The American Spectator : Living the Liberal Crack-Up

Text Size

Living the Liberal Crack-Up

By William Tucker on 11.25.09 @ 6:09AM

Speaking the truth helps focus the mind.

To borrow from R. Emmett Tyrrell, the illustrious founder of this publication, I have the sense that liberal America is headed for a huge crack-up.

Mid-term elections are less than a year away. A Republican blowout is in the making. That will leave President Obama without his majorities and a lame duck in his first term.

Yet the President isn’t the type that can handle this well. Bill Clinton had conservative tendencies and was able to triangulate between his Republican Congress and the public. Some of our best governing came in those years — welfare reform and balanced budgets.

Obama isn’t likely to do this. He comes from a liberal tradition that doesn’t even understand conservatism but thinks of it as a bunch of country yahoos, anti-abortion fanatics and fat capitalists trying to hang on to their bank accounts. His advisors believe the same, not to mention the panoply of cheerleading bloggers and newspaper columnists. All this is going to make it difficult for liberals to accept the idea that they have squandered their “once-in-a-generation” chance to impose a socialist agenda.

Health care will probably make it through Congress. Something will emerge from all the pushing and pulling. When people realize what they’ve gotten, however, the opposition will crescendo. Wait until young people realize the “solution” to their lack of insurance is that they are now forced to buy insurance under threat of fines and imprisonment.

Even if they regain control of Congress, however, Republicans won’t be able to repeal healthcare reform. The protests will go on for a few years, I suspect, until it will finally be overturned by the Supreme Court on the grounds that forcing people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. Like the National Recovery Act of 1933, Health Care Reform of 2009 will have lost popularity and will die a quiet death.

As far as the rest of the agenda is concerned, liberals simply don’t seem to realize there is a vast American middle class out there that enjoys its freedoms and isn’t looking for handouts from the government. Take an article that appeared two weeks ago in the “Outlook” section of the Washington Post, headlined “What if conservatives ran health care?”

If you’re a progressive like me, and you’re upset by the Stupak amendment, which bars federally subsidized insurance from covering abortions, consider this: What if we had a single-payer health-care system and someone like Jeb Bush or Sarah Palin were running the country?… [A] single-payer system would have put us at the mercy of whomever happened to take control of Washington.

The author, Maggie Maher, thinks the only issue at question is which party gets to run the healthcare system. She doesn’t seem to realize the third option — that nobody run healthcare but that the principal players — doctors, patients, insurance companies — run it themselves. The idea that there is an “American people” capable of taking care of themselves is alien to the liberal mind.

Or take New York Times’ columnist Gail Collins’ recent column on “2012,” which has apparently replaced the Y2K crisis as the latest version of the apocalypse:

This seems to be the fault of Nostradamus, the Mayan calendar, angst on the left about global warming and angst on the right about the election of Barack Obama. Or the health care bill. Or government bailouts. Or the repositioning of “In God We Trust” on the nation’s coinage.

Really, for ultraconservatives, the last year has been one sign of the apocalypse after the other. Soon, the rivers will run red with Starbucks Raspberry-Flavored Tazo Passion Shaken Iced Tea. Owls will give birth to two-headed frogs who shriek the lyrics to Lady Gaga songs.

2012 is a movie made by the director of The Day After Tomorrow, who was looking for a sequel to Al Gore’s version of Armageddon. It has the usual liberal fingerprints all over it. Yet Collins has to come up with some fantasy that attributes it all to the “religious right.” If somebody makes a movie of “Left Behind,” then we can start blaming conservatives for apocalypse mongering.

And speaking of the religious right, have you seen this month’s Atlantic Monthly? The cover story — I’m not making his up — reads as follows: “Did Christianity Cause the Crash?” Hanna Rosin, whoever she may be, has made the rounds of some Hispanic evangelistic churches in Charlottesville, Virginia, and discovered that they were preaching — are you ready for this? — self-reliance and upward mobility!

Every Sunday, the parishioners drive slowly into the parking lot, never parking on the sidewalk or grass — “because Americanos don’t do that,” one told me — and file quietly into church. Some drive newly leased SUVs, others old work trucks with paint buckets still in the bed. The pastor, Fernando Garay, arrives last and parks in front, his dark-blue Mercedes Benz always freshly washed, the hubcaps polished enough to reflect his wingtips.

Page: 1 2 >

topics:
China, Liberalism, American Dream, Gail Collins

About the Author

William Tucker is news editor for RealClearEnergy.org.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (211) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Pingback| 11.25.09 @ 6:56AM

The American Spectator : Living the Liberal Crack-Up | Information Technology links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…2009 To borrow from R. Emmett Tyrrell, the illustrious founder of this publication, I have the sense that liberal America is headed for a huge crack -up. Read the original post: The American Spectator : Living the Liberal Crack-Up marketing View zakopanelimba's Profile Subscribe via RSS Related Bookmarks Tags The Crack on Flickr - Photo Sharing!... More pictures and articles at www.au…

WestWright| 11.25.09 @ 7:21AM

It's inevitable, the Left is off the cliff and when they hit bottom it will be a site to see. Beware of the wounded donkeys!

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 2:22PM

"Obama isn't likely to do this. He comes from a liberal tradition that doesn't even understand conservatism but thinks of it as a bunch of country yahoos, anti-abortion fanatics and fat capitalists trying to hang on to their bank accounts."

Before you write a piece, think deeper.
You said the same about Hillary, and now she is SecState! You are not unconvincing, you are thoroughly unconvincing, seeing as how the 2012 election is almost three years ahead.

No wonder Obama won last year.

Le Cracquere| 11.25.09 @ 3:10PM

No offense, Mr. Brooks, but I'm not sure I see the necessary contradiction between such stances and getting tapped Secretary of State.

danfromatlanta| 11.25.09 @ 3:12PM

Mr. Brooks is completely incoherent. What does the hildebeast's illegal appointment to the job of SecState have to do with the liberal view of conservatives? If you think your response was coherent, then that only proves why the obamanation won, idiots like you voted for him.

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 3:32PM

I did not vote for Obama, but I will in '12, because again the end of the Cold War means the Right can not unite, and we end up with a hack from LBJ's state, who wants brutha Jeb to be yore president; then later Jenna assumes the sacred mantle to continue the dynasty-- beating out them Eastern-boy sissy Kennedys.
"we got 'em by the short hairs now, Buckaroo"

ggoblue| 11.27.09 @ 11:11AM

you might vote for him in 2012...by writing his name on the ballot...he is such a clueless commie that even the democrats could jettison him in the primaries. look for hillary to resign after the ass whipping next november...she will then start her campaign to 'save the party'...

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 3:40PM

"No offense, Mr. Brooks, but I'm not sure I see the necessary contradiction between such stances and getting tapped Secretary of State."
"What does the hildebeast's illegal appointment to the job of SecState have to do with the liberal view of conservatives?"
Because how could she be SecState if something hasn't changed drastically? The 2 main reasons I think Obama will be re-elected are: because he is the incumbent and he is black. Politics isn't science, just opinions;
:two cents worth.

Le Cracquere| 11.25.09 @ 3:54PM

"[H]ow could she be SecState if something hasn't changed drastically"? Well, look at it this way:
1. Conservative politician "X" is widely regarded as out of touch and unable even to fathom left-of-center mind processes.
2. I then get elected president on a wave of vague, incurious, and self-congratulatory voter sentiment (America's first child-hating, ambidextrous president. Yes we can!).
3. I then appoint X my Secretary of State.

Now, X is no closer to the mainstream than he started out. But since I wasn't vetted closely and the SoS is an appointed position, he can get in without anything changing much at all. Q.E.D.

Jeremiah| 11.25.09 @ 4:05PM

Good Lord, the author is right! Already that poor Mr. Brooks has become incoherent.

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 4:30PM

I'm a cad and a losel/lozel.
A racist, so you said. If you said so, it must be so, Jer.

But boy, did the leopard change his spots.
You might even say the worm turned.

SeattleBruce| 11.28.09 @ 3:21PM

"No wonder Obama won last year. "

You forgot to talk about 2010, and the massive debt. Thoroughly unconvincing? Try utterly nonsensical!

Richard Baker| 11.25.09 @ 7:38AM

"They become incoherent?" This statement presumes that they aren't already? Liberals are incoherent. They haven't yet become adults and gibberish is their stock and trade.

Deborah D| 11.25.09 @ 7:51AM

Weird doings. They truly live in an alternate universe...Bizzaro World, I believe. Everything they do, everything they say is absolutely delusional. Reagan, as on so many subjects, nailed liberals with a perfect one-liner: "It's not that liberals are ignorant; it's just that they believe so much that isn't so."

Reformed Theologian| 11.25.09 @ 6:17PM

Bizzaro World--yes, I've been saying this for year, but people don't know what I'm talking about. Glad somebody else sees it too!

Deborah D| 11.25.09 @ 7:53AM

Oops.. I think it's "it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Shamus| 11.25.09 @ 7:54AM

Liberals have been incoherent since the 30's, but it seems like each generation has to learn the lesson of the danger of socialism. It's ironic that communist countries now have better economic growth than we do.

Don L| 11.25.09 @ 8:06AM

The left's battle is, and has always been, as St Paul warned us, against God. Hedonism, pornography is art, deviant homosexuality is normal, the culture of death, "envy of the rich," selling the black community into government led slavery, contaminating the minds of our innocent children, denying fixed immutable truth exists, deceit as default, destruction of marriage and the family, destroying science as fact finding, and now we move into euthanasia (Obama) and opening the door to soft involuntary euthansia (Obamacare) against the moral principles of subsidiarity (first; smaller is better if...)

Those who think that they can somehow morph into "good" ought to read St. Paul again about the powers and principalities roaming the world seeking the destruction of souls.

Benson| 11.25.09 @ 9:04AM

Well said. Liberals and their beliefs have become the root of all evil in this country. That Obama, Pelosi and Reid have so blatantly shown the true colors of what the Democrat party is to many who didn't know is a good thing but only if we can defeat them and the policies that are ruining our country.

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 3:44PM

"Those who think that they can somehow morph into 'good' ought to read St. Paul again about the powers and principalities roaming the world seeking the destruction of souls."

So you share my pessimism? or are you going to reach for the wiggle-room to say you that are optimistic in a spiritual sense?
Poop or get off the pot.

mikey| 11.25.09 @ 9:22AM

The left made the mistake of thinking that because the US was foolish enough to fall for the siren call of Obama that they had totally bought into the far left agenda.

Now they found that they have the second ugliest date in the ghoul pool. Ugly date but no money.

That is the typical arrogance of the left.

This should be an obkect lesson for those who vote for "style and fancy talke" over substance.

Grzmlyk| 11.25.09 @ 9:27AM

Gee, if Trollbob can wriggle out of his strait jacket and get to a keyboard, perhaps he will regale us with another chorus of "If You Knew Economics Like I Know Economics," or maybe a rousing rendition of "Tax Rates Never Go Up, GDP Never Goes Down and the Merry-Go-Round Keeps Going Round and Round and Round," or my personal favorite, "I Left Reality for Ideology, and Life is Swell in my Kingdom of One."

Bydand76| 11.25.09 @ 10:40AM

Ha HA!

Thats pretty good Grzmlyk!

My personal favorite from TrollBob is " I voted for Obama because Sarah Palin was on the ticket with McCain and she isnt conservative enough for me" or how about " Everything that is wrong with the world including stubbed toes, halitosis and Chinese midgets is the fault of Christianity!"

I wonder is Ayn Rand is doing somesaults in her grave yet?

Grzmlyk| 11.25.09 @ 11:45AM

Wow, Bydand76, I hadn't heard TrollBob sing that particular tune, althogh GOD knows it's no surprise.

Although I thought that he thought that all of the maladies you mention are the fault of the "right wing ideologues" who are denizens of this site.

See, BOB is not an ideologue. He simply sees reality. And whenever reality doesn't comport with his vision, guess which one has to go? Hint: It ain't his vision.

Margie| 11.25.09 @ 12:49PM

Funny you should mention old songs. Here I was, sitting in the Dr.'s waiting room this morn. and this old song came on through the piped-in system. It was "Signs, signs, everywhere the signs".. the one about how the poor long-haired frekazoids just can't get a brake because they don't think they should have to go by the rules of common decency, etc. Remember that goofy song? I commented to my hubby that oh my goodness I used to relate to that song. Yeah, when I was like 14 or so. But some of us grew up. Liberals didn't. Fast forward to this present "crop" in D.C. Ugh! :^)

Grzmlyk| 11.25.09 @ 1:39PM

Margie, I DO remember that song. Typical liberal posturing. Like, signs are so "establishment, man." Except try negotiating a superhighway, or an airport, without them.

You are right - some of us grew up and liberals did not. You are SO right about the current crop in DC - Obama is, first and foremost, unbelieveably immature. I mean even if he were my UPS delivery guy I'd be all, "dude, yer not in college anymore! Let childhood go!"

But that he's president is jaw dropping. Every time I hear his voice or see his face, I think, "wow. We've elected a sullen adolescent as president." And that's the NICEST thing I can think of to say.

Let's not even go into his one-dimensional perspective on the world or his callow, resentment-fuelled ideology. And of course that goes for his merry band of thieves, thugs and social climbers.

I would say I know how liberals felt while Bush was president - but as exasperating as Bush could be, he wasn't the dunce they loved to think he was.

Obama IS every bit as bad as I think he is.

Worse.

Margie| 11.25.09 @ 2:26PM

I know, Grz. In fact I really appreciate the times during the day when I forget to think about him. When my husband mentions his name I say. "thank you for reminding me, I had almost forgotten." Especially at the dinner table. Not allowed. I never believed we could see worse then Clinton. but Aaarrrgh! as Lucy would say.
Thing is. How did some grow up and what caused others not to? My Dad is a Captain of Police. When I was 12, I got the Woodstock album for Christmas. He hated it. He hated hippies, yet he never sat me down to explain anything. I suppose his example alone had its effect. That and the Grace of God.
That's what it would take for Obama. God does the complete heart and mind lobotomies.
A Chritian friend says he will do God's will and pray for Obama. He doesn't want me saying anything "negative" about him. Insinuating that I am not doing His will by saying "bad" things about him. For example calling him a liar. But he did lie. He does lie. Is not part of God's will to call an ace an ace?
OK~~ I will pray for Obama from now on. I will pray that God gives him a lobotomy. Till then I'll keep telling the truth. He is, right now, a destroyer. He is ruining our beloved country and I want him to stop doing so. But by the Grace of God we will have enough conservatives voting to vote him out of office in 2012.
Please God, let it be so.

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 4:25PM

the hippies are burning their draft cards right now.

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 4:34PM

"When I was 12, I got the Woodstock album for Christmas. He hated it. He hated hippies, yet he never sat me down to explain anything."

but just in case the hippies take over the world, you'd better purchase a pair of bellbottomed trousers.

Margie| 11.27.09 @ 2:59PM

The Woodstock freakazoids are running the country now Alan, was my point. And you want more of it. You proclaim you're going to vote for Obama, yet you have the nerve to say we get what we deserve! I believe you are in need of a lobotomy also.

Wayne Farrar| 11.29.09 @ 3:44PM

Margie,

Inspired of God, King David penned a prayer that every devout Christian should be able to pray for Obama with a clear conscience: Psalm 109:8

Margie| 11.29.09 @ 5:52PM

Psalm 109:8~ "Let his days be few; and let another take his office."
Amen!

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 4:18PM

Objectively, Ayn Rand Was a Nut
by Peter Wehner, National Review

According to Politico.com, Ayn Rand — the subject of two new biographies, one of which is titled Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right — is “having a mainstream moment,” including among conservatives. (Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina wrote a piece in Newsweek on Rand, saying, “This is a very good time for a Rand resurgence. She’s more relevant than ever.”).

I hope the moment passes. Ms. Rand may have been a popular novelist, but her philosophy is deeply problematic and morally indefensible.

Ayn Rand was, of course, the founder of Objectivism – whose ethic, she said in a 1964 interview, holds that “man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself.” She has argued that “friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite; whereas, if he places his work first, there is no conflict between his work and his enjoyment of human relationships.” And about Jesus she said:

I do regard the cross as the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. Isn’t that what it does mean? Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.

Many conservatives aren’t aware that it was Whittaker Chambers who, in 1957, reviewed Atlas Shrugged in National Review and read her out of the conservative movement. The most striking feature of the book, Chambers said, was its “dictatorial tone . . . Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal . . . From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: ‘To a gas chamber — go!’”

William F. Buckley Jr. himself wrote about her “desiccated philosophy’s conclusive incompatibility with the conservative’s emphasis on transcendence, intellectual and moral; but also there is the incongruity of tone, that hard, schematic, implacable, unyielding dogmatism that is in itself intrinsically objectionable.”

Yet there are some strands within conservatism that still veer toward Rand and her views of government (“The government should be concerned only with those issues which involve the use of force,” she argued. “This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else.”), and many conservatives identify with her novelistic hero John Galt, who declared, “I swear — by my life and my love of it — that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

But this attitude has very little to do with authentic conservatism, at least the kind embodied by Edmund Burke, Adam Smith (chair of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow), and James Madison, to name just a few. What Rand was peddling is a brittle, arid, mean, and ultimately hollow philosophy. No society could thrive if its tenets were taken seriously and widely accepted. Ayn Rand may have been an interesting figure and a good (if extremely long-winded) novelist; but her views were pernicious, the antithesis of a humane and proper worldview. And conservatives should say so.

Nick| 11.25.09 @ 11:56PM

Mr. Brooks,

Could not agree more, sir.

Also, she was a hypocrite, as I'm sure you know. While married, she openly had a lover, because "sex" had nothing to do with "morality." But when her husband did the same, then she had a big problem with adultery.

People like to be PC and say atheists can be good people. And there probably are some.

But if you don't know what is good and what is evil, and more importantly, WHY something is good or evil, can you truly be good?

You certainly can't strive for holiness, because you don't know what is sacred and what is diabolical.

May you and your family have a Happy Thanksgiving, Mr. Brooks.

JoshInHB| 11.26.09 @ 12:46PM

Ayn Rand and her cult were the worst thing to happen to the libertarian movement.
They transformed what was a respect for individualism and free market economics into a bizarre mirror image of communism.

Margie| 11.27.09 @ 3:03PM

People are Athiests because that is the best justification in the world for their "anything goes" behavior.
After all~~ if there is no God, there is no accountability, there is no Hell.
~BUT! "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good." Ps. 14:1.

IndyJohn| 11.25.09 @ 9:38AM

I believe that Barack Obama, who has been emotionally coddled all of his life, who has been continuously told how special he is, who has surrounded himself with sycophants, who has an unbelievably lofty opinion of himself, when eventually forced to accept resposibility for the utter failure of his administration and the evisceration of his party, will become psychologically unhinged. His conception of the moral universe does not countenance the possibility of political calamity and personal unpopularity. When reality destroys his life fantasy, we will witness an emotional implosion.

dan| 11.25.09 @ 10:12AM

and as others have informed us, the messiah believes he is the best speechwriter, the most knowing economist in fact the mosty intelligent person infesting dc these days. When you fully believe you are here to reform america and be the savior of the planet there is no way to contemplate you can ever be wrong.

It appears the country is fully awake to the bait and switch that has been pulled by the mesdsiah

The real problem is that the messiah still isn't aware his snake oil charm has worn off with all but his toadies in the lame stream media

Grzmlyk| 11.25.09 @ 1:42PM

I totally agree, IndyJohn. I hope Fox News cameras are there when it happens, because the mainstream media would turn off their cameras.

Because we're going to see a temper tantrum that will make, "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore" look positively sanguine by comparison.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.25.09 @ 10:08AM

""Be prepared. When they start losing power, they may become incoherent.""

Mr. Tucker chose those words in his conclusion above.
I personally believe they are even now feeling the "frost"...the "chill", of the deep water at the bottom of the cliff.
As their bus continues to plunge toward that icy water with more of their lies being exposed nearly every day, I think we will see NOT "incoherence", but a ratcheting up of their hysterical attacks upon our country and we the people.

Mr. Tucker's admonition to "be prepared", is well taken however. The "communists", (pardon the shorthand), have already just about used up their weapons of "soft power".

(ie: lies, ridicule, media subsidies, Soros trolls, Celebutard support, etc.)

As the numbers start rolling in next Spring, and they begin to read God's handwriting on the proverbial wall, my mind begins to wonder what "hard weapons" they will bring to bear.
Thoughts?

Rocco| 11.25.09 @ 10:13AM

My fears, going back to the 1960's in high school is what would ever happen if these guys got their hands on the guns? Well, they do, and aim to do so if this talk of a civilian militia, a la Bolivarian Brigades, is any indicator. However, those of us who are veterans and hold our noses when this SOB is on the tube KNOW how to organize and fight back, with hard weapons if necessary. Discipline, training and a good sight picture will overcome a much more numerous mob any day of the week.

Bydand76| 11.25.09 @ 11:10AM

Hola, Ken (old Texican) mi amigo!

I think you bring up a valid point. History shows that the leftist radical is not prone to relinquishing power quietly and I would suggest that certain recent events would illustrate your point as well.

Honduras. It is only by the grace of freedom loving patriots in that country that stopped a Hugo Chavez wannabe from from assuming a total power grab. Yes I know that a sitting elected president was removed from his office BUT, I also know that the Honduran constitution allows for that to happen.

Venezuela. Here is a great example of what happens when a socialist meglomaniacal thug gets into and retains power. Venezuela is doomed and is on course to collapse. Time will tell on that one, but Chavez has already started to rattle the sabers (again) against Columbia and I am pretty positive that you will see a resurgence of hostility from Venezuela before to long. Their economy is in shambles and civil hostility towards the goverment there is rising fast. But since he is president for the foreseeable future......

Russia. Well, until they get back on course towards being a real republic I think you will see Russia continue to slide more and more into a socialist totalitarian monster.

Europe. Lord have mercy. They are lost.

As far as our own Country I think you will see a rising tempo of shrill accusations and heated rhetoric from the principle players on the Left against the Republicans as they attempt to shore up their power base and play upon their fears.
I think you will see the Unions and with the Media's approval attempt to play the victim and will try to bring out their members in a show of solidarity (and force) if things really start to go against them. (Especially Health Care)

I think that you will see the left accuse everyone who disagrees with them of open racism and hatred in an attempt to silence their growing critics and opposition. I think that they will attempt to focus on a diversion so that they can bring the independants around. Like Rahm said, " No crisis should go unused".

I also think that it could get reaaly ugly very quickly.

The Conservative is no longer willing to just lay back and let the left in this country march us down to the mythical socialist utopia.
I know that I am not going to go quietly into the night and I am not the only one who thinks that way either. We will see though.

Afghanistan and Healthcare. The Economy and the Debt/Spending are all going to be the undoing of this pathetic excuse of a President.
I guess it all depends on how commited to the American way of Life Obama and Soros and all of their filthy little minions are.

Whatch for the responses from all of the LibTrolls and then judge for yourself Ken (Old Texican)

BTW I think I have settled on the San Antonio area. (for now) LOL

Pro Libertate!

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.25.09 @ 12:22PM

Thanks for the shout out, Bydand76
May I suggest the northern suburbs of San Antone?
The plateau starts right there...glorious sunsets.

Margie| 11.25.09 @ 1:10PM

Well. What are us "old" ladies to do? I know it's coming, my Bible tells me so. I have no weapon. I only have my faith in God and my trust in His mercy. He's never failed me yet. Till then I'm voting with my feet and spreading the word. We can only do what we are able to do and that's it. And trust God to take care of the rest. I pray for a great conservative man or woman to get elected, with our help, as the next Republican President and try with our help to turn back all the corruption that has been done to our beloved country. Try as they may it won't be 100% possible but they have to try. We need to help good people get nominated. No more complaining. We need to help them.
God bless all who will do so.

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 4:23PM

well, Mark Sanford wont be the Great Redeemer, Marge.

You can cross him off your list. And he had the gall to write a piece on Ayn Rand in Newsweek?

Margie| 11.27.09 @ 3:11PM

Who said anything about Mark Sanford? You bring him up as a point to make a mockery, because that seems to be your mode of operation lately.
Apparently you choose to totally give up and go to the dark side. Your proclaiming your intention of voting for Obama tells us that. So now you're behaving like a typical Leftist and have joined the ranks of the Toddards.
R.I.P. Alan.

RM| 11.27.09 @ 11:55AM

Ken,
I think you may be right. Look how the left is lashing out after the global warming hoax has been exposed. There have been a number of doomsday stories about rising waters, etc. due to AGW.

martin j smith| 11.25.09 @ 10:33AM

A wounded animal is most dangerous. Be wary of the Left when they are desperate. They will do desperate things. There must be constant monitoring at all times. They are circling the wagon about the Climate Chage-gate and they will attack the messenger. Remember its ok if they hack but if they are hacked --...... So this will be a good case in point to observe the Left in action when they been caught red( yeah I know they are red )handed.

Jim| 11.25.09 @ 10:37AM

"If somebody makes a movie of "Left Behind," then we can start blaming conservatives for apocalypse mongering."

Too late. That was done years ago, starring Kirk Cameron. Frankly, the I think the whole Left Behind phenomena was a sign of the apocalypse.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0190524/

Howard| 11.25.09 @ 11:09AM

I agree with your premise. However, what was your stand during the Bush years? Were you mum about the deficits that sprung up, or were you as clear as you are now? i voted for Bush twice, but, he never vetoed a bill until late in his Administration. This allowed the Democrats to assume the mantle of fiscal responsibility for 2006 and 2008. This has weakened the GOP brand, allowing Obama to place all blame on Bush. While this is false, it gives him some traction with people inclined to agree with him. We need a new GOP Contract With America, specifying what is needed for spending, taxes and regulation; without large deficits.

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 11:33AM

You said the same about Clinton in '93.
Can't you understand that you can't recycle the same ploy?
I am voting for Obama so you goddamn fools don't give us a Jeb Bush or a Dole, or a McCain, or Elmer Fudd.
Never underestimate the ability of a Republican in the 21st century to shoot himself in the foot. Why? because the Cold War was what kept the GOP glued together-- and now that is over.
Do you really think (let's hope you are being disingenuous and not out of touch) that a country this violent could have a woman such as Palin for potus?
She might very well be assassinated if she were president.

Grmlyk| 11.25.09 @ 12:40PM

Huh????
A country this violent?

Uh, my memory may be failing here, but didn't we elect a black man as president a year ago? Weren't a lot on the left wringing their hands over right-wing nuts wanting to assasinate him?

Last I checked, he's still alive. Number of assassination attempts: Zero.

Sure, let's not elect ANYBODY president, because it's just as likely that ANYBODY could be assassinated as ANYBODY else.

Yikes. The logic train has gone completely off the tracks.

Margie| 11.25.09 @ 1:01PM

Alan,
You've given up. You've sold your soul? You must reconsider before it is too late. Put on the brakes. You're going to lose your mind if you keep going this way. I say this in all sincerity.

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 2:32PM

what was in that Hinckley shot into Reagan's chest by ricochet?
a jelly bean?

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if Obama is assassinated in his second term. By then some terrorist (yes: NOT a racist) could get ahold of a high tech rocket.
I became a conservative because I saw optimism is not warranted at this time-- and for many decades-- warranted. And now you people are chirping away, like Gingrich on too much champagne, that you think Obama wont be re-elected-- of course he will; and you KNOW it.
Please, save your overly-optimistic sentiments for church!

Grzmlyk| 11.25.09 @ 2:51PM

Alan:

I'm just not sure where your original post was coming from.

I wouldn't bet that Obama will be re-elected. Remember, the left is becoming disillusioned with him. And that horrid swath of humanity called "independents" will inevitably blow with the rightward wind.

I'm not overly optimistic - believe me. I've been "taken to the woodshed" on this site because I believe that entropy eventually prevails - be it among physical objects, human beings, institutions or nation-states. History would testify to this fact, and indeed we are witnessing it.

And I've often quoted that aphorism attributed to Alexander Tytler - (countries eventually cycle from oppression, through awakening, freedom, bounty, complacency and dependence back to oppression).

And yet, I do believe we have no choice but to fight on. My problem is with the inevitable pendulum of public opinion - sure, it will swing the moderates and independents back toward "Republicans" (ostensible conservatism) in 2010 and maybe 2012, but then, just as sure as night follows day, it will swing them all back to the left in 2014 and 2016. It's like a metronome, utterly predictable for the last 50 years.

I agree with Obama that fundamental change is necessary. However, whereas he wants to shred the constitution and create a socialist Utopia, I want to go in the opposite direction - and I believe that will require a "velvet" revolution in this country.

I do not believe it has to be violent, but it will be disruptive and it must be a break, as the founding fathers anticipated might be necessary.

I think we MUST dismantle the Leviathan before it strangles us completely.

Otherwise, we're just lying supine, waiting for the bureaucratic juggernaut to chew us up and spit us out.

And that sucks.

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 3:04PM

"it will swing them all back to the left in 2014 and 2016."

You are far more balanced than the others here, Gryzmlyk; if only you were writing pieces here and not merely blogging. Since I think the pendulum will in fact will drift to the left in '14 and '16, I would tend to agree with you, and disagree with the author.

Grzmlyk| 11.25.09 @ 3:57PM

Well thanks, Alan - I believe the past is prologue, and I do see too many conservatives licking their chops as Obama's approval ratings drop - they don't realize this is a DANCE we've danced many times before. As you know, after Carter, everybody thought the left had booted the presidency forever. And yet, Clinton was elected to two terms. After the Lewinsky shenanigans and the hillarycare debacle, many thought, aha! Perpetual Conseravtism here we come! And now we have Obama.

It does frustrate me that people think very short-term - all of this "resurgence of conservatism." They aren't dealing with the big picture. It's the temporary resurgence of conservatism.

Even Reagan couldn't stop the growth of the government. Bush, of course, accelerated it. We've seen the fecklessness of Republicans in congress. It's going to take more than a GREAT conservative - whoever that is - to stop the inertial momentum of government. It is a metastasized cancer that has spread throughout the body politic.

I'm not saying we can't save the body politic, but I am saying it's gonna take more than taking heart in the idiotic independents and moderates embracing conservatism. They're rudderless, easily-led sheep.

Or, as I believe Cassius refers to them in Julius Caesar, they are "blocks, stones, worse than senseless things!"

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 4:12PM

thank you back, Grzmlyk. It is the presence of yourself and a few others that makes me like this blog. I think Toddard didn't understand for awhile that AS isn't one 'thing', it isn't a monolithic commie or skinhead blog.

BTW, I only reject some of the bloggers' blind faith; not any legitimate faith. Legitimate faith would say the wars in the Mideast can be won in this century. Blind faith would say the wars will be won by 2020.
They wont.

Grzmlyk| 11.25.09 @ 4:36PM

Agreed, Alan (and right back atcha) - after all, one could just refuse to get up in the morning - what's the point? We're all going to be dead in 100 years anyway.

So I'm with you on faith. It's a must.

Have a good Thanksgiving!

Margie| 11.27.09 @ 3:25PM

You mock God and yet you claim to know those who have "legitimate" faith? That makes perfect sense, actually, as your man, Obama, also mocks God.

Margie| 11.25.09 @ 3:30PM

Well Ala, Far be it from me to get in the way of your insisting on being a nasty pessimist. But why don't you save your nastiness and lies about those of us who choose to do the fighting that's left for us to do, for the enemies of your country. Instead of us.

Margie| 11.25.09 @ 3:31PM

*sorry. should be Alan, not Ala.

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 4:01PM

aha, Margie, you meant to write Allah.
Now we know you are a secret Islamic, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Bydand76| 11.25.09 @ 1:42PM

I have absolutly no idea what you are talking about Mr Brooks.

At least when you vote for someone else against Sarah Palin (IF she decides to run) then you can comfort yourself in the knowledge that you tried to save her life. Stand Tall and Be Proud!

Wierdo!

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 2:36PM

You mean IF Palin decides to run after 2020, you Repuglican.
Only commies think women have a chance in the near future.

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 2:52PM

...what, you're going to feminize America by 2012?
2016?

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 2:57PM

You people have an almost Marxian faith in rapid change.

Sarah will save us! The Divine Sarah will need your donations in 2020 to redeem America with her 21st century right wing feminism.
Glory be, Marie.

danfromatlanta| 11.25.09 @ 3:27PM

Again, Mr. Brooks illustrates why the left is on a collision course with the lower altitude side of a cliff. I remember Jimmy Carter thought Americans had too much fear of communism, but then, he somehow thought that freedom was not really for everyone. The GOP had a clear vision of the threats to American freedom posed by communists, and just to remind the goofy leftists that might have forgotten, democracies did not start the cold war, the USSR did, starting with forcing allied aid to Germany after WWII by airlift. If you think this country is too violent (please check your facts, I beleive you will find most criminals are liberals), that's only because criminals are not afraid to commit violent crimes (thanks once again to liberals). Sarah Palin had more executive experience, and therefore was more qualified to occupy the Oval Office than either the obamanation or McCain. She also loves this country which is more than can be said for the obamanation or his fat a$$ed wife.

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 7:05PM

well then , Palin, like Kemp, is too good to be president?

Le Cracquere| 11.25.09 @ 3:30PM

"She might very well be assassinated if she were president"? Perhaps. One hopes not, but perhaps. In a way, the 2006 and 2008 elections relieved me a tiny bit: a casual observer of the mainstream left--NOT even the fringe left--could sense at the time that the Bush-hatred was boiling over, and that if they didn't win something soon at the ballot box, they might start turning over the idea of wresting something by violence.

Since then, the fair and square elections of a Democratic Congress & President have depressurized things a little, but I don't think the left of 2006 has gone away or re-reconciled itself to the tides of electoral politics. One worries that if the left gets smacked around a few more times at the ballot box, a critical number of them--and again, not just the fringe--may decide that nonviolent politicking, and even token assent to republican forms of government, are for suckers.

Pingback| 11.25.09 @ 11:37AM

Living the Liberal Crack-Up | Republican Party of Door County links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…them: a) You can’t go on forever spending money you don’t have. b) You can’t go on borrowing money to spend what you don’t have. Read more: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/25/living-the-liberal-crack-up/ Related posts: Bureaucrats With Badges These embarrassing episodes are not surprising to anyone familiar with... Obamacare Can Be Stopped: ReverseTheVote.org…

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.25.09 @ 11:52AM

Folks,
Alan's rant above demonstrates better than I ever could just how desperate the communists, (pardon the shorthand), are already gettin'.
Three years away and this freak is already suggesting the assasination of Sarah Palin.
No Folks,
I don't know where I heard it first, but I suggest:
A Contract FROM America!

In fact, I cannot think of a better place for the first draft of that contract to written right here among the essayists at AM Spec.
What do Y'all think?

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 3:14PM

I heard it over and again from the winter of '93 to the autumn of '96, Clinton will NEVER be reelected.
Oh no. never never never never never never never never
never never never never never never never never
never never never never never never never never.
"trust us, Alan, we would NEVER mislead you. Clinton cannot be reelected and will never be."
never never never never never never never never
never never never never never never never never
never never never never never never never never.
never never never never never never never never
never never never never never never never never
never never never never never never never never.
never never never never never never never never.
never never never never never never never never
never never never never never never never never.

And now his wife-- his WIFE-- is Secretary of State.

JoshINHB| 11.26.09 @ 12:55PM

Maybe the lesson is for repubs is:
Don't nominate amiable Rino losers.

you know, the kind of guys that care more about esteem from the establishment, than winning elections.

Richard Baker| 11.25.09 @ 12:22PM

Brooks:
Who is going to shoot her? You and the rest of your lot? Ken is correct. You freaks are losing it. Regarding Palin, the possible assassin better bring his A-game as the Lady shoots very well. I wouldn't be surprised if she's already a concealed carrier.

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 3:19PM

Oh but wait, if Hillary is SecState, then Sarah can become potus because the feminization (as distinct from the feminazi-ization) of America is proceeding on schedule?
Me of little faith.

Bruce | 11.25.09 @ 10:00PM

Feminization proceeding? This country has been feminized since at least the 70's. The result of that is the metro-sexual ridden Democrat Party. Not a real man amongst them.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.25.09 @ 12:27PM

Hi Richard
Good chuckle. From what I understand her security crew even now on tour is comprised of disgusted former Secret Service folks. They are pretty sharp too.

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 3:23PM

Good, Ken. but a gun don't beat a rocket, or a grenade, or an ied...

Point is I do not share your optimism on anything, unless you're into pure science.

You can't grasp that?

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 2:45PM

You take the miraculous too seriously. Praying can help. But it's a stretch to say a violent world can be changed just like THAT.
As I wrote above, there is a fair chance with the upgrade in quality and lowering in arms prices, that a terrorist could aim a small guided rocket, say, at Obama a few years from now. A secret Service agent is no match for a rocket.
And public figures aren't invincible Gods.
Reagan and Pope John Paul II were shot less than 30 years ago.
Repeat, I am not an optimist; optimism is for progressives and futurists.

danfromatlanta| 11.25.09 @ 3:36PM

Why exactly would terrorists try to assainate the obamanation? Was he not endorsed by every enemy of the US when he was running illegally for president? Obamination is the best friend any enemy of the US ever had! They don't have to plot the demise of the US, all they have to do is sit back and watch the obamanation do that for them!

Margie| 11.29.09 @ 9:50PM

Optimism is for people who know they have something worth fighting for. It's for real honest people who refuse to give up and give in.

"A man does what he must - in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures - and that is the basis of all human morality."
Winston Churchill
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
Winston Churchill
~Onward Alan, onward!

Richard Baker| 11.25.09 @ 3:31PM

Brooks:
Methinks thou needest explore the meaning of Faith. Hebrews 11:1.

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 3:56PM

Irregardless of faith, I do not share YOUR optimism.

Bruce | 11.25.09 @ 10:03PM

"Irregardless"? Doubtless the product of an "education" at the hands of the NEA.

There is no such word as "irregardless". A person who claims to be educated would be aware of that fact.

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 3:52PM

Faith is not the same as the wish-dreams you are offering at this blog.
"We must have faith that the Divine Sarah, sent by the Lord Almighty, will deliver us from the tyranny of the Obamanation, And so my brothers and sisters, please send your donations to the Elect Sarah in '16 Foundation. Amen and God Bless you in 2017"

This has been a paid political advertisement.

Richard Baker| 11.25.09 @ 3:58PM

Faith is what you liberals abhor. Faith built this country and Christianity. Are you God Himself to say that something with which you disagree is impossible? Suggest you read about Trenton and General Washington regarding Faith, as well.

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 7:08PM

liberal? I don't even have the faith to be a liberal!

JoshInHB| 11.26.09 @ 1:00PM

What built this country and made it great was.
Self Reliance
Hard Work
Freedom
Liberty

Not wishing and waiting for a political savior to come along and fix everthing.

Richard Baker| 11.25.09 @ 4:00PM

Irregardless is a double negative. Try another word.

Alan Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 7:10PM

you're correct, irregardless never sounded right.

publik Hi Skool English teacher syntax.

77Jack| 11.25.09 @ 5:00PM

Alan is awesome. Has anyone here who's praising Sarah Palin listened to her 1.2million interviews the past couple of weeks? She's the same ol' crap we've been voting in to office this whole time. I don't care if she says "them thar" or "hunker down", she has no stance on anything and she's boring. If she came right out and said the Obama was a communist then maybe she'd be something but she just dances around it like every other elected official.

I think there's a politician manufacturing plant somewhere pumping out the same model just with different skins.

Sir| 11.25.09 @ 5:24PM

Mr. 77Jack, with all due respect (little to none), you're out of your mind. Either you've been listening NONE to Mrs. Palin herself, or you've been listening ONLY to Sally Quinn.

In either case, please don't choke on your Reeboks.

77Jack| 11.25.09 @ 5:44PM

Mr. Sir - "with all due respect (little to none)" Isn't that a little like saying "no offense, but you're an a-hole"? You can take your little to no respect and put it where the sun don't shine.

As for Mrs. Palin, yes I did listen to her. Mayhap you should take the wax out of your ears really listen to what she's saying not to what you wish she was saying.

And what the hell does "please don't choke on your Reeboks" mean? Do they even make those anymore? The last time I heard anyone say anything about those was circa 1987.

Don't choke on your Swatch.

victor| 11.27.09 @ 9:39PM

At the risk of sounding like an advertisement troll,
Here it is, Wait for it'
You Asked For It!:
http://www.reebok.com/US/#

Still alive and kickin'
What the man was trying to say was:
Open Mouth.
Insert Foot!

Back to Huffpo with you!

jr| 11.25.09 @ 5:00PM

Good article but I stumbled here: Our economic future is at stake. Republicans know this in their bones." Republicans, whoever or whatever that is had 8 years to fix the mortgage and Wall Street betting market -- didn't do a damn thing. Now some people are thinking that 2012 with revive the Republican nuts. It may do so but that will probably be short lived; they will resume the stupidity shortly thereafter.

Margie| 11.27.09 @ 9:29PM

I suppose you've got a better idea, jr.?

Liberal Reader| 11.25.09 @ 6:14PM

Many of the criticisms of Obama is this piece are all well and good.

However, the notion that he does not "understand" conservatism, that he thinks conservatives are a bunch of "yahoos," is very suspect.

If anything Obama tends to devote too much time to understanding his opponents' points of view (if he indeed even considers them "opponents").

One colleague at the U of Chicago criticized Obama because he never seemed to advocate for one side over another as a law professor. If someone presented a conservative argument, he'd respond with a well crafted liberal argument; but, when confronted by liberal arguments, he'd respond with conservative points.

Now, I'm not saying Obama is a conservative; nor am I saying he harbors deep sympathy with conservative ideas. He's a liberal, no doubt.

I just don't think you can muster much evidence that he doesn't "understand" conservatism.

victor| 11.27.09 @ 9:42PM

Simple reader:
"One colleague at the U of Chicago criticized Obama because he never seemed to advocate for one side over another as a law professor."

Obama was never a professor, he was an adjunct or visiting lecturer.

He understands very little and what he doesn't understand, he doesn't care.

He does not have the authority to do what he does, but he doesn't care, because he knows that the people that voted for him will support him.
Got it?
Good.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.25.09 @ 6:22PM

Grz, Others here,
Please don't argue with cranks who answer them selves...over and over and over.

I personally crack up laughing when I watch Alan write a post, then answer it himself, then answer himself again. Reminds me of Dom Deloise in the movie with Burt Reynolds "The End" when the schizophrenic Dom argues with himself verbally.

Alan has contradicted himself so many times on this one thread, I just shake my head and laugh.

Margie
Volunteer as a poll watcher. Go to your local Republican meetings and meet some pretty nice people.
Grz
Get back on your anti-depressant medication! You are a pretty bright person, but it makes me gag when you agree with a certifiable nut here.

Entropy is bullfeathers...or more eloquently...the nightsoil of a male oxx.
The Creator of the Universe is still creating...or if you don't believe that...check with your local astronomy club.
Your "entropy" bullcorn is simply whining and disconnecting from responsibility, and frankly, I am starting to add you to my scroll-down-yawn list.

As Jesus Christ said in Hezikiah 3:21: "If yee are not part of the solution, yee are part of the problem."

A. Brooks| 11.25.09 @ 7:14PM

Tex, you correct; but, well, how to say it, you are too kind: Margie's a nut, too.
"hippies, Woodstock record", theyre riotin' with banana peel smokin.

Margie| 11.27.09 @ 3:37PM

A. Brooks proclaims he will vote for Obama and then has the (Obama) "audacity" to tell us "we will get what we deserve."
Your padded cell awaits you Alan.
R.I.P.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.25.09 @ 8:02PM

A. Brooks,
I have no idea what you just said. Do you?

Ross| 11.25.09 @ 8:56PM

The liberal mind adjusts (or makes up) the facts to match his convoluted ideology. The inherent problem for them is the utter lack of core principles. What passes for principles are adjusted continuously to suit the current political need. It is how a political party could move from capitalism to Marxism in a single generation. They don't REALLY believe in anything from the heart and it gives them incredible angst and guilt, and nothing infuriates them more than people who have a steadfast belief system that can't be shaken. Thus the absolute hatred for conservatives.

Margie| 11.27.09 @ 11:53AM

Bingo. And all that's left for them is mocking and scoffing while sinking ever deeper into the darkness.

Liberal Reader| 11.25.09 @ 9:09PM

Ross --

Take a moment to consider the tension between going by "principles" and going by "facts."

People who go by "facts" are generally called "pragmatists," and they represent by far the largest portion of the electorate.

Pragmatists resist "principles" as absolutely determinate; rather, they use principles as sensible guides but remain open to new ideas given their changing sense of the facts.

Pragmatism does not lend itself to talk radio or cable news; it doesn't smush easily into senseless sound-bites, but it remains the political philosophy of choice of most Americans.

Finally, you whimper that liberals "hate" conservatives. There's a fair amount of hatred on both sides, Ross. Maybe you can reduce the total amount of hatred by a) representing your opponents' view points more fairly; and b) resisting the temptation to make large, utterly vacuous generalizations like "they don't REALLY believe in anything," which is a cynical falsehood -- and would be impossible to prove anyway. Just make your case, and make it well. You'll be happier if you do.

JimE| 11.26.09 @ 5:13PM

"People who go by "facts" are generally called "pragmatists," and they represent by far the largest portion of the electorate. "
Liberal reader you are a idiot but sometimes you are a funny idiot.

Yosemeti Sam| 11.26.09 @ 12:05AM

" ... I have the sense that liberal America is headed for a huge crack-up...."

Followed by a coup de grâce !

Richard Baker| 11.26.09 @ 12:24AM

Sam:
The Americans are finally awakening. Agree with you.

Bydand76| 11.26.09 @ 5:33AM

Ken (old Texican) Grzmylk, Margie, Nick, Mr. Richard Baker, Yosemeti Sam, 5.56, Mr. Alan Brooks, Liberal Reader, Alyeska, S.L.Toddard,
To all the awesome writers here at AmSPec and to anyone else I might have missed.

Happy Thankgiving!

I hope you all have a wonderful and Happy Holiday!

If you could, please have a glass of some really good single malt (or Makers Mark if Bourbon is more to your liking) and please take a moment to say a little prayer for all the soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors who are out there right now and can't be home due to their deployments. This is a really tough time for them.

God Bless you all and may your future be bright!

For Liberty! (Pro Libertate)

Richard Baker| 11.26.09 @ 8:29AM

Bydand76:
In my 8 year service, I spent many Holidays and Birthdays working and overseas. I remember the longing to be home. To all who serve and are not here in the US or with Family, thanks for your devotion to duty. Carry the Flag and Torch forward for us. Happy Thanksgiving.

martha| 11.26.09 @ 10:42AM

So according to Hannah Rosin, the fact that those Chicanos have the unmitigated gall to want to work hard and make a better life for themselves, somehow makes them villians.
The smug soft racism in her article, was just vicious. I guess she prefers the Mexicans to just pick tomatoes in the hot Florida sun, and live 15 in a room. God forbid they should try to go for the American Dream! How dare they?! Who will she coo over? The racist and patronizing tone of that article was appalling. First Liberals treat Black people like that, and look what happened to a great many of them, now they're moving on to the Mexicans.
Disgusting.

JoshInHB| 11.26.09 @ 1:07PM

I Think Hannah Rosin is worried that she'll have to clean her own toilet if the "browns" get to uppidy.

martha| 11.26.09 @ 9:21PM

That's it exactly.
The soft racism shrouded in pseudo-compassion. It's really evil when you think about it. As is wealth redistribution.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.26.09 @ 12:40PM

Awwwshucks!
No one caught my joke: Grab your Bible and look up Hezikiah 3:21

Margie| 11.27.09 @ 3:52PM

There is no Hez. 3:21.
Must've been sleepy when I read your post. :^)

Still true, though.. you're either part of the problem or part of the solution.

Pingback| 11.26.09 @ 1:05PM

Living the Liberal Crack-Up « Stupid Socialist links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…to some 19th-century industrial fortune, liberals have long forgotten where money comes from and are spending it as fast as they can with the inbred assurance there will always be more there. > read the article This entry was posted on November 26, 2009 at 1:05 pm and is filed under stupid_socialist. Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: White as Milk. Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS.

tailgunner| 11.26.09 @ 1:28PM

'Incoherent'= dangerous, demagogic, dictatorial, despotic.

Richard Baker| 11.26.09 @ 5:59PM

Martha:
These illegals are being used by the growers and other businessman for cheap labor. The complaint is that they are breaking our laws and bankrupting our system (I suggest you look at their cost just to the State of California). If they want to go through the proper process for citizenship then they would be most welcome. However, the Mexican government is encouraging these peons to come North to relieve the stresses the Mexicans have caused to themselves by civil corruption and a venal government. I say to the Mexicans, go home and solve your own problems and stop using my country as your safety valve.

Liberal Reader| 11.26.09 @ 9:26PM

Richard --

You are veering very close to a reasonable post of sensitivity and integrity.

Indeed, what you've written here can easily be corrected by appealing to your own post.

Businessmen -- corporate entities -- attract people who are desperately poor to the United States with the promise of what is for them and their families a living wage.

Expecting people who are this poor to do higher order ethical circumspection is unfair. You do that sort of thing on a full belly.

I do think that illegal immigration imperils American social programs and our society in general; it also represents a terrible exploitation of people with very few options.

Blaming illegal immigrants is a form of cruel revanchism that deeply compromises conservative thought and makes it sound increasingly like neo-fascism.

The correct approach you touch upon in your first sentence: blame those who hire them.

And don't just blame them.

The penalty for hiring illegal immigrants for larger companies should be this:

That their wealth and their family's wealth is seized and SENT to Mexico to fund small-business loans and other projects that stimulate economic growth in regions from which immigrants are most likely to flee.

Take their MONEY because it's all they care about. No fence necessary; no more debate or hullabaloo.

martha| 11.27.09 @ 7:43AM

I never said I supported illegal immigrants.
I do'nt, HOWEVER what about legal ones? I work in the restaurant industry with a lot of LEGAL Mexicans. We check I-9 forms and visas, begore emplyment. Ever hear of E-Verify?
I was merely commenting on what Hannah Rosin was implying, not putting out any opinion about immigration legal or illegal, however now my opinion is on the record,
Feel better?

Osamas Pajamas| 11.27.09 @ 3:16AM

ON THE BIG MISTAKE OF ANN COULTER AND RUSH LIMBAUGH AND GLENN BECK AND BILL BUCKLEY [DECEASED] AND THE REST --------

I like these folks ---- but they have made some crucial errors in their thinking, writing and public speaking. They call Democrats "liberals."

The Democrats believe in statism, not liberalism. Famous brands of statism in recent centuries have been Nazism, socialism, fascism, communism, and welfare statism [sort of a mix of fascism and socialism].

Liberalism, on the other hand, is a political philosophy of small, cheap government, and the job of a liberal government is to enforce human rights within its own jurisidiction.

I speak of the perfectly-natural and universally-valid human rights of life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of personal happiness.

The first article of private property is "the self" and all other rights are derivatives of and flow from these cardinal rights.

These rights ----The Rights of Man ---- are the gift of nature or of nature's god ---- and they belong to all human beings, everywhere.

Show me a Democrat who subscribes to all of the above, without qualification or weasel words.

The words "liberal" and "liberalism" were hijacked by the Democrats and socialists long ago ---- and the mistake of conservatives and libertarians was to let them get away with it.

It is long past time that liberalism be reclaimed, defined, and explained by its rightful owners ---- by the champions of human freedom.

Declare yourselves to be liberals, then ---- and overthrow and trounce the Democrats!

Liberal Reader| 11.27.09 @ 1:04PM

Where do you get your history?

Words like "liberal" and "liberalism" are weaved into a variety of political and philosophical discourses. They don't have a single, stable meaning.

As a system of political philosophy, liberalism is generally best opposed to Marxism. Liberalism is rights based; Marxism is not.

Now, actual political systems that have historically formed and endured are, unfortunately for you, not always easily pegged on this broad, abstract continuum.

The belief that "all men are created equal" informed the Founders, but many of these men were engaged in one of the worst crimes against humanity in modern world history.

This is not to negate their accomplishments or beliefs. Rather, it's simply to prove that history is messy, contradictory, and rarely interested in fitting into simplistic categories, no matter how much the Glenn Beck-inspired know-nothings wish it would.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, "liberalism" took on a new -- related -- meaning. It came to mean a belief that societal progress involved extending political and economic opportunity to more people, with the help of government if necessary.

As we became richer, we desired greater safety nets and more protections for the vulnerable, and we desired greater political liberty for groups that were historically denied it (women, blacks, even children, just to name a few examples).

Modern American politics is a complicated beast, but generally tensions between liberals, who favor extending political and economic autonomy to the poor and to ethnic minorities, and "conservatives" (better called reactionaries) who resist changes, is generally greater than between groups who favor "large" or "small" government.

We're the most powerful country in the world; we have 300 million people; we have soldiers stationed in over 100 countries. We literally are a huge country, geographically and demographically. The notion that we could have a "small" government is ludicrous.

Now, conservatives do have arguments to make about the "limits" of government; but in general their program is to limit the amount of economic and political opportunities made available to people in the middle and lower middle classes.

Margie| 11.27.09 @ 3:54PM

Hey Liberal Reader~
If you don't know God, guess what?

You know NOTHING.

Liberal Reader| 11.27.09 @ 4:24PM

You are an impudent and obnoxious person, Margie. What do you know about my religious life, you presumptuous, sanctimonious fool?

Margie| 11.27.09 @ 5:05PM

Actually you must be looking in the mirror.
You do nothing but insult conservatives here daily. You are condescending to the hilt and always act holier-than-thou. Whenever anyone says anything that makes good sense you mock, insult demean and deride them. Sanctimonious? That would be you, once again.
Your "religiosity? You curse Christians who quote Bible verses, remember? "From the abundance of the heart the moth speaks." Mt. 12:34.
I just get sick and tired of seeing you be so condescending toward my fellow conservatives, and every once in awhile, I'll say so.
After all, you have free reign to spew your bilge. I am free to call an ace an ace when I see it.

Margie| 11.27.09 @ 5:15PM

As to the point I was trying to make, above: If you don't know God, you know NOTHING. It's true. All your knowledge, is meaningless if you don't know God.
"Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up." 1 Cor. 8:1.
You are puffed up with "knowledge" but where is the love? You tear down everything any conservative says. Liberalism is a lie, and it is based on a lie. It is hoping for government to take care of you, along with everyone else. It's in agreement with Socialism, and though we're seeing what Obama is doing to this country, you stick to your guns in defending Leftism.

JoshInHB| 11.28.09 @ 12:58AM

Liberal Reader,

You are an idiot. What is called liberal now, was until the 30s and even now is more properly called progressive or socialist. It's truely ironic that the democrats have how abandoned the "liberal" label after completely discreditting it and now call themselves "progressives".

Whatever name you chose to call ourselves, you're still State worshipping pagans.

Marc Jeric| 11.27.09 @ 4:47PM

In the 1920's they call themselves communists; after the Stalin's mass murders were discovered formally by Khrushchov in 1955 they renamed themselves socialists; when the failures of socialism resulted in abject poverty they started calling themselves liberals; and when liberalism got to be doubtful they now call themselves progressives. But it is the same bunch of phony intelectuals who believe in their inherent intellectual superiority that gives them the right to absolute power over us peons.

Margie| 11.27.09 @ 5:20PM

Liberalism=Socialism=Communism=Satanism.

Same spirit, different words, names, "titles."

They all destroy. They are all "a brother to him who destroys." Prov. 18:9

JoshInHB| 11.28.09 @ 12:53AM

Pajamas,

You are absolutely right.
It is a travesty that the term liberal was highjacked by socialists in the 30s and then completely discredited in the 60s and 70s by rich guilty semi-socialists excusing all kinds of anti social behaviour.

Now the heirs of 19th century liberal thought, people who believe in small government, individual rights and responsibilities and free market economics are left with the clunky label "libertarian", with all its crazy anti religious, lebertine associtations.

Richard Baker| 11.27.09 @ 8:27AM

Martha:
I understand that the fraudulent document and credential business is flourishing.

martha| 11.27.09 @ 12:40PM

I'm going to repeat a little slower, maybe you'll understand it better, I am talking about LEGAL immigrants only and again, I was only commenting on the tone of Hannah Rosin's article nothing more.
There does that clear it up for you?

Pingback| 11.27.09 @ 11:50AM

Post-Thanksgiving Reads « Nebraska Redneck links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…also soared to $7.5 trillion at the end of last month, up from $6.3 trillion shortly after Inauguration Day. Yet 50% of Americans still place more of the blame on Bush. * * * * * * * * Awaiting the inevitable liberal crackup. Like fourth-generation heirs to some 19th-century industrial fortune, liberals have long forgotten where money comes from and are spending it as fast as they can with the inbred…

DaveS| 11.27.09 @ 1:33PM

The current Congress (Dems) and the President do, indeed, have that once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do damage that cannot be readily or even entirely undone. Pelosi doesn't care about 2010 as much as she cares about the new New Deal.

Liberal Reader| 11.27.09 @ 1:58PM

I hope you're right, DaveS.

But I doubt it. Few politicians are capable of seeing beyond the next election.

When Republicans controlled Congress they spent money like drunken sailors, refusing to account for Medicare part D, tax cuts for the wealthy (which increased the debt by ONE TRILLION dollars), or the wars abroad.

Democrats, on the other hand, are spending more, but at least they're spending ON THE BOOKS and not trying to hide what they're doing from the American people.

DaveS| 11.27.09 @ 2:29PM

What are you talking about?

Margie| 11.27.09 @ 5:23PM

"Democrats, on the other hand, are spending more, but at least they're spending ON THE BOOKS and not trying to hide what they're doing from the American people."
~Absolutely blind as a bat!

Liberal Reader| 11.27.09 @ 6:52PM

Blind?

Look: the Republicans past tax cuts to the top 2% of taxpayers that they didn't pay for; the funded a war, but didn't raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere in the budget to pay for it; they passed Medicare part D to the tune of 700 billion dollars but didn't pay for it.

Republicans want to buy votes, but they don't want to pay the piper.

Democrats will fund their spending with tax increases -- no doubt about it. But that's honest.

Tax and spend liberalism IS the solution to many of this county's problems.

Margie| 11.27.09 @ 8:05PM

"Democrats will fund their spending with tax increases -- no doubt about it. But that's honest."
~Honest? It's CONFISCATORY! It's called stealing. When do you think it should stop? At what level? 50%? 60% 70%? Or should we just hand over our entire paychecks?

"Tax and spend liberalism IS the solution to many of this county's problems."
~All I can say is, you're nuts!

victor| 11.27.09 @ 8:41PM

Simple Reader strikes again!

"Look: the Republicans past tax cuts to the top 2% of taxpayers that they didn't pay for;"

Everyone got a tax cut and some at the bottom got taken off of the tax rolls altogether.
What are you going to tell them when the GW Tax Cuts are put back in place on 1/1/10?

Tax revenues increased and average of 6% from 2002 to 2007 and 3% if you add 2008.
Revenues went from 3.1 Trillion in 2000 Trillion in 2008.
http://www.bea.gov/national/ni.....JavaBox=no
ONE TRILLION INCREASE is really a decrease to you, eh?

On the other hand, in the first three quarters of the NWO, Nationalizing With Obama,
receiptes DECREASED nearly 10% from the Fourth Quarter of 2008 to the Third Quarter of 2009. From 4.1Trillion down to 3.7 Trillion.

"Republicans want to buy votes, but they don't want to pay the piper."
Whose vote did we buy by going to War with the Terrorists?

"Democrats will fund their spending with tax increases -- no doubt about it. But that's honest."

What is "honest" about speng money on UNCONSTITUTIONAL expenditures?

"Tax and spend liberalism IS the solution to many of this county's problems."
PROVE IT!
Studies have proven that High Taxation and High Spending lead to lower productivity and innovation. And less revenues and less standard of living.

Liberal Reader| 11.28.09 @ 1:02AM

Whenever someone says "studies have proven," put on your rain jacket and run for the hills. That's my advice.

What "unconstitutional" expenditures? If they're unconstitutional, let them be challenged in the Supreme Court.

Obama's stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts, 1/3 aid to the states (roughly), and (roughly) 1/3 spending on infrastructure.

None of this is unprecedented; none of this is unconstitutional.

Maybe you're talking about the health care plans?

You'd have to work pretty hard to show they're unconstitutional.

You tea-baggers have to understand something:

Just because you disagree with something does not make it unconstitutional.

victor| 11.29.09 @ 7:37PM

Simple Reader aka Managing Editor Pravda:
"Whenever someone says "studies have proven," put on your rain jacket and run for the hills. That's my advice."

Notice that Simple Reader never cites any sources or references to back up his assertions.
Here ya go!:
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publ.....on_09.html
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

"What "unconstitutional" expenditures?"
Anything that is not authorized by Article I, section 8.

victor| 11.29.09 @ 7:38PM

continued:

"Obama's stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts, 1/3 aid to the states (roughly), and (roughly) 1/3 spending on infrastructure."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....00154.html

Those "Tax Cuts" are really rebates, credits an dpayments to those who DO NOT PAY TAXES!

"None of this is unprecedented; none of this is unconstitutional."
Unprecendented, maybe.
Unconstittuitonal, Absolutely!
See Article I, section 8.

"Maybe you're talking about the health care plans?"

Nowhere in the Constitution, does the Government have any authority to compel us to BUY anything!
Prove it and cite your sources!

"You'd have to work pretty hard to show they're unconstitutional."

Article I, section 8!

"You tea-baggers have to understand something:

Just because you disagree with something does not make it unconstitutional."

You Statists have to understand something:

When you go against the Constitution, that makes it unconstitutional!

Margie| 11.29.09 @ 9:31PM

Bravo honey, bravo!

victor| 11.27.09 @ 8:06PM

"Democrats, on the other hand, are spending more, but at least they're spending {{ON THE BOOKS}} and not trying to {{hide}} what they're doing from the American people."
Hiding?? Are you Kidding? Or are you Stark staring Nutz?
Kash for Klunkers cost the Taxpayer 25000 per new car, helped the transplants down south and Toyota in particular.
Kash for Klunky Kottages cost the Taxpayer $25000 for an $8000 credit that will be taxable.
And what about the 100's of phony congressional districts that "created" millions of "new" jobs, eh?
Recovery.gov is full of such creative accounting errors.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.27.09 @ 3:29PM

He doesn't remember. heh
He was being incoherent.

Margie| 11.27.09 @ 3:40PM

Ha!

Marc Jeric| 11.27.09 @ 4:55PM

I have nothing against immigrants, legal or illegal, as long as they are not criminals or un-assimilable. Mexican illegals are 90% Indians, unable to assimilate into the Hispanic culture after almost 500 years, and therefore unassimilable here into the Anglosaxon culture. Those Aztecas, Toltecas, Olmecas, Mayas etc. speak only pidgeon Spanish, have at best only 4 years of primary education, and will never learn English. Well, maybe in another 500 years. Those other 10% are mestizos - mixed Indian and Spanish - and constitute majority of the criminal element whose main victims are Indians.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.27.09 @ 7:46PM

Marc,
Your points are well taken.
A couple of thoughts:
1. I sorta' admire the Amerinds for not "assimilating" to the corrupt hispanic culture heh.
2. Their human sacrifice "cultures" are pretty nasty too.
A good ole' barbarian Commanche or Sioux can assimilate if he/she wants to. Those other Amerind groups you mentioned...hmmmmmI don't think so.

Richard Baker| 11.27.09 @ 5:38PM

Martha:
Listen slowwwly. The documentation to which I referred casts doubt on the truly LEGAL status of the folks to which you refer. Clarification. Take the peanut butter out of your ears, dear Lady.

PJVarley| 11.27.09 @ 6:26PM

It is crony capitalism that has a paradox with which to deal. Everyday it needs more consumers with money to spend. Everyday it releases more workers as computer networks takeover their business' productive needs. This trajectory seems to have the makings of a major crack up and its inevitable collapse will not be pretty. Hopefully, it will be after my time or some kind of government/business cooperative solution will be forthcoming.

victor| 11.27.09 @ 8:43PM

"some kind of government/business cooperative solution will be forthcoming."

I believe some would call this Central Planning or even Fascism.

JoshInHB| 11.28.09 @ 1:15AM

"Hopefully, ... some kind of government/business cooperative solution will be forthcoming. "

Unfortunately thats what we've been living with.
You aptly called it "crony capitalism" earlier in your post and yes another name for it is Fascism

victor| 11.29.09 @ 8:00PM

"You aptly called it "crony capitalism" earlier in your post and yes another name for it is Fascism"

The two are not the same. Crony Capitalism is where some in business work with some in government to achieve certain goals.
Fascism is where the State controls and directs the means of production.
Conservatives believe in Separation of Capitalism and State.
Communists and Fascists believe that corporations should do the bidding of the State and therefore should be under the State's control.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.27.09 @ 7:39PM

PJ.....
Either your logic is muddy, or your ability to construct a declarative sentence or two is muddy.

If you want to enter the conversation, you might want to work on both.
Adult conversation here.

Liberal Reader| 11.27.09 @ 8:00PM

Other crack-ups include the exposure of the rank hypocrisy of The Family, the ultra-right lobby organization that advocates "totalitarianism for Christ."

The Family includes a handful of conservative Democrats, but by far most of the politicians involved with it are conservative Republicans.

The Family has been exposed in recent weeks with utter hypocrisy when it comes to the sex scandal of Sen. Ensign.

This scandal makes what happened with ACORN look minor and silly. The Family is a truly dangerous outfit; it's filled with anti-Catholic bigotry and just plain bad for America.

The World, a conservative evangelical publication, recently did an expose on this creepy organization. You guys should check it out.

Meanwhile, liberals are just fine. Don't worry. We're not "cracking up." We WON for God's sake, and everything's going to be fine.

Nick| 11.27.09 @ 8:17PM

Mr. Military Occupational STRATEGY,

Hey, Rambo, where were you stationed again?

victor| 11.27.09 @ 8:53PM

Simple Reader:
"totalitarianism for Christ."
You might want to cite some sources here.
FreeDem, HuffPo, Rachel Madcow, Keith Overbite and the usual ProgSocCommUtopianist
websites aren't going to cut it here.
"The World" is a joint effort of PRI, BBC and WGBH. This is Evangelical Socialism and nothing to do with Christ.
You need to Repent of your Sin and Come to Christ before it is too late.
God allows U-Turns.
You're on your way to the Lake of Fire.
You need to turn back.

Liberal Reader | 11.27.09 @ 10:38PM

God knows I have plenty of repenting to do. There I can't argue with you.

On The Family I recommend Sharlet's reporting. He lived with The Family for a long period of time and gained access to its archives.

I've included a link to his book. He's also published in Harpers on the Family.

This isn't exactly a story handled by the "left" press. Since Senator Ensign's squalid affair came to light The Family's been getting plenty of attention.

Thanks for the info. on The World. I didn't know much about it beyond their coverage of this one story.

Liberal Reader| 11.27.09 @ 10:39PM

That is... not exclusively by the "left" press.

victor| 11.27.09 @ 11:18PM

From Sharlet's Bio page on his website:

"In addition to Harper’s and Rolling Stone, Sharlet has written for Mother Jones, New York, The Nation, New Statesman, The Washington Post, The Dallas Morning News, Nerve, Salon, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Columbia Journalism Review, Oxford American, The Baffler, Lapham’s Quarterly, The Forward, and Pakn Treger, an award-winning magazine of Jewish history literature which he created for the National Yiddish Book Center. He has commented on religion and politics for NBC News, MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show” and “Hardball,” Comedy Central’s “Daily Show,” HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” CNN, NPR, BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera, Air America, Radio France, The New York Times, Newsweek, and other media venues. A 2005 Harper’s cover story was part of Harper’s winning National Magazine Award entry, and a 2003 Harper’s cover story was anthologized in Best Music Writing 2004. A 2007 feature for Oxford American is anthologized in the 2008 edition of Best Music Writing."
Can we get anymore Leftist than the above?
"For the tree is known by its fruit. (Mt. 12:23).
~I'd say this book of his is probably a typical Left Wing hit job.
He also wrote this hit piece in Harper's Mag. entitled: Jesus Killed Muhammed." A disgusting rant about how the American Troops are like the Crusaders of old. Murderous thugs. This guy is about as credible as you are. I'd like to see this guy do an article about Major Hasan in the same fashion. But no, he's a typical America hater. Typical low life Leftist creep. S0, way to try and deceive your readers yet again. But you've failed.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/05/0082488

Liberal Reader| 11.28.09 @ 12:56AM

victor --

How about actually looking at what he wrote? Or, look around for refutations of his (best selling) book; or, look for DENIALS by The Family.

If you think The Family is all just peachy, you're definitely in the minority.

Margie| 11.29.09 @ 1:20PM

Sorry LibRead. My husband & I don't believe anything a hard core lying anti-American Leftist would have to say!

Nick| 11.27.09 @ 11:22PM

Marxist Reader,

"The World, a conservative evangelical publication [...]"

"Thanks for the info. on The World. I [DIDN'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT IT] beyond their coverage of this one story."

Care to reconcile these two statements, Mr. Military Occupational STRATEGY?

Why did you falsely claim The World is a "conservative evangelical publication", when it is not? Are you a just a pathological liar, or ignorant as you claim in your reply to Victor?

Still waiting on the name of the post you were stationed.

Nick| 11.27.09 @ 8:12PM

Bydand76,

Thanks for the kind words. Hope your Thanksgivivng was tolerable, at least. Everyone in my family gave thanks to Almighty God for all the troops that sacrifice to protect us all.

I pray for you, your buds, and all the people who put it on the line everyday to protect this Great Country.

Happy Thanksgiving and may you have a peaceful Christmas. And know that there are many, many back home thinking of you.

God Bless.

Mandarin Chinese Online | 11.28.09 @ 4:34AM

What they say doesn't matter to me.
it really make me down

Richard Baker| 11.28.09 @ 12:52PM

Nick:
Doesn't MOS mean Military Occupational Sausage? When I was 11B, I forgot my true calling. I was taught by a Platoon Sergeant that it was better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt. I guess some didn't get the word. FIDO.

Liberal Reader| 11.28.09 @ 2:00PM

You guys have a hilarious sense of humor. For weeks, you've been tickled silly because I wrote the word "strategy" instead of "specialty."

Can I just offer a thought here?

The two of you are MORONS.

Fuck it drive on, indeed.

whyyeseyec| 11.28.09 @ 1:12PM

Face, 52.7% of Americans voted for the color of a man`s skin instead of the content of his character...

Liberal Reader| 11.28.09 @ 2:10PM

For the first time in American history, the stupid and the crazy have their own political movement.

Sociologists have not, to my knowledge, begun studying the phenomenon, but it will be found to have been made possible by near universal internet access delivering a debased political discourse to people with no or little formal education.

Revanchism, xenophobia, and racial anxiety are ugly and pathetic characteristics of tea-baggers, but by far its lack of intellectual curiosity and its lack of information are this group's most salient characteristics.

Disturbing is how widely acceptable illogic is among tea baggers.

For example, here is the kind of thinking that passes for reasoned discourse among these brazen ignoramuses:

A government is responsible for Dachau. Therefore, anything a government does can reasonably be compared to Dachau.

Now, you will say, Liberal Reader, you're exaggerating. Only a completely stupid fucking idiot could think this way.

I wish I were. It's exactly the way the Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin inspired mobs explain their hostility to the idea of health care reform.

What we're talking about here is a Movement of Morons.

They're sick of being looked down upon; they're sick of being controlled by elites; they want to run everything. Only, they're morons, and only morons want them in charge of anything! So, they're resentful; they're angry; they're mad as hell. They think the strength of their opinions confirms those opinions; they're not going to take it anymore!

Osamas Pajamas| 11.28.09 @ 5:10PM

Will never get tired of blowin' smoke up your own butt? Do you actually believe your own propaganda?

Osamas Pajamas| 11.28.09 @ 5:15PM

OOPS. TYPED THIS ONE WITH MY ELBOWS...
Will you never get tired of blowin' smoke up your own butt? Do you actually believe your own propaganda?

JoshInHB| 11.28.09 @ 9:41PM

Liberal Reader - "For the first time in American history, the stupid and the crazy have their own political movement."

You Progs have had "movement" since the early 1900's. Haven't you screwed up the country enough? It's high time to get back to the principles that this country was founded upon.

Liberal Reader| 11.28.09 @ 10:07PM

Which principles that this country was founded upon do you want to return to?

You make it sound like everyone in the latter 18th century in American all agreed on what the country should be.

Depend upon it, JoshInHB, they didn't. There ARE no "principles that this country was founded upon" that you could print out in a list and follow.

Then, there were things that you might not like. Slavery for one. Execution for nearly all felony violations for another. Does that sound good to you?

We live in a complicated society. You can have a fantasy about going back to the way the country was in 1791, but it's just a fantasy.

victor| 11.29.09 @ 8:14PM

Simple Reader eschews logic once again:
"Which principles that this country was founded upon do you want to return to?"

How about the Principles and Foundation of the Constitution that was ratified in 1787?
How about the Bill of Rights? Not good enough for you Statists?
Slavery was not in the Constitution and neither was execution. Those belonged to the States.

Better bone up on your American History and knowledge of the Constitution for starters.
Here's a good place to start:
http://www.fed-soc.org/
http://patriotpost.us/

Osamas Pajamas| 11.28.09 @ 5:03PM

Great article, but I disagree on the inability of Republicans to repeal the hijacking of healthcare. They should be saying openly and right now that if they regain the majority, the repeal of the healthcare hijacking will be their number one goal because it endangers personal liberty, the quality of medical care, and the national budget. No apologies required.

Margie| 11.29.09 @ 1:18PM

I fully agree. And you know what? I'm wondering if Sarah Palin would be the only one who has the guts to do that.
The Left knows this, too. They know she has the guts to take the country back. That's why they hate her so much.

Osamas Pajamas| 11.28.09 @ 5:05PM

ON THE BIG MISTAKE OF ANN COULTER AND RUSH LIMBAUGH AND GLENN BECK AND BILL BUCKLEY [DECEASED] AND THE REST --------

I like these folks ---- but they have made some crucial errors in their thinking, writing and public speaking. They call Democrats "liberals."

Liberalism, on the other hand, is a political philosophy of small, cheap government, and the job of a liberal government is to enforce human rights within its own jurisdiction.

I speak of the perfectly-natural and universally-valid human rights of life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of personal happiness.

The first article of private property is "the self" and all other rights are derivatives of and flow from these cardinal rights.

These rights ----The Rights of Man ---- are the gift of nature or of nature's god ---- and they belong to all human beings, everywhere.

Show me a Democrat who subscribes to all of the above, without qualification or weasel words.

The words "liberal" and "liberalism" were hijacked by the Democrats and socialists long ago ---- and the mistake of conservatives and libertarians was to let them get away with it.

It is long past time that liberalism be reclaimed, defined, and explained by its rightful owners ---- by the champions of freedom.

Declare yourselves to be liberals, then ---- and overthrow and trounce the Democrats!

Margie| 11.29.09 @ 1:06AM

I tell you what, OP's. I quit calling Democrats Liberals not too long ago. I call them Leftists because that's what they are as a Party now. Leftist covers it all. Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, and (I know it's un-PC to say, but Satanism.) The good thing about this is that there is more and more of a clear division between the 2 parties. I know it's not PC to say that but it's true. I'm talking about the Planks (as Sarah Palin recently called them) of the Republican party. The grass roots core are conservatives. The Left's famous (or rather infamous) mantra is "there is no difference bet. the 2." Wrong. Just that we let the elite get the upper hand but we're working on that as seen in VA & NJ elections.
My point is, though you may be right about the true def. of Liberal, (in the past), I will never refer to myself as that. Sorry, but no thanks.
The same thing is brewing in the conservative arena. You have the Libertarian "Non-interventionists" (Toddards) coming in and trying to say "You are no conservative! You are an idiot!" "We are the true conservatives!" So now it's a question of are we going to allow this redefining? Personally, I think not. Libertarians are welcome to vote Republican, but it will never become a "non-interventionist" party. And history has proven that third parties don't work.
p.s. I'm impervious to flames.

Northern Rebel| 11.28.09 @ 5:30PM

Liberal reader:
You are right, oops, I mean correct.We morons are so stupid to reject the knowledge, and salience of you elite sophisticated Demi-Gods, and accept whatever meager existence you deign to foist upon us.

I mean, who do we think we are, American voters, or what? How foolish we are, to think that we know better how to spend the money we earn, instead of paying you our wages, in tribute to your omnipotence.

If the elite decide that they should use my money to exterminate the unborn, or refuse to treat grandma, because some young elite will benefit more with my earned income, than my family member, well, I should be grateful for your pronouncements!

If I can't take the money I earned with my own toil, and by a pick-up truck, (that's what us morons drive) why then, I should be grateful for the golfcart the elite has chosen to bequeath all of us "lesser mortals."

I am confused, all knowing elite benefactor, about smoking.

Since you use the exorbitant tax dollars you extort, mostly from the poor you claim to want to help, to fund anti-smoking programs, and help the children that you decide should live, should we smoke more or less?

These conundrums can easily confuse a moron, so you must learn to talk down to us more simply. ( If a moron may be so bold)

It just so happens that we morons, of little or no formal education, make this country work, in spite of you stuck up faggish assholes, and now that we can use a forum like this to put you in the pathetic place where you fuckin' prigs really belong, well, you are offended!

I would like to have seen your kind fight for this country, during our independence, or save Europe yet again, from another of it's homegrown dictators. You would be food for carrion, before you could tuck in your ascot.

You sir, are a pox on American society, and the sooner you meet me out behind the woodshed, the sooner our country will be rid of at least one of you, and instantly become a better place!

Fuck you, and everyone like you, Mr. Liberal Reader, sir.

Liberal Reader| 11.28.09 @ 7:04PM

If you say so, Rebel.

Carolynn | 11.28.09 @ 5:58PM

Charlie Rose had a bunch of liberal commentators including the like of Arianna Huffington opinioning that Obama must make a course correction.

If you did not see it, it's worth going on the web to view. These folks were not just upset with Obama they were angry. The qualities of intellect and pragmatism that had originally led so many to Obama are being questioned. The liberals on Charlie Roses' show were outwardly disappointed in his leadership skills. And the quite, nuanced, deliberative mind of Obama -- once hailed as an asset has now become a liablity.

The Republicans will be victorious in 2010 no doubt. And the philosphy of Conservatism, presented properly will sweep the nation in 2012.

It's going to be a rough path for poor Bill Maher.

Margie| 11.29.09 @ 12:08AM

You make good sense. But watch it. You might be called a moron, a Teabagger, a sanctimonious something or other, obnoxious, an idiot, a nut, a know-nothing, and, last but not least, because you are hoping Republicans are going to win, a RINO!
However, you are absolutely correct in what you say.
Three cheers!

Richard Baker| 11.28.09 @ 10:04PM

Nick:
I sense the static is being disrupted. Can you tell me why? Curious flux in the ether.

victor| 11.29.09 @ 8:17PM

Ether?
I prefer Chloroform, myself, when debating Liberals.

Richard Baker| 11.28.09 @ 10:07PM

Osamas Pajamas:
You are correct. The traditional and classical definition of liberal has been lost. However, as the English language is always evolving, I suppose it was inevitable in the political sense.

Nick| 11.29.09 @ 1:13AM

Mr. Baker,

I think you struck a nerve with your astute and witty post. Although, I believe Marxist Reader is spineless, so I'm not sure which nerves he could actually feel.

Too bad stinking liberals have no sense of humor.

Hey, maybe Rambo could tell us some of his "t.o.w." gunning war stories (ha-ha!). He can't seem to remember where he was stationed.

Hope you and your family had a Happy Thanksgiving, Mr. Baker.
God Bless.

Sam| 11.29.09 @ 3:31AM

Okay- why does it always take a college student to set all of you straight?

Can we stop lumping all liberals into one bunch? Margie, by adhering to the Bible and God's law, you have taken the road less travel. I can assure you that taking the time to address specific complaints about specific liberals is much easier.

I consider myself left-leaning, especially with regard to my social beliefs. But I DON'T WANT TO turn this country socialist, tax excessively, call all of you racists, force you to speak politically correct, suppress your voices, exclude you from the debate, destroy our country, help the terrorists, and I especially don't want to take your guns.

So who are you really mad at me? People like me or the people in Washington and the pundits you see on TV? How many liberals have you actually met in person? Have you ever talked with non-conservatives about your beliefs in person?

Margie| 11.29.09 @ 11:37AM

Hi Sam,
The elder Leftists among us know exactly what they stand for. The Left is against Capitalism, free market enterprise, usually anti-war (non-interventionist), against Israel and pro-Palestinian, and are for centralized government~they believe like Nancy Pelosi and gang, which is the end game of the Left~Socialism. Which is in the spirit of Marxism, and Communism. If you've studied the history of it any, you have some knowledge of that.
The Bible says that we live in a world of spiritual warfare. Good against evil. God against the Devil. (Eph. 6:12). The Left hates hearing that, and your College Professors (mostly) are Leftists and mock that truth. You've probably been taught that "everything's relative", that "nothing is black or white", that there are "gray areas" all over the place. This is a lie. Socialism says "Government will be our leader"~ But Conservatives know better. They want to be the free to govern themselves, (God given freedom), despise the idea of a dictator type (Obama), and want to live in a Constitutional Republic, with limited government. These differences are huge.
~What I am angry at are those who try and lie to you about these truths. They really do know better. Every human being knows that Communism is wrong, at least when they grow up they do. Winston Churchill said "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
He also said: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." And this: "The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." And~ “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

So whether you call it Liberalism, Socialism or Communism, it is the same spirit.
That is what I am angry against. It's a war.
~~~~~~~~~~
I was raised in a Democrat family, so I know exactly how they think. I know how a Unionist Socialist thinks. He believes that Republicans are evil. They are "for the rich." When in fact we are for the "rich" being FREE to be rich, if that's what they choose. We're against the redistribution of wealth, which is Marxism. So, yes, I have decades of experience in talking to Leftists.
The things that you say you are for, above~ are really actually quite conservative. If you read Osama's PJ's post explaining how the real definition of Liberal was stolen from us and claimed by the Left, then in that sense your "Liberalism" is a lot closer to what conservatives believe in today. The Founding Fathers called themselves (my husband tells me this) Classic Liberals.

~As for being in the minority, Jesus was in the "minority" and yet He is the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. And besides, conservatives aren't only Christians. Not at all. The Left tries to paint it that way. Conservatives are people like you, who want freedom, limited government, low taxes, a strong Military Defense (do you?). If so, you're on the right track, and welcome!

Richard Baker| 11.29.09 @ 10:40AM

Sam:
Personally, I have many liberal friends and their wishful hope in government decision-making is puzzling as they live their lives as conservatives, which makes their"liberalism" a pose. As an example, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, Amtrak, and many other government programs are flat busted. The government wants control of 1/6th of the economy in Healthcare, control of the Auto industry, student loans, and many others. Plus, we're now paying approximately 45-47% of our income in taxes at all levels. God Himself only asks for 10%. Please show me a successful government program, please. We are drowning in liberal ideas and fiscal responsibility is considered too hard or limiting by millions. This country was not founded upon the Handout but Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. When I say handout, I mean at ALL levels, corporate AND individual. As the saying goes, "The road to Hell was paved with good intentions." Finally, our profligate spending in DC has many in the worldwide financial/government community wondering if the US will become insolvent. Yeah man, let's keep on with these ideas/policies.

Margie| 11.29.09 @ 1:32PM

You make an interesting point about how Liberals live like conservatives. I see this in people very close to me. Lifelong Dems. Union guys. Yet they live very conservatively. But they won't vote that way. (Maybe secretly).
It's because they believe the lies promulgated by the Left through the media both t.v. & print, Leftist College Professors, and political leaders.
They all contribute to the delinquency of the Leftist mind-set.

Northern Rebel| 11.29.09 @ 12:18PM

Well said, Margie!

Sam:
Why do college kids think they are smarter than those with twice the life experiences? you need to live for a while, before you decide whether the adults have it right or wrong. You seem like a good, polite kid, so I know when you grow up, you'll get it right.

P.S.: I've lived in Connecticut, and New York my whole life, so there is no shortage of misguided socialists to converse with. Most of them are not as polite as you, Sam.

Merry Christmas to you, Sam, and all who read this post!

Margie| 11.29.09 @ 12:54PM

Why, thank you, Northern Rebel.
And I do agree with you about Sam, too. :^)
May God bless all who are for freedom.

Margie| 11.29.09 @ 1:10PM

Where's Alan Brooks?
Hey Alan,
Did you know that I am a born pessimist like you?
But I am choosing to be as optimistic as possible. I like what Churchill said, and I thought of you when I saw this quote: "I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." :^)

electronic | 11.30.09 @ 4:09AM

First of all, I wouldn't trust ANY bill punched out by the idiots in congress today.

Neo| 12.1.09 @ 11:46AM

Obviously, Rosin never heard of Rev Ike ..
"money is not the root of all evil, lack of money is the root of all evil"

gertyio| 4.22.10 @ 1:41AM

ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010Winning is without value if victory has been achieved ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010 or dishonestly. Cheating is easy, but brings no pleasure. Playing ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010 requires courage and character. It is also more satisfying. ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
always has its reward, even when the game is lost. Playing fair earns you respect, while cheats are detested. Remember: It's only a game. And games are pointless unless played ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010

I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You

You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. PoptropicaWhen all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. Poptropica I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You

Both FIFA and UEFA have awards which they hand out to individuals or groups of people who have promoted what they see as the spirit of ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
, both within and outside of football. An example of this was the Italian player Paolo Di Canio who, while not given an award, was congratulated by many sections of the football world for a generous display of ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
. Despite having a goal scoring opportunity while playing for West Ham United against Everton, when Di Canio saw the Everton goalkeeper had picked up an injury, instead of scoring what could have been the easiest goal of his career, he caught the ball, thus stopping ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
and allowing the goalkeeper to receive treatment

Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. PoptropicaZeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale Poptropica

You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. PoptropicaHe will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. Poptropica

Latest Headlines

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer|6 comments

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|132 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|143 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|63 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|18 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|25 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|41 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|16 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

Good Luck Quin

Aaron Goldstein | 12:13AM

One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born

Aaron Goldstein | 5.23.13

Lois Lerner Now on Administrative Leave

Kaylin Bugos | 5.23.13

Crisis Looms, and Kevin Williamson Can Hardly Wait

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.23.13

Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds

Ross Kaminsky | 5.23.13

Bill Would Ban All Abortions After 20 Weeks

Jordan Gonzalez | 5.23.13

Harry Reid Pushes for the Nuclear Option

Claire Healey | 5.23.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

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

By George Neumayr

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

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

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

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

The Nation's Pulse