Special Report
An Obituary Shattered
Conservatism lives.
What a difference a year makes. For American conservatism, it was a difference between life and death.
With the inauguration of Barack Obama, American politics were supposed to have changed for at least a generation, perhaps longer. When Bill Kristol wrote in the New York Times a year ago this week that “Jan. 20, 2009, marked the end of a conservative era,” few could persuasively disagree.
Others, mostly liberals, took their diagnoses further. Not content with inscribing an obituary for Republican political dominance, Sam Tanenhaus penned an essay and then a book about “the death of conservatism” itself. Even a year before the election, not long after the Democratic midterm victory, an early 2007 Daily Kos headline boasted that “Conservatism is Dead, and It’s Not Coming Back.” From left-leaning columnists to television pundits, the list of those ready (and eager) to pronounce the conservative movement’s demise seemed endless.
But then, on January 19, 2010, the state of Massachusetts opted to replace Edward M. Kennedy with a conservative Republican named Scott P. Brown in a special election for the liberal lion’s old Senate seat. This victory, utterly seismic no matter which way it’s spun, literally came out of the bluest of the blue.
The obituaries have been shattered. Conservatism, albeit with scars still apparent, is quite obviously alive and preparing itself to govern again soon.
Even before this week’s special election or the twin GOP gubernatorial victories last November, the right could be seen slowly climbing back to its feet. By mid-September, after a summer-long exertion of anti-Obamacare sentiment across the nation, a New York Times headline conceded: “G.O.P. Checks for a Pulse, and Finds One.”
But did the American right really die and resurrect itself after only three years? What actually happened?
Sometime in December 2008, I remember attending a panel discussion hosted by Georgetown University’s Tocqueville Forum about the consequences of the recent election. On the prospect of a new progressive era upon us, Professor Michael Kazin, who supported Obama, was actually quite cautious. He argued that unlike its counterpart, liberalism tends to showcase itself more in sporadic moments and less in extended periods of governance.
Examples of this phenomenon could be found in the labor movement of the 1930s, the civil rights movement of the 1950/60s, and the women’s liberation movement of the 1960/70s. Each came to a head in either a major election (Roosevelt’s second term, 1936) or a major bill (Civil Rights Act, 1964) or a major Supreme Court decision (Roe v. Wade, 1973).
But as Kristol (who also sat on the panel) rightly noted, the true significance of major political victories historically depends on how the victors govern. Franklin Roosevelt’s powerfully effective administration set the tone of not only the '30s, but also the '40s and the '50s. Conversely, when Clinton’s agenda floundered early on and allowed for the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, he ensured that the “Age of Reagan” would continue even without a Republican in the White House.
We are now discovering that, as a result of Barack Obama’s first year in office, the 2008 election actually more closely resembled that of 1992 than 1932. Realigning elections, after all, only occur if they are followed by what Kristol called “realigning administrations.” Whether or not a president can achieve this status has always depended just as much on whether or not the party in opposition can foster ideas viable enough to counter those in power.
Thus, when Ed Feulner, President of the Heritage Foundation (and, for disclosure’s sake, my boss), spoke to a large gathering of conservatives last November and declared that “we have it in our power to turn this new liberal era into a brief, lamentable moment,” he was referring to history. Liberalism’s future — -as an era or as a moment — remains in the right’s hands as much as the left’s.
Precisely how decisive a role each side played in Martha Coakley’s defeat will be debated for weeks to come. Did the right really hit a grand slam or did the left just suffer a ninth-inning choke? Or was it a bit of both? In any case, American democracy has delivered a stiff shot to the jaw of Obama’s entire party and reaffirmed that his election was, as Charles Krauthammer noted last Friday, “not an endorsement of European-style social democracy” after all.
Exactly a year into what was supposed to be the “Age of Obama,” we can now see that Obama’s assumption of the presidency did not represent the advent of a brand new political era but rather just another flashy moment for liberalism. It was a vastly historic and deeply emotional moment, to be sure, but a mere moment nevertheless. Scott Brown’s victory would not have been possible if this weren’t so.
So is the Democratic Party now on its deathbed? Certainly not. Is a new conservative era now underway? No, not yet. But Tuesday’s election cannot be minimized. When asked to support a would-be “ally” for President Obama and, by extension, vote for his exclusively Democrat-backed health care overhaul, Massachusetts, of all electorates, politely declined. Indeed, they ran the other way.
As conservatives celebrate, surely they now have more than the beat of their pulse to dance to.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (128) | Leave a comment
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/21/an-obituary-shattered
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Dai Alanye | 1.21.10 @ 7:06AM
Let us not get overly excited by the Brown victory. While vastly superior to Coakley he is, after all, a RINO at base. The Democrats are probably already planning to play to his ego, ready to accept some of his suggestions for minor modifications to Obamacare in exchange for his vote, possibly hoping to gain the Maine gals as well.
With Brown's election conservatism has gained another skirmish but the war is far from won.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.21.10 @ 8:39AM
Dai,
I beg to differ.
My metaphor would be more emphatic.
""We (patriots as opposed to whiners), have established a beachhead in the heart of the enemy, but we need to pour it on and drive them back to the Rhine."
Tuesday was D-Day, ladies and gentlemen. Now let's pour in the reinforcements. Think about all the splendid candidates in our respective State capitols that can now get some cash to begin a serious run.
We gotta' help find them and support them to the fullest. Let's throw out the weakling Republicans along with the scumbag communists, (pardon the shorthand), and drive on to "Berlin" and win this thing by next November.
Then,
Let's set up watchdog committees to sit in rotation in the outer offices of every congress critter we elect, to keep them encouraged...and on the straight and narrow.
Jon| 1.21.10 @ 11:17AM
Tex - great analogy, really. What an outstanding way to look at this!!
Margie| 1.21.10 @ 12:22PM
I agree. My husband told me that Ronald Reagan once said something like that principles are great things. But you can't use them if you can't get elected. We have a 2 Party system right now in our country. The Republican platform is good. If we continue backing conservatives who run in the Party, we will continue having successes like Scott Brown. The other day Rush said if there is no difference between the 2 Parties, then why are we voting for Scott Brown? This whole entire "There's no difference between the 2" is a cop out. Or an excuse not to fight, because "nobody's good enough." That causes us to lose. So far look at what is happening~ NJ, VA, and now MA. This is excellent! Scott Brown's win is nothing short of FANTASTIC!
martin j smith| 1.21.10 @ 11:13AM
Ah,The RINO line--I have heard this before I have indeed. Do not trust ANYONE who does not see the significance of Brown's victory over the Democrat in a very Blue state. This one giant step but it will require multiple victories. First win then worry about how candidates act. Those who focus on the RINO factor are either RINOS themselves or trollers pretending to be whatever they are. And, one more thing, do not trust the Democrat left at all. Keep ears to the ground and be ready to challenge.
Margie| 1.21.10 @ 12:31PM
So well said, martin.
And you know you have said it so well when you bring out the anger and "you fools!" from Alan Brooks! :^)
Alan Brooks| 1.21.10 @ 12:47PM
"This one giant step but it will require multiple victories."
Multiple-- as in unending-- giant steps, my little Margie?
Margie| 1.21.10 @ 1:02PM
Yes Alan. The fight goes on till death. It's the only way to live! Or you choose to just "lay down and die" without a fight. Now that is sad.
Alan Brooks| 1.21.10 @ 3:03PM
"Yes Alan. The fight goes on till death."
Hopefully your death,
not mine, Margie.
Margie| 1.21.10 @ 9:12PM
yup Alan, death comes to us all, but in your case, you're already dead.
Alan Brooks| 1.21.10 @ 12:00PM
The future is brave new world, NOT conservatism;
a vulgar world of soma ("medical" marijuana); tawdry porn; trash 'culture' of all sorts; big government capitalism.
And you fools think this tiny little election in Taxachusetts changes anything. Chumps-on-wheels is what you are.
Alan Brooks| 1.21.10 @ 12:04PM
What sort of shit is this?:
"This one giant step but it will require multiple victories."
Did you mean to write "this one baby step but it will require generations of social evolution?
Alan Brooks| 1.21.10 @ 3:07PM
BTW, evolution is not progress-- things can evolve backwards.
George F| 1.21.10 @ 4:11PM
Yes things can evolve backward and primitive governing with total power is what the Dems want. That's devolving backwards. Just look at history.
This country has been trying for two hundred years to evolve past that type of government to our new one where people are allowed to govern themselves.
You sound like a smart man. Why don't you know that?
Alan Brooks| 1.21.10 @ 7:36PM
Because the GOP could be far less dissembling if it wanted to.
No, you don't give away the most important secrets, but look at what baby-talk we are getting now. If the GOP has to dumb it down for truck driver minds then they can say so. It wont destroy the republic to be so candid, will it?
rlr| 1.21.10 @ 12:29PM
True true Alan. Chumps indeed. This article starts out by prefacing Kristol. A pocket lining hack with dreams of empire from the start when his daddy hatched him. Prattle on folks, and act like this matters one bit to demise of this country.
Alan Brooks| 1.21.10 @ 2:58PM
"True true Alan. Chumps indeed. This article starts out by prefacing Kristol. A pocket lining hack with dreams of empire from the start when his daddy hatched him. Prattle on folks, and act like this matters one bit to demise of this country."
Talk some sense into these Babbits, they will offer us NEIL Bush for POTUS in 2012.
Helen Donnelly| 1.21.10 @ 2:44PM
Dear Alan,
As I stated yesterday, you seem a little shook up. Get a handle on that blood pressure, pal.
Alan Brooks| 1.21.10 @ 2:51PM
Speak for yourself Hel, you are rightwing, NOT conservative.
And rightwing pigheads tend to have high blood pressure.
Helen Donnelly| 1.22.10 @ 11:25AM
I'm conservative, my friend. By the way, nice language.
moron| 1.21.10 @ 7:08AM
Just like liberals to always verbally usurp credit for the conservative backed civil rights movement and Civil Rights Act 1964. Republican Party, founded to end slavery.
Alan Brooks| 1.21.10 @ 2:54PM
"moron", you ARE a moron; the GOP today is in NOT the GOP of 150 years ago.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 7:17AM
"When Bill Kristol wrote in the New York Times a year ago today that "Jan. 20, 2009, marked the end of a conservative era," few could persuasively disagree."
Of course they could. No conservative believes Obama's election was a repudiation of conservatism - it was a repudiation of an expensive and reckless foreign policy, LBJ-style government expansion, FDR-style spending, and extreme fiscal mismanagement that nearly led to the destruction of the economy of planet earth. In short, it was a rejection of the unmitigated failure of Bush/Cheney Big Government malfeasance. The idea that anything "conservative" ended when Bush left office simply reveals a deep misunderstanding as to what "conservative" means.
Lazy Jack | 1.21.10 @ 8:25AM
The Bush Presidency, and the subsequent control of the federal legislature by Republicans, helped shore up the Republican Progressives. That particular creature is no less harmful to the republic than the liberal progressive.
I once ranted that if Obama wanted to govern like the supposedly great Democrat presidents, he should mirror Bush. He did that and more.
It is a little old now, but here it is:
http://thanksforthelaughs.word.....uber-bush/
Tim| 1.21.10 @ 8:34AM
It is only a matter of time before some RINOs offer to negotiate a healthcare bill of their own.
Siegfried X| 1.21.10 @ 9:21AM
John McCain today:
"We are more than happy to sit down and start over," the Arizona Republican said Thursday on CBS' "Early Show." "Not scale back, but start over in a true negotiating process, rather than the Democrats going back to try to pick off one or two Republicans."
Skip| 1.21.10 @ 11:39AM
Maybe John should work on repealing McCain-Feingold first.
Gary| 1.21.10 @ 1:58PM
"Maybe John should work on repealing McCain-Feingold first."
No need. The Supreme Court just did that. And the Fairness Doctrine as well.
Sam Vaughn| 1.21.10 @ 9:07AM
Your posts are entertaining. Straight "off the memo" being circulated by the Party. They would be more entertaining if you had an original thought. This is a repudiation of:
Liberalism ---The Liberal definition of progress is the loss of freedom and individual achievment in the pursuit of the "good of the collective" as defined by those who consider themselves above us all.
In fairnesss to you I don't think most Republicans get it either.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 9:20AM
I definitely "don't get it", with regards to whatever you are trying to say. You're not very articulate, and apparently are not possessed of the level of reading comprehension one should expect in an adult. My post was about whether Obama's election was a repudiation of "conservatism". Your response is that "This is a repudiation of: Liberalism". Really? Obama's election was a repudiation of Liberalism?
See what I'm talking about - I bet your problems with reading comprehension and your difficulty with writing clearly are not unrelated. That's not to say I think you have a mental disability, but I think you would do yourself a favor to look into night classes teaching remedial reading and composition and that sort of thing.
Sam Vaughn| 1.21.10 @ 9:31AM
Regards to you as well. I'm saying for me and those around me Obama was a repudiation of the status quo. Speaking for myself, Bush was not a conservative. I still hold strong to the belief that you can not, for example, "spend your way out of debt" which is what we're doing and not what O'Bama promised. He said he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle-class and everywhere I look taxes keep going up. I like my healthcare but when I look at the HR3692 (sp?) version of healthcare I see the destruction of my healthcare and intrusion of government into every aspect of the way I live, all in the name of healthcare. That's the way I see it. I could go on,,, but Republicans and Democrats would be obtuse to miss the point. I may not be as educated as those who would pretend to rule, but I have enough common sense to smell a "pig" and not be fooled by rhetoric by those who pretend that they know better and therefore I'm not entitled to make my own choices on how to live my life.. Ps. occasionally I drive without a seat belt .... ;)
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 9:38AM
"Speaking for myself, Bush was not a conservative"
Which was exactly my point - Bush was not a conservative, so Obama's election was not a repudiation of "conservatism". If we are agreed, then what are you arguing about?
MOS was 71331| 1.21.10 @ 10:21AM
Who is the "you"r this Sam Vaughn post is referring to? I've no idea which earlier post was entertaining and echoed the Party memo.
Stephanie| 1.21.10 @ 11:01AM
"a reckless foreign policy, LBJ-style government expansion, FDR-style spending and extreme fiscal mismanagement..." well, that's the obama circus to a T.
And we will reject this come next fall and 2012 in the presidential election.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 2:15PM
"well, that's the obama circus to a T."
Exactly - it describes the Obama presidency just as much as it describes the Bush presidency, which is why good Americans should oppose both, regardless of what party the violator belongs to.
Siegfried X| 1.21.10 @ 7:19AM
I disagree totally. This was an anti-liberal victory, not a conservative one. Brown is a liberal "Republican" who voted for the Ted Kennedy-approved Massachusetts health care bill which is even more socialistic than Obama's. Just as President Bush pushed through his own government-funded drugs for seniors program and John McCain was for cap & trade.
The reality is that the Republican Party hasn't had a conservative agenda for 15 years. It is run by a bunch of liberals who are not much different from the Democrats. (And in fact some of them ARE ex-Democrats.) They fleece money out of the rank and file by pretending to be conservative when they full well know that a Republican administration would be little different from a Democratic one. (Would McCain's cap & trade have been less bad for the country because he was a POW?)
Not everyone who is anti-Democratic is a conservative. That is the key thing to realize. The only reason Republican politicians don't like the Democrats is because they're playing for different teams now, not because they disagree on issues.
JP| 1.21.10 @ 8:37AM
I would go so far as to say that the GOP hasn't had a conservative agenda since 1981-82. Conservatives in 1994 just showcased themselves a bit differently. Since 1986, we've been living off the Reagan 1981-85 legacy. I use the mid 1980s as a baseline because that was the last time that the WWII generation still ran things. And it was the example of that generation of Americans that still provide us with motivation and inspiration.
In many ways the Baby Boomers have waged a 40 year revolt against thier parents and grand parents. The example of Scott Brown illustrates for us that many voters still side with values of a generation that has all but moved on.
Siegfried X| 1.21.10 @ 9:00AM
I hear your argument against the Contract With America crowd but I think the problem was not in their hearts but in their execution. Some of them honestly tried to be like Ronald Reagan, but they didn't have his discipline and ability.
But some of them like Gingrich were serious about conservativism. They put their gl-asses on the line, and lost.
Like the government shutdown. It's very real when a politician is willing to shut the government down and risk their career to shrink government. It took guts and real belief in conservatism.
I also go back to the block grants and devolution. At least some of the Republicans in Congress were serious.
Of course I admit that there were also RINO whiners along with Gingrich too, the turn coats who really wanted bigger government. My point is that at least for a few months there was conservative control of the agenda.
That's much different from today's liberal republicans who sponsor Ted Kennedy-like entitlement programs but pretend to be small-government by cutting a few earmarks in someone else's district.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.21.10 @ 7:46AM
It was a rejection of Washington, D.C. incorporated, a company town morally and financially bankrupt. Both parties have been riding that merry-go-round, but the brass ring was stolen years ago.
Deborah D | 1.21.10 @ 3:08PM
I'm with you, Bill. Washington, D.C. and the horse manure that permeates the place is what MA voters repudiated. They said: who do you think you are trying to steal our freedom and cram stuff down our throats?
Ret. Marine| 1.21.10 @ 8:01AM
Hugh difference between a republican and a conservative. The party's are filled with the faces of both sides of the same coin. This election had nothing to do with the differences, it only confirmed this country continues to be center right in its bemeanor and not ready for any radicals at the helm, democrat or republican.
Lifelong Con| 1.21.10 @ 8:19AM
Qualtere is exactly right.
Obama had one year to sell left-wing ideas and policies to the American people and make them popular and mainstream. He failed, and thus conservatives were able to regroup and capitalize in a very big way.
Congrats to Senator-elect Brown!
Tim| 1.21.10 @ 8:35AM
You'll know that Brown's triumph is complete when he replaces Sarah Palin as the Left's whipping post.
Deborah D | 1.21.10 @ 3:11PM
Tim -- he's already achieving that to a certain extent today. People (I think it was that idiot Gergen who ask him about the "Kennedy seat" in the debate) are saying he reminds them of Palin. So, get prepared, Mr. Brown -- you're going to get raked over the coals.
Northern Rebel| 1.21.10 @ 8:54AM
The election of "President" Anti-Christ, was nothing more than a spanking. We spanked Bush 41, for raising taxes, and we spanked the republican party for growing government faster than even the liberals could accomplish. We couldn't spank43, so we spanked his misguided party.
We also found out that spankings don't work, unless reinforcement as to why the spankings happened occurs.
Tom Brown gave a helluva acceptance speach, hitting all the right buttons. But Tom Brown is pro-choice, and represents an uber-liberal state.
I remember when John Rowland was running against the evil Lowell Weicker for governor of Connecticut. (I voted for Tom Scott)
Rowland sounded like Washington, Jefferson, and Reagan, rolled into one great patriot, as he promised to repeal the new state income tax. (Suprise, it still exists)
When re-election time came, Rowland sounded like Nancy Pelosi, and stubbed his toes, as he fled to the left.
So enjoy Tom Brown's rhetoric while it lasts.
Stephanie| 1.21.10 @ 11:04AM
Well, at least we won't have to listen to Martha Coakley's rhetoric.
Bob| 1.21.10 @ 8:58AM
So where are the social conservatives? Brown believes in legalized abortion! He would have approved Sotomayor. Why do you celebrate his victory? You guys have no principles. Those of us here who are fiscally conservative and socially libertarian always get hate mail from you guys, but you are willing to laud a guy who has the same agenda? You guys are hilarious...
Siegfried X| 1.21.10 @ 9:09AM
I think people are celebrating the defeat of ObamaCare, not Brown's victory. It doesn't matter who killed it: the death of ObamaCare is still good.
Anthony| 1.21.10 @ 10:28AM
Thanks Bob for proving that your brand of so called "conservativism"is intellectually bankrupt. So now we have no morals for helping to elect a purported less than perfect conservative, Scott Brown. Yet it's you same fools, along with the Ds and the intellectual class in the R Party, that chide us for not being a "big tent" party; that we're all Rush Limbaugh clones, that we are a regional party of old white southern men.
Having it both ways; isn't that the classic tactic of you guys.
In the mean time, the election of Scott Brown has sent shock waves across Washington and all of America; Obama's socialistic Health Care Bill is dead; America is saved for at least another day, but poor ole Bob, he didn't get the memo.
Margie| 1.21.10 @ 11:52AM
Bravo to you, Anthony!
Sam Vaughn| 1.21.10 @ 9:01AM
The American electorate has woken up. Democrats and Republicans still don't get it. The people who make this country work, who wake up everyday committed to doing the right thing, caring about our families and community and heretofore complacent about liberty are back. I count myself among those. We were busy building our lives, counting on no one but ourselves and thankful for it. It took me a while but now I know who the enemy is - The Liberal/Progressive definition of progress is the loss of freedom and individual achievment in the pursuit of the "good of the collective" as defined by those who consider themselves above us all.
I am mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. Just as mad as the first time I socked the bully in the schoolyard and found out he was a coward.
Joe| 1.21.10 @ 9:23AM
I agree with Dai Alanye. Let us not get overly excited by the Brown victory. While vastly superior to Coakley he is, after all, a RINO at base. Please don't call him a conservative. He won because of Socialism and Obamacare in Washington. So state that. We got in trouble last time doing the same thing with Bush. Someone who was a moderate using conservative terms. But governed as a moderate. Trying to please everyone.
Dustoff| 1.21.10 @ 9:32AM
Bob| 1.21.10 @ 8:58AM
So where are the social conservatives? Brown believes in legalized abortion
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NO he didn't. He said it was the law of the land for now. That change must come from the Supreme Court.
Bob| 1.21.10 @ 9:39AM
Here's his positions on abortion.
* 2005: Conscience-based opt out of post-rape contraception. (Jan 2010)
* Provide info about emergency contraception to rape victims. (Jan 2010)
* Support legalized abortion, but not partial-birth abortion. (Jan 2010)
* Supported by right-to-life groups for stem cell stance. (Jan 2010)
* Authored bill for 24-hour waiting period for abortion. (Jan 2010)
* Abortions should always be legally available. (Nov 2002)
Now that we have Google and video tape, what people say is recorded. Brown modified his position to say "it is the law of the land", for the election. Yes, it is the law of the land, but he has also supported legalized abortion in the past and did not "position" his statement for you guys.
Anthony| 1.21.10 @ 10:14AM
Yes, today of all days we need to hear from the self professed "intellectual class" in the Republican Party. We need to hear from David Brooks, David Frum and of course, Gen. Colin Powell.
In addition, we need to know which Newt Gingrich is with us today, as opposed to the many faces of Eve that Newt likes employ.
Bob Miller| 1.21.10 @ 10:16AM
If someone wanted to invent and unleash a sinister force to make sure Democrats continued to dominate the Senate and House, it would look a lot like "Toddard".
The key would be to split conservatives altogether from the Republican party by making their takeover of the Republican Party seem to be a lost cause.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 10:30AM
Again, no idea what you're talking about. The only thing I hope for - the only hope there is, imo - is a conservative takeover of the GOP. The only way to do that is to cost them elections until they run conservatives.
Bob Miller| 1.21.10 @ 11:43AM
I would hope that's your motivation but strongly doubt it.
Margie| 1.21.10 @ 12:14PM
Do not be deceived! Toddard's idea of conservative is Ron Paul. He is a "Paleo-Con-Artiste." A "non-interventionist." He actually despises us conservatives, especially any that call themselves Republican! Though he conveniently hides out in the Republican Party himself. According to him, the only true conservatives are those of his ilk, who wish to take over the Party replacing everyone with his Paleo Paul pals.
Fat chance!
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 2:00PM
Just so you know what's happening here, Bob: Marge believes Harry Truman (who emphatically supported the creation of the UN, pushed his own version of the by-definition ultra-liberal “New Deal” called the “Fair Deal” - Lyndon Johnson cited the Fair Deal as his inspiration for the Great Society btw, pushed for UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, dumped billions into massive federal social programs, housing projects, public housing and urban renewal etc) was a "conservative".
That is Marge's "conservatism". Truman killed lots of people with bombs, so by her definition he's a "conservative".
Margie| 1.21.10 @ 2:14PM
No, I just thought he became a conservative by bombing Japan... now, moving right along~ what I said about you, above is all true, is it not?
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 2:49PM
"No, I just thought he became a conservative by bombing Japan"
Haha. Wow. I just said "Truman killed lots of people with bombs, so by her definition he's a "conservative". And you agreed. That's what a "conservative" is for Marge - someone who kills lots and lots of people. Non-interventionists (like George Washington) are NOT conservative, according to Marge - they are dirty liberals. I assume because George Washington did not kill a sufficient number of his fellow human beings to satisfy Marge's blood lust.
Margie| 1.21.10 @ 2:59PM
Good job of trying to make it about me, Toddard.
You still won't deny that what I said about you is wrong though, will you?
And you really should stop making things up about other people.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 3:21PM
Making things up? So I am wrong when I say you believe non-interventionists are *not* conservative?
Margie| 1.21.10 @ 3:34PM
You are not denying that what I said about you is false, are you? I will repost~
Do not be deceived! Toddard's idea of conservative is Ron Paul. He is a "Paleo-Con-Artiste." A "non-interventionist." He actually despises us conservatives, especially any that call themselves Republican! Though he conveniently hides out in the Republican Party himself. According to him, the only true conservatives are those of his ilk, who wish to take over the Party replacing everyone with his Paleo Paul pals.
Fat chance!
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 3:58PM
1) Ron Paul is a conservative, of course, in the tradition of Robert Taft and the other anti-state right that preceded WFB. No one actually disputes that. He consistently votes against liberal Big Government schemes and has done so for decades.
2) No I am not a "Con-Artiste"
3) Yes I believe Washington's policy of benign neutrality should be the norm, though I do not believe it should be an absolute
4) I do not despise conservatives at all - I myself am a conservative
5) I do not believe that "the only true conservatives are those of (my) ilk". Conservatism is not an ideology, it is a tendency - the belief that "when it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change".
Margie| 1.21.10 @ 4:33PM
1. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. This is a Leftist stance, not conservative.
2. No? Is that why you try and con others into believing you are conservative all the time, while you continuously bash other conservatives?
3. Benign Neutrality? Meaning our troops should only fight here and not anywhere else. Not conservative.
4. Again, is that why you continuously bash other conservatives, other than your pals, Red Phillips, Derek Leaberry. etc?
5. Again~ You are constantly disparaging conservatives here. Unless of course they are willing to kiss your butt.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 5:45PM
"1. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. This is a Leftist stance, not conservative."
George Washington was a Leftist, Marge? The Father of our Country?
"2. No? Is that why you try and con others into believing you are conservative all the time, while you continuously bash other conservatives?"
I do not consider you a "conservative", Marge. You are a Republican Party loyalist. That is not the same thing. I am a conservative - whether you believe it or not is not really my concern. You literally don't know what the word means, and I'm not saying that to be insulting. And if we're both honest about it, you know you "bash" me far more than I "bash" you, and in a far cruder, more childish and simplistic manner.
"3. Benign Neutrality? Meaning our troops should only fight here and not anywhere else"
I have no idea what you're talking about. Washingtonian neutrality means we wage war in defense or in the face of clear and present danger of imminent attack. And again - Washington was a Leftist?
"4. Again, is that why you continuously bash other conservatives, other than your pals, Red Phillips, Derek Leaberry. etc?"
I don't. I don't consider you a conservative, Marge - not at all. Mostly, I bash Big Government politicians. And why don't you link me to an argument where I initiated the "bashing". I can certainly link you to dozens of instances of YOU initiating it.
"5. Again~ You are constantly disparaging conservatives here. Unless of course they are willing to kiss your butt."
My. You really need to work on this insecurity, Marge. You're a talk radio fan and a loyal Republican Party die-hard. If you were conservative we wouldn't be having this conversation.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 6:15PM
Marge, who bashed whom first in this thread?
Margie| 1.21.10 @ 6:21PM
Telling the truth isn't bashing dear sir.
Though you try to define it as such.
And you are still a liar. You only hurt yourself, not me or anyone else. You'll continue calling everyone who aren't Paleo-Con-Artistes Paulites non-conservatives.
You ARE a con artist! But you don't fool most of us.
Margie| 1.21.10 @ 6:33PM
P.S. Ron Paul the looney is NO George Washington!
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 7:06PM
"Ron Paul the looney is NO George Washington!"
George Washington was a "non-interventionist", Marge. Doesn't that mean the Father Of Our Country was a "Leftist"?
Margie| 1.21.10 @ 7:15PM
Good try Toddard, as most of them are, but always ridiculous. And not only that but how about we fast forward a couple hundred years to the present?
By the way, the Scott Brown win is a win for conservativism, don't ya think?
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 8:03PM
I'll be happy to answer your question, Marge, once we get past this one: George Washington was a "non-interventionist", Marge. Doesn't that mean the Father Of Our Country was a "Leftist"? According to you, to advocate Washington's foreign policy is "leftist", no?
Margie| 1.21.10 @ 8:30PM
George Washington would not hide his head in the sand like you do, Toddy.
Now, I think it is time for you to fast forward to the present, don't you agree?
Now, how about that Rush Limbaugh? GREAT conservative, don't ya think?
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 8:54PM
Again, Marge, I'll be happy to answer your questions once we get past this one: George Washington was a "non-interventionist." Doesn't that mean the Father Of Our Country was a "Leftist"? According to you, to advocate Washington's foreign policy is "leftist", no?
Why do you refuse to answer? Try to be honest for a change.
Margie| 1.21.10 @ 9:04PM
The liar tells me to be honest, ha!
Hey Toddy~ how about that Sarah Palin, great conservative, isn't she?
Hmm Toddy?
S.L. Toddard| 1.22.10 @ 7:22AM
I'll finish, I guess, by pointing out to all readers what Marge's refusal to be straightforward and honest reveals: Marge believes that to advocate for Washington's policy of benign neutrality, as Washington himself did, makes one a "Leftist", ergo she believes George Washington was a Liberal. This is consistent with another belief of hers, stated right here on this page, that what makes a person a conservative is slaughtering other human beings with bombs - despite Harry Truman's long and well recognized Liberal record, she believes he "became a conservative by bombing Japan." Those are her words - that's what makes a conservative in Marge's world: having blasted hundreds of thousands of men, women and children into bloody chunks with bombs. Which is why neither George Washington nor Ron Paul qualify as "conservatives" in her mind.
Margie| 1.22.10 @ 12:04PM
Wakey wakey, eggs n' bakey, Toddy.
The wonderful George Washington, to me the most beloved of our Founders, and a Christian man, did not live in today's world. Ya know, like WE do. So to try and place him in the here and now is just plain ridiculous!
As for Truman.. he became conservative later on.. my husband is a big fan and told me of the things that he did that were good. I do not agree with those things that he did that were utterly Socialist! Just like I didn't agree with some of GW's things that he did. You can try and misrepresent what I believe forever but just because Toddard says it doesn't make it true.
As for you~ my original post was true about you, you've stated as much about your belief in R. Paul and his non-interventionism, and you also have shown your sheer hatred towards conservatives, having absolutely no stomach for anyone who isn't a Paulite.
My intent was to warn others but hey.. it isn't even necessary, is it? They can see eventually if not right away by your posts what you think!
Margie| 1.22.10 @ 12:12PM
oops. that's Bob Miller's post of 1.21.10 @ 10:16 a.m. And if you go read at some of the websites of these guys, they actually talk about taking over the Republican Party by registering Republican, as Toddard and R. Paul have in order to get their ilk in there to take it over.. with this non-interventionist Leftist ideology. R. Paul is really a Libertarian but switched in order to get elected.
Margie| 1.22.10 @ 12:08PM
Oh, and Bob Miller's post of yesterday, 1.22.10 @ 10:16 a.m. hit the nail on the head so absolutely perfectly as to your motivation for existing, that it caused all of this posting, where you thereby tried to take the focus off of you and put it on me.
Let the reader understand: that post of his is EXACTLY what you are about!
S.L. Toddard| 1.22.10 @ 12:24PM
Sorry, Marge. Your dishonesty is plain for all to see. You contend that advocating Washington's policy of benign neutrality is "Leftist" - all your dishonest misdirection cannot change that this means you believe Washington was a "Leftist". I don't know what led you to such a deep hatred of our Founding Fathers and their ideals, but I pity you and your warped mind and pray you get better.
God bless you, and please get help. Washington was a great man, not a "Leftist".
Margie| 1.22.10 @ 2:29PM
LOL! You're one sick man. Thank God you and your ilk are such a miniscule percentage of the electorate.
Margie| 1.22.10 @ 3:16PM
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" Is. 5:20.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.23.10 @ 10:58AM
George Washington Farewell address http://www.earlyamerica.com/ea...../text.html
So many people pull Washington’s thoughts out of context, sorta’ like some people pull “proof scriptures” out of the Bible. Both are stupid.
I have linked President Washington’s entire speech here for those among us who care to know the full meaning of his last public speech. (Heh), which would never, ever, get past the TV sound-bite speeches we hear today.
Margie,
thank you so much for moving me to write this essay, and taking our sincere brothers and sisters to the source of the words that some here would distort for their own twisted
egos’ sake. President Washington's paragraphs are numbered below as in his original speech.
As any of you who actually read the entire speech will recognize, President Washington was speaking to the citizens of a very young, still very weak, nation. He was terrified that we would get involved in the endless European wars, and he explained precisely why here.
37 Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Then Mr. Washington made a very rational observation about our circumstances as a “detached and distant situation”…..
38 Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel
Each honest reader here who is educated enough to understand a compound sentence, will see Washington’s vision of a future powerful nation… a day to come for our nation…”when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.”
Finally, he wrapped up his discussion of international affairs thusly:
49 The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavour to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes. "
In closing, please read the article 49 above caaaarefully. Never again will you be misled by some idiot using Washington’s brilliant words to deny our nation, “the command of its own fortunes”…that we have achieved and he so prayed for and envisioned.
Again, thank you Margie for stickin' to your guns and truth.
Margie| 1.23.10 @ 11:55AM
Thank you, Ken. Only Toddard could actually try to paint George Washington as a Leftist by claiming him as one of his own (A non-interventionist), by trying to claim that I am calling him a Leftist.. so convoluted that is nearly impossible to unravel!
Toddard is nothing more than a Leftist in conservative clothing. He is the anti-war old hippie leftover from the 60's generation. He has never met a conservative he doesn't hate, except other intellectuals who will play with him. I am currently listening to a book reading on the radio about the Founders. Right now they're on George Washington. If you want to join in look up Family Radio online. The book is "The Light and the Glory" by Peter Marshall. I am in awe at George Washington! The way he treated his men, how he motivated them not to give up, by his own example; he literally put himself in the line of fire, but God protected him. He, the consummate leader who looked to God always, and proclaimed Him always. That is why he was the man he was!
martin j smith| 1.21.10 @ 11:18AM
This was a "yes" or no" vote on Obama and the Democrat Left agenda in a very blue state. "No" won.
Repudiation of the agenda is the whole point. take it leave it.
Pingback| 1.21.10 @ 12:01PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : An Obituary Shattered [spectator.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tim| 1.21.10 @ 12:31PM
Great Scott!
What were the Supreme Court Justices thinking in their ruling today allowing "Corporations" and "Unions" to basically elect folks to any office.
This Wal-Mart--approach to our democracy is not what the Brown voters were saying nor was that what the Tea Party folks believe,
It appears that the Supreme Court ruled on the side of the status quo--Corruption!
I like the conservative Judges on the Court but this was a huge bone-head decision against a pure more direct form of democracy.
JP| 1.21.10 @ 2:34PM
Tim,
Are you saying that private firms do not have a say in how our country is governed? Are you saying that shareholders have no recourse to the law? So, the next time Congress decides to increases taxes on your pension (which is managed by private banks), regulate more of the business you work for (which might cause your employer to flee to Mexico or India), that you have no rights to influence those lawmakers?
Anthony| 1.21.10 @ 2:58PM
Tim, You could not be more wrong. McCain Feingold was one of the most unconstitutional decisions ever issued by the Court, whose sole function is the protection of the Constitution.
Corporations, both profit and non-profit, liberal and conservative were gagged by MF.
MF was a politicians dream; having the ability to hold hearings and excoriating businesses, yet silencing them from fighting back at election time. 501c3's were created to get around this horrible piece of legislation.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with unions & business alike participating in the elective process; read the first Amendment; free speech applies to all people, that includes corporations and the like. There are plenty of groups that can & do voice their opinions, your fear that corporations & unions will drown out dissent, is unfounded.
More speech is always better than less speech. You miss the very essence of precisely what the Brown and tea party supporters were saying to politicians and the ruling class; don't limit our choices and don't tell us how or what to think by limiting who and what we can hear from.
Pingback| 1.21.10 @ 1:43PM
The American Spectator : An Obituary Shattered | americantoday links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
martin j smith| 1.21.10 @ 2:37PM
Excuse me but I have to say eliminating any impediment to free speach is best. Look before this
decision you have moveon.org and other such organizations doing whatever they wanted. Also the hit pieces from the MSM were perfectly ok. Best to equalize the ability of everyone good,bad or indiffeent to have their say. Yet I would also point out that more people have stopped being stupid and siad "NO" to the LEFT agenda. Why ? They felt it,they were not just told something, they saw secret behind closed door politics of the Democrat Party and voted "NO".
One more thing: is it not interesting at the justices who voted for and those against. Yes, the usual suspects. One has to ask: why is that the LEFT on the bench against free speach ?
Anthony| 1.21.10 @ 4:33PM
Martin. Exactly right. It was a 5/4 decision with Roberts, Alito Scalia & Thomas joined by swing vote and opinion author, Kennedy.
Stevens led the Leftists on the Court, with a 90 page dissent. Enough said.
Jim O'Brien| 1.21.10 @ 2:43PM
Obama suggested on TV that the MA vote was the result of voter anger building over the past 8 years or more. In other words, he attempted to blame Bush and the Republican party.
Obama has clearly flunked his IQ test by blaming Republicans for a Republican victory. We have a mental midget in the White House.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.21.10 @ 4:08PM
Hi Jim
I have a little different take on the man. Rather than a mental midget...I think we have serious serious hater of America.
I hope you guys enjoy the video I have linked here.
http://www.ktrh.com/pages/michaelberry.html
Margie| 1.21.10 @ 4:46PM
That was good. The Communists always turn on each other. They are like the Mob. One wrong move and you're toast. Obama hasn't learned anything. He hasn't learned that kissing the rears of his enemies won't change them, nor will bowing to them. Kissing the rear of the enemy only causes them to hate you all the more, while they laugh behind your back and keep making weapons to destroy you.
But wouldn't it be amazing if Hollywood DID actually make movies like this? Instead of Hitler sympathizers?
Lawrence D. Cannon| 1.21.10 @ 6:53PM
Like Winston Churchill said, "It's not the end, nor even the beginning of the end. It's only the end of the beginning".
Anthony| 1.21.10 @ 8:57PM
How very true Lawrence. Our liberty and freedom are only one generation removed, or in the case of the Supreme Court, one vote away.
This vote was huge, yet only one vote was the decider. This should have been a 9/0 vote, if the Court was made up of intellectually honest jurists. We are still in a bitter ideological war with the Left as to the direction of this country. The battle lines are clearer each day. Those who support the Constitution and freedom are with us; those who want to transform this country into a 3rd world socialist nation, are on the left.
Quote of the Decade: Justice Roberts, during oral argument, when sparring with the Government lawyer for the FEC, who was supporting speech supression said " We don't leave our Constitution in the hands of FEC bureaucrats". BRAVO Justice Roberts, BRAVO. May I expand; we no longer will leave our country in the hands of Leftist pols and their bureaucrats. The Scott heard around the world is aimed right at Washington and the elected class.
Christopher Holland| 1.21.10 @ 7:52PM
I always thought the orbituaries of the death of conservatism were in the same class as the one for Mark Twain - exaggerated. Obama came into office as a narcissist, an effete elitist who never ran so much as a lemonade stall and a small time Chicago machine politician with the sleazy friends who go with that job. I thought his only achievement in office would be to make George W Bush look good. It didn't take long at all. Obama is a loser, there never was anything to him, he never knew Jack about leadership or the Presidency. Take away his autocue and he drops out of sight completely. The decline will continue and he will be dog meat by November - even his own party will be sick of his failures by then. It took George W Bush 6 years to become a lame duck - Obama is going to do that in 2.
Blackwatch| 1.22.10 @ 12:41AM
then the leaked school records and other evidence showing that Barry Sotero is actually a naturalized Indonesian citizen and that he is NOT eligible to be POTUS will miraculously appear in print....hello NYT want to earn your spurs back??? Got any real journalists left along the East Coast?
Drudge or the National Enquirer will scoop them again you just know. So who will be BO's "Deep Throat?
Seriously how did Hillary loose to this guy??
Paul from SA| 1.21.10 @ 9:29PM
To understand what was and still is wrong with the Republican party, look directly at the McCain campaign staff.
The McCain campaign staff.
PCP Smoker| 1.21.10 @ 10:33PM
You forgot to mention that scumbag Ben Stein wishing Obama success.
Northern Rebel| 1.21.10 @ 10:40PM
Margie:
Holy smoke, you've had a helleva day! In between Alan Brooks wishing your death, and smoking out old Toddard, you must be exhausted!
I'll tell ya one thing, sweetheart, I'm an old fashioned American male, (ask my loving wife) and If these cads had the nerve to talk to you face to face like that in front of me, the gloves would have come off!
I suspect you probably wouldn't need me, 'cause you seem to be able to take care of yourself quite well.
Great job, keep at 'em!
Margie| 1.21.10 @ 11:18PM
Thank you kindly, sir.
It would be just peachy if we could all live in the dream world of Toddard & co. wouldn't it? But while he sits home throwing stones at conservatives our brave men and women are out there fighting his battles. He is like something from the 1960's.. the hard-core hippies at the college campuses but all grown up. You're an America hater if you believe in a strong Military defense. No one is a conservative to him unless they share in his head in the sand fortress America.
Not Rush Limbaugh.
Not Sarah Palin.
Not Scott Brown.
Not Sean Hannity.
Not you.
Not I!
blackwatch| 1.22.10 @ 12:43AM
Margie I don't know you--but you are what makes America great. Please run for Congress.
Margie| 1.22.10 @ 4:54PM
Thanks for saying that. But nah, Grz is the one who should run. He's awesome.
Yosemeti Sam| 1.22.10 @ 1:43AM
" ... Not content with inscribing an obituary for Republican political dominance, Sam Tanenhaus penned an essay and then a book about "the death of conservatism" itself...."
For these type of chicken bone tossers for political divination, may they truly experience first hand deserved comeback - the grateful dead.
LOL.
Panhandler| 1.22.10 @ 11:31PM
"Everyday I hold this office I will give all that is in me to serve you well and make you proud..."
Scott Brown, 1/19/10
"Most of all, I will remember that while the honor is mine this senate seat belongs to no one person, no one political party, this is the people's seat".
Scott Brown, 1/19/10
What we have seen in Massachusetts is no less than a redefining of what America can and should expect of its representatives. I am a "down the line" conservative in all respects from the Florida Panhandle (hence the name...I work for my money). I fully realize that Scott Brown is certainly a fiscal conservative (what we need him to be), but he may diverge on social issues from my and other's views in the South. That needs to be OK with everyone in the conservative movement, because he represents MASSACHUSETTS, not us...and I believe he may do that better than many current politicians do on either side of the aisle. Brown is willing (and we need to encourage to continue doing it) to put the grocery clerk in Needham over the fatcat lobbyist in DC that he inevitably will be assaulted by, and that's the kind of politician we need to elect this year. You can call it idealism, but our system is corrupt and bloated, and those people in DC need to be flushed! I wish Scott Brown the best, and sincerely hope he is the first of many who will speak for their people, not a party.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.23.10 @ 11:23AM
(pasted from above )
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.23.10 @ 10:58AM
George Washington Farewell address http://www.earlyamerica.com/ea...../text.html
So many people pull Washington’s thoughts out of context, sorta’ like some people pull “proof scriptures” out of the Bible. Both are stupid.
I have linked President Washington’s entire speech here for those among us who care to know the full meaning of his last public speech. (Heh), which would never, ever, get past the TV sound-bite speeches we hear today.
Margie,
thank you so much for moving me to write this essay, and taking our sincere brothers and sisters to the source of the words that some here would distort for their own twisted
egos’ sake. President Washington's paragraphs are numbered below as in his original speech.
As any of you who actually read the entire speech will recognize, President Washington was speaking to the citizens of a very young, still very weak, nation. He was terrified that we would get involved in the endless European wars, and he explained precisely why here.
37 Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Then Mr. Washington made a very rational observation about our circumstances as a “detached and distant situation”…..
38 Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel
Each honest reader here who is educated enough to understand a compound sentence, will see Washington’s vision of a future powerful nation… a day to come for our nation…”when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.”
Finally, he wrapped up his discussion of international affairs thusly:
49 The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavour to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes. "
In closing, please read the article 49 above caaaarefully. Never again will you be misled by some idiot using Washington’s brilliant words to deny our nation, “the command of its own fortunes”…that we have achieved and he so prayed for and envisioned.
Again, thank you Margie for stickin' to your guns and truth.
zxcvzx| 5.6.10 @ 10:52PM
Flip Converter is a professional Flip Video Converter to help you convert Flip video, you can use it as Flip HD video converter and Flip MP4 converter. Supporting all Flip camcorder models, it can also function as Flip Ultra converter and Flip Mino converter.
Flip Video Convertersdas
Converse | 8.11.11 @ 10:46PM
is good