The Current Crisis
The Lost Liberals
They’re in a fog, but for everyone else the political air couldn’t be more clear.
WASHINGTON — With Scott Brown’s election to the senatorial seat held by Edward Kennedy for 47 years, a few things are suddenly clear. Americans in large numbers fear a further government encroachment on our private healthcare system. There are other means of reforming it. Americans do not want to bear higher tax burdens, more profligate government spending, and crushing deficits to be borne by future generations. One other thing is clear. For the most part, the American press is not very informative.
When Bill Clinton went up to Massachusetts to campaign for the Democratic candidate, not one mainstream news organization reported what is a matter of cold fact, to wit, when Bill Clinton campaigns for others they lose. In fact when Clinton was president the Democratic Party mostly lost. In 2004, as I reported in my 2007 book on Clinton in retirement, of the 14 Democrats Clinton campaigned for 12 lost. He was not even able to campaign successfully for his pal, Terry McAuliffe’s gubernatorial bid in Virginia last year. Equally unhelpful is outside campaigning from the Prophet Obama. He was no help for Democratic candidates in the recent midterm elections in New Jersey and Virginia. Right now Obama’s presidency is a failed presidency. Nowhere in the mainstream media is that reported in their one-year assessments of his presidency. Yet it is now thunderously clear.
There are still wisenheimers out there who will say that this very clever president will now recalculate and change course. He will steal to the center. His Democrats will follow. Truth be known, the Democrats led by Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, are no more likely to change course than the artistes of the Grateful Dead were ever likely to take up aerobics, join Alcoholics Anonymous, and resort to golf before they all died years short of the average longevity for an adult American male. The Democrats vote the way they do because they are captives of a culture, the youth culture of the 1960s, a culture that has endured, aged, but never smartened up.
This week in a very funny segment of his radio show Rush Limbaugh made a very pertinent point. He did so after playing what he called “patriotic music,” in this case the Venezuelan national anthem, which sounded as though it were being performed by a large orchestra of kazoos. Then Rush referred to the “1960s hippies who govern us.” Given to amusing hyperbole as he is, El Rushbo was not far off. Most of the real 1960s hippies are either doddering around in early retirement (retirement from life spent on a park bench) or long ago they served as crepe suzettes for the worms. Sure one or two of the left-wing Democrats in Congress might have once been hippies — one can envisage a long-haired Henry Waxman shuffling through Haight Ashbury in bell bottoms and Jesus sandals — but today’s dominant Democrats in Congress, for a certitude, were hippie fellow-travelers since their troubled youths in the 1960s and early 1970s. They have ever since lived in a closed society, closed to the realities of the Reagan and post-Reagan years.
The Prophet Obama may be a bit too young to have joined what in the late 1960s and early 1970s was called the New Left, but his mentors, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the late Saul Alinsky, were true believers. They saw America as a failed state years ago, and the president agrees. Remember his extraordinary statement last April to 2,000 Europeans at his Strasbourg Town Hall: “In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” This is vintage 1960s left-wingery. Just as Jimmy Carter was the first former president to speak ill of a sitting president while on foreign soil. Obama has now surpassed him. He is the first sitting president to speak ill of America while on foreign soil, and he has done so repeatedly.
Most probably the president sees nothing wrong with this sort of diminishment of his country. Most probably the Democratic leadership sees nothing wrong with it either. Liberals like them get elected not because they understand Americans but because they understand American journalists, who also are part of their 1960s culture. Yet it is a culture from an America of long ago. As even Massachusetts demonstrated this week, most Americans believe Americans know how to solve their problems through initiative, limited government, and hard work, not through the nanny state.
About the Author
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (144) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
More Articles From The Current Crisis
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/21/the-lost-liberals
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- What’s in a Name?
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
Pingback| 1.21.10 @ 6:20AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : The Lost Liberals [spectator.org] on links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
2Anglico| 1.21.10 @ 6:28AM
These "liberals" want to BAN: transfat, the internal combustion engine, over easy eggs, salt, tobacco, coal, plasma screen TVs, republicans, the nuclear weapons that keep the barbarians AWAY from the gate (although they found a way to let them in the back door)... in what way is this "Liberal"???
Alan Brooks| 1.21.10 @ 12:20PM
Progressivism is dead, but so is ALL social progress, not merely liberal social progress.
For instance publik skools are permanently substandard; they are postmodern torture chambers. Would you wealthier people even think of sending your kids to them?
But the good news is that since no one ever goes broke underestimating taste, the economy ought to do just fine.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 7:38AM
“But perhaps, as George McGovern ages gracefully while his country does not, it is time to stop looking at McGovern through the lenses of Scoop Jackson and those neoconservative publicists who so often trace their disenchantment with the Democratic Party to the 1972 campaign. What if we refocus the image and see the George McGovern who doesn’t fit the cartoon? Son of a Wesleyan Methodist minister who had played second base in the St. Louis Cardinals farm system, this other George McGovern revered Charles Lindbergh as “our greatest American” and counted among his happiest memories those “joyous experiences with my dad” hunting pheasants. He was voted “The Most Representative Senior Boy” in his high school and went to the college down the street, walking a mile each morning to Dakota Wesleyan and then coming home for lunch.
This other George McGovern was a bomber pilot who flew 35 B-24 missions in the Dakota Queen, named after his wife, Eleanor Stegeberg of Woonsocket, South Dakota, whom he had courted at the Mitchell Roller Rink. He grew up in and remains a congregant of the First United Methodist Church of Mitchell; he knows by heart the “old hymns” and sings them aloud “with the gusto of those devout congregations that shaped my life so many years ago.” This other George McGovern is a lifelong St. Louis Cardinals fan and member in good standing of the Stan Musial Society. He lives most of the year in Mitchell, his hometown, and says, “There is a wholesomeness about life in a rural state that is a meaningful factor. It doesn’t guarantee you are going to be a good guy simply because you grow up in an agricultural area, but I think the chances of it are better, because of the sense of well-being, the confidence in the decency of life that comes with working not only with the land but also with the kinds of people who live on the land. Life tends to be more authentic and less artificial than in urban areas. You have a sense of belonging to a community. You’re closer to nature and you see the changing seasons.”
This George McGovern, dyed deeply in the American grain, is a hell of a lot more interesting than the burlesque that was framed by his neocon critics.
…Impatient with the chronically cautious, with the kind of eunuchs who tell you behind closed doors that they’re against a war but don’t want to risk their position by taking a public stand, McGovern told his colleagues, “Every Senator in this Chamber is partly responsible for sending 50,000 young Americans to an early grave. This Chamber reeks of blood.”
It still does, senator. It still does.
…Robert Sam Anson wrote in McGovern, his fine biography, “To the extent that his vision of life is bounded by certain, immutable values—the importance of family, the dependence on nature, the strength of community, the worth of living things—he is a conservative. He seeks not so much to change America as to restore it, to return it to the earliest days of the Republic, which he believes, naively or not, were fundamentally decent, humane, and just. Like the Populists, he is willing to gamble with radical means to accomplish his end. There remains in him, though, as it remained in the Populists, a lingering distrust of government, a suspicion of bigness in all its forms.”
“…Throughout his congressional career, George McGovern won elections by conceptualizing his constituents as peaceful Christian agriculturalists,” wrote South Dakota State University political scientist Gary Aguiar. He spoke South Dakotan as fluently as he spoke liberalese, and when he asked, in 1972, “Who really appointed us to play God for people elsewhere around the globe?” he was grounded in plains soil as surely as Scoop Jackson was riding first class aboard Boeing. For sharing his father’s skepticism about military crusades, McGovern, holder of the Distinguished Flying Cross, was mocked for being “weak on defense.” Stephen Ambrose, who wrote up McGovern’s military career in The Wild Blue, thought that he ought to have used his bomber pilot experience “to more effect in his 1972 presidential campaign.”
“I think it was a political error,” McGovern tells me, “but I always felt kind of foolish talking about my war record—what a hero I was. How do you do that?”
Well, you don’t if you’re a polite, decent fellow from Mitchell, South Dakota—even when you’re being pilloried as a Nervous Nellie by think-tank commanders who wouldn’t know an M-1 Garand from a grenade. LBJ had urged McGovern to sell himself as an avenging angel of the air, but McGovern demurred, saying that “it was not in my nature to turn the campaign into a constant exercise in self-congratulatory autobiography.”
…In the home stretch of the ’72 campaign, McGovern was groping toward truths that exist far beyond the cattle pens of Left and Right. “Government has become so vast and impersonal that its interests diverge more and more from the interests of ordinary citizens,” he said two days before the election. “For a generation and more, the government has sought to meet our needs by multiplying its bureaucracy. Washington has taken too much in taxes from Main Street, and Main Street has received too little in return. It is not necessary to centralize power in order to solve our problems.” Charging that Nixon “uncritically clings to bloated bureaucracies, both civilian and military,” McGovern promised to “decentralize our system.”
…Unlike the bilious Ed Muskie, who dismissed George Wallace’s Florida primary victory as a triumph of racism, McGovern credited Wallace’s appeal to “a sense of powerlessness in the face of big government, big corporations, and big labor unions.” He asked Wallace for his endorsement, though as he recalls with a smile, “He said, ‘Sena-tah, if I endorsed you I’d lose about half of my following and you’d lose half of yours.’” Well, maybe, guv-nah—but just think of the coalescent possibilities of the remaining halves.
“It is not prejudice to fear for your family’s safety or to resent tax inequities. … It is time to recognize this and to stop labeling people ‘racist’ or ‘militant,’ to stop putting people in different camps, to stop inciting one American against another,” said McGovern, who called the Wallace vote “an angry cry from the guts of ordinary Americans against a system which doesn’t seem to give a damn about what is really bothering people in this country today.”
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/jan/30/00012/
Ark Ashamed of Bill| 1.21.10 @ 8:47AM
George McGovern was an activist in Stalin worshipper Henry Wallace’s 1948 presidential campaign. It’s obvious that he fought in World War II to make the world safe for Stalin rather than democracy. His entire 1972 presidential campaign was based on the lie that there wouldn’t be a bloodbath in Indochina if we abandoned it to the Communists. The repentant radial priest Richard John Neuhaus pointed out that a “considered and uncompromising” anti-Communism is necessary for a commitment to democratic principles, which leaves out McGovern. By supporting the Communist victory in Indochina McGovern promoted mass murder (South Vietnam and Laos) and genocide (Cambodia). He is an evil man.
martha| 1.21.10 @ 9:33PM
If you have'nt already read "United in Hate" by Jamie Glaov, who writes for David Horowitz's Frontpage blog.
In his book he talks about the reasons why the left always leave after getting a totalitarian state in place at whatever place they're agitating in.
It's a pattern they have.
JP| 1.21.10 @ 8:57AM
And your point SL?
Despite what McGovern accomplished in his younger years, it was his public accomplishments that will be remembered. McGovern was a pacifist, who back in the early 1970s, was way to the Left of even the Democrats. His nomination in 1972 was a disaster for him and his party. He was lucky in one respects, though. The largest group of under 30 voters, the Baby-Boomers, loved him.
Biography is not everything. Oliver Stone, if I remember correctly, served in the 25ID during one of the bloddiest periods of Vietnam. But that doesn't make up for his Castro man-crush. Bush41 was the youngest navy aviator in WWII, but that shouldn't intimidate people who didn't like his policies. Retired Sec of State Powell, reached the highest position in the military despite of rampant racism during the 50s and 60s; he served in 2 combat tours in Vietnam, and decorated for bravery. But that doesn't mean a person cannot cirtique his lousy performance as a Sec of State.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 9:28AM
"McGovern was a pacifist"
George McGovern, who flew 35 B-24 missions in the Dakota Queen and won the Distinguished Flying Cross, was a... pacifist? Could you expand on that?
Here is the first definition for "pacifist" at Dictionary.com:
pac⋅i⋅fist
–noun
1. a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind.
2. a person whose personal belief in pacifism causes him or her to refuse being drafted into military service. Compare
Tell us how that describes George McGovern.
JP| 1.21.10 @ 11:30AM
SL,
I concede he wasn't a pacifist in the Amish sense of the word; but, lets see:
1)He was a proponent of unilaterial nuclear disarmenent.
2)He advocted a 50% reduction in defence spending, which would have gutted the Navy and USAF.
3)He thought Kissenger's ideas concerning detente didn' go far enough. He was willing to concede about everything diplomatically and militarily to the USSR.
In other words, he might has well been a pacifist. McGovern lived in a Tolkienesue fantasy world, where his vision of the US was the Shire.He had no business in national politics.
Actually I like McGovern. Like Hubert Humphrey, he came from a period when honorable men still populated the Democratic Party.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 11:38AM
"Actually I like McGovern. Like Hubert Humphrey, he came from a period when honorable men still populated the Democratic Party."
That's really what I'm saying. If he ever advocated "unilateral" nuclear disarmament then that's obviously wrong, though I am not sure he ever did. If you could link to that it would be great. And wishing to shrink the size, scope and power of the military industrial complex is simply not "pacifistic" in any sense at all. Nor was a support for detente.
Alan Brooks| 1.21.10 @ 7:55PM
"Actually I like McGovern. Like Hubert Humphrey, he came from a period when honorable men still populated the Democratic Party."
Agreed, but same holds for GOP.
Bush family does not equal Taft family. The TAafts were not brutal professionals.
Dustoff| 1.21.10 @ 9:39AM
Does SL ever have a real point?
LQQKY| 1.21.10 @ 10:21AM
No -- he, like so many in the MSM after Katrina, is irrevocably "stuck on stupid."
wbheff| 1.21.10 @ 9:10AM
And your point would be what?
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 9:30AM
Honestly, I just thought it was interesting. I'd always assumed there wasn't much more to McGovern than the caricature that we've all known forever. That caricature may very well be inaccurate. That's all.
loulou| 1.21.10 @ 10:25AM
No, it was not interesting. There is nothing about McGovern (is he STILL alive?) that is interesting except when he said he would fall on his knees and beg for something or another.
McGovern is a sour, petulant far left loon. Like Jimmy Carter.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 10:52AM
Look, I'm not trying to dispel YOUR ignorance. I honestly couldn't care less that you are ignorant - that's fine with me. There are conservatives here, though, who understand nuance, and that the real world is a complex place unlike comic books and professional wrestling. You *don't* understand that - that's fine. No worries.
Sam Vaughn| 1.21.10 @ 12:07PM
SL Not sure why you bother with this site. Daily Kos is more your style. If you are truly a believer in the relentless pursuit of the truth I look forward to reading your submissions. But you seem to have a left-wing axe to grind. What are your core beliefs? I have come to the conclusion and maintain -
The Liberal definition of progress is the loss of freedom and individual achievement in the pursuit of the "good of the collective" as defined by those who consider themselves above us all. That, by the way, was one of my problems with Bush, left, right it doesn't matter. When the end justifies the means in the pursuit of power and the result is the soft-tyranny of submission to the State I'll stand in the way whether it's coming from R's or D's.
loulou| 1.21.10 @ 12:21PM
SL is here because he is a troll. Plus, he loves the attention.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 1:51PM
"But you seem to have a left-wing axe to grind. What are your core beliefs?"
I have said all this before, but to put it simply, I am a conservative: I revere tradition, community and those things sanctified by Time. I favor a small, un-intrusive and Constitutionally-defined federal government, partially because a massive federal government is inherently wasteful, but first and foremost because centralizing so much power far from the people and in the hands of a few is a danger to our Liberty and way of life. I agree with Lord Acton that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely – that as governments acquire more and more power and wield it with less and less accountability they invariably wield it arbitrarily, in a radical fashion destructive to institutions and traditions hallowed by antiquity. I value my people and community, and therefore am a proponent of localism and subsidiarity. I recognize that the Constitution granted the lion’s share of power to the States so that it would be more accessible to the People – what is called “States Rights”. I love Liberty, and recognize - as the Founders did - that the greatest threat to one’s own Liberty comes from one’s own government. Because of this, I revere the Constitution, the 2nd and 10th Amendments especially, as they serve (or should, at least) as a check on tyranny – on arbitrary power - and so I demand accountability when the Constitution is violated – regardless of the political party of the violator. I believe fervently in the Rule of Law and an open, Constitutional Republic. I value the soldiers who stand ready to defend America, and because I value them dearly I recognizes they should be sent to war only in defense or in the face of an imminent attack. I love my people and culture, and so oppose open borders and mass immigration, as a massive and unending influx of foreign peoples of alien culture does violence to the maintenance, cultivation and enrichment of our native culture. I believe in self-reliance and responsibility - both for myself and my gov’t, and therefore I demand that balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility be the norm rather than the exception. I oppose federal social programs because they are unconstitutional, and because they do damage to the moral fiber of the people.
As a conservative, I favor small government, because I believe Big Government does violence to the traditional American way of life I would like to *conserve*. Since war is the health of the state, since it expands the size and power of the central government, I oppose the Iraq War. As a conservative, I cherish the ideals of the Founders, and believe they are at the core of what "conservatives" should want to "conserve". Included amongst those ideals is the idea that America should have peace and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none, and that we should not go abroad searching for monsters to destroy. It is the Washingtonian ideal of benign neutrality. As a conservative I cherish that ideal and so I oppose the Iraq War, which contradicts it. As a conservative, I am resistant to radical change, so I oppose radically altering our criteria for what constitutes a just war, and believe there is no reason to abandon Christian Just War theory, hallowed as it is by long usage, by the great minds of the ages who formulated it, and grounded as it is in good sense and longstanding tradition. To abandon it is a radical act that I find repugnant as a conservative, and as I do not believe the cassus belli for the Iraq War is consistent with Just War theory, I reject it. As a conservative, I cherish the Rule of Law and the Constitution of the United States as the most effective conservative legislation in the history of man. I recognize, as Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote, that the "framers of the Constitution feared letting the president alone decide with whom we are at war," and so granted the power to declare war to Congress, who represent the states and the people. I believe Congress has shirked its constitutional responsibility, and that waging the Iraq War without a constitutional declaration of war renders the war unlawful, and so I reject it. As a conservative, I believe America should conserve her traditional republican system of government. I believe the Iraq War is imperialistic, that the conquest of overseas dominions and the maintenance of puppet governments on the other side of the world is imperialistic and inconsistent with republican ideals, and so I reject the Iraq War. And, lastly, as a conservative I try to reject ideology, I believe one must be principled AND practical, and must deal with the world as it is, not as ideology dictates that it should be. As such, and recognizing as I do that the primary cause of terrorism against the United States is our bombing, invading, occupying and killing Muslims, and our long-term meddling in their affairs, I oppose the Iraq War as counter-productive, wrongheaded and stupid.
Extremely Extreme Extremist| 1.21.10 @ 4:34PM
It boggles the mind, SL, to think that anyone can read the foregoing statement and still consider you a left-winger or a plant. A better capsulization of true conservatism one would be very hard-pressed to find.
Just wanted you to know that there are others around here who get it.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 5:29PM
Thank you, EEE. I added the second paragraph (which was written previously, actually) about Iraq because I thought some conservatives might read the first and think "That sounds reasonable. Why does he always sound like a crazy antiwar liberal?" I thought I should expand a bit, so as to show that the positions I hold - those that seem "liberal" to some because they criticize the Republican Party - are based on rock solid conservative convictions.
And I did not write it because I think anyone cares (before anyone jumps in with that nonsense) - I was asked.
Margie| 1.23.10 @ 4:00PM
This despicable line alone reveals Toddard for the America hater that he is.
~"As such, and recognizing as I do that the primary cause of terrorism against the United States is our bombing, invading, occupying and killing Muslims, and our long-term meddling in their affairs,"
Nobama| 1.23.10 @ 11:25PM
Admit it, EEE--you're Turddard!
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 2:07PM
"The Liberal definition of progress is the loss of freedom and individual achievement in the pursuit of the "good of the collective"
I would say the Liberal definition of progress is anything that destroys the things that bind men to each other in community, and binds communities to each other in nationhood: tradition, traditional culture, religion, common language, common ethnicity, conventional morality etc. Their goal is to create a mass of atomized individual, each alone by himself in a great, gray, drab blob. Once this is accomplished, they can create their egalitarian utopia by leveling everyone into an equal state of wretchedness.
Read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut for an idea of what it will look like.
loulou| 1.21.10 @ 12:20PM
NUANCE, did you actually say nuance?? That term goes back to Kerry, doesn't it?
A lot good nuance (gobbledegook, really) did him. And you, for that matter, genius.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 1:56PM
"NUANCE, did you actually say nuance?? That term goes back to Kerry, doesn't it?"
Actually it comes to us from Middle French, and before that from Latin.
So ignorant.
Nobama| 1.23.10 @ 11:26PM
Such an Asshole!
GreyLion| 1.21.10 @ 12:56PM
Mr Toddard,
What do you know about the military?
What do you know about "blood on the ground"?
What do you know about American heros?
For that matter what do YOU know about George McGovern?
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 1:55PM
"What do you know about American heros?"
I know that it's spelled "heroes". Is that enough?
Truth to Power| 1.21.10 @ 7:31PM
It isn't.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 8:57PM
Come on. Of course it is.
Nobama| 1.23.10 @ 11:27PM
Turddard knows nothing of heroes because he's a coward.
Lawrence D. Cannon| 1.21.10 @ 7:25PM
The only reason McGovern and other leftists fought bravely in World War II, was because their hero-nation the Soviet Union was invaded by fellow Socialist Adolf Hitler. Before Hitler's invasion on June 22, 1941, the Communists were strongly isolationists and opposing Franklin Roosevelt at every turn in his quest to militarize our nation. After June 22, 1941, the Communists became the largest hawks in the world. It's no coincidence there were no strikes and no massive anti-war draft protests (like there were in the Civil war, Vietnam, and to a smaller extent in World War I).
Hitler's two biggest mistakes were to 1) Invade the Soviet Union, and 2) declare war on the United States. Hitler could've consolidated his gains in Eastern Europe, and extended his detente with ally Joe Stalin another year. Traditionally, the Soviet Army fights abominably when outside their borders, and it would've been no different if they had attempted to invade the West in 1942.
National Socialist Hitler didn't have to declare war on America after the attack on Pearl Harbor. True, we were fighting an undeclared war in the Atlantic against German U-Boats. However, Hitler had no interest in declaring war on America other than he believed the Mainstream media of that day who portrayed Americans as soft and weak. In other words, Hitler declared war on us for the same reason Osama bin Laden did...they believed the portrayal of America on film and newspapers as a partying, soft, weak people. Little did both realize we were much tougher than anything they could throw at us.
McGovern and his fellow travelers were simply helping out their friends.
Nobama| 1.23.10 @ 11:28PM
Excellent point! McGovern's still an old RED bastard.
Melvin| 1.21.10 @ 7:46AM
I guess if one could sum up Liberals into one description, it would be..."Liberals act like male puppies when it discovers that the thing between it's legs is not necessarily for watering flowers. Puppies go into this spasm of wanting to hump everything and anything. The neighbor, the neighbors cat, the neighbors trees and everything
that resembles a Mississippi leg bone. "
The puppy humps himself into exhaustion and when it over and done with, the poor creature hasn't accomplished anything. Just like a Liberal.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.21.10 @ 7:55AM
The essence of Obama is the sum of his parts. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Franklin Marshall Davis (An avowed communist who was an Obama mentor) all contributed to the current manifestation of the empty suited President.
When Harry Reid claimed that Obama was light skinned and had the correct dialect, he wold have been more accurate by stating that Obama is thin skinned with a socialist dialect.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.21.10 @ 7:55AM
The essence of Obama is the sum of his parts. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Franklin Marshall Davis (An avowed communist who was an Obama mentor) all contributed to the current manifestation of the empty suited President.
When Harry Reid claimed that Obama was light skinned and had the correct dialect, he wold have been more accurate by stating that Obama is thin skinned with a socialist dialect.
Mattled| 1.21.10 @ 8:01AM
Now we have all the pundits asking "will he move to the middle?".
No---he will give us the middle finger. Wait a month and he will make the Mass voters pay.
He is a small petty man who is on the verge of a stroke. His interview with Stepphie shows a man seething with rage.
Bring it on little man!!
Show us the finger and we'll show you the door.
Nobama| 1.23.10 @ 11:31PM
Obammy has already flipped us the bird--the Massachusetts Miracle was just the first--of many-- to be flipped back at the moron.
bluecollarbytes| 1.21.10 @ 8:21AM
You've got the hippies pegged. I think of Obama as the inbred product of the hippie culture, which is worse because growing up 'he never even had the chance' to reject its more 'mind-altering' components. The Reason Obama sounds so shallow when it comes to speaking, is the depth of his thought process, which is rooted completely in hippie goals, hippie concerns, and hippie ideals that reject the un-Hippie-like U.S. Well, I guess you can throw in a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals in their as well, like Willie Ayers. Claiming "intellect" and academic presence allows then to escape scrutiny.
But Obama is now pledging new "expressions of concern" over his job-creation void. That will be the extent of his 'pivot'.
Ryan| 1.21.10 @ 8:22AM
One thing wrong in the article - calling the American health care system "private" is a vast overstatement. It's a Corporatist-Big government amalgamation that leaves the individual out of the loop in many cases.
Bill| 1.21.10 @ 8:58AM
Well for one who grew up in the mid west during this time in a conservative home, went to a conservative mid west Christian college for under grad and the to the University of Michigan for my graduate degree, was dismayed at the activities of all these dope smoking kids running around and living their lives in a way that had no purpose or direction. Now some of these misguided"children"
are trying to function in positions of government and having the same success. People with no substance and intentions that are not well thought out. Thankfully there were many like me that did not fall into this category. We took a different perspective on life and the purpose of life. Thankfully I was able to take early retirement not just once but twice. Thankfully I still have my health, time and money to now work with the Tea Party Movement. Time and energy to fight to take back this great country so that we have a country to leave to our children and grand children and those who follow.
May God bless America and the purpose he created it for.
Howard| 1.21.10 @ 8:59AM
I voted for George McGovern in 1972. I was 20 years old, and I hated Nixon. But it shows how truly radical McGovern was that he lost 49 states to a putz like Nixon. McGovern had all kinds of "pie in the sky" plans that were nutty. If he ran a traditional liberal platform, he probably would have lost, but, it would have been a closer race. More important than the 1972 outcome, is the spawn of 1972. Today's liberal congressional leaders were active in McGovern's campaign. So, in some ways McGovern "won" the election, as his ideas are still predominant in Democratic platforms and legislation. A loss for all of us.
roadmaster| 1.21.10 @ 11:35AM
I was 21, a disgusted, discouraged and disparaged VN vet so I was interested in McGovern's campaign. After checking him out, I decided he was goofy and didn't vote for him.
I salute his service in WWII, as I do Jonny MuhCain's in VN, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with their nutty ideas.
By the way, I love listening to Ron Paul on economic and constitutional issues, but he totally loses me when he begins his mindless blather about national security.
TJ| 1.21.10 @ 9:15AM
Wow, that Toddard has a lot of time on his hands. I guess having a trust fund from Mater and Pater will do that.
gearjammer| 1.21.10 @ 9:29AM
S.L. thanks for the McGovern narrative, but like so many middle aged people in the sixties he went ga ga over these idiotic crazed hateful radicals and lost his bearing and common sense. He and many in the media had a middle age crisis that greased the skids for the worst kind of people to take over our country. Now, 50 years later our nation is reeling from the damage they've done, and at last some critical mass of citizens is once and for all gonna bury the 60's. The national media and hollywood will try to keep the myth of that decade alive, thier endless Beatlemania being just one example, but in the end it will all be ruins. Indeed, in the Scott Brown race the aging liberal and democrats tried to use one of their old timey cultural reference to derail him-the evil pickup truck. This goes back to Peter,Paul,and Mary and the Lyric " he's a drug store truck driving man, he's the head of the Klu Klux Clan". This song was sung in California in democrat rallies against Reagan I believe.Later, another cultural monument to the warped 60's mindset came out , the movie Easy Rider, and the last scene where Cpt America and his silly sidekick get killed is in a drive by shooting from two guys in a pickup. The silly 60's democrats who run the show and are the mindset of Coakley's campaign actually thought they were making a " brilliant " point with this clever(in their minds)symbolism. When actually, people saw the truck as a good sign of a guy who maybe is a do it your self type, or camps, etc. Not a crazed racist or hippie hater. I wonder how many guys who thought they here hippies in the 60's voted for Brown ? Plenty. Sl you are passe. The world has passed you by.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 9:36AM
You know, I agree with most of what you're saying here (except that I myself am "passe", which doesn't really make sense). I just don't think you can use George McGovern as a stand-in for the worst and most pathetic sort of liberalism, as though he were LBJ or FDR or something. He was an American hero, a seemingly a good and honest man who was born and still lives in the heartland, who adheres to very, very old fashioned, traditional values. I just think it would behoove us to move away from the simplistic, Black/White narrative wherein everyone is either cartoonishly evil or a Great White Hope.
ncatty| 1.21.10 @ 10:18AM
Do you have an opinion on Calvin Coolidge? I am serious.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 10:49AM
Silent Cal - a good man, surely.
ncatty| 1.21.10 @ 11:18AM
Yep, I am a Coolidge Republican. I wish I could vote for him.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 11:32AM
So do I. So bad.
Bob Miller| 1.21.10 @ 10:21AM
A good guy gone wrong is still wrong.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 10:50AM
There is no such thing as a man who is not "wrong" about some things.
Bob Miller| 1.21.10 @ 11:41AM
Here we mean some really major things. Duh!
Peter McGrath| 1.21.10 @ 10:32AM
One year - to the day - after his inauguration, Obama woke up yesterday as a lame-duck President. His interview with Stephanopoulos was filled with disjointed mumblings, unintelligible excuses, and was actually sort of sad. I actually felt a little sorry for the twirp.
Obama is diminished. He is damaged goods.
Congressional Democrats are now scattering like cockroaches trying with all their might to squeeze behind the wainscotting to hide from their impending political doom.
Their only hope is to literally scrap the current version of Obamacare, try to pick up a McCain, a Snowe, or a Collins, and stitch together a package (maybe this year with any luck) they can call "bipartisan."
More than likely, however, any major healthcare legislation will rot on the vine until after the midterms.
We have witnessed a decisive, strategic defeat of the Left, the likes of which we have not witnessed for decades.
Every person who reads and contributes to this website should be proud. Your advocacy, your passion, your involvement, contributed to this historic watershed in the history of American Freedom.
Nobama| 1.23.10 @ 11:36PM
Thanks, Mr. McGrath; for your compliment and your terrific posts! I also compliment the bloggers and the writers of American Spectator.
Thank you.
gearjammer| 1.21.10 @ 10:44AM
He lost a daughter and it was tragic. Viet Nam is not he only way to judge a person, including those who supported the war. He did have a nasty streak that he revealed at times. In the end, it was the company he kept politically. They were problematic, Ramsey Clark, that whole crowd. Same with Obama-that spaceshot he wanted running TSA ? My goodness.now your gonna tell me he's a mild mannered farmer with bedrock values.
Nobama| 1.23.10 @ 11:34PM
It's McGovern's ideology, stupid! He's a communist. Screw the old bastard.
TURK| 1.21.10 @ 10:47AM
SLT is a lefftist/democrat plant who hangs around spectator and takes up space and attempts to change the subject, especially when our leader comes up with one of his gems. Ignore him(or her) for the irrelevancy IT is.
Bob| 1.21.10 @ 11:24AM
Just like a lot of articles around here, Tyrrell seems to have lost any perspective and is acting like a puppy with a new friend. I think he needs to be trained. You must remember, after one year Reagan was considered a failed President and this continued until his second year when his approval ratings dropped to 38% -- much lower than Obama. On the other hand, the approval ratings for Bush41 were off the charts when he started and dropped precipitously thereafter. (Both Bushes had this problem). Analysis and perspective would say that after one year you cannot determine the success of a four year term. Obama might succeed like Reagan if the economy turns around and also might fail. We don't know at this juncture. Any intelligent commentator would have this perspective.
There is a learning curve for any job -- and the Presidency is no different. If Obama moves towards the center and starts leading rather than being subservient to Congress, he will succeed. After all, even after all of Reagan's right wing rhetoric, he governed as a moderate, not as a conservative. He was certainly not a fiscal conservative as he grew the federal government and raised the debt more than any previous President. He didn't push the abortion issue strongly.
ds80| 1.21.10 @ 11:40AM
Reagan did not grow government. The Democrat House did.
I agree with McGrath: the light-skinned (1), clean (2), magic negro (3) is a lame duck. And with LQQKY: that he is too stuck on stupid to realize it.
Gosh, if we can count on "learning curves" for the Presidency, Scott Brown would be a great choice in 2012, right Bob?.
(1) Harry Reid
(2) Joe Biden
(3) David Ehrenstein
JP| 1.21.10 @ 12:33PM
Bob,
The President is leading. The President's Capo, Rahm Emmanual, was present at every backroom deal that Reid and Pelosi scripted. President Obama, in March of 2009, began to line up Big Pharma, Big Health Insurance, the AMA, and ARRP to support his health insurance overhaul. Most of thier bribes, subsidies, and pay-offs were written in the Oval Office. It was up to Reid and Pelosi to get them written into law.
The President outsourced much of his domestic agenda to Congress, with the understanding that he called the shots. Thier job was to fill in he details.
This same templete was used to pass the Stimulus Bill, write Cap and Trade, and is currently being used to line up an Amnesty Bill, Card Check, and new banking regulation. Make no mistake, Reid and Pelosi had no problem with this arrangement; but President Obama has certainly lead the way.
Last year I thought this was a very very clever strategy. Let it look like Congress was taking the lead -let them take the flack (both Pelosi and Reid have thick hides). In the mean time the President can look presidential and ethereal - that is, above the fray. He could give speeches, bow to kings, and drink beer with the pleebes in the Rose Garden.
There was no learning curve for President Obama. He surrounded himself with Clinton operatives, Wall St insiders, and K-Street pros. His team was off and running just hours after the election. His problem is that he read the tea leaves too well. He wanted it all, and he realized his window for getting significant things done was quite small. I think he knew perfectly well that his party would lose congressioanl seats in 2010; so, there was this drive to get as much as he could before the 2010 election season began. Health Care, and Cap and Trade first, everything else later. It was a huge gamble, but he knew perfectly well an oppurtunity like this doesn't come around more than once in a generation or 2. Yes, there was plenty of hubris. And I think that after the Stimulus Bill passed and he got General McChrystal appointed to Afghanistan he went on cruise control. He made the classic mistake of believing the Press -the entire world adored him, or so he thought.
President Obama did make one big mistake early on. It was the same mistake Bush43 made. He never hired a WH operative who wasn't afraid to lay the truth on when needed. The warning signs were out there as early as July 2009. But, like Bush he was insulated.
The President now is in denial. I imagine he feels the same way General Hooker felt at Chancelorsville, when he thought he was on the verge of a huge victory only to find himself suddenly outflanked from a most unexpected direction.
Bob| 1.21.10 @ 1:06PM
JP, you say the President is leading AND outsourcing to Congress. You cannot do both. He is clearly NOT leading -- and that is my major objection to him. He is letting Pelosi/Reid lead the way.
ds80, you cannot say that it was Congress, and not Reagan, who grew government. Last time I looked, Reagan had the tool of the veto. If he was serious about downsizing government, he would have used it more often. He said one thing, and did another. Just admit it.... That doesn't mean I didn't like Reagan -- I voted for him twice and have no regrets and think in his actions with the Soviet Union, he was brilliant. But domestically, I can't give him any "Brownie" points. I lived through the Reagan presidency and actually remember much of the ridicule during his first two years. In fact, there are books written about his failure during those first two years which predicted that he would not be reelected. Over time, Tyrrell and other zealots forget history and ignore perspective. That's why we can't have idiots like Palin running this country. We need people who understand our history and can learn its lessons.
I hope Obama succeeds as I am an American before I am a Republican. But if he doesn't, I will certainly berate him over time.
ds80| 1.21.10 @ 11:39PM
I hope Obama's policies fail. I pray that they fail. I work towards making them fail. His vision of America is not that of the Founders.
You discredited yourself with the word "idiot" re: Governor Palin. Nice ad hominem argument there.
And how many votes does it take to override a veto? The House during the Reagan years was entirely a Dem majority - by an average of 75 seats. The Senate: Republicans had an average majority of *3* seats.
I say again: Reagan did not grow government. The Democrat House did.
Nobama| 1.23.10 @ 11:38PM
Harvard 'RINO' Bob is sticking up for his boy, Harvard Obammy. Priceless!
Dumbass.
davelnaf| 1.21.10 @ 11:27AM
It is assumed that leftists can productively apply whatever individual degree of commonsense they have to the small issues in their private lives. But leftist ideology of whatever kind does not appear to allow them to apply their commonsense to the problems of effectively governing a nation. One does not necessarily have to have experience to have commonsense, but ideology is an avowed enemy of commonsense and treats experience with contempt.
PolishKnight| 1.21.10 @ 11:30AM
I had a debate with a liberal woman on the way to a tea party protest. One of the things she said that I remember vividly is her claiming to "love America. It's my home." I know she was lying through her teeth. If it's her home, then why does she talk so much about traveling to Europe and about how great Europe is? I realized I should have said: "Home is where your heart is."
Leftism is a love affair with socialist Europe and a secret desire to bring down America since it's very existance represents a threat to European socialism. They HATE America! They're also illogical as hell since the things they claim are bad about America also apply to Europe. Europe has a lot of, well, Europeans (whites) in it. Just as Reverend White who bashed what he saw as racist America moved to a white suburb, so do they also dream of not being in the fallout and actually having to live with the consequences of their destructive, cool aid agenda. They want to be one of the elitists hanging out with George Soros making money via a form of socialist capitalism (being connected and getting cushy government deals) while the commoners, the socialist peasants, live in squalor or go off to the re-education camps.
Which brings us to... Taxachussettes: Socialism is about buying new votes by tossing their old supporters to the wolves. Massachusettes residents face a thousand dollars a month energy bills and seeing jobs go to other districts (such as Nebraska) as they get taken for granted. They don't call the NorthEast the rust-belt for nothing! Those loyal dem voters are viewed as SUCKERS by the left because they haven't gotten the message yet that they've been left behind.
Yojimbo| 1.21.10 @ 11:31AM
Hey I am a red-blooded Ronald Reagan conservative and a Grateful Dead fan. The Grateful Dead were strictly apolitical at least up until Jerry died. Bob you took a cheap shot, especially since four of the original six band members are still quite alive and kicking and it is safe to say do lots of aerobics, avoid excessive alcohol and play plenty of golf.
Old guy| 1.21.10 @ 11:39AM
Limbaugh's best comment was when he said the big problem for the Dems now is bussing. The leadership wants to throw the members under the bus and the members want to throw the leaders under the bus!
TomB| 1.21.10 @ 1:18PM
There are many beasts in the jungle, as the old saying goes. It occurs to me that liberals/progressives are the squirrels. A squirrel will risk his or her life to run across the road in pursuit of an acorn. Rather than risking life and limb, squirrels will gather around anyone who is giving out free nuts, and will follow them relentlessly. Until someone else with free nuts comes along.
Or until there's a big noise.
Oldefarte| 1.21.10 @ 1:27PM
Excellent article, Bob----and thanks! As a baby boomer, I know full well your meaning concerning liberals of the 1960's. As a college graduate, I was brainwashed for four years by liberal professors and didn't become conservative until living in the REAL WORLD of thirty-five years worth of working, paying taxes,etc. Liberals are those individuals [mostly liberal arts-type college graduates] who constantly see life through the prisisms of their college textbooks, teachers, ideas even into adulthood. To them, it's all about history, art, science, music,etc. Government to them is a RELIGION, to be increased, enlarged,etc. as the god-like bestower of problem-solving programs and activities. They do not believe that an intelligent human being has the capacity to solve their own problems; and only believe that government has that power [ie the nanny-state]. Obama, Pilosi, Reid, Schumer, Frank,etc all beleive that they are smarter and more capable of knowing what's best for Americans, and that they therefore should [and do] have the governmental power to mandate our ways of life. In a word, they are all SICK!!!!
TURK| 1.21.10 @ 2:23PM
I see SLT is now BOB'. Changed its name. Waste not time on substantive debate with it.(see my earlier piece)
martin j smith| 1.21.10 @ 2:55PM
My memory could be fuzzy but I think the LEFT of today ( that is Obama,Pelosi, Reid,Axelrod,, etc. ) are a somewhat different breed from the McGovern days. Todays LEFT appear in my view more like third world dictatator wannabeeeeeeezzzzzz than traditional United States politicians. I do not trust them for anything. Even if the seemed to come to their senses, for me it is much too late. They would have to go beyond words and in deeds show by their methods of legislation( remember transparency ? ) Remember the promise of bi-partisanship defined as some of your ideas as some of yours (not our way or the highway ). and also stop demonizing your opposition. These are just a few of the issues for me demonstrate that the LEFT is not "lost" they RE LIKE WOUNDED ANIMALS--VERY DANGEROUS IN THAT CONDITION. So, be careful. They may seem "lost" now, but wartch them very carefully indeed. !!!!
Hank Archer| 1.21.10 @ 3:05PM
It just occurred to me another serendipitous outcome of Brown's election will be the dispersal and/or departure of Kennedy's formidable staff.
pugsley| 1.21.10 @ 3:35PM
Being new to this site I have read and enjoyed for many weeks now the lively exchanges. The one person who seems to bring out the ire of many is S.L. Toddard who seems reasonable and balanced most of the time, leans left at times but mostly is on target with reasonable comments about America. Now that being said he so reminds me of my first born son, who graduated Phi Betta Kappa with a degree in History and went on to law school on scholarship and graduated Suma. He could quote me about every religion, political diametric, social ill, you name it and he was all over it but very right though somewhat lacking in common sense as it related to the world but a very good guy. Somehow as I read S.L. I picture a Gatesbian figure in tennis whites with his little finger extended at a 45 degree angle while sipping tea and thinking about the momentous events of the day. But all in all he is entertaining and in most cases spot on with his facts, enjoy him for what he brings to the table and try and educate him about real life issues on common sensicle grounds.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 5:33PM
I am not half as educated as your son, of whom you are so understandably proud, though I wish I was. And I am certainly not the least Gatsby-esque. I grew up in a blue-collar city in New England and have an intermittently honking Mass accent.
Still, thank you for the kind words.
Simon Templar| 1.21.10 @ 5:37PM
No, our little Toad is not spot on with the facts nor do most of the readers find him interesting say the least. He is considered by most as a wind bag with a lot of time on his hand that often pretends to be a conservative but in fact has so many left wing views that it it is ridiculous that anyone would fall for his claim that he is....I think most of us believe that he may in fact be a payed Sorros troll but I am not sure we want to build him up anymore than his ego has done for himself. He is probably just a lonely person who gets his kicks and attention by blogging out here and pi$$ing people off.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 6:20PM
"He is considered by most as a wind bag with a lot of time on his hand that often pretends to be a conservative but in fact has so many left wing views that it it is ridiculous that anyone would fall for his claim that he is"
Well if that's the case then surely you can name at least one, no?
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 7:09PM
Guess not.
John II| 1.21.10 @ 10:42PM
Wrong. There's me, Tod--have you forgotten? Nonetheless, I thought you might be interested in this recollection. McGovern was a personal friend of Bill Buckley's, and when he retired from Congress he tried his hand, for the first time in his life apparently, at the real world by opening a bed-and-breakfast somewhere on the east coast. He later wrote to Buckley that his efforts were mostly in vain (as I recall the story from Buckley) because he kept running into these ridiculous state-imposed rules and sanctions and tax impositions on small business that he himself, in his tenure in Congress, had helped to pass. "I just didn't know what the hell I was doing," he whined charmingly to Buckley.
Well, I'd say the admission is prima facie evidence of conservative leanings on McGovern's part, but I still prefer, say, Jimmy Stewart, whose Army-Air Corps exploits in WWII were far more imposing than McGovern's and who never evinced a soft spot, later, for the spoiled children of the Great Generation.
But I do remember, as well, when the Iranian jihadists took over the American embassy in Tehran in 1979, McGovern's public statement that a "punishing" military response was in order on the part of the US. Carter wasn't listening, of course, but I recall being braced by McGovern's use of the term "punishing."
He was no Jimmy Stewart. But he was no Jimmy Carter, either--whatever he may be today. It seems as if every Americano is a little Hamiltonian or a little Jeffersonian--or a little mixture of both.
S.L. Toddard| 1.22.10 @ 7:28AM
I'm with you, really, but why did you start that out with "wrong"? We are more or less agreed, no? I certainly was not arguing that George McGovern was a great conservative, but rather that he was not the Dukakis/Fonda/Carter monster we are always told he was.
Oh - I think I see what the misunderstanding is, John: that quote in the post preceding the post preceding yours ("considered by most as a wind bag with a lot of time on his hand that often pretends to be a conservative") was not describing George McGovern - it was describing ME! Simon Templar claimed I have "so many left wing views that it it is ridiculous that anyone would fall for his claim that he is (a conservative)" and I was asking him to name one.
PS
I reject the charge that I am a "liberal". The windbag charge... well, I guess there may be a modicum of truth there.
PPS
Have you ever seen The Adventures of Baron Von Munchausen?
Nobama| 1.23.10 @ 11:43PM
Windbag? Hardly. Flaming gasbag is more like it.
Nobama| 1.23.10 @ 11:41PM
Man, if your son is as big an A-Hole as Turddard, you have my condolences, sir.
Pingback| 1.21.10 @ 3:42PM
The Lost Liberals « Socialism is not the Answer links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.21.10 @ 3:56PM
What are the chances that we can get the democrats so frightened that they will throw links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.21.10 @ 4:40PM
Hi Pugsley
Hang around a while. You will finally come to my solution. I use my scroll button on Toddard and Bob, except when I am in the mood to toy with them.
I just love making a fun comment sometimes and then just watch them come up with reams of gibberish defending themselves and their whacko positions.
Sadly, sir...or lady, they are very similar to your idiot son. Like Ron Reagan quipped..." its not that they don't know...it is that most of what they know is wrong."
Heh,
I would correct Mr. Reagan though......it is that what they know...is stupid and childish....and wrong.
Bob| 1.21.10 @ 5:01PM
Hey, Tex, aren't you the CEO who doesn't know how to read the bottom line???? Hmmmm... I think the word for you having the ability to "toy" with anyone is "delusional". I do have some recommendations for an accounting course for you, however....
When are you going to post anything of substance that actually looks at the numbers?
Ken(Old Texican)| 1.21.10 @ 6:26PM
Heh, here we go, folks. Have a little fun.
Bob asked:
""When are you going to post anything of substance that actually looks at the numbers? ""
Nope, Bob. As my early life boss once said: "Numbers never lie! It's just that liars number."
You, sir, are a liar.
I can forgive that.
A lot of folks have to ...just to get by in their barren lives.
What I cannot easily forgive is arrogant ignorance, which you display here on almost a daily basis.
Sir,
I gave you my full name here in an open forum and even told you how to search on your search engine.
My goodness, my name gets thousands of hits all over the internet. I have been very fortunate, sir. Every time I stumble over my biography, I can barely believe it...and I was there. heh.
You challenged me on my background, but were too arrogant to even peek to see who I am...and where I've been.
Months and months ago, I tried earnestly to engage your thinking. I finally realized that you reveled in your ignorance.
So now...
I will just toy with you and your fellow sad travelers.
See, I'm not really speaking to you here, but to the thousands of folks, especially young folks, who drop in to make a comment...or to ask a cogent question, to help them understand stuff.
Now, you willfully ignorant person. One last time.
My name is Kenneth Bean ...duh, type in kenneth bean texas on your search engine and simply stand in awe of my accomplishments. heh.
If you are very nice...I will share with you and our fellows some of my most horrible screw-ups. I know those will get some laughs
TURK| 1.21.10 @ 4:53PM
NOW its name is Pugsley! Tuesday really drove 'em nuts.
Mattled| 1.21.10 @ 5:14PM
Something else to drive the whackjobs here:
Air KKKAmerica is GONE.
Buh-bye.
Conservative radio is successful becuase there is so much material---i.e. using libtards own words against them.
Liberal talk radio: You can only wish for death and illness and name call for so much, then ---poof. You're boring, irrelevant and you might as well be speaking Farsi.
Curtis Rasmussen| 1.21.10 @ 6:44PM
2 things happened. They lost their core target president Bush, and Obama's sobering socialist, big government hell-ride made Air America's leftist dogma hard to swallow.
Good riddance.
pugsley| 1.21.10 @ 5:50PM
Hey Ken, got one for you. 'Sir, sometimes they can't tell if your serious or not. Well it isn't important for them to know, it is only important for me to know'. And with that I leave you for another day, and Turk I am the one and only Pugsley and I try not to offend as I am just getting the feel for this sight. It is lively and I can assure you I am very conservative. In fact my son the young lawyer says I may really be stuck in the 50's even yet! Good on you all, till later.
Pingback| 1.21.10 @ 6:41PM
The Lost Liberals – R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. – American Spectator « HOME – Other Right links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Deadhead| 1.21.10 @ 9:44PM
Only Two of the Eleven regular members of The Grateful Dead have died. The others are alive and kicking. Do your research. Especially in an article whining about "the mainstream media" not doing their job.
Nobama| 1.23.10 @ 11:45PM
Two have died and the others look like they're dead.
Yosemeti Sam| 1.22.10 @ 1:11AM
" ... Right now Obama's presidency is a failed presidency...."
But he can still party at the White House!
Le Marteau| 1.22.10 @ 1:36AM
> no more likely to change course than the artistes of the Grateful Dead were ever likely to take up aerobics, join Alcoholics Anonymous, and resort to golf before they all died years short of the average longevity for an adult American male.
We're supposed to take you seriously, when you get an easily verified fact as completely wrong as that?
I'm thinking the AA reference was projection, though.
Richard Baker| 1.22.10 @ 8:36AM
The static is being disturbed again. Wonder why?
Saw McGovern's picture attached to this story. He is the senior statesman of the Hate America club, his bomber pilot persona notwithstanding. Has he gone to join Teddy yet? Soon?
Pingback| 1.22.10 @ 9:23AM
Attention Men! You were right all along: back waxing horror … | Waxing Beauty Wisdom links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.23.10 @ 5:55AM
Most Tweeted Articles by Guns Experts links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.23.10 @ 10:35PM
The American Spectator : The Lost Liberals Male Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
JJ| 1.24.10 @ 2:14PM
The greatest threat to America is not Obama. The greatest threat to America is the media that created his image and got him elected. Most Americans are still buying their media from the same places that sold them on Obama. When we reject the poison of the liberal media then this country will go forward. When America can appreciate George Bush for the man he was then will be free of the brain-washing that destroyed him and will destroy us. Let's starts with MSNBC. Just turn it off.
SDE| 1.25.10 @ 4:56PM
McGovern service in WWII is commendable. But we have been told ad nauseum by the talking heads on tv that such service does not equal qualification for elected office. But then again they are always talking about Republican candidates when they do so.
Sometime Spook| 1.30.10 @ 6:34PM
Coming from a country where gambling is endemic and as natural as a bodily function, from what I have seen over the past year, Pres. Obama is well in the running for the Jimmy Carter Gold Cup for political incompetence. I can't recall a time when America appeared so divided and some of the fault lines run very deep. Some of those who cry foul now were only too willing to overlook Pres. Obama's history and his so-called friends.
However, the American people elected Obama to office and despite some paranoia, he cannot change the system too radically. More disturbing is the fact that the Republican Party appears incapable of pulling itself together, finding an acceptable candidate and taking the fight up to him. Americans generally are too sensitive about perceived deficiencies in some politicians. All human beings have weaknesses of one description or another. Next time round, rather than dream of Sarah Palin, select a candidate with can-do characteristics, driving ambition and a willingness to lead.
sdfgsd| 5.6.10 @ 10:55PM
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.
แรน | 4.22.11 @ 12:41AM
I leave you for another day, and Turk I am the one and only Pugsley and I try not to offend as I am just getting the feel for this sight.
Superclub | 5.25.11 @ 12:58AM
But then again they are always talking about Republican candidates when they do so.
سوريا | 6.25.11 @ 1:09AM
http://www.soryh.com
IBCBET | 8.1.11 @ 12:20AM
Most probably the president sees nothing wrong with this sort of diminishment of his country. ibcbet99 IBCBET ibcbet-th
IBCBET | 8.1.11 @ 12:22AM
There are still wisenheimers out there who will say that this very clever president will now recalculate and change course. He will steal to the center. ibcbet99 IBCBET ibcbet-th
Converse | 8.11.11 @ 10:50PM
is good