
Awesome. I just knew Lord's article would give Bob a pantload.
Thanks, Jeff; you made my day.
Liberal Reader| 9.1.09 @ 2:42PM
Sweet Jesus.
Is Palin another Ted Kennedy?
No, she's not.
There are many huge differences between the two figures. The most important is this:
Kennedy really WAS the "soul" of political liberalism in this country. He understood the political philosophy of the Democratic party and of liberalism as well as anyone.
Palin, on the other hand, doesn't seem to understand conservatism's most basic principles. She's memorized buzz-words, but she doesn't seem to have any control over their intellectual foundations (which are formidable and admirable).
The most important moment in the Couric interview was when she was asked about Supreme Court decisions other than Roe with which she disagreed. Palin could not respond.
This was disastrous for a conservative.
Conservatism's most prized complaint is that the Supreme Court since the 30s has overreached. That IS conservatism. For Palin to have NO answer to that question meant she does not know the most basic tenets of her own party's political philosophy. That's O.K. for normal party members; it will not do for a leader.
Kennedy, on the other hand, is the most successful legislator in American history: like it or not, the man knew the law, knew the Constitution, knew how government worked. Palin seems to have no understanding whatsoever of these things; what's worse, she doesn't seem interested in learning.
Josie| 9.1.09 @ 2:42PM
Bob, the vaunted "RINO" voted for Obama: Need I say more?
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 2:43PM
Like Barney Frank said, arguing with you, Dai, is like arguing with a dining room table given your total lack of intellectual capacity. When YOU have something rational to say, let me know.
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 2:44PM
Rick....
"Umm, death panels. "
ObamaCare is about government rationed health care. Or, as the president himself put it, taking one pill that's less expensive than the other because we can't get into judging people's spirit.
Well who exactly is the "we" here? Who is getting into the business of telling a patient they should take the blue pill and not the red pill? And why do they get to judge anything? The answer is "we" under this plan is the government, and the government is going to decide whether you are worth saving by rationing, end-of-life-counseling, cutting off your options. Read the bill. Also, take note of the case of Barbara Wagner in Oregon. Told by the state ObamaCare plan that they would not pay for her treatment, they were kind enough to send a letter informing her they would pay $50 bucks for the barbituates she could use to kill her self. Wake up, here, Rick. This amounts to a death panel - a perhaps vividly descriptive yet frighteningly reality that is being sold every time you hear the phrase "we need to cut costs." We do need to cut costs. Tort reform, not government rationed care, would be a starter. Fire a few lawyers, don't unplug Grandma. Then again, the lawyers gave more money to Obama than Grandma.
Roberto| 9.1.09 @ 2:47PM
Palin told the truth and blubber boy Kennedy lied. That's all that matters to me.
Linda B.| 9.1.09 @ 2:48PM
I thought this was a different article one I'm sure designed to elicit a response from both sides. Churchill came from an elite family and he had his problems and his faults, but he helped get England through a dark hour of her history. As for Ted Kennedy, he too was raised in an elite family. However, though much admired and glamourized by the press, once you delve into all of the things they did: Ted was sent by his father to West Virgina to offer each Sheriff (which is where the government of West Virginia resides at the local level.) cash to ensure the election would go to JFK.
During the debates JFK knew information that was privileged about Cuba. He used the information against Nixon who could not respond as it would have tipped the U.S. government's hand. Castro was watching so he knew from Kennedy's words what was coming. The troops were already being trained in the US for an offensive some 1,000-2,000 men from Cuba who wanted to be part of the invasion to take back their land. Kennedy went ahead with the invasion although he did not listen to his military advisors on how to proceed. The invasion was to have two separate air strikes. One in the beginning of the invasion to assist the landing troops and one later. On the night of the invasion, Kennedy with his brother Bobby orded the second invasion cancelled. This most of the military knew would doom the invasion. Three American planes took off and went down to assist these men whom they had trained. The invasion failed and the three American pilots died in the attempt. When the Secretary of Defense came into tell JFK and Bobby the news, Bobby was the spokesman for the President. His response was "Damn it I hope they all died." They were so afraid of anything getting out to tarnish JFK or his Presidency. The wives of these men could not get compensation since no one would recognize their deaths. It took a high ranking Senator from Texas who knew how the system worked to get them their compensation.
The Kennedy's came from a ruthless family so they learned how to play the game from both their father's father and their maternal grandfather or and by the way their own father. Their were also taught they could have anything including women who were often procured for them by their own father. It is also well know that JFK had prostitutes brought into the white house and even had the official white house framer make a portrait of him and his lady friends in the Lincoln bed. (All this information can be obtained through the Freedom of Information Act if you so to look and also through interviews and journals of those who knew them best or just read "The Dark Side of Camelot".
So, though I see where you are trying to take this I think Sarah Palin is a moral person who speaks her mind. Too few people know the real story of the Kennedy's and continue to eat up the bull the press puts out. Kennedy was of the world and the world's view is imperfect at best Palin is scorned by the world because she is not one with it. She walks a moral path based upon the decisions she has made and the topics she has chosen to address. Whether she becomes a candidate for the Presidency or not, she will still have an impact.
Micah| 9.1.09 @ 2:49PM
Now Bob the "RINO" is channeling Bwarney Fwank.
Kennedy, Obama and now Fwank are "RINO" Bob's heroes.
Cory Smith| 9.1.09 @ 2:52PM
Is it just me, or does every scan quickly past comments longer than a paragraph? Awesome article, very original thinking and observations. Thank you. She is quite the Mama Bear of politics as was Kennedy the crypt filled with escaping methane gas. Cap it! Tax it! No need to embalming fluid on that bloated one, he's already pickled!
Big J| 9.1.09 @ 2:55PM
Excellent post, Dai.
As for you, Bob: your intellectual superiority is becoming rather boring. Romney is a great used car salesman, at best. No doubt, the sort of RINO you crave at the helm (along with Brooks, Frum and Powell). Someone, just one person that could help you justify your lack of a moral compass, while claiming to be just like you - a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE.
You know, I have sound business sense, just like Mitt (something you are obviously desperately lacking), but it does not qualify me to be CEO of this great country.
Everyone here knows what you say you are, and most know what you really are. As Dai stated, no fiscal conservative would have voted for the man-child who made his intentions crystal clear from day one.
One day (hopefully soon), you will realize how ignorant your intellectual superiority makes you really sound.
Oh, the greatest and most supreme Bob (FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE, SOCIALLY MODERATE - did I mention that?): the alpha and omega, all at once. Oh he who makes all decisions based on reason, especially in the voting booth, when he voted for the One. No one could ever match his gracious reasoning logic. No, only Bob, the great intellect of our time holds the title "FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE, SOCIALLY MODERATE".
(read: morally bankrupt, but so desperate to be accepted by my peers).
I remain
forever illogically yours,
Big J
Nobama| 9.1.09 @ 2:56PM
LibReader/Jeremiah is once again showing his "Catholic" bona fides by taking Christ's name in vain. Libtard is pissy because Obummer is at 45% approval in the polls so he's got get the shiv in someway. It's not going to help Obama's approvals, moron.
LR/Jeremiah, you are a loser.
Cory Smith| 9.1.09 @ 2:57PM
UGh! See what I mean by the egos of these people posting novellas?
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 2:58PM
Jeffrey, your argument is weak both factually and intellectually. Health care is already rationed -- by insurance companies. The problem with Medicare -- (a single payer government plan) is that it doesn't ration enough and is thus too expensive. The best estimates are that tort reform cannot lower costs more than 3%. In seven years, health care in this country will be 50% of GDP at the current growth rate.
Regarding "Barbara Wagner", we can all come up with horror stories regarding current insurance plans. Choosing one out of millions does not prove your case -- it just makes you another selective political hack. You do have more intelligence that that, don't you?
There will be rationing in the future because we cannot afford the current status quo. The dependence on just tort reform is a tremendously weak argument because it is not anywhere near large enough to even make a dent. I do agree with you on tort reform, but it is not the answer -- not even close.
Insurance companies make decisions based on profitability. Most plans have lifetime limits so if you do get a serious disease, you are out of luck.
The converse of your argument is that medical insurance should cover everything -- all of the time. If it doesn't, then it is a "death panel" -- isn't it? What about not covering a poor person who has diabetes? Isn't that a "death panel"?
It seems as if you haven't thought through your logic.
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 3:03PM
LR...
You are both missing and making the point. The point here is that like Teddy, who stirred all sorts of turmoil at 30 with zero record (I grew up in Massachusetts and remember vividly...said his liberal Democratic primary opponent in their debate: "If your name were Edward Moore, Teddy, your candidacy would be a joke. But no one's laughing because your name isn't Edward Moore, it's Edward Moore Kennedy." Huge applause line. From Democrats! And....the guy lost to Teddy. Teddy was not "the soul of political liberalism" in 1962 and he understood exactly zero about the Senate other than he'd like to be there. His opponent was a seasoned government guy, the sitting Attorney General...but it was Teddy who carried the day. The Ted Kennedy you are discussing is the guy who, to his everlasting credit, got down in the trenches and worked at the job for 47 years. No one in 1962 could know that....Palin is a work in progress, like Teddy a few years into his Senate career. She's now been a mayor, a state oil and gas commission member, a governor, a vp nominee. So we shall all see. But you, LR, are paying attention to her. I do believe you began your post by saying "Sweet Jesus." Enuf said. When the day arrives that, say, Tim Pawlenty gets that kind of gut reaction from you - and similar howls from your compatriots around the country - the rest of us will be waiting here for you to fill us in!
The point here is not Palin's record, what she has or has not done. The point is, as the posts above attest, she has big time fans ...just as Teddy did...and there are those (I'm ...ahhhh...taking a wild guess that group would include you) who simply detest her. In doing so, the point gets made on the spot. Do you see any self-professed Pawlenty haters up above? I don't think so.
Nobama| 9.1.09 @ 3:08PM
Deja vu all over again. Jeff, you and Boob have already had this deadening, laborious, epic length debate AT LEAST ONCE BEFORE.
Please, Jeff, don't oblige the moronic bloviator again. It was nauseating the last time.
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 3:13PM
Bob...
"Health care is already rationed -- by insurance companies. "
No, Bob. Choice rations health care here. No insurance company gets to mandate anything in the same fashion as the government. You sign on voluntarily to have insurance. We've had this discussion....there are flaws aplenty with insurance companies, on that we agree. But private entities where consumer choice is at play in some fashion is a world of difference than a government mandate. Two very different things. Saying "I'd like to join the Marines" is a world of difference from those letters that used to arrive beginning "Greetings"...and telling the recipient they were now drafted and had to show up on Tuesday at 7 a.m. to report and, by the way, we have the next X years of your life in our pocket.
Now that's government rationing!
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 3:20PM
Nobama....
Ha! I will try and keep it interesting...Stay tuned!
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 3:25PM
Jeffrey...
"No insurance company gets to mandate anything in the same fashion as the government."
Have you ever read a group health insurance policy? Everything is mandated. Choice? There is currently little or no choice. Most states only have one or two large providers of health insurance and most companies only offer one or two plans. That is not choice.
94% of Medicare recipients are happy with their plan. That is much larger than those happy with their private plans. So when you say that private entities and consumer choice is better, it is just not supported by fact.
The problem is NOT choice -- nor is it government. It is the cost and benefit of health care in this country. My solution? I would like to see self-rationing. If you choose a cheap plan and it doesn't cover your cancer care, that is a decision you made and you will die -- or you will go bankrupt. But YOU made the choice. If you want to pay for a plan that covers everything, it may cost you an arm and a leg (that's a pun), but you get the coverage.
If you are not willing to go all of the way to let individuals make their own decisions -- and die if they are wrong (they are their own "death panel"), then why not go for Medicare for all.
I lived at the time of the draft and elected to enlist instead because I wanted to make the most of my time in the Army. Personally, I'd like to see all young people have 2 years of military service. I think that would be good for the country.
Liberal Reader| 9.1.09 @ 3:27PM
Mr Lord --
Fair enough. I meant to say that I agreed with that aspect of your piece (the attention - getting potential).
I don't think Palin's on her way to having the kind of intellectual and political control of her party that Kennedy (by hook or crook) achieved over the decades.
Perhaps in the newspaperless 21st century, as Americans' understanding of civics, history, and politics continues to plummet, politicians like Palin WILL be the "soul" of their respective parties.
I really, really do NOT despise Palin personally. I like Palin; I understand why people on your side adore her. I think she could be a fantastic politician -- if she worked. However, I think she has contempt for politics, argument, debate, and learning, which is not very promising.
Nobama| 9.1.09 @ 3:33PM
Palin doesn't have near the contempt for work that I have for you, libtard Jeremiah. Azzclown.
Micah| 9.1.09 @ 3:37PM
Boob, I bet you'd like to see young people do two years of military service--in Obama's Civilian Paramilitary Force. Marxist.
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 3:37PM
Bob...
"Have you ever read a group health insurance policy? Everything is mandated. "
We're not talking the same thing. There is no law that forces me to read a group health insurance policy or that forces me to have any health insurance at all (at least so far.) No insurance company can do that, period. They can't "mandate" squat...because they are not the government. The government can in fact mandate that you squat seven times a day in the public park if they so choose....there is a very, very big difference here.
Liberal Reader| 9.1.09 @ 3:38PM
Another important distinction between these two -- admittedly divisive -- figures is this:
Kennedy formed working and personal relationships with conservatives (including Reagan, Hatch, and McCain) because he had genuine respect for them.
I think the narrative developing is that after a whiskey, Kennedy would befriend anyone, and it may be so.
But he also understood and respected conservative thinking. He knew the intellectual reasoning behind conservative positions.
Palin doesn't seem to understand, respect, or even know how to be curious about any political philosophies, conservative or liberal. Again, she may overcome this with study and hard work, but she hasn't shown any pronounced taste for that sort of thing. Her "face book" communiques -- the chosen medium of expression for teenage girls -- aren't instilling much hope, either.
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 3:43PM
LR...
"I don't think Palin's on her way to having the kind of intellectual and political control of her party that Kennedy (by hook or crook) achieved over the decades. "
That, LR, is part of the sweet mystery of life (as Justice - not Senator - Kennedy might say.) Your conjecture is as good as mine, and one thing I know for sure, we are both wrong about tomorrow. So I have gotten out of the prediction business. Iwill say this. I remember back in the 60's when "Laugh-In" did a joke about driving by the Reagan presidential library and everybody in the audience roared with laughter. They're not laughing now....
Then again....if the Red Sox could just win the next six games and the Yankees could lose...and then...and then..and then...Never mind.
S.L. Toddard| 9.1.09 @ 3:46PM
"Is Sarah Palin the Next Ted Kennedy?"
What an idiotic question. Ted Kennedy was an extremely intelligent, well educated proponent of Liberalism and Multiculturalism and an enemy of traditional American Conservatism and Constitutional Republicanism whose primary legacy is to have done all he could to turn the U.S. into Mexico. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is a visibly stupid, ignorant celebrity whose only distinguishing characteristic is her vapidity. She is, obviously, not a person who has thought deeply enough about political philosophy to even have one. Her two most important (only, really) skills were being telegenic and the ability to regurgitate GOP talking points she was entirely incapable of understanding. All of that is really beyond dispute.
Ted Kennedy was a formidable foe, though dastardly and immoral in the extreme. Sarah Palin is a joke - no serious person takes her seriously. She served well as a punchline and did a wonderful job exposing the GOP as a corrupt, cynical gang of charlatans but beyond that what use can this severely dim-witted woman be?
It was funny to watch her stumble around on camera, blathering about things she didn't understand and so forth but really the joke has gone stale.
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 3:59PM
SL..
"What an idiotic question. "
Really? Than why does she so tick you off? Because...like Ted Kennedy, who even in death still does the same to conservatives (see above) ...she has this ability to bring out fans and fury alike. You have illustrated the point precisely.
Micah| 9.1.09 @ 4:02PM
SL Dullard, LR/Jeremiah and Boob: All three liberal clowns make Lord's point! So easy, it's like taking candy from a baby.
Go Sarah! 2012
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 4:12PM
Jeffrey, Jeffrey....
"There is no law that forces me to read a group health insurance policy or that forces me to have any health insurance at all (at least so far.)"
And there is no law that forces you to read Medicare... Is that really your argument? You are forced to have an auto policy if you have a car, right? Do you object to that?
You have moved away from your primary argument (and for good reason). An insurance company has a "death panel" even more than Medicare -- a government single-payer universal health care program. That completely disproves your point. Besides, by not covering people, you are giving them a "death panel".
Your argument on "death panels" is completely without rigor and context. Again, I don't like Obamacare, but for rational, econocentric arguments. You can do better than this...
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 4:19PM
Bob....
I do not want the government to be rationing my health care. I will do that with my choices. That's the core argument here. You keep trying to compare the power of insurance companies to the government. It is not the same thing. I am baffled that you can't see the obvious.
Angel| 9.1.09 @ 4:24PM
Jeff, I would hate any 6'2", 240 lb man who sexually assaulted a 5'3", 110 lb woman after throwing her onto a table so roughly that crystal and china were thrown in all directions. Kennedy was more than twice her weight and his actions were criminal.
Kennedy was a disgusting pig of a man who never paid for his transgressions on this earth.
So, I understand your point about Palin's/Kennedy's ability to move debate, but comparing the two still makes me throw up in my mouth.
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 4:25PM
Jeffrey, after being an insurance executive and creating group insurance products, I really don't see a big difference between them. You are rationed either way. I really believe the government will ration less because if they ration more, politicians will not be reelected. We don't vote for insurance company executives.
And please tell me about YOUR choices with your private insurance company plan. Do you really have a choice on policy limits? Do you really have a choice on "pre-approvals"? Do you have a choice on experimental drugs? Where is your choice?
Nobama| 9.1.09 @ 4:31PM
Jeff and Boob, why don't you guys just cut and paste your other (Ad nauseam) health care debate onto this page and call it a day?
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 4:39PM
Bob....
"I really don't see a big difference between them."
Again, there are plenty of flaws with insurance companies. But they are not the government, Bob. Obama is the president, even though I voted for the other guy. If he gets a law passed I must live under it. Period. I am not forced to deal with an insurance company. More to the point, an insurance company has zero ability to make me do anything unless I choose to agree. I know you can't possibly believe there is no difference between, say, Aetna and the FBI. And no, I would like more choice in the insurance world....but again, there is a huge difference between my desire for more choice and the government. Again, try and not pay your taxes. Tell them, I choose not to sign up with the IRS, I think I'll just keep all of my salary this year.
Send us your prison address. We'll send a card!
Liberal Reader| 9.1.09 @ 5:21PM
Mr. Lord -
God Bless the Red Sox and Ted Kennedy, and all the rest of us sinners.
Liberal Reader| 9.1.09 @ 5:23PM
My experience with private insurance taught me this:
You pay your premium. If you choose not to, your policy is terminated.
So you pay, and you pay, and you pay.
Then, if you get sick, the insurance company considers whether or not it PREFERS to uphold its side of the bargain.
It's really that simple, if you're the one who is sick. They have all kinds of reasons, and fine print, and mathematical figures, but in the end, they ask themselves: "Is it our preference to pay this poor bastard's bills, or is it our preference not to."
There's no law against it, and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.1.09 @ 5:37PM
Mr. Lord nice article...NOW SHUT THE HELL UP ARGUING WITH THE BOOB! (BOB)
Liberal reader is stupid, but Boob is stupid AND a liar and a failure at everything he has ever done.
...heh except get under your skin.
TEAM AMERICA should be fully UP tomorrow.
(whew am I glad! We are simply overwhelmed with response. Our internet recruiter is fabulous and we have over 4,000 would-be members in 3 days. The membership fee is $20 which will keep the Boobs and LRs off the site along with the jew haters and other trash.)
http://judgeroy.wordpress.com
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 5:47PM
Ken (Old Texican)...
Are you suggesting...hinting...just kind of nudging a bit..that I am in danger of waxing Sandford-esque?
whyyeseyec| 9.1.09 @ 5:47PM
Sarah Palin would have stayed and rescued Ted Kennedy from that oldsmobile....
Thom| 9.1.09 @ 5:50PM
Mr. Lord, if you can get TAS to place Palin’s name in every article for the next 3 months or so the “Bobs” of the world will be exhausted. Such arrogant, condescending and hate filled people simply can’t help themselves. Just mentioning Palin’s name has the same effect on these people as being the only insect in a Bat cave. They’ll kill each other to get that one insect. That’s all they live for. Your point has been made several times over and I would add what these mindsets don’t get about life is leadership is not a function of what comes out of Harvard, Princeton or Yale. The brightest business minds have proven time and time again to be the worst leaders on the world stage. By definition the masses respond better to leadership, not arrogant, condescension like we see paraded here every time the “Palin” bait is dipped in their own private toilets. Works like clockwork every time it is tried…..
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 5:57PM
Jeffrey, you response makes little sense. Of course you are forced to deal with your insurance company or you won't be covered. If you've ever read the actual policies between insurance companies you'll see they are 99.99% similar. That's because INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE REGULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT. State laws take away your choice. In point of fact, YOU DON'T HAVE A CHOICE with private insurance any more than you have a choice with Medicare.
You can certainly go without health insurance -- or for that matter, you don't have to sign up for Medicare. You are not forced to take it.
Ken, I see I get under your skin as much as Kennedy -- perhaps more. It would be nice if you actually knew something about insurance so you could add to the discussion...
By the way, the more you post, the more it makes me want to post.... Thanks for the incentive....
S.L. Toddard| 9.1.09 @ 5:59PM
I disagree, quite often, with Mr. Lord. This piece in particular is ludicrous - the idea that Sarah Palin is somehow "the next Ted Kennedy" because she is polarizing, and attributing to her a "head-of-the-table" quality which she plainly does not possess. And that's to say nothing of comparing her to Winston Churchill (!). Yes, when Ted Kennedy talked people listened. When Sarah Palin talks, people laugh and roll their eyes. People look to the person at the "head of the table" for leadership. The only people who take Sarah Palin seriously as a leader are the Fox News Right - a shrinking demographic consisting of hyper-credulous Republican Party loyalists who wouldn't know Conservatism if they consistently voted against it - which they do.
For Conservatives - and I'm using the word in the sense it used to mean, not as a synonym for "Republican" as it's used mostly at AmSpec - Sarah Palin represents the absolute worst of the vapid, personality-based political culture that now dominates Washington and the establishment media. People that like Sarah Palin do so because of her winky, you-betcha hominess, not because she has demonstrated any gift for political insight or any Conservative inclinations whatsoever. She represents style over substance, image over ideas - those who foist her as some sort of Great White Hope for the GOP do so because they think she will help the Republican Party, not because they think she will help America to head in a truly conservative direction. She has no compass with that heading.
Anyway, my point originally wasn't to discuss Sarah Palin's airhead vapidity or the damage her popularity with the Fox News Right does to the cause of Conservatism, it was to note that although I disagree with Jeffrey Lord most of the time I have to give the man credit for defending his views and going brain-to-brain with his ideological opponents in the comments section. That takes fortitude, and I tip my hat to him for it.
I only wished, Mr. Lord, that you used that fortitude more often to oppose the GOP establishment and try to direct them - for you do have a pulpit here from which you could preach righteousness if you so chose - back towards embracing a substantive, traditional Conservatism rather than act as a megaphone for the same, tired GOP agenda that has done so much damage to our country and to the name of Conservatism itself.
Liberal Reader| 9.1.09 @ 5:59PM
whyyeseyec --
OK. At last. I have to admit it. You've written a completely tasteless remark about Kennedy that is actually witty -- and maybe even true.
Congratulations. You're the FIRST I've seen on this website to manage it. Ever hear of the endangered species list?
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 5:59PM
Thom, is the "Palin bait" similar to the "Obama bait" and "Kennedy bait" that gets all of you bat faced? Works like clockwork every time....
Roy| 9.1.09 @ 6:00PM
OK, this title is just..wow. I mean..wow.
Thom| 9.1.09 @ 6:05PM
“Thom, is the "Palin bait" similar to the "Obama bait" and "Kennedy bait" that gets all of you bat faced? Works like clockwork every time....”
Not really Bob. I didn’t vote for the most left wing Marxists in this Nation’s history, take on the role of Benedict Arnold and still demand respect for my decision after the fact. The Polls are going against your Moon Bat choice and for better or worse that tends to matter more than what you think is important in politics.
JonH| 9.1.09 @ 6:06PM
Sarah is definitely unique...and I like her. However, there is a space between Andy Warhol's "15 minutes of fame" and this spot similarly occupied by the likes of W. Churchill and a Teddy Kennedy.
But Sarah lies somewhere between these two vast points. Her character, time in the spot light, and other dues are yet to be determined as an enduring enfluence in a broad media way and as an accepted voice in the homes of families in America. That has not happened yet, pure and simple. In some places,her stature has already begun to fade.
Micah| 9.1.09 @ 6:08PM
Jeremiah/LR, you forgot to ask God's blessings for Fat Teddy's victims. Figures, you Kennedy suck up.
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 6:09PM
Toddard, Lord is absolutely right in the comparison on the basis of populism. I find most of Kennedy's positions to be just as vapid as I do with Palin. The right laughs at Kennedy just as the left laughs at Palin. Neither utilizes fact based decision making. Kennedy learned (it took him over a decade) to make deals in the Senate. Palin is bright enough to learn how to do the same. The problem with Palin is that she is intellectually incurious. We know from several sources that Kennedy often involved himself in theoretical discussions. If Palin learns to do the same, learns something about the Constitution, the Supreme Court, foreign policy, economics, etc., I could support her. My problem is that I've seen no evidence that she wants to learn more about government and the world around her. Right now, she is more interested in leveraging her immediate popularity into getting rich. As a capitalist, I believe she will be successful in that endeavor -- you know, speeches, a radio program (the female Glenn Beck), books (written by others, obviously), etc.
Smitty| 9.1.09 @ 6:09PM
JonH, what "Places?" Moron.
S.L. Toddard| 9.1.09 @ 6:11PM
Oh my god. Old Texican - I went to your, um, "T.E.A.M. America" website. Do you even understand what "negative document" means? You seem to think it means "bad". Are you familiar with the term "negative liberty"? Or how the difference between the ideas of "negative liberty" and "positive liberty" define, in many ways, the difference between American Conservatism and Social-Justice Liberalism?
Who am I kidding - of course you don't.
Find out.
Jessie| 9.1.09 @ 6:12PM
Sarah would NEVER have been in that car with Teddy "Married Ho" Kennedy.
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 6:12PM
Bob...
"That's because INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE REGULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT. "
So if the government regulates insurance companies, sets the rules for paying taxes, is the only institution empowered to deliver the mail, regulates drugs, mortgages, corporations, unions, airlines, owns AMTRAK, can send people to war, into space or onto the board of General Motors - which it now owns - and much, much, much more - you think some pitiful insurance company has more power? Maybe not?
The government regulates insurance companies. Not the other way around....
Angie| 9.1.09 @ 6:14PM
SL Dullard has spoken once again. Always nasty and negative, does anyone care?
S.L. Toddard| 9.1.09 @ 6:18PM
"SL Dullard has spoken once again. Always nasty and negative"
Thanks for reading all of my posts. It's nice to have proof someone cares.
Angie| 9.1.09 @ 6:22PM
I don't have to read your posts to know they are nasty and negative, simpleton. That was my point.
Dumb butt loser.
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 6:24PM
Jeffrey -- you are changing the subject again. The issue was choice IN HEALTH CARE. Since the government already controls health care insurance, and the number of major companies in any geographical area are either one or two, my point stands -- you don't have any more choice in private health insurance than you do with government insurance.
Again, 94% of Medicare users like their single payer universal health plan. The reason THEY don't want Obamacare, is they are frightened it will reduce their benefits. It is not that they don't like the idea of a government run program!!!!
S.L. Toddard| 9.1.09 @ 6:25PM
Thank you again, Angie, for reading another one of my posts. It's nice to know that whenever and wherever I post you will be there, loyal to the end, to read and care about it.
S.L. Toddard| 9.1.09 @ 6:31PM
"Since the government already controls health care insurance, and the number of major companies in any geographical area are either one or two, my point stands"
Indeed it does. The health-care system we have now categorically not a "free market" system, it was created by government mandates and will be no less "free" if we are given a choice to have gov't healthcare.
Tom Fleming's solution is best:
"The only practical solutions would be quite simple—break up the government regulated insurance monopolies, set up Health Savings Accounts, provide low-cost basic treatment for the poorer classes"
I suggest any other self-professed "conservatives" read the rest of this piece by a man who actually IS one:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine......alth-care/
Josie| 9.1.09 @ 6:33PM
Boob, it's tedious to have to clean up after your vicious lies; but I guess someone has to do it.
Rasmussen's latest poll shows that respondents would choose their district's repub congressional candidate 43% to a demo 36%. So much for your stupid lie that Obama's plunge in the polls hasn't benefited republicans.
Obviously, you're not very bright; you voted for Obama. Bust out your charts and graphs now, clown. lol
Mary Louise| 9.1.09 @ 6:34PM
No insurance company gets to mandate anything in the same fashion as the government. You sign on voluntarily to have insurance.
I think that isn’t really disputable. And I think comparing Medicare favorably with the supposed death panels of private insurers is not very astute.
For many, many seniors while Medicare may be primary they have secondary source payers as well. It’s Medicare plus Excellus, Medicare plus MVP, Medicare plus Univera, etc. It’s a mutually reinforcing, and to some degree beneficial relationship. But without the secondary backup, Medicare would not be anywhere near as popular.
Even if this administration operated with good faith, and merely wanted to extend that beneficial relationship between private insurers and a Medicare like public plan for all it wouldn’t work because of the same reasons Medicare is headed for financial trouble.
I have two elderly parents. Both with serious (and expensive) medical problems. A doctor can and very often does advocate on one’s behalf to the insurance provider. You won’t be able to do that once the public option has become the only option. The supposed cost-cutting measures -preventative care, records consolidation, etc.- were never that convincing. That a public plan can keep private insurers "honest," is laughable. And it's so dim-witted to use that as a selling point. It’s like Obama and his tire-pressure comment.
Relative to common sense and the reason for its natural loft, I’ll begin w/Krauthammer and EITs, and end with Rosenzweig’s little gem, Understanding the Sick and the Healthy.
Obama and his theoretical, abstract, political science, being the Sick, and Reagan’s -and maybe Palin- “intuitive and empirically obvious” philosophy of the insatiable appetite of State, and Americans’ common sense antipathy toward the kind of non-creative destruction and hemming in that Obama has in store for the Country. Very nicely buttressed by the clinical ghoulishness of some of the writing of Ezekiel Emanuel.
And his sickness is the reason he holds the record for the speed at which approval rating has declined for a newly elected president.
Here’s Krauthammer, via NRO:
***“Look, the liberal position was inherently implausible. The position was: Enhanced interrogation — torture, if you like — doesn't work.
[But] intuitively everybody knows that everybody has a breaking point.
Then you get the I.G. report, which tells you in black and white that Khalid Sheik Mohammed said nothing of interest or importance until he was subjected to the simulated drowning and the sleep deprivation. And then he became a professor on Al Qaeda with a chalkboard. And that happened to several others.
And then people have to say — liberals have to say — it's a coincidence that he didn't say anything before, and spoke after. It's coincidence that there were no attacks in eight years.
Cheney is winning on this because it is intuitively and empirically obvious that these techniques have worked and saved many American lives.”***
And, last but not least, here’s Rosenzweig:
***The term “common sense” is usually associated with Thomas Reid (1710-1796) and his critique of Hume’s epistemological radicalism…In opposing Hume, Reid speaks of instinctive, intuitive, original principles and beliefs (such as the notion of the eternal world and the soul) which we know through experience; these principles of common sense, the bases of our knowledge, are older and more trustworthy than analytical philosophies.
[…]
Common sense as applied by Rosenzweig neither utilizes preconceptions nor moves towards prearranged goals and “postulates.” Not even God is “given” in advance of actual experience. During the period Rosensweig worked on this small book, he wrote to his mother: “the chief thing is not whether a person ‘believes’ in the good Lord; what matters is that he open all his five senses and sees the facts -at the risk that even the good Lord may be found among the facts.”
Adherence to experience and common sense does not guarantee success. Terms are only vaguely defined and may mean different things to different people. (Both Hume and Berkeley professed to follow the principles of common sense!) One is reminded of a story told by the scientist Karl Compton. A sister who lived in India had a wiring job done by a native electrician who returned to her several times for instructions. Finally, the exasperated lady said, “You know very well what I want. Why don’t you use your common sense and go ahead?” The electrician bowed gravely and replied: “Madame, I have only a technical education. Common sense is a rare gift of God.”***
Lastly, don't forget to check out our man Thaddeus McCotter right here.
Smitty| 9.1.09 @ 6:35PM
Dullard, how would YOU know what a Conservative is?
SoCon| 9.1.09 @ 6:39PM
I love McCotter; he's a brilliant, highly principled pol with a great sense of humor. I could see him in Palin's Administration.
Josie| 9.1.09 @ 6:42PM
Mary Louise, unfortunately, common sense is not very common!
Mary Louise| 9.1.09 @ 6:57PM
SoCon, he's extremely intelligent. I'm very fond of him and his style!
Josie, that's what the great Senator Fred Thompson always says.
He's the person I wanted as president. But the thing that made him the best qualified -lack of needing the presidency- works very much to a man's disadvantage.
S.L. Toddard| 9.1.09 @ 6:57PM
"Look, the liberal position was inherently implausible. The position was: Enhanced interrogation — torture, if you like — doesn't work"
Actually the position - and it's not the "liberal" position, it's the American position, indeed the position of all civilized peoples - is that torture (in the words of Ronald Reagan) is "an abhorrent practice" fit only for lesser people. Indeed for a nation to embrace torture as policy is to put itself outside the community of Civilized nations by definition. George W. Bush pledged to "investigate and prosecute all acts of torture and undertake to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment in all territory under our jurisdiction" in keeping with the Convention Against Torture, signed by Reagan, which is still binding and which *mandates* investigation of torture allegations - to fail to investigate these allegations is a violation of law, ergo one is for the Rule of Law and pro-investigation, or one is anti-investigation and pro-totalitarianism.
Essentially whether or not torture "works" is entirely besides the point. Americans are not barbarians. Americans understand that having gulags, torture chambers, concentration camps etc may "work" in some sense - Americans understand that totalitarianism may be "safer" than Liberty - but we reject these methods for the evil, unpatriotic, unjust, anti-American measures they are. Or at least those of us who do not, in our cowardice, demand we reject centuries of American law, tradition and morality to stake out a spot in the same bloody moral low-ground as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other savage monsters of the 20th century.
S.L. Toddard| 9.1.09 @ 7:03PM
"Dullard, how would YOU know what a Conservative is?"
Being that I am usually the only Conservative commenting on this site, I should be asking you that, shouldn't I? To satisfy your curiosity about this alien (to you) thing called "a Conservative", I will say again as I have said before:
A Conservative is one who reveres tradition, community and those things sanctified by Time. A Conservative favors a small, un-intrusive and Constitutionally-defined federal government, partially because a massive federal government is inherently wasteful, but first and foremost because centralizing so much power far from the people and in the hands of a few is a danger to our Liberty and way of life. A Conservative agrees with Lord Acton that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely – that as governments acquire more and more power and wield it with less and less accountability they invariably wield it arbitrarily, in a radical fashion destructive to institutions and traditions hallowed by antiquity. A Conservative values his people and community, and therefore is a proponent of localism and subsidiarity. A Conservative recognizes that the Constitution granted the lion’s share of power to the States so that it would be more accessible to the People – what is called “States Rights”. A Conservative loves Liberty, and recognizes - as the Founders did - that the greatest threat to one’s own Liberty comes from one’s own government. Because of this, a Conservative reveres the Constitution, the 2nd and 10th Amendments especially, as they serve (or should, at least) as a check on tyranny – on arbitrary power - and so a Conservative demands accountability when the Constitution is violated. A Conservative believes fervently in the Rule of Law and an open, Constitutional Republic. A Conservative loves the soldiers who stand ready to defend America, and because he values them dearly he recognizes they should be sent to war only in defense or in the face of an imminent attack. A Conservative loves his people and culture, and so opposes open borders and mass immigration, as a massive and unending influx of foreign peoples of alien culture does violence to the maintenance, cultivation and enrichment of the native culture. A Conservative believes in self-reliance and responsibility - both for himself and his gov’t, and therefore a Conservative demands that balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility be the norm rather than the exception. A Conservative opposes federal social programs because they are unconstitutional, and because they do damage to the moral fiber of the people.
One cannot consistently believe these things and support the GOP. Read through the above paragraph again – it is a fact that the GOP has not only failed to advance a Conservative agenda, they have consistently and unwaveringly done the opposite. They dominated congress for over a decade and had the White House for eight years. They did not seal the border with Mexico – instead, they actively maintained an open-border policy. They did nothing to restore to the states their traditional and constitutional powers – instead, they further consolidated power in the federal gov’t – especially the the executive branch – at the States’ expense. They did NOT strengthen the Rule of Law – they violated it egregiously, they seized radical, unprecedented, unconstitutional powers for the Executive, they instituted an illegal spying regime to eavesdrop on American citizens, they constructed a torture regime in violation of domestic and international law etc. They did not decrease spending and the size and power of the federal government – instead they DRASTICALLY increased spending – more so than the two previous Dem administrations – and increased the size and scope of an already massive, intrusive, overbearing, socialistic behemoth of a federal government. They did not decrease social spending – instead, they increased social spending dramatically and initiated and sunk billions into monstrous, massive new social programs worthy of LBJ. And they did not value the lives of our soldiers – instead, they flung them into the Middle East to conquer a country that posed no threat whatsoever, without ever having ANY evidence that Iraq was planning to attack us. Whatever evidence they had – whether drummed up or not – NONE of it ever demonstrated a clear and present danger.
Every vote for the GOP – every word of support – is support for an anti-Conservative, liberal Wilsonian agenda that does damage to America as sure as any terrorist attack. It goes without saying that the same goes for support of the Democrats. There is one solution only: for Conservatives – true, American Conservatives – to reject un-Conservative policies and the people and parties that enact them, to do so loudly and often, in conversation, in writing, and at the ballot box. That means registering Republican and only voting for true Conservatives and never voting for the lesser of two evils. It means having to vote Third Party more often than one would like. It means depriving the GOP of your vote – even if it means the Democrats will win in the short term – until they adopt a truly Conservative agenda.
Otherwise, despite having Conservative leanings, you are supporting an un-Conservative agenda no less than Barack Obama is. No less than any liberal. You know the GOP’s record – erase the rhetoric and you’re left with *nothing* Conservative whatsoever.
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 7:06PM
SL...
To be clear. Your spouse/child is on a plane. The plane is blown up by a terrorist. You find out the government had someone who knew but wouldn't tell...and refused to waterboard. Your loved one is dead, murdered. But you are pleased because, at a time of war, the enemy was not doused with water in the same fashion as American military cadets like George C. Marshall or Patton?
Bless you...but I don't believe you for one second. Not to mention that no one was waterboarded in the 1990's. And...yes indeed...9/11 occurred. And the liberal response? Bush didn't connect the dots. Respectfully: duh!
Josie| 9.1.09 @ 7:07PM
I sure would like to have a torture chamber for nasty, long winded boors who drone on and on and on torturing us. Turnabout is fair play, I say.
Dull, dullard, dullest; nothing new under the sun.
Mary Louise| 9.1.09 @ 7:07PM
Hey S. L. you missed the point!
Not to worry, though; better men than you (and me) will continue to make sure that you can continue to miss the point in exaggerated comfort.
SoCon| 9.1.09 @ 7:11PM
Mary Louise, good gosh, girl--you're a far better "Man" than Dullard will ever be. A lot more interesting, too.
S.L. Toddard| 9.1.09 @ 7:18PM
'To be clear. Your spouse/child is on a plane. The plane is blown up by a terrorist. You find out the government had someone who knew but wouldn't tell...and refused to waterboard. Your loved one is dead, murdered. But you are pleased because, at a time of war, the enemy was not doused with water in the same fashion as American military cadets like George C. Marshall or Patton?"
No, I would be furious and insist that the man who knew be butchered into tiny pieces. I would insist the same if my daughter were killed by a drunk driver, I suppose. That is why victims of crimes are not put on a jury, or allowed to sit on the bench at the trial of the accused.
That being said, the ticking-time-bomb scenario, being a fantasy, is absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant is that we as a nation, through our representatives in Congress and throughout our history, reject "torture" as inhumane and barbaric. That is why we have laws against it and it is *illegal*. However much you fetishize violence and justify torture, it remains illegal - a war crime.
It is a sign of how far we have sunk as a country, how morally bankrupt our citizenry have become, that there are now Americans who are "pro-torture" openly and without shame. It is a repudiation of Civilization itself, and unbecoming of the nation of laws we were bequeathed by the Founders.
And you - you are the same people who deride "Islamofascists" for their medieval ideology - you same people who would jettison the Rule of Law and bring back the rack, who justify water-torture.
These are "Americans"? God help us.
Mary Louise| 9.1.09 @ 7:24PM
Hey SoCon, thanks. I like to think of myself as Joe at Contentions described Sarah Palin "more man than Obama, and every inch the woman."
Joe is extremely intelligent too. Educated by the Jesuits when the Jesuits were the Jesuits, if you know what I mean.
I really wasn't arguing for "torture." I'm very conflicted about the whole thing. You understood the point I was trying to make quoting Krauthammer though, so I won't prattle on.
Oh, and this isn't for you, but for those who might need it.
Nighty-night, fellow conservatives.
Affectionately,
[In case link is bad: http://tinyurl.com/cr5occ]
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 7:29PM
SL...
"No, I would be furious and insist that the man who knew be butchered into tiny pieces."
Whoa! What happens to the guy who decided the information could be obtained and then the whole thing prevented? You skip an essential step here.
"That being said, the ticking-time-bomb scenario, being a fantasy, is absolutely irrelevant. "
Excuse me? As someone who knew a passenger on Flight 93 this has already happened. It is not irrelevant. If the government had been awake in the 1990's 9/11 may well not have occurred.
We are at war here. Do you not think freezing to death at Valley Forge wan't torture? That 600,000 kids being slaughtered between 1861-1865 wasn't torture? This is truly amazing. So no atomic weapons over Japan...just send the boys into the bayonets? Yow.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.1.09 @ 7:58PM
Mr. Lord
Heh! yeah I was nudging just a bit. Most of us here have learned that the scroll button is the most effective argument with recurring idiots.
They will simply go on in their foolishness. On another site I actually had one of them ...finally tell me that he wouldn't even use "deadly force" if a serial murderer broke into his home and was after his wife and children and him.
That is when I personally realized that these folks are worse than physical cowards...and are moral cowards as well.
S.L. Toddard| 9.1.09 @ 8:40PM
"Whoa! What happens to the guy who decided the information could be obtained and then the whole thing prevented? You skip an essential step here."
No, I didn't. Your hypothetical scenario was that a terrorist attack happened that could have been prevented if only some American had committed a war crime. He did not commit a war crime, ergo nothing happens to him. My hypothetical daughter is dead and I am (hypothetically) understandably furious, demanding blood and no longer objective about the subject, but the Rule of Law on which our Liberty and way of life stand is still intact. America, as a nation, values our Liberty over our lives. That is why Patrick Henry said "Give me Liberty or give me Death", not "Make me safe at whatever cost, Daddy State, for I am a coward in need of coddling".
We as a nation, through our representatives in Congress and throughout our history, reject "torture" as inhumane and barbaric. That is why we have laws against it and it is *illegal*. However much you fetishize violence and justify torture, it remains illegal - a war crime.
"Excuse me? As someone who knew a passenger on Flight 93 this has already happened."
Really. Please, cite the "ticking time bomb scenario" wherein the 9/11 attacks were just about to happen, and we had someone in our custody, and we *knew* those attacks were about to happen, and we knew *he* knew as well and could prevent them if we tortured him, only we never found out because we didn't torture.
"It is not irrelevant. If the government had been awake in the 1990's 9/11 may well not have occurred."
Immaterial conjecture. I could just as easily assert that "if the CIA had done its job within the bounds of the law, i.e. sans torture, 9/11 may well have not happened".
"We are at war here."
Did Congress declare war while I wasn't looking?
"Do you not think freezing to death at Valley Forge wan't torture?"
Correct. We have laws that define "torture" in this country. I'm not suprised you are unfamiliar with them.
"That 600,000 kids being slaughtered between 1861-1865 wasn't torture?"
Correct. We have laws that define "torture" in this country. I'm not suprised you are unfamiliar with them.
"This is truly amazing. So no atomic weapons over Japan...just send the boys into the bayonets? Yow."
Non sequitur.
Our laws *mandate* investigation of torture allegations - to fail to investigate these allegations is a violation of law, ergo one is for the Rule of Law and pro-investigation, or one is anti-investigation and pro-totalitarianism.
Nobama| 9.1.09 @ 9:02PM
Ignore Dullard's nincompoopery. Only a cretin would amble up to his soapbox and presume to lecture other bloggers.
Tomfoolery and Theater of the Absurd.
Terry Gain | 9.1.09 @ 9:03PM
IS SARAH PALIN THE NEXT TED KENNEDY?
I don't have time to read the article. Don't tell me she killed a date and is now screwing everything in sight.
Daisy| 9.1.09 @ 9:06PM
...and gained 200 lbs!
Terry Gain | 9.1.09 @ 9:12PM
Torture causes harm more serious than momentary fright. Waterboarding is not torture. It would have been a gross dereliction of duty and moral cowardice not to have waterboarded KSM.
If your moral values tell you to prefer the comfort of a terrorist to the safety of his intended victims, then your moral compass is askew.
J| 9.1.09 @ 9:12PM
Palin - The wolf is loose
Tommie| 9.1.09 @ 9:17PM
J--The Arctic Wolf is loose.
Liberal Reader| 9.1.09 @ 9:17PM
Mr Lord
Re: 9.11
I highly recommend Lawrence Wright's book The Looming Tower -- if you haven't already read it -- on the history of Al Quaeda and what the FBI was doing in the months and years before 9.11.
It's one of the best non-fiction books I've read in years.
Neither President Bush or President Clinton are entirely blameless, but the real reasons we were hit have to do with turf protecting behaviors that are inherent in organizations like the FBI and CIA.
At any rate, I cannot recommend a book more strongly.
justin| 9.1.09 @ 9:21PM
Sarah does tend to make a splash
diesel jeans | 9.1.09 @ 9:27PM
Your article is very interesting, I have introduced a lot of friends look at this article, the content of the articles there will be a lot of attractive people to appreciate, I have to thank you such an article.
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 9:36PM
SL..
"Your hypothetical scenario was that a terrorist attack happened that could have been prevented if only some American had committed a war crime."
"We have laws that define "torture" in this country. "
Where in US law is waterboarding defined as a war crime or torture? Cites please.
The Kennedy Admisnistration supported waterboarding in its CIA training manuals.. "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963." Gee, no mention of that the last few days when the JFK-era was in the news. Senator Teddy had zip to say at the time, not to mention the Attorney General, RFK. Curious.
"Did Congress declare war while I wasn't looking?"
On September 18, 2001 Congress voted to authorize the "Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" - and troops were sent to Afghanistan. To wit: to war. If you believe we should not be fighting a war against those who are at war against us - that's OK. I get it. It's wrong, that would make you a pacifist, but I get it. But to say the Congress did not authorize this is false.
Ditto when Congress, controlled by Democrats, requestedf a debate and vote in 2002 on Iraq - and Bush agreed. Even John Kerry and Hillary voted to do this. It was the Democrats who had control and voted for war. They were right to do so.
But you are for doing something to stop torture in, say, Castro's Cuba? Right? Gee, if waterboarding is torture....Castro's got a real problem. What's happening in Venezuela? North Korea? You seem tongue tied....and oh yes...Partial Birth Abortion? Or abortion? You would define these as war crimes?
One side's moral cannon is loose.....
Pinandpuller| 9.1.09 @ 9:39PM
Ted Kennedy, like Hillary Clinton, would never have gotten within hailing distance of a senate seat or a presidential run without a famous last name.
Like her or hate her, Sarah Palin is a first generation politician and we need more just like her. Senate seats are not legacies.
Liberal Reader| 9.1.09 @ 9:43PM
One last thing for the day:
Dear conservatives,
Please don't slit your wrists, even if Republicans fail to block health care reform.
One of your zanier leaders is urging such action. Since the theme of many posts here at Am. Spec. lately is how Democrats cannot be Catholics and how the Pope is a good Republican, who prays night and day for capital gains tax cuts, I just want to remind you that such an act -- like self-immolation -- undertaken for whatever reasons is a grievous sin.
We'd hate to lose you that way. We are all fellow citizens. Just keep going to your tea-parties. You'll feel better.
*sigh*| 9.1.09 @ 9:46PM
Is Sarah Palin the next Ted Kennedy?
In short...no
In long NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Terry Gain | 9.1.09 @ 9:50PM
Liberals prostrate themselves before the shrine of Islamic extremism and then tell consservatives not to slit their wrists. Clueless beyond belief.
Virginia11775| 9.1.09 @ 9:52PM
There is one glaring difference between Ted Kennedy and Sarah Palin, and that is morals. She has them. Ted Kennedy was a murderer, a traitor and a coward. He used his brothers' legacy to push forward a partisan agenda that had more to do with enriching himself than fighting for the weak.
Sarah Palin also presented footnotes and real questions from unquestionably loyal supporters of the Obama administration. Ted Kennedy just smeared the good name of a man who happened to be a Republican nomination, and he destroyed the quality of political discourse in America. The author should be ashamed of himself, but then he is a journalist.
Liberal Reader| 9.1.09 @ 9:57PM
Virginia --
No doubt, Teddy was hard on Bork. I can't defend that speech (given some 20 years ago).
Did you, however, happen to catch testimonials to friendships with Hatch, McCain, Trent Lott, or Nancy Reagan's description of her husband's friendship with the man?
Is it possible that your demonizing a flawed but perhaps not evil man?
No matter.
Vive La France! Vive La Revolution!
Vive Bernie Sanders!
Vive Ralph Nader!
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 9:57PM
Virginia11775...
Ouch! And I'm a Palin fan! The point is...does she drive her fans wild and the other side crazy? As did Teddy Kennedy? The answer...just from looking at the responses above...seems a clear yes. Not for a second did I go anywhere else with the analogy. Respectfully, you read something into this that is not there.....
Liberal Reader | 9.1.09 @ 9:58PM
Check out this great show on health care.
SoCon| 9.1.09 @ 10:01PM
LR/Jeremiah, another slick attempt at rewriting history.
Clinton instructed Jamie Gorelick to erect a "WALL" between the FBI and CIA which truncated file sharing between the two agencies. This prevented the FBI from downloading 9/11 plans contained in the computer of one of the hijackers: BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001!
Why did Clinton enact such a disastrous policy, you ask? Because he was trying to protect himself from DOJ investigations--the filthy dirtbag.
George W. had been president for 7 1/2 months on September 11, 2001--hardly compares to Clinton's Presidential dereliction of duty for eight long years, doesn't it?
LR/Jeremiah; you and Sandy Burglar have a lot in common. Every time I see you repeat your lies about 9/11, I will correct you.
Liberal Reader| 9.1.09 @ 10:01PM
Terry --
You've got problems, my friend. Islamic extremism?
Where -- don't answer this, please -- do you get your news? How do you even know anything about liberals? I don't know one that has any affection for Islamic extremism.
And lest you forget, you supercilious jackass, the terrorist attacks on 9.11 (you've heard of them, I presume) were directed at New York City, the greatest city on earth -- and not particularly conservative, if I remember well.
Josie| 9.1.09 @ 10:02PM
Right on, Virginia!!
Liberal Reader| 9.1.09 @ 10:04PM
SoCon --
I'm not rewriting anything and I don't get my history from Rush Limbaugh, as you do.
The "wall" you speak of definitely was a problem, but it was not decisive. Really, you owe it to yourself to get some more information. It won't prop up the liberal / conservative duality that eases your anxiety levels and simplifies the world for you, but there you go.
Virginia11775| 9.1.09 @ 10:08PM
Our government pushes end-of-life counseling onto our veterans. According to the WSJ:
“Your Life, Your Choices” presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political “push poll.” For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be “not worth living.”
The circumstances listed include ones common among the elderly and disabled: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and not being able to “shake the blues.” There is a section which provocatively asks, “Have you ever heard anyone say, ‘If I’m a vegetable, pull the plug’?” There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as “I can no longer contribute to my family’s well being,” “I am a severe financial burden on my family” and that the vet’s situation “causes severe emotional burden for my family.”
The healthcare bill incentivized end-of-life consultations with the elderly and ill as part of its cost-containment strategy. Our President voted against BAIPA as a Senator from Illinois. Is it that unreasonable to presume that a government that rations healthcare would first start with elderly and disabled Americans? Would a bureaucracy that denies you life-saving treatment not be aptly described as a "death panel"?
There was, unfortunately, more truth in Palin's statement than Ted Kennedy's. It shows just how much damage the progressive socialist march in this country has done.
S.L. Toddard| 9.1.09 @ 10:11PM
"Where in US law is waterboarding defined as a war crime or torture?"
Straw man. I have not asserted that waterboarding was "defined" as torture, though the definition of torture clearly encompasses it, and though we have convicted people in the past for torturing our soldiers in such fashion. Regardless, the allegations are not confined to water torture so your point is irrelevant.
"The Kennedy Admisnistration supported waterboarding in its CIA training manuals.. "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963."
Irrelevant. The KUBARK manual is not binding US law.
"Gee, no mention of that the last few days when the JFK-era was in the news. Senator Teddy had zip to say at the time, not to mention the Attorney General, RFK. Curious."
Irrelevant. What liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy said about KUBARK is not germane to this conversation.
"On September 18, 2001 Congress voted to authorize the "Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" - and troops were sent to Afghanistan."
In other words, "no".
"To wit: to war. If you believe we should not be fighting a war against those who are at war against us - that's OK. I get it. It's wrong, that would make you a pacifist, but I get it. But to say the Congress did not authorize this is false."
Straw man. I never asserted Congress did not "authorize" anything.
"Ditto when Congress, controlled by Democrats, requestedf a debate and vote in 2002 on Iraq - and Bush agreed. Even John Kerry and Hillary voted to do this."
Well then, if such paragons of traditional American virtue as liberal Democrats John Kerry and Hillary Clinton renounce their Constitutional responsibilities then... what? "Even John Kerry and Hillary"? You consider yourself a "conservative"?
"It was the Democrats who had control and voted for war."
And yet did not declare war, as only they have the Constitutionally-delegated power to do. "Curious".
"But you are for doing something to stop torture in, say, Castro's Cuba? Right? Gee, if waterboarding is torture....Castro's got a real problem. What's happening in Venezuela? North Korea? You seem tongue tied....and oh yes..."
Oh - perhaps I did not specify: I am an American. That lesser countries act barbarously is something I take for granted. I expect more from my own - I expect her to obey her own laws. That is the difference between an American who sincerely respects the Constitution and... you.
And why is it neoconservatives cannot tell where the borders of their country end? Tell me, Jeff, are you fighting socialized medicine in Sweden, or is your opposition to it in America insincere?
Did you never take geometry class? You seem to have a difficult time constructing a logical argument.
"Partial Birth Abortion? Or abortion? You would define these as war crimes?"
I do not define war crimes. Our treaties do. Jesus - weren't you in the Reagan administration? You really don't know these things?
Thom| 9.1.09 @ 10:16PM
"The "wall" you speak of definitely was a problem, but it was not decisive."
About 3000 dead people and their relatives would strongly disagree with that thought. Having a dozen different Intel agencies that can't share data under penalty of the law is more than just a problem if the reported purpose of these agencies is to prevent such matters. At the very least it marginalized the entire Intel apparatus leaving it to a handful of people in government that had access to all of it to piece together a cognizant picture from literally thousands of bits and pieces in a timely manner. How did that work out? The same way it works when 50 different State LE agencies and hundreds of counties and city LE agencies don't share intel. The "wall" was quiet effective at making the entire Intel operation ineffective as a whole.
Virginia11775| 9.1.09 @ 10:18PM
Jeffrey Lord,
Fair enough. However, Charles Manson also excited his fans, but few would be flattered by a comparison.
Virginia11775| 9.1.09 @ 10:31PM
Liberal Reader,
"Is it possible that you're demonizing a flawed, but perhaps not evil man?"
I'll let you decide.
"The diver who recovered Kopechne's body claimed that the corpse was still buoyant and that the carpeted floorboard of the car had been badly scratched, suggesting that she had not drowned, but had suffocated in her desperate effort to escape."
Ted Kennedy walked past several homes with a working phone line to go back to the party and try to convince his friends to cover for him. He got a ride back to his hotel. Then he took a nice, warm bath and complained to the desk clerk that a loud party woke him up. Establishing an alibi, in other words. Kennedy named his Portuguese Water Dog "Splash" and enjoyed a good Chappaquiddick joke, according to NYT writer Ed Klein.
BG| 9.1.09 @ 10:33PM
Ridiculous. Kennedy was in the position he was in because it was handed to him. Some people gave weight to his words, and ignored his actions, only because of his name.
Sarah Palin has earned her status and people listen to her because she makes sense.
The old crap about insurance companies rationing health care is such sophistry that it hardly deserves serious consideration. As someone pointed out there is no shortage of health care in this country, and everyone has access to health care in one form or another. There is a difference in how it is administered. Some people expect, or occasionally need, for someone else to pick up their whole bill. Some people buy insurance which spreads the risk of crippling costs around. Insurance companies calculate the odds of being swamped by costs; and typically work on a small margin. Serious reform would make individual responsible for buying their own health care. If the government feels a responsibility to subsidize the cost, it should be done in as simple and transparent manner as possible; and it should keep the individual engaged in the process, e.g., health savings accounts. However, step one is TORT reform. When Obama and the rest of the democrats get serious about tort reform, we will know they are serious about cutting costs. Up until that point they are no more than run of the mill demagogues.
dw| 9.1.09 @ 10:40PM
Is every1 hallucinating??? More like the anti-TED!! Any1 who is lame enuff to mock him (weight/personal life) is SO uninformed and clueless about the massive good that he has fought UNBELIEVABLE hard to bestow on this country!! Thank him for half your and your fellow man's rights instead of critizing him u self-absorbed IDIOTS!! Palin ....HAH!!!
Jessie| 9.1.09 @ 10:44PM
dw, Mary Jo could not be reached for comment.
SoCon| 9.1.09 @ 10:56PM
LR/Jeremiah, thanks for agreeing with me about Clinton's culpability for 9/11. Like you said, Gorelick's "Wall" certainly caused a breakdown in intelligence sharing during Clinton's administration and was largely responsible for the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
My information comes from the 9/11 Commission, and since you agree with it, I see no need for your knee-jerk insult of Rush Limbaugh.
8 YEARS--Bill Clinton
7 1/2 MONTHS--George W. Bush
You be the judge.
Josie| 9.1.09 @ 11:03PM
Typical LibReader BS--no facts of his own; just agrees with SoCon's facts while insulting same. Loser.
Liberal Reader| 9.1.09 @ 11:05PM
SoCon --
Again, you're oversimplifying. I read the Commission report. I recommend your read the Looming Tower for more information about what the FBI and CIA under Clinton and Bush actually were doing in the years before 9.11.
The wall was NOT what prevented the most crucial information from getting from the CIA to the FBI. It didn't help, but it wasn't the real cause of the problem.
I know you and Thom would feel much better if you could blame everything on the Democrats. It's just not how the world works. Sorry.
Liberal Reader| 9.1.09 @ 11:07PM
Funny how Bush is absolved of responsibility for 9.11 because he was only president for 8 months before, but 8 DAYS after Obama took office he was being blamed for the economy. Rush tells us every day this is an "Obama recession."
See how this works?
SoCon| 9.1.09 @ 11:20PM
The "WALL" prevented the FBI from accessing 9/11 attack plans contained in one of the hijacker's computers--well before September 11, 2001.
Clinton's "WALL" MOST CERTAINLY played a major role in the 9/11 terrorist attack.
Clinton was also offered Bin Laden numerous times in the 1990s and refused to take him into custody.
8 YEARS Clinton--7 1/2 MONTHS Bush
THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES!!
Hilarious that LR/Jeremiah is put in the position of defending two absolutely degenerate, whore
mongering democrats. Says a lot about YOUR morality, troll.
Virginia11775| 9.1.09 @ 11:21PM
"Any1 who is lame enuff to mock him (weight/personal life) is SO uninformed and clueless about the massive good that he has fought UNBELIEVABLE hard to bestow on this country!!"
You would harp on his weight, too, if he body slammed you onto a table you were bussing, then ground his crotch against you, threw you at Chris Dodd and said something about making a sandwich.
SoCon| 9.1.09 @ 11:23PM
Don't whine, b!tch, moan and cry, LR/Jeremiah. It's unseemly, little liberal Beta Boy.
Obama was blaming Afghanistan on George W. just this morning, azzwipe! Give me a break.
Virginia11775| 9.1.09 @ 11:26PM
Liberal Reader,
I blame 911 on the terrorists. Notice that I still call it terrorism instead of a "man-caused disaster".
Nobama| 9.1.09 @ 11:27PM
You're right, Virginia. That was a criminal sexual assault and Kennedy should have been arrested. She was 5'3", 110 lbs and Teddy was 6'2", 240 lbs--what a disgusting predatory pig he was.
Womens' Rights, my azz!
Jeffrey Lord| 9.1.09 @ 11:30PM
I'm happy to see you are all revved up!
And a good night to one and all...
Gaby| 9.1.09 @ 11:32PM
there is one big difference. Palin is a self-starter while Kennedy without his father and brothers would be no one.
Josie| 9.1.09 @ 11:36PM
Gaby, Teddy's still a no one. His father and brothers can't help him where he is now. God can't be bought.
Roy Lofquist| 9.2.09 @ 12:00AM
I don't remember FDR, though he was President when I was born. I do remember Harry Truman. I watched Ronald Reagan's career through his hosting of "Death Valley Days" and as a spokesman for General Electric.
All of the major figures in history have worked long and hard in the public eye before they reached "the head of the table". Sarah Palin has assumed that position in one year. I am flabbergasted, amazed and fulfilled.
melu| 9.2.09 @ 12:25AM
I. AM. SARAH. PALIN
Skip MacLure| 9.2.09 @ 12:59AM
PUH-LEASE! Ted Kennedy was at best a smarmy blowhard very spoiled child of privelage...at worst he was a criminal guilty of at least manslaughter and possibly second degree murder depending his states drunk driving laws. To even mention Sarah Palin in the same paragraph with that creep is defaming an honorable patriotic mother and wife....
If the point you were making is that there is some similarity..I submit that she is quite capable of standing on her own feet and record. Something the booze sodden reprobate never could.
Semper Phi
Skip MacLure
Patriot| 9.2.09 @ 1:19AM
GO SARAH 2012!!
Gary| 9.2.09 @ 1:33AM
Like many, I'm sure, I wasn't sure where you were going with this deal, but you make some damned fine points!
What I want to ask these nimrods who keep saying Sarah is stupid is this:
Just how many states have you idiots been Governor of?
How many multi-billion dollar budgets have you successfully managed?
How many largest construction projects in North American history have you negotiated, after the previous folks in your job have tried to get done for 30 years?
Even better, how many of you done in two short years, what others couldn't do, in 30 years, and taken the project from a public boondoggle, to a mostly private, international $40 billion deal between the world's largest corporation, Exxon-Mobil, and the nation of Canada?
How many of you have been Commander-In-Chief of not only the National Guard, but a state defense force, a federally recognized militia that is part of Homeland Security's action plan?
How many of you have had top level national security briefings?
How many of you, as Governor, fulfilled every single campaign promise in less than two years into your first term?
Nothing in the Governor area?
OK, how many of you have run an oil and natural gas regulatory agency, one of the most powerful jobs in your state?
How many of you have taken on, and subdued big oil?
How many of you, upon finding major corruption at that high paying, very powerful gig, quit, after your boss, the Governor, wouldn't let you clean up massive corruption?
Even better, how many of you, upon finding this massive corruption, learned they were all all high ranking members of your own party, including the party chair, STILL did the right thing and "quit"?
And, upon "quitting" how many of you then spent the next year and a half taking down your entire party, including the sitting Governor, and sending more than a few to prison?
Hmmm, too hard for ya?
Well, how many of you have ever been Mayor of a city? A successful two-termer who was term limited out.
OK, still too hard?
How many of you losers can write two very short paragraphs on a social networking website, while still in your slippers and bathrobe, and put the fear of God in the President of the United States, and all of his sycophants?
Even better, when the child-president then challenges you, you simply post a few links to back up you assumptions, and PROVE there are death panels built into Obamacare, as well as introducing the world to the president's chief-of-staff's brother, Dr Death!
Sarah introduced the nation to Dr Ezekiel Emanuel, who make Dr Joseph Mengele look sane by comparison!!
In other words, she got Obama all "wee-we'd up" and had him sucking his thumb in the fetal position!! He's still there!
When one of you naysayers can complete a similar list of accomplishments, come back and talk to me. Until then STFU, you are simply a bore.
Osamas Pajamas| 9.2.09 @ 2:00AM
I think the Demos are scared shxtless that Palin will be a Maggie Thatcher, and hold sway in office and out of office, for quite a long time. Thus the animus, the impetus to denigrating and destroying her. She just needs to read all the Bill Buckley books and the Ayn Rand books and some Henry Hazlitt and Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. She could knock these off in less than 18 months, and go on to kick some serious ass ---- no matter where she decides to sit at the table. Too bad some of her fellow Republicans feel the need to shove her aside. It's not smart, and she could just punch one or two of them right smack in the eye. ~:
Osamas Pajamas| 9.2.09 @ 2:13AM
Don't worry about Cheney. It Holder and OhBummer think they have trouble now, wait 'til they get a lion by the tail and discover it's not safe to let go and fatal to hang on. Neither of these thugs are very bright but I expect they'll get right to the edge and get a terrific case of cold feet ---- and if not, doubtless Cheney will provide us with some public entertainment. The man is fearless. YAY!
Daisy| 9.2.09 @ 2:47AM
It would be impossible for Conservatives to accept someone like Kennedy as our "head of the table" political icon.
I'd rather shoot myself in the head than worship at the altar of a man like Edward Kennedy.
travus| 9.2.09 @ 3:54AM
I found the article interesting, the head of the table quality Sarah Palin has is undeniable, the comparison to Ted Kennedy was a bit of reaching, but taken for what it was.
I found the initial posted comments of value, until the Obamadroid Palin haters began weighing in, I then lost out attempting to separate the wheat from the chafe.
Of Sarah Palin, I remember when she first appeared on the national scene, I read some of the comments made by her political enemies in Alaska. One especially stayed with me, the commenter was trying to warn other liberals on the Site, She said to them, you will underestimate Sarah Palin at your own peril, for she is a political savant in the truest sense of the word. That Sarah could connect with any and all people like no one else could, and even though she vehemently disagreed with Sarah's politics, she could not help but personally like her as a person. That it was the disarming personable demeanor which made her so dangerous as a political opponent, for beneath that velvet glove appearance, was a tigress which could and would, strike with fists of iron.
Having lived in Alaska for some years, I know well of a devastating force called a williwaw, which can scream down out of nowhere on a calm sunny day, and flatten all before it. I compare Sarah Palin to a williwaw, the liberal MSM pundits, democrats and rinos will learn the hard way about williwaws. Just when they may think their ships are safely ensconced at anchor in the DC Beltway, like a williwaw from the northland, Sarah Palin is going to descend onto the lower 48 and demast their vessels in one fell swoop.
Winston Churchill proved in the end to be a great man, who had made some very dark mistakes, and the darkest one was Gallipoli, for which he was damned by many a son's mother for decades.
http://www.google.com/search?h.....&aqi;=
SoCon| 9.2.09 @ 4:12AM
Love it! Hot damn, what this country needs right now is a straight talking, no nonsense williwaw!
C'mon, Sarah; we could use a little help down here.
Big J| 9.2.09 @ 5:58AM
Gary,
Awesome post! Makes me glad I stuck around through all the mealy-mouthing.
By far, the post of the day/night.
Pingback| 9.2.09 @ 11:41AM
Is Sarah Palin the Next Ted Kennedy? I'm Glad You Asked! | Indecision Forever | Comed links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 9.2.09 @ 11:58AM
The Head Of The Table - Transterrestrial Musings links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Michael L. Hauschild| 9.2.09 @ 12:41PM
Sarah Palin would have rescued Mary Jo from the vehicle, drug the Oldsmobile out an on the bank, slapped the swimmer around a bit, repaired and tuned the flooded engine, drove the young lady to the hospital and on the way registered over a thousand new republican voters.
Pingback| 9.2.09 @ 1:33PM
Obama Peeved, So Escalates Media Attacks vs. “Love Is in the Air” (video) « Frugal C links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 9.2.09 @ 1:35PM
Disapproval of Obama Continues: Prez Index Remains in Double-Digit Negative… -11 Tod links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 9.2.09 @ 1:36PM
So Many Sarah Palin Music Video Tributes Created by Fans… Who Knew? Still Looking fo links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ran| 9.2.09 @ 7:28PM
Mr. Lord, many thanks - a great read!
Pingback| 9.2.09 @ 7:32PM
Palin in demand from GOP candidates. - Redhot - RedState links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 9.2.09 @ 7:32PM
Moe Lane » Palin in demand from GOP candidates. links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
David Dawson| 9.2.09 @ 10:15PM
UUGH! This article reminded me of a typical Led Zeppelin song...Started out promising, soon became repetitive and monotonous and lasted a whole 3 minutes (or, in this case, 3 pages) longer than it needed to. Yet another shimmering example of this once great conservative mag/blog going right in the crapper. Are you serious? Kennedy vs Churchill!?! The only place you'd ever find Ted Kennedy is under a table not at the head of it. He didn't possess nor even come close to matching Churchill's staggering level of gravitas, brilliance or accomplishment. Kennedy was just a celebutition! His piggish behavour, mannerisms and overt boorishness made him the perfect foil for the modern day idiot box/lowest common denominator American mind set. So What? What an insult to Mrs. Palin, comparing that beautiful , wonderful example of American womanhood to that pig from the PROM! (Peoples Republic of Massachusetts). Good God, AMSPEC used to be so much better than this. Can't wait for your article comparing Moreen Dowdy to William F. Buckley Jr....Cheers!
Brian Richard Allen | 9.3.09 @ 2:22AM
United States of America's President and Armed-Forces Commander-In-Chief-Elect, Palin, has been the target of the non-stop attacks of the fascistic Left (and of the as-execrable RINO Left) from the moment she stepped on to the national stage.
Having deftly evaded her every attacker's every very best crack at her while as expertly having simultaneously exploited the publicity created by those attackers and by their lock-stepping Goebbelsesque propagandist/pamphleteer "press" pals to ensure herself and her family a life-time Multi-Million Dollar income, President-Elect Palin is now pefectly positioned to partner with Vice-President-Elect Petraeus and polish the 2012 presidential floor with the sail-eared simpleton and to sweep and squeegee he and his corrupt cronies and their brown-shirted bully-boy brigades back into the primeval bog from which he and they all recently oozed.
Brian Richard Allen
Lost Angels - Califobambicated 90028
And the Far Abroad
Pingback| 9.3.09 @ 1:48PM
ZoNation: Bill Maher, the Weak Among Us… Plus Encore Performance of Zo’s Sarah Palin links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
GENE HAUBER| 9.3.09 @ 3:24PM
SARAH , LISTEN TO ME GIRL,
If you want to go anywhere in national politics, I would suggest that you NOT listen to any republican consultant.
They are the ones who chose mccain over other better conservative candidates.
Although you, personally, sparked a HUGE enthusiasm for his candidacy, HE BLEW IT BIG TIME """AND""""THEN HAD THE GAUL TO BLAME IT ON YOU.
I never liked mccain from the time he came out wishy-washy on border control or guns and MOST OF ALL AGAINST....""harsh treatment"" of our sworn enemies.....his captors brutalized him when he was unable to defend himself.
HE KNOWS what our enemies do to our people as prisoners. WHO is he trying to B/S?
WHEN WE DEFEATED JAPAN AND GERMANY, WE DID NOT DO IT BY TRYING TO WIN THEIR HEARTS AND MINDS. WE DID IT BY """CRUSHING"""THEM TO THE POINT THAT THEY WERE NEAR EXTINCTION AS A PEOPLE.
AS VICTORS, WE RULED THEM, BUT WE DID IT WITH A CERTAIN UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR POSITION AS A "DEFEATED" PEOPLE.
WE FACE A DIFFERENT ENEMY TODAY. THIS ENEMY WANTS TO USE HIS RELIGION AS A NEED, A CAUSE, TO CONFRONT US, WHY DON'T WE USE HIS RELIGION AGAINST HIM AND THREATEN ALL OF HIS ""MARTYRS"" WITH DEATH BY A PORK FAT "CONTAMINATED" BULLET OR A BURIEL WRAPPED IN A PIG SKIN??????? WHY DON'T WE DO IT??.....HIS REASON FOR BEING......WE ALL KNOW IT IS A MISTAKEN DOCTRINE SINCE ISHMAEL IS NOT THE LEGITIMATE HEIR OF ABRAHAM.
HE IS "A DONKEY"WHO WILL BE DESPISED BY MANKIND....GENESIS 16:11-16
THE USA IS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY FROM OUR FOUNDING, WHETHER SOME OF THE ELEMENTS OF OUR SOCITY BELIEVE IT OR NOT....
WE ARE CHRISTIANS AND WE BELIEVE THAT NO ONE BUT JESUS CHRIST IS OUR SAVIOR...AND WE BELIEVE ONLY IN HIM.
I HAVE SEEN AND CONTINUE TO SEE THE HAND OF GOD IN THE FOUNDING AND THE SUPPORT OF THIS COUNTRY, AMERICA.
GOD CONTINUE TO BLESS US
MO Inkslinger| 9.3.09 @ 4:18PM
I can't wait for Sarah Palin to drive off the bridge and I hope she can't swim! God save America from Sarah Palin!
Nobama| 9.3.09 @ 5:32PM
More loving Liberal "TOLERANCE" on display--much like the care and concern Teddy showed pregnant Mary Jo by leaving her alone to die a slow, painful death in the cold, dark waters of Chappaquiddick.
Aren't liberals wonderful?
DMac8889| 9.4.09 @ 1:21AM
I think naming the Congressional Health Care Bill after Ted Kennedy is a good idea, however I think a bill named for Sarah Palin for defeating the Congressional Bill called the "HELL NO!" Bill. After all her bill stands a much better chance of PASSING than Ted's bill of "CROSSING THAT BRIDGE."
Pingback| 9.4.09 @ 6:59AM
The American Spectator : Is Sarah Palin the Next Ted Kennedy? | Cyprus today links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 9.4.09 @ 1:32PM
Sarah Palin eBay Charity Auction: Chance of a Lifetime « Frugal Café Blog Zone links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 9.6.09 @ 1:47PM
The Indignity: Sarah Palin Cost Alaska New Letterhead by Resigning Early! « Frugal C links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 9.9.09 @ 8:50PM
The American Spectator : Is Sarah Palin the Next Ted Kennedy? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 12.14.09 @ 11:33PM
ma credit repair, on ma credit repair, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 12.21.09 @ 5:55AM
credit repair massachusetts, on credit repair massachusetts, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.9.10 @ 12:34AM
The Observed Presence of Silver, Gold, and Platinum - Group Metals In Oil and Gas Pro links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
asdasd| 4.1.10 @ 2:17AM
FLV to WMV Converter is the most professional software, which is able to convert flv to wmv and convert flv files to wmv. In addition, it is very versatile, for flv file converter wmv can also convert flv to AVI, MP3, MPEG, MP4, iPod, etc. Is it your best assitant
MOV to DVD Converter is a professional and multifunctional software which can not only help you to convert MOV files to DVD, but also can help you to edit the MOV files before converting, set the output parameters, and edit the DVD menu.