The American Spectator : There He Gropes Again

Text Size

There He Gropes Again

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 4.22.10 @ 6:09AM

Bill Clinton at his reckless worst.

WASHINGTON — Not so long ago there arose on the American political scene something called, the Angry Left. It was an indignant group of ritualistic liberals whose appearance the mainstream media apprised us augured well for Democratic victory in 2008, and so it did. The Angry Left turned out the vote for the Prophet Obama. At the time, do you recall any public figure on the right stepping forward and warning against possible violence from the indignados of the Angry Left? Did, say, the Hon. Newt Gingrich step forward at a conservative forum, say the Heritage Foundation, and remind his fellow Americans of the bombings of government buildings, the burning of university libraries, the robbing of banks by angry leftists in years gone by? I cannot recall any such warnings from any conservative eminence.

It is not as though such lawlessness is unknown in American history. Politically motivated bombings, burnings, and bank robberies actually have been committed in America by leftists. Some of those leftists are still with us, for instance, Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn who were fugitives from justice for such antics and went on to become friends of the present president of the United States. In fact, lawlessness on the left is still being committed, for instance at universities where speakers who offend the left — the Angry Left or simply the Fastidious Left — are regularly shouted down or barred from scheduled appearances as Ann Coulter recenly was, at least, in Canada. Yet Newt has remained mum about the danger posed by the Angry Left, and it is not easy for Newt to remain mum.

Now just the other day, ex-President Bill Clinton — some of us still call him The Groper — rose up at the Center for American Progress, and drew parallels between the Tea Partiers (call them the Caffeinated Right) and the homicidal maniacs who participated in the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people and injuring hundreds more. Clinton’s charge was typically duplicitous. “This Tea Party movement can be a healthy thing if they’re making us justify every penny of taxes we raised and every dollar of public money we spend,” Clinton opined. “But when you get mad, sometimes you wind up producing exactly the reverse result of what you say you are for,” said the president famous for among other things his temper tantrums. He also said, “Before the [Oklahoma] bombing occurred, there was a sort of fever in America,” which I guess depends on the meaning of the word fever. I recall no fever, but then I was not impeached for lying and obstruction of justice.

A longstanding conceit of American liberals has been to lecture conservatives on how to conduct themselves. They are famous for telling us what we can and cannot say. They tell us we cannot call them socialists even when they take over industries and transform the federal budget into a simulacrum of European social democracy. Yet they can call us racists and enemies of the poor when we advance alternatives to such failed policies as affirmative action or welfare. In fact, much of the liberals’ stance toward conservatives in our ongoing dialogue with them is an insult. The most recent politician to dabble in race-baiting was not a conservative but Bill Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries.

What Clinton depicts as a precursor to more bombings modeled on the vile Oklahoma City bombing is nothing more than a civic upheaval inspired by American constitutional liberties. The Tea Partiers are no cause for alarm. For Clinton to suggest that these generally peaceful and good natured libertarians are opening the door to domestic terror is Clinton at his reckless worst. In doing so he has given would-be bombers cover for their evil acts. If more bombings of federal buildings follow, we can thank Clinton for his speech of encouragement. Ironically federal investigators looking for the perpetrators might begin their investigations with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. No Tea Partier I know has their record of violence.

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 (138) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Ret. Marine| 4.22.10 @ 7:20AM

and just who listens to this loser anymore, anyone going on defense of what is, is, gets no futher than what's it,it got to do with it.
Oh, and one might want to think this over, why did the klinton machine of mr. reno, and his sidekick and current AG holder stop the connection with the terrorist ties in the McViegh case? Inquiring minds want to know.

Carolyn| 4.23.10 @ 3:38PM

Ditto. And let's see, hmmmm, an impeached, disbarred, adulterous liar who has a vested interest to divert focus on the REAL cause of the OK City tragedy -- we should pay any attention to the former Horndog-in-Chief .... why?

Tim*| 4.22.10 @ 7:21AM

Who have We ,Tea Party Rebels ever killed ?

Let Bubba explain the burning of little kids to death at Waco .

Aaaand, If Tyrrell Junior thinks We,Tea Party Rebels are " The Caffeinated Right ", He must be part of " The Camomile Right " .

We don't allow Clinton or any other agendists to " Define " us.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .

Remember In November !

Finbarr Moran| 4.22.10 @ 9:30AM

Tim,
On Rush’s show yesterday, he recounted Slick Willie’s explanation for the Waco fire – the Branch Davidians set it.

That’s right. They set it and when they opened the windows to let out the tear gas fumes the west Texas winds amplified the fire.

So it was not Clinton and Reno, it was the Davidians’ own fault.

The SOB has stones the size of rugby balls, doesn’t he?

Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 4.22.10 @ 10:14AM

Finbarr Moran, you overlooked that those West Texas winds were generated by global warming and that only a gum’mint takeover of all sectors of the energy industry will prevent future Branch Davidian types from opening their windows. As far as the size of any particular part of the perjurer-in-chief’s anatomy, I defer judgement to purse designer supreme, Miss Monica. After all, she is intimately familiar with those particulars.

On another note - the date of fiscal Armageddon, recalculated every day the NYSE is open, after it closes, has been revised from the 29th to the 30th. This is the day I project that the Debt:GDP ratio will attain 90% officially making our economy unsustainable.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Now is the time for all to go Galt!
Only 8 days to fiscal Armageddon!

Finbarr Moran| 4.22.10 @ 10:26AM

Gill,

Clearly you are comfortable in your own skin as evidenced by your pushing the envelope outside the box well beyond the comfort zone.

At the end of the day, I don’t want to go there.

Clichés perhaps, but is there anything as cliché as Clintonian mendacity.

Regards.

The Planner| 4.22.10 @ 2:33PM

Finbarr - prevarication does not require stones - gaul; no moral compass; self-delusion perhaps. But Bill Clinton has no stones - stones indicate courage, bravery. Bill Clinton is not only an empty suit - he has an empty sack.

Anthony| 4.22.10 @ 5:45PM

Finbarr; You're so right. Clinton, on top of being a reprobate, serial liar, and a sociopath, is delusional. He must sit up at night thinking of these absurd excuses for his insignificant presidency.
He and Dan Rather are members of the same club. Total losers who have been exposed for the frauds that they are. And no amount of leftist accolades can eliminate the stench.
They will go to their graves with their failures.

Lloyd Dobbs| 4.22.10 @ 3:08PM

When ad hominem attacks are made it is evidence that the FACTS can not be successfully addressed
to support the premises of the attacker. The "Progressives" fear that Americans might begin to actually THINK for themselves instead of blindly accepting the positions and opinions of others. America is WAKING UP to these tactics.
PRAISE GOD.

Melvin| 4.22.10 @ 7:47AM

I'm sick and tired of this bulbous nose liar and his even more lying Sec. of State wife Hillary. Both of them are nothing more than lying, cheating, conniving, thieving political SOBs.
From Hillary stealing White House furniture, to Bill's public display of, "I did not have sex with that woman." Both are a plague and a stain upon this Country.
Bill is like Jimmy Carter, he won't shut up and go away gracefully. But then again Jimmy Carter never did anything gracefully but heap problems upon this Country that we are still having to deal with today.

Timothy L. Pennell| 4.22.10 @ 8:08AM

Everybody on OUR SIDE is fighting the WRONG WAR, again. Or, at least, they're fighting it the WRONG WAY.
RIDICULE. That's how you fight these people. You get out there and you say:"Excuse me? I'm being accused of fomenting another Timothy McVeigh? And I'm being accused of this by one guy who began his Political Career in the living room of a guy who BOMBED Police Stations, KILLED COPS, BOMBED Recruiting Offices, and BOMBED the Pentagon? And another guy who CREATED Tim McVeigh, with his ham handed use of FORCE, on a bunch of kooks who weren't bothering ANYBODY, and 86 people were left DEAD, a lot of them CHILDREN. And for WHAT?
AND he's a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. AND he's a SERIAL MOLESTOR OF WOMEN. AND he's a RAPIST! A RAPIST who was accused of RAPE on NATIONAL TELEVISION.
That's how you deal with these people!
DO IT!

owyheewine| 4.22.10 @ 10:03AM

I agree that ridicule is the best tactic. But ridicule has to be by it's nature condescending. Laugh at Slick Willie's peroni syndrome, at Hillary's cackle, at the Obaminator's dope smoking and likely drug dealing youth. Laugh at Dingy Harry's squeaky voice and haircut that reminds you of Alfalfa in the little Rascals. Laugh at Nancy Pelosi's stone face and obvious multi face lifts.
Give them the respect they deserve, pure derision .

Tyler S.| 4.22.10 @ 1:13PM

And then they can dismiss you as the small minded, vicious little thugs you are, good call. Ever see over the top rhetoric go well for anyone? Ever? I mean, there's a reason the tea party is trying to distance itself from the hateful fringe who would utilize it for reasons other than rejecting big government. I think you'll find such insults and recriminations only serve to garner support and sympathy for those you would hurt while further isolating you.

Tom in Michigan| 4.22.10 @ 1:41PM

Alinsky Rule #5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." Rule # 13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Not only is it great fun to use the Leftists' own tactics against them; it works. Thin skin is in their genes. Besides, it gives the little trolls a hissy fit when they realize we understand what they're about.

Nelson H.| 4.22.10 @ 3:17PM

There is merit to what you say. But still...think of the undeniable visceral catharsis we feel when we verbally bludgeon the Clintons! That is what made TAS so much fun back in the 1990s, with it's relentless fusilade of ever more redundant evidence that the Clintons were beneath contempt. How I miss those factual and lascivious feature articles rolling out in issue after issue revealing appalling Clinton pathologies circa 1994! Oh, that was indeed the Golden Age of TAS. One wishes HRC would have been elected instead of the Bamster so TAS could have once again risen to its former journalistic glory, pillorying her and her priapic husband in every single issue!

jake1492| 4.23.10 @ 10:32AM

Yes....how sad that we instead are subjected to the frustrating spectacle of an adminstration that competentely plods along in the boring business of confronting the country's urgent and long term problems. How.... terribly.... dull....

Chet in Texas| 4.23.10 @ 10:59PM

NO, you won't "FIND" that insults & recriminations only serve to garner support & sympathy..
How Stupid is THAT comment ??
HOW MUCH SUPPORT & SYMPATHY did the NEVER-ENDING insults & recriminations garner for President Bush ?
He's been out of office for 1.5 years & somehow it's STILL HIS FAULT...
QUIT trying to sound "philosophically superior".
Next, why don't you tell us how we shouldn't "..stoop to their level..." so as to preserve "hooonoor" & "chaaaaracter".
IT DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE IN WASHINGTON.
You want "Bipartisan" KRAP, don't you ??
I DON'T... it means that SOMEONE in Washington COMPROMISED core values TO GET ALONG...

Dorrie| 4.22.10 @ 8:37PM

Hurrah! Hurrah! What the state media and the Leftists are trying to do, as usual, is focus attention on McVeigh's horrendous act which, though tragic, was meant as a protest to our own corrupt government that could, itself, commit the same acts with impunity (Ruby Ridge & Waco).

Becky| 4.22.10 @ 8:18AM

Bill Clinton is not afraid the tea partiers will do something violent or self discrediting (like he did), but that they won't. That is also the reason for groups now springing up (including OFA) advocating infiltration of tea party groups. It's been a year, and so far nothing on the domestic terrorist level of a fart has been in the wind from the tea party groups. The left is becoming frustrated and trying to get a rumble started.

They may find out calling on your mindless minions that supported you in the past to infiltrate the tea party, may give the tea party more strength. A lot of the youth liked the excitement of being an Obama girl (or whatever), and that narcissistic bloom is off and they are looking for the next cool thing. There is nothing cooler than 1776 America.

Liberals now operate on the basis that massive groups of people can be controlled. What this presidency is above anything else, is a permanent campaign. Mass movements need to be in constant active stages to remain in control. Setting up bad guys is one of the best ways of trying to defer attention, anger and frustration away from yourself. We know it, they know it, and the masses are starting to feel it.

On a similar note, the people of AZ are feeling the heat personally from illegal immigrants, not the ones that come to work, but those involved in crime. The recent murder of the rancher is an actual act of violence that a member of a large group has committed against law abiding citizens, yet where is the outrage by Clinton? He doesn't feel AZ pain, I guess, only threats of perceived political pain.

Louis Jenkins| 4.22.10 @ 8:21AM

A good question, Retired Marine. Why did "Klinton" stop the investigation? As far are listening to this blow hard, the heck with him. I read about 5 pages of his speech and then quit. No need going any further with it. It is what it is. Time to get on with business.

Howard| 4.22.10 @ 8:29AM

Clinton was always his toughest against the weakest. He rode roughshod over Waco. And that little Cuban boy felt the full fury of the government. But when it came to Iraq or Al Queda, the Administration became a citadel of civility. So, now he takes shots against peaceful protesters. Typical Slick Willie!

Steve G| 4.22.10 @ 8:52AM

Is it me or my imagination. Every time I see Bill Clinton on TV he seems on the verge of tears. I guess this is his way of appealing to women, who would want to mother him, the l'il darling. If this is how he assumes ex-presidents gain stature he is sorely mistaken. There is no "man" there. Never was.

Jeff in Fairfax | 4.22.10 @ 8:57AM

Though no huge fan of George W. Bush, side by side W looks like a statesman, Bubba looks sleazy; but then most aging rock stars do.

Paul from SA| 4.22.10 @ 10:48AM

Hey Jeff, I used to live in Fairfax, Va. Went to W.T. Woodson high school....

Yep, Bill Clinton is a creepy man; he will never stop lying. I can't imagine Bush ever going on tv and being a partisan sleazebag.

Jack Olson| 4.22.10 @ 9:22AM

Today our local fishwrap printed a column by Clarence Page on Clinton blaming conservatives for the Oklahoma City bombing. Sample quote: "If the shoe fits, wear it, I say. If not, condemn those who are making your movement look bad." So, if conservatives actually are guilty of encouraging McVeigh's terrible crime, they should own up to it; if they aren't guilty of that, they should act as if they were. That's what passes for logic in the MSM.

wayne tallaksen| 4.22.10 @ 12:03PM

Clinton is still trying to put the blame for what McVeigh did anywhere but were it actually belongs!Waco and Ruby ridge were on Clintons Watch and Jannet Reno was taking orders from who??

Tyler S.| 4.22.10 @ 1:04PM

Cool, so that means we get to blame Bush for 9/11, Katrina, and the recession? I mean, they all happened on his watch, and he had about as much control over them as Clinton did over Waco.

I tire of you teflon conservatives, who believe they can criticize without regard to reality or morality while all your own sins simply slip off.

Tim*| 4.22.10 @ 1:49PM

Are Ya sayin' Bush ordered the blowing up of the dikes and The Twin Towers ?

Bruce | 4.22.10 @ 6:27PM

If you're so tired of the conservatives who hang out here ... why are you here?

Are you assigned by Kiddy Kos to monitor and report every post here you can twist to suit your agenda?

Strictly a rhetorical question - no response is required.

Petronius| 4.22.10 @ 6:33PM

Oh, so George W Bush gets albatrossed for being in that classroom instead of piloting his F15 over Manhattan firing Sidewinders at those airliners? And do tell me how you arrange a hurricane. The recession, he warned us about. Nobody listened except the futures players.
But then Bush is no conservative and rarely governed as one. He sucked up to Ted Kennedy and the rest of the liberals on the hill just like his father.

Bydand76| 4.23.10 @ 1:58PM

And now Obama has to own up to the Oil rig explosion, Earthquakes in Haiti, and Coal miners in West Virginia....

Tyler S?...........careful you are starting to sound like a conservative now.

I tire of you hypocritical progressive socialists who think that anyone who opposes them is unworthy of human existence.

What about Ruby Ridge Tyler S? Was that Clinton's fault too? Somalia? The failure to kill OBL? Was that his fault as well?

BTW.. are you from MN?

Stephanie| 4.22.10 @ 9:22AM

It seems the MSM can't decide how they want to handle the Tea Pary Movement. We're racists, were boardering on violence or committing violence and NOW, per Politico.com, we're really much ado about nothing! No leader and way to much is being made over us and we will not mean a thing come Nov. 2010. Sounds a little ADHD to me.

Pingback| 4.22.10 @ 9:25AM

There He Gropes Again links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Ironically federal investigators looking for the perpetrators might begin their investigations with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. No Tea Partier I know has their record of violence. The American Spectator : There He Gropes Again Reply With Quote + Reply to Thread « Previous Thread | Next Thread » Tags for this Thread clinton fool stupid liberals tea party View Tag Cloud Bookmarks Bookmarks…

blarset| 4.22.10 @ 9:42AM

I agree with alot of the posts. The one thing I dont understand is why the Bushes relegitemized the clintons? It makes no sense why they continue to act like eliteist government officials who never met a public servant they did.nt like.

steveb| 4.22.10 @ 12:27PM

Good question. Why did Bush ball up into a fetal position and allow democrats to run all over him, and our country as well? I don't want a republican that gets along with lefty, or is loved by the media. Bush swallowed a whole bunch of false premises to arrive at "compassionate conservatism", and his propping up Clinton was part of that package.

Houston Rao| 4.22.10 @ 9:47AM

Bill Clinton simply admitted that (a) Obama has not been the bi-partisan, unifying figure he claimed he would be when he was a candidate, (b) Obama has divided and polarized the country and the people more than ever in history, so much so that Bill and the Democrats themselves fear violence from a group that has been ridiculed, belittled and humiliated by preposterous name calling from the biggest bully pulpit in the world in response to their peaceful protests.

Alinsky's rule number 5 - "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.22.10 @ 10:04AM

Hi blarset.

I will take a crack at answering your question.
"In the final analysis, The Bush men try to be gentlemen.
I don't buy the "elitist" label for the Bushes, but I do agree with a former VP to one of them when he said 'Mr. Bush just never did recognize who his enemies are.'"
Best regards and welcome.

Occam's Tool| 4.25.10 @ 1:51AM

Dear Old Texican:

Right you are! Many people accuse Bush Sr. of slimeballing when he accused Dukakis of being weak on crime in the Horton case. However, this was actual fact and dealt with the record of Dukakis as an actual official. Many of those same accusers went after Sarah Palin because of her daughter's mistakes...but Libs aren't usually gentlemen.

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.22.10 @ 10:07AM

OOPS!
senile mind outran fingers... a "staff member of a former VP" was my intent to write. Sorry

GetaGrip| 4.22.10 @ 10:13AM

But then again, who cares what Bill Clinton thinks or says about anything? The man doesn't even know what the meaning of 'is' is...

Anthony| 4.22.10 @ 11:25AM

William Blythe, aka William Jefferson Clinton, was and is a serial liar and a sociopath. The truth is so foreign to this man, he wouldn't recognize it even if served up by Monica Lewinsky.
This reprobate attempted to blame Oklahoma City on 'talk radio" and Rush Limbaugh. When Limbaugh fought back, (unlike most cowardly establishment Rs who just take it) Clinton and his goons backtracked and said they "ment" short wave radio.
McVeigh himself said his act of terrorism was partly in response to Clinton's actions at Waco Texas, which murdered, yes murdered, over 100 American citizens. (If only Clinton was this tough on Islamic terrorism)
Apparently, Clinton, like Obama, only has a taste for blood when it comes to attacking conservative Americans. And also like Obama, he loves to blame others for his dirty work, as he did when he hid behind Janet Rino's skirt. What a man!!
I've said it before and I'll say it again; Bill Clinton is just white trash with a Yale Law degree. He has been, and is to this day, an embarassment to America. How dare he lecture us!!
RET: I bet your "pal" Clinton will read this article, as he is a complusive narcissist of the first order, so thanks for allowing us to direct our comments directly to him.
Hey Slick Willie, have you learned the proper etiquette of cigar smoking yet?

Tom in Michigan| 4.22.10 @ 5:46PM

Anthony, my man! You just hit the nail on the head about the Clintons.

That they are indeed seen as "white trash" is why the Eastern Establishment Liberal/Leftists always loathed them and jumped at the first chance they got to push even an empty suit and fraud like Barack Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton. That they were willing to associate with even the slimy Chicago thugocracy to rid themselves of the Clintons speaks volumes about the aversion the Leftist elites really have for them. They hate anybody from "flyover country" of course and consider us merely a source of taxes to be “ruled” from on high but, they reserve a special disdain for the Clintons.

I had let that fact slip my mind entirely. That is also why they were so vicious in their attacks on Hillary during the campaign and what sent Mr. Bill into froth - not that he really gives a Shiite about Hillary any more than she does about him, except as a tool to be used to attain and keep power – ANY power but, his nose was getting rubbed in it too. The proof of this and, indeed the crowning achievement of the Leftist elite and the one thing, for which I DO admire the Obamaviks, is how they used the Clinton’s power lust to set Hillary up as Secretary of State; where her complete and utter incompetence would be in full view of the world, for all to see (Obama doesn’t care who she pisses off and, she is a perfect conduit for his US – diminishing “foreign policy”). Plus, Mr. Bill’s payoff is; he can get his Willy slicked while she gads about Gaia (Happy Earth Day, BTW) making a fool of herself. And, she TOOK the job just so she wouldn’t have to take her carpet bag back to New York and get stomped in the next Senatorial contest. Of course, the sheeple who will follow any Democrat into hell (if you want to see them first-hand; come visit us in Detroit) will still go online and tell us what a great "diplomat" she is.

Good eye!

Pat | 4.22.10 @ 11:29AM

I will take the tea party groups over the morally corrupt Clintons anytime. And that goes for the morally corrupt people running this country.

Nobama| 4.22.10 @ 11:35AM

We should remember that the far left is so despicable, they would bomb something merely to create the impression that the Tea Party had done it. They are totally capable of this.

GryLion| 4.22.10 @ 11:40AM

Now, what we have here is a failure to launch. Bill still thinks Monica is waiting for him in the oval orfice.

stevor| 4.22.10 @ 11:45AM

Clinton is a PUPPET. But so is Obama and so were Bush and most presidents for the last century.

Who is pulling the strings? Follow the money! It's the "banksters" who bought Congress and most presidents (maybe except for Kennedy and look what they did to him).

Clinton's "warnings" REALLY ought to be heeded. Why? No, not because some "nut" might do some terroristic act. It's because the puppeteers (who just happen to LOVE WAR because they make LOTS OF MONEY from war) want to keep tax payers so scared that they'd never lessen the flow of money to their "causes" (and they have backed both sides of every war for at least 100 years)

Wade Smith| 4.23.10 @ 11:29AM

Wow, take your meds!

dave| 4.22.10 @ 12:12PM

I laugh because this editorial and most of the comments that follow only help make the Left's point: we're out of control angry and we no longer know why. Tyrrel says he remembers no "fever" on the Right in the mid-1990's, but several writers wave the red flag of Waco at the first mention of the Oklahoma City bombing. Of course there was a fever in the 1990's and it continues to burn. Whether it's unhinged or not we'll have to see. But as a lifelong Conservative I've never been comfortable with those whose self-righteous indignation seemed to them to justify all manner of insult and outrage. In the day it was the student radicals who had one real issue - the war - and a thousand bulls*** reasons for being in the streets or taking over campus buildings. Today's Tea Party has one real issue - government financial policy - and a thousand bulls*** reasons for protesting including Obama's birth certificate, him being a "socialist" (the word no longer has meaning), or that we don't like a black man in the White House (few Partiers really believe this, but just enough do to make it an issue). Whatever. The point for me is, anger as an end in itself is as far from the Conservative tradition as you can get. We are supposed to be reasonable, measured, and willing to yield at a small cost rather than win at a large one. The Tea Party might as well be on the 60's Left given how far they are from these ideals, but in reality they are simply all recycled Perotists, the ones who cost Bush 41 his re-election. Let's remember THAT this November and turn our backs on them.

NavyBrat | 4.22.10 @ 12:48PM

Dave, if you're a lifelong conservative, I'm the second coming. If you were a true conservative, you'd recognize socialism when you saw it. Go away, infiltrating troll. No one gives you any credence here.

dave| 4.22.10 @ 1:32PM

Navybrat, sad but true. I have been. My first school speech was for Barry Goldwater, I attended one of the most conservative colleges in the country as an undergraduate, worked for Republican congressional candidates in the 1980's and campaigned for Reagan. My first "real" job was working for the current president of the Hudson Institute and I currently work for a conservative foundation that has been actively supporting conservative cause since the 1960's. So, yes, I have been a conservative my whole life and it saddens me to see what's become of a once great movement. We used to read (and even write) books of substance - I keep on my desk a copy of Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind as a reminder of what we're supposed to be about. I have recently begun rereading Herbert Spencer's Man vs. The State to get reacquainted with some of the original arguments against Statism (which I think is what you really mean by "socialism," although since you offered no actual definition, I can't be sure). Nowadays, the public faces of conservatism are nitwits and con-men. When Gingrich came along, I thought the direction Buckley had tried to take the Conservative movement might have triumphed - full of sound ideas well argued with a real plan for America and American government. 15 years or so later, we're a wreck. I can only ask what happened? Where are our ideas? I'm telling you honestly, this is how the 1960's felt and was frustrating as hell, asking people what their problem was and being told that it was the "system" and that if I wasn't against it - no questions asked - I was "pimping for the man" and nonsense like that. That's why I became a conservative in the first place, so I could be among people who didn't say stupid stuff like that. Mine is a simple plea: conservatives should return to what made us the most important movement of the last part of the 20th century: sensible ideas and civil discourse. If you think this isn't "Conservatism" watch a Reagan speech on Youtube. The man was The Man.

Tom in Michigan| 4.22.10 @ 3:10PM

OK, dave-with-a-small-d. As I did with little Tyler, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt in honor of Earth Day. In your case though, I’m assuming you really ARE a Conservative (and unlike Tyler, an actual grown – up) particularly in light of the impressive Conservative curriculum vitae you’ve provided and the fact you can write a complete sentence.

Please clarify for me how Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels and Michelle Bachmann, among others are “nit wits and con-men” as it seems to me folks of their caliber are rapidly taking leadership of the Conservative movement (I’m not interested in hearing about Huckabee – what IS it with Arkansans and their governors? - or Palin. I’m with you on the former; I’ve heard it all about the latter and, they are not leaders of the Conservative movement). After all, I could be seeing Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Chris Dodd, John Conyers, Rahm Emanuel, Harry Reid, Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich, David Obey, Maxine Waters, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Charlie Rangel – oh, the list is just too long but, you get the point – whom I perceive as being much more worthy of these sobriquets than some of their Conservative opposites, in entirely the wrong light.

Also, please employ your obvious erudition in your explanation – no trollish name-calling or ad hominems, please. I’m willing to learn.

PS. I live in Michigan so; I don’t want to swap 1040s right now. Things have been a bit tough here the last 8 years but, we’re hoping for some improvement once Jennie Granholm’s (D-MI) out of the Governess’ mansion.

dave| 4.22.10 @ 3:44PM

Thanks, Tom in Michigan, for the opportunity to respond. Mitch Daniels, from the list you provide, is a great example of the kind of politician the Right could look to for future leadership. He has done a great job in Indiana and is obviously cut from presidential timber. Bachmann, at least to me, is part of the problem not part of the solution. Where I have never heard Daniels make a statement that didn't seem reasonable, Bachmann seems to me to be a bit shrill and seems to be retreating into rallying the faithful rather than reaching out to the uncommitted who swelled the ranks in the Reagan years and gave conservatives a chance at national leadership. What I hold against her, I suppose, is her attachment to Ayn Rand, who I find at once elitist and puerile, but I will give her this: she reads books and has allowed herself to be inspired by them, and has in turn inspired others to start with ideas (as opposed to their personal circumstances and prejudices) as the foundation of their politics. As for the Dems you list, there are certainly some sad souls in this mix and none rises to the level of a real thinker. But as with a list drawn from Rep. politicians, this is not where we would look for men and women of ideas in any case, or at least not exclusively. Reagan learned his ideas from conservative intellectuals, not from conservative politicians (Goldwater excepted). And he had an intellectual - Pat Buchanan - to help him translate his own ideas for public consumption. The Right opinion makers at present are not in the Republican Party. They are, among others, the boys at Fox and Rush, etc. and even though Rush has been around forever, he's not the same Rush from the early days of the Dittoheads. He's like a Rush-impersonator playing it over the top.

To be honest, Tom in Michigan, while I would look forward to a Daniels' candidacy in 2012, I do not believe that he stands a snowball's chance of being nominated. George Will likes him a lot and this is usually the kiss of death for any politician on the Right, in part I think, because Will is a reasonable guy and sees a kindred spirit in Daniels, but reasonable isn't where it's at these days. Sarah filled a stadium here in Louisville the other night, but I'm sorry to say that, as much as Hoosiers like him, Daniels couldn't fill a Mickey D's right now. And it should be the other way round. So, my question to you, Tom in Michigan, is how best do we make that happen? By throwing fuel on the fire, or by trying to calm folks down a bit and get them to admire soft-spoken, intelligent men of character like Daniels?

Tom in Michigan| 4.22.10 @ 9:11PM

Sorry. Not good enough dave-with-a-small-d. As Adrian Monk would say, “Here’s what happened.”

You didn't answer the main question which was how are the four Republicans I mentioned are “nitwits and con-men.”

Instead, while you began with a compliment to Mitch Daniels - you mocked and diminished him at the end of your post (“couldn’t fill a Mickey D’s”…”doesn’t have a snowball’s chance”). You didn’t respond at all about Paul Ryan, who acquitted himself publicly very well in the “health care” meeting with President Obama, has offered substantive alternatives to the current “health care” legislation and has written and spoken authoritatively on the underlying philosophy of the legislation encompassed in Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s questionable but revealing contributions to the medical literature. Nor did you have any opinion about Mike Pence. For somebody who claims such Conservative gravitas, you don’t seem to know much about these prominent Republican up-and-comers. You did however; write about Michelle Bachmann – and Sarah Palin. Geez.

I gave you two reference lists. The first was a list of some of the most venal and ludicrous (if they weren’t so damned destructive) Leftists extant. I even threw in Marcy Kaptur who is a complete cipher – a nobody among nobodies in the Democratic Party. The best criticism you came up with was “some sad souls.” Fair enough. I wasn’t asking you to necessarily comment on those miscreants but, I think you revealed something of yourself with that comment.

I also gave you a list of well-regarded Republicans but including one who is, shall we say more controversial than substantive at least when compared to the others, Michelle Bachmann. I purposely included two who are nearby enough to your home state to be familiar on both a local as well as national basis. Outside of Mitch Daniels, Bachmann was the only one regarding whom you commented at any length. I frankly haven’t formed solid support for her either but, I think your comment about her “shrillness” is a mere ad hominem that tells us nothing about your opinion of her substance. While I agree she doesn’t seem to quite grasp the theory of how microphones actually function; I still don’t see how she is a “nit wit” or “con-man.” Again, you didn’t answer the main question regarding which I was seeking enlightenment.

Regarding her purported “attachment” to Ayn Rand; your characterization of Rand’s work as “elitist and puerile” is a bit suspicious. I read Rand for the first time in the 1960s and, while she is indeed verbose; your “puerile” comment is eerily reminiscent of the reviews she received from most members of the Left at the time of my first readings, which I hear echoed again today as her work returns to the fore. I would be more concerned if she was “attached,” as you say to the writings of Pat Buchanan whom you risibly put forth as an “intellectual.” If I could expunge (actually, “excrete” expresses my feelings more accurately) any supposed “Conservative” from the Movement, it would be Buchanan. Moreover, Buchanan’s stint with Reagan ended after the latter’s ill-advised visit to Bitburg and allegations of Holocaust denial on Buchanan’s part. He’s a pet “Conservative” who makes real Conservatives look foolish by shilling for CNN. I have to wonder about any “Conservative” who holds him up as an exemplar of our Movement. Buchanan! Again, geez.

So, you seem to know how to criticize Republicans and highlight their lesser planets but, your praise is somewhat thin by contrast and your choice of an “intellectual” guiding light seems misguided at best but smacks of disinformation at worst.

However, when you referred to the list of Democrats I provided you responded “this is not where WE (emphasis, mine) would look for men and women of ideas in any case, or at least not exclusively.” As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger when they were once surrounded by Indians (sorry, Native Americans) and, the Ranger said “Well, old chum. Looks like we’ve had it.” What’s this “we” Shiite white man? To whom are you referring? Do you mean “we Democrats?” “We Leftists?” Or, was this a mere Freudian slip? You utterly refrained from any disparaging comments about the list of Democrat fools and charlatans – perhaps to your credit given your advocacy of civility but, it was a softball list that anybody could have had some fun with. Civility is a hallmark of gentlemanliness but, passivity more assuredly is not.

Plus, you referred to “the Right.” While I can’t say this necessarily proves anything; I don’t know a single Conservative who identifies himself as a member of “the Right” as this is generally a pejorative used by our opponents in the same manner in which I refer to “the Left.” I use “Left” or “Leftist” as a rejection of the terms “liberal” (as they are illiberal in thought and deed) and “progressive” (as their policies and programs cause our nation to regress towards the ordinariness which plagues so much of the world outside the US). Well, maybe it’s just your way of speaking about your political brethren but, it seems questionable.

Not to mention the fact you averred the “Right opinion makers at present are not in the Republican Party. They are… the boys at Fox and Rush….” Oh, c’mon. This is straight out of the Leftist talking points aimed at discrediting the leaders I mentioned above by alleging Conservatives can’t form a cogent opinion but simply get their marching orders, as if we were Obamatrons, from Fox News and talk radio. I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt (It’s Earth Day, man!).

I also requested you avoid references to Sarah Palin (also microphone - challenged) but, you couldn’t help it could you? You had to hold her up as the one Republican drawing the big crowds. Frankly, Daniels is back in the State House doing his job, quite admirably as you mentioned and is not out on the hustings so, I can’t say what kind of crowds he draws but, the Left is so viscerally loathing of Palin that; I’ve yet to see one who could pass the opportunity to let fly (yet, you wouldn’t touch Marcy Kaptur!) at the mere mention of her name. Plus, they are beginning to worry about Daniels.

Suffice it to say, dave-with-a-small d, there are at least two of us here who doubt your claim to Conservative credentials and philosophy. If I was the Chicago (or the Clintons, for that matter. Poor Vince Foster) mob now ruining, I mean “running” the country, you’d be “whacked” by now.

However, if our suspicions are correct, at least you’re a step (well, several steps – indeed flights of steps) above the childish, idiotic trolls who ruin what could actually be decent forums for debate. Some I suspect are just stupid, basement-dwelling momma’s boys who interrupt their one-handed web surfing just long enough to make asses of themselves (Bueller? Bueller? Or is that, Tyler? Tyler?). Some must be paid. If I’m wrong, and I doubt that; well, sorry about that old chap and, I sincerely apologize for my presumptuousness. If I am wrong please try one more time to tell my how Ryan, et al are “nit wits and con-men.” I’m willing to learn.

Finally, in response to your question regarding the way forward. I’ve been watching the Left destroy this country since even before Viet Nam. I used to think they were a mere annoyance even that they were the “loyal opposition.” All that has changed as the Leftist members of my (I’m ashamed to say) generation have polluted the body politic and brought this country to the very brink of collapse culturally, economically and militarily. There is not “cycle of incivility” any more than there is a cycle of violence between the Israelis and Palestinians. The Left is the seed crystal and fuel on the fire of the incivility in this country. Yet, they dare lecture others on manners. Soft-spoken, polite men of character like Daniels will merely be submitted to Alinsky Rule number 13; “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.” The Left will no more be civil than the Palestinians will be peaceful. If they’re not attacking Israel, they’re at each others’ throats. Like the Left; it’s in their genes.

I live in Michigan, a veritable paradise until the Left ruined it. They are now mere enemies to be defeated. We may even be doing the Democrats a favor by ridding their party of these vermin. Then perhaps they can get back to the principles of Jefferson and the two-party system can be saved.

But, while I try to be civil at all times until the happy day of Leftist defeat or Democrat return from the Dark Side, my credo is Alinsky Rule number 10 - constant pressure upon the opposition. I’m not intimidated and will not be silent in the face of this threat. As a Sixties-kind-of-guy myself, I know all their dirty tricks as well, having seen them up close and personal so, I’m not easily fooled and delight in seeing them hoist with their own petard.

Tom in Michigan| 4.23.10 @ 6:26PM

dave? dave? dave's not here, man.

NavyBrat | 4.22.10 @ 3:25PM

Dave. Sorry if I responded too hastily. Yes, by socialism, I meant that to be interchangable with Levin's term of statism. I agree with Tom in MI with his list of current convservative leaders like Pence, Bachmann, Ryan, & Cantor. These ARE the type of folks we need back in the conservative leadership saddle.

Again, sorry if I was too hasty.

PS. My name's David, too. Great people share great names.

dave| 4.22.10 @ 3:54PM

No sweat, David also known as Navybrat. Republicans have an advantage with these four in that they are mostly youngish for national leadership roles. As I wrote to Tom, I think Bachmann is smart, but she's a bit unruly for me. Still, there can be a place for that, provided it's balanced by folks eager to paint inside the lines. I think Cantor has great promise, but he's in a tough place politically. My guess is that all the party leadership of both parties is going to have to pay a price for the debacle of the past year and change. Here in Kentucky, for example, Rand Paul is going to beat Mitch McConnell's boy in the primary because to a considerable extent the Republican rank-and-file are tired of being played for fools. Whether Paul wins in November will depend on the economy (bad will = good for Paul).

So, anyway, thanks for the response, and I'm sorry to have been a burr under some folks' saddles, but I really think there are some opportunities out there, but it might be time to look back at our old playbook to make sure that we take advantage of them. Or maybe I'm just getting old.

Petronius| 4.22.10 @ 7:05PM

dave
Your old play book is of no use against the enemies we face who want to totally destroy us and our culture. This is their goal. I assume from your point of view; (is it a gated subdivision I can't afford to live in?) you have enough money to insulate yourself and family from "them". You are not subject to their horrid social engineering, insults, and abuse. We need legislators in Congress who will stop the confiscation of our earnings which is now subsidizing the deficiencies of every leftist parasite that elected our enemies. As to civility, we need a culture warrior in the White House who will utilize the executive branch to force these miscreants who refuse to compete out of our country unless they grow up and become competent productive adults.
Like I said: eliminate the predators and banish the perverts and parasites. Our freedom will not be secure until these people are gone.

Tim*| 4.22.10 @ 3:00PM

We ,Tea Party Rebels are engineers , contractors, computer guys ,veterans, doctors , fathers , mothers , grandparents generation x'ers ,etc.
We discuss Taxes , Spending , States Rights , Eminent Domain ,the Constitution ,Unemployment , Health Care etc.

Remember In November !

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.22.10 @ 12:37PM

I personally moved from "Oh my"...to "fear for our country"...to a decision to expose the communizers, (Pardon the shorthand), ...to a quiet determination to stand for liberty and free markets.

Little d dave,

I am so saddened for you. There are SO many contradictions in your screed above. Are you truly that confused? Try paying taxes and get back to us.

dave| 4.22.10 @ 1:37PM

Point to a contradiction, pardner, and I'll consider revising my opinion. Just one will do. You see, simply saying something doesn't make it so, especially in Texas where men are supposedly of few words, but honest. So pony up, my man. Where are the contradictions? As for taxes, I'll trade you 1040's any time - you pay mine and I'll pay yours.

NavyBrat | 4.22.10 @ 12:45PM

Bubba & his wife, Madame Dufarge have been snakes since time & memorial. Now, Mr. Sanctomonious tells us that we're engaging in "hate." The tools in the media tell us that we're being "seditious." Were Bubba & Madame Dufarge engaging in "sedition" when they were protesting the Vietnam war in Europe during the 60's? Given the recent contexts in which that word has been used, I should certainly think so.

To think that we're being lectured by this pompous ass. Hey Bubba, how'd Vince Foster die? Did you have him iced for puttn it to your wife? What about Ron Brown? You have HIM iced, too? And why don't you tell us more about the Jihadi connection to OK City? Why did you cancel the CIA requested missile strike that could've killed Bin Laden? Must not have wanted to kill members of the Emirates Royal family, key donors to your library & message parlor. Schmuck!!!

The ONLY "conspiracy theory" I've ever given a scintilla of credence:

http://www.dangerouslogic.com/ron_brown.html

As bad as Obama is, there haven't been suspicious deaths of cabinet & staffers...YET.

Tyler S.| 4.22.10 @ 12:55PM

The only thing which I believe makes the left any better than the right is that we, at least sometimes, recognize our hypocrisy. The author is right to point to some of the left's less than admirable moments, however he is completely wrong to say that the right is any better. Indeed, this self inflicted amnesia is a problem which transcends political parties. Oh, its true conservatives never tired to link liberals to the oklahoma city bombing, but you did try to link us to Al Quiada on an almost daily basis for 8 years (some of you are still doing it). Do you not see how these things are maybe similar? Or even EXACTLY THE SAME?

The problem, really, is that crowds defy responsibility for past actions. This is because at any time members of a crowd can choose to leave the crowd and join another. So now there is the tea party and the new, post bush republican party, which shouldn't be held responsible for the acts of the bush era republicans. And now we also have the Obama era democrats, who are not the same people who made up the dissenting left fringe under bush. Never mind that these groups tend to have most of the same people, its a different group. In an ideal world, people would recognize their hypocrisy, and take responsibility for the things they say and do, but an ideal world this ain't.

NavyBrat | 4.22.10 @ 1:25PM

"The only thing which I believe makes the left any better than the right is that we, at least sometimes, recognize our hypocrisy."

BWAHAHAHA!!!!! Really, Tyler, you're not supposed to drink the bong water. While I'll agree that most politicians are scumbags, the hypocisy comes more from sanctomonious liberals. Their "good intentions" have led to more misery over the course of history than anything conservatives have done.

And it's easy to see why some of us lump lefties in with suicide bomber hugging policies. I didn't see any conservatives representing Gitmo terrorists pro-bono. And no one is making any movies about the untimely demise of Obama, as they were with Bush. See, the idiots who waved VC flags while our boys were dying, or haints like Hanoi Jane were at anti aircraft batteries, or the suicide bomber hugging jihadi/Palestinian sympathizers? Yeah, they're all lefites. I have yet to see a conservative person be an active proponent of this country's adversaries. For a lefty, it's par for the course.

NavyBrat | 4.22.10 @ 1:28PM

Really, you don't recognize your hypocrisy. The hypocrisy of the left knows NO BOUNDS!

dave| 4.22.10 @ 2:05PM

I disagree, Tyler. You're trying to cast the debate between Right and Left as a contest of morality. You are not, as should be apparent by many posts, alone. Much of the criticism of Clinton posted here focuses on his character rather than on his policies or beliefs. The Left, you suggest, does or has done the same with the Bushes. I think this misses the point. Our political discussions become meaningless the more they deviate from a consideration of actual politics - the content of our policies and ideologies. The rest is a distraction. GWB sincerely believed in the War in Iraq; he went in with the best of intentions and with the highest hopes. What matters to me, however, is not the sincerity of his beliefs but what actually happened because of those beliefs. Judged on this criterion, GWB was a terrible president since the War in Iraq has been a complete fiasco, as both liberals and paleo-conservatives warned it would be in 2002/03. This doesn't make GWB a terrible man - he is, on the contrary, a quite decent man- but it does mean that "decent" or morally upright, or whatever we want to call it, shouldn't factor, or factor much, in our assessments of those we elect to lead us. There are as many decent liberals as conservatives, and as many bad guys as well. For every Clinton, there's a Sanford, for every Spitzer, and Ensign, and so forth. Neither ideology necessarily requires moral bankruptcy for membership. But they are not therefore equivalent. If one proves superior it will be because it has the best chance, or the best track record, in setting up or preserving a free, just, and sound society. All of our discussions should be focused on arriving at that consensus. This is why, as someone on the other side of the political fence from you, I still find the tone and content of the prevailing rhetoric on the Right alarming. Obama seems to me as I would hope GWB could appear to those on the Left: a decent man and a well intentioned but often misguided politician. His weaknesses, whatever they may be, are political not personal and the hysteria surrounding his presidency toned down by those of us on the Right.

Tom in Michigan| 4.23.10 @ 8:13AM

OK, dave-with-a-small-d, when you finish your reply to my post above; would you please explain your statement to the effect the Iraq War was a "fiasco" and Bush was a "terrible President" therefore? Unless I missed something; I think we won? Didn't we? Isn't Iraq a nascent democracy now? War is always messy. It's about killing people and breaking things and, I was really p*ssed about the state of our military after Clinton was done with it and the fact we had to go in so poorly equipped as a result. And don’t tell me about the continuation of violence now – even the US has terrorists killing people here now. Plus, my Dad occupied Germany after WWII and, his CO was actually killed in Stuttgart in 1946.

Where the Left always steps on their own tiny d*cks is, they forget the prime directive; "when in doubt, win the war." So, if we did win and, the Iraq War constitutes the essence of your critique of GWB and, the left-handed compliment notwithstanding; how was he a terrible President (Oh, I have some beefs with him myself but, I'm asking in the context of your assertion)?

Oh, yeah. If you have the time, I'm REALLY interested in finding some "decent Liberals." It's always easy to do the moral equivalency thing because every garden has its slugs but, it would make me feel so much better if I could just find some "decent Liberals" to focus on once in a while. Then I might even feel like the two-party system has hope of surviving. Even a short list would be a relief.

pss. Character counts and the lack thereof, regardless of ideology means terrible leadership. Clinton's singular and glaring lack of character is exactly the point.

No matter how it's parsed or presented or hidden behind a smoke screen; the moral equivalency argument has no validity. It's just an excuse and is the sole province of apologists for fecklessness, evil and other assorted character flaws.

Tyler S.| 4.23.10 @ 8:57PM

I think you miss my point. I speak here only to the "poor mistreated conservatives" sentiment expressed in this article. As someone who has been frequently accused of supporting Al Qaeda simply because I self identify as a liberal, I find the author's contention that the right would never try to link the left to terrorists to be, well, bull crap. I agree that we all mean to do well and simply disagree on how to achieve the greatest good. I just also think that we all need to recognize the hypocrisy on both sides of the political divide, shrug it off, and quit whining so much.

Tom in Michigan| 4.22.10 @ 2:30PM

OK. Even you deserve the benefit of the doubt once in a while (well, not really but, it IS like, totally Earth Day so, in the name of Gaia, I’ll reach out). Help me out here, will you? Can you see any Leftist hypocrisy in this (from nycaviation.com)?

“On a day when many Americans will be reflecting upon how they can reduce their impact on the environment, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will board separate jets in Washington on Earth Day morning to fly 250 miles up the east coast to New York, where they will land at separate airports to attend separate events within a few miles of each other (Obama to speak on financial reform – couldn’t do it from the “O-Office [that’s what it’s been renamed, BTW], I reckon; Biden to be a guest on The View – where he will no doubt be warmly welcomed by the charming and vivacious Joy Behar and Whoofy - I mean Whoopie Goldberg).
The parallel visits of Air Force One (a 747/VC-25 aircraft) and Air Force Two (a 757/C-32A aircraft) will delay dozens, if not hundreds of commercial flights at Kennedy and LaGuardia and other nearby airports as no-fly zones are implemented. Jets will be forced to circle and burn more fuel as they wait for the VIPs to come and go. Their security contingents consisting of dozens of cars, SUVs and helicopters will burn even more.”

Of course anticipating your likely rejoinder, like the author of the piece, I don't advocate them flying on the same plane, particularly after the Polish tragedy (I don't wish them harm - I just wish them retired in comfort someplace they can do no harm) but, "was this trip really necessary?"

Tyler S.| 4.23.10 @ 8:22PM

Actually, my rejoinder is what the hell does that have to do with anything? I said in my comment that both parties are full of hypocrites. I don't get how illustrating a point I, myself, was trying to make can possibly prove me wrong.

My point (I'll try to keep it real simple for you) is that the author of this article seems to claim that the right has never attempted to link the left to terrorism the way the left is now attempting to link the right to terrorism. As someone who's been called an Al Qaeda supporter for years simply because I self identify as a liberal, that claim is a bit on the full of it side. Both parties have done it, and its disgusting, but just cause you're on the receiving end right now doesn't make you victims any more than being on the receiving end made us victims over most of the last decade. We've all gotta shrug it off, quit whining, and (ideally) try to remember not to be such big asses in the future.

godofredus| 4.22.10 @ 1:36PM

oh yes...the angry left. Of course God given conservatives preserve their right to slavery with treason against the United States...then 75 years of the ku klux klan. Not to mention God Given capitalists rights at Homested, and elsewhere all the way up to Republic Steel.

And of course when George W. Bush saw we were attacked by a plane run by Saudis, Yemnis, and Egyptians he wisely attacked Iraq. At least when FDR engineered an attack by Japan to force a declaration of war by Germany he didn't attack Brazil. In the name of the Infant Jesus would you folk please walk to the loony bin under your own power?

Wade Smith| 4.23.10 @ 11:45AM

You should read a little history. US Civil War, the north was lead by the US President, A. Lincoln Republican, the south my CSA President J. Davis, Democrat, The KKK was founded and used by the Democratic Party as their arm of terror against freed slaves that wanted to live free and vote.

President Bush with the consent of the US Congress ordered the attack on Iraq to enforce UN resolutions.

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.22.10 @ 2:15PM

Whew!
George Soros is spending a lot of money here today isn't he? Heh.

Have you guys noticed how many times these liars change screen names?

I think sometimes that some of the liars get worn out though...and just go away. Heh.

Little d dave...

Most folks here know who I am. I could buy your 1040 tax out of my...wait a minute.......Yep,
I had to check.....out of my back pocket.

You sir are a liar. You survive off OUR taxes. Show me your 1040...at my email address. and I will reply with same.
kbjudgeroybean@gmail.com

dumbbunny! You sir are a liar.

dave| 4.22.10 @ 2:48PM

Check your email. I appreciate the opportunity to correspond with you privately.

Occam's Tool| 4.25.10 @ 2:03AM

How does one arrange for a signed copy of your book?

dave| 4.22.10 @ 2:57PM

Tried your email and it doesn't seem to work. Here's what I wrote:

Dear Ken,

I'm not sure what makes me a liar, but I figured I'd take you up on the offer to communicate privately so as not to have either of us suffer any public embarrassment beyond your brief lapse of Texas manners. But let's let that go for now.

I'm not sure what part of my original post you found full of contradictions. I invited you to elaborate and you declined. I repeat the offer. Tell me a place or two where I've contradicted myself and I'll be happy to consider your opinion. If you're right and I've missed something or failed to consider it rightly, you'd be doing me a favor by pointing it out so I can adjust my thinking accordingly.

So, I repeat my offer: show me a contradiction in my post or grant me that there isn't one.

As for 1040's, we'll have to let that be for now, since neither of us really wants to share confidential info over the internet with strangers. Let's just say, we probably both pay handsomely for the right to live in these United States, and I, since I don't live in Texas, get to pay a little extra something in state income taxes for the right to live here in Kentucky.

Yours'

Dave

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.22.10 @ 4:53PM

Sorry, dave.
I got interrupted by a stockholder on the phone while I was typing.
try again please. kbjudgeroybean06@gmail.com

I am the former CEO of ...two fortune companies.
I am a #1 bestselling author. of "Bean's About Baseball". (a parents teaching guide). See amazon.com
I try very carefully to separate my politics from my day to day....day-job.
Thousands of American children would suffer otherwise.
Heh,
You don't even want to pay the postage on my tax return....Trust me......or not.

Tom in Michigan| 4.23.10 @ 12:25PM

Hello, Ken. Pardon my interruption of your spirited repartee with dave-with-a-small-d but, let me see if I can help you out here.

I don't mean to presume to speak for you but; I wonder if it's the way dave-with-a-small-d overwrites Leftist talking points - (e.g., anger on the right, right-wing “nit wits and con-men”, Fox and Rush lead the Republican Party, the discourse used to be civil, “alarming rhetoric on the right”), left-handed compliments of Republican leadership (e.g., Daniels is cut from "presidential timber" but "couldn't fill a Mickey D's;” while Palin – that hyper boreal doltette! - is the one who draws the crowds; Bush is a swell guy but a terrible President because of the Iraq "fiasco,"), an oleaginous endorsement of Obama (why, he's merely misguided, don’t you know?!) and feigned “guidance and correction” to little Tyler the troll (I have it on good authority Tyler likes it “rough” so gentle suasion probably won’t work with him) - with claims of "life-long Conservative" dedication that has you scratching your head just a bit?

Maybe the endless cold weather here in Michigan (thank Gaia for global warming or we’d really be freezing our cojones off up here!) has just made me paranoid but, is it just (just, that is) remotely possible that he’s making a too-clever-by-half attempt to mitigate our righteous disgust with the Left and deflect the blame off Mr. Bill and the rest of the under-a-rock-dwellers who infest the Democratic Party by attempting to convince us, by employing the aforementioned rhetorical devices stewed in a pervasive “moral equivalency” theme; “Why, even a life-long Conservative is alarmed at how the ‘Right’ is behaving! Shouldn’t you all be as well? Can’t we all just get along?”

Is that what’s troublin’ you, brother?

Check my posts to dave-with-a-small-d on this thread above, please and, let me know if I’m on to something or if I just need to get out more. I’m a reformed Sixties rat myself and, I am intimately familiar with how disinformation is deployed by the Left to mislead opponents regarding one's real position and subtly (well, not so much in this case) distort information to put forth an insidious agenda in a beguiling but malign manner.

PS. Any points about how I can get out of our "workers' paradise" (used to be the "Sportsmens' Paradise" before we elected Granholm, Levin, Stabenow and the rest of the usual gang of idiots) and get to Texas? I've already got the "I wasn't born in Texas but, I got here as soon as I could!" sticker for the bumper of my SUV

JP| 4.22.10 @ 3:21PM

I'm not sure why everyone is getting so upset. Slick Willie is bored -bored stiff. One of the bad things about getting elected Prez at age 46 is that your career is over at 54. He is now 63. He's made himself a boatload of money, but he is out of the game and out of the loop. He knows that as time goes by, VIPs will no longer return his calls and eventually the star struck bimbos will no longer be impressed.

The dreams of running the Dems and by extension running the country are obviously gone. And what really must drive him nuts is that his nemesis, Rush Limbaugh, continues to hold 20 million fans and can still command headlines. This little OK City blow up was Slick Willie's way of reminding everyone that he is still important.

Tom in Michigan| 4.23.10 @ 12:35PM

Paychologically speaking, the equivalent of a childish temper tantrum but also, a sociopathic rejection of ANY responsibility for all the deaths and destruction in the OKC.

Marc Jeric| 4.22.10 @ 4:56PM

Oklahoma bomber tried to protest the Waco murder committed by that disbarred felon Clinton and his marxist Attorney General Reno. For that crime McVey was executed; the bombers Ayers and his wife were rewarded with tenured professorships.

Jim O'Brien| 4.22.10 @ 5:42PM

Clinton's opinion isn't worth two cents. He's a has-been.

MattZ| 4.22.10 @ 5:56PM

"Yet Newt has remained mum about the danger posed by the Angry Left, and it is not easy for Newt to remain mum."

The very premise of this article, that the angry and hateful rhetoric of the Tea Party is echoed on the left, is absolute bullshit. There is no balance these days, at all, and you all know it. The only danger these days is from ignorant far RIGHT extremists; the heyday of the bomb-throwing radical went out with Vietnam, man. Get real, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., your whole article is poorly worded nonsense, as usual.

The next govt bombing will be by a disaffected gun nut, and *not* a leftist ivy league professor.
MZ

Tim*| 4.22.10 @ 6:52PM

We ,Tea Party Rebels have Never killed anyone ,Sport .

Maybe you're attempting here to charge Our Military Veterans with killing Nazis, Red Chinese , NVA/Cong , Iraqi Forces (Gulf War ) and al Qaeda .

Bydand76| 4.22.10 @ 7:01PM

Yes.

I am sure the Una-bomber: Theodore John Kaczynski, would agree with you wholeheartedly!

OR the SEIU thug MF'ers who like to beat people up at political rallies!

or Bill Ayers, his wife Bernardine Dohrn, or the Black Panthers. The Weather Underground OR.........
the stupid left wing MF'ers at the Republican National Convention in MN!

Oh Snap you just got served Mike Z!

Tell Georgie S that he needs to pay you more when you are on your knees tough guy!

MattZ| 4.22.10 @ 7:30PM

What the fuck is wrong with you?

I don't mind the fact that you're suggesting I'm somehow fellating some liberal I don't know for my views or the fact that you think the Unabomber is a leftist (even though he spoke out explicitly against oversocialized leftists in his manifesto), but my name is clearly Matt and it's not fucking difficult to get that right.

Sure you don't like unions and your hick tea party friend there thinks I'm anti-military, but I happen to be in the air force so that assertion doesn't really hold water. You've got more to fear from deranged vets than you do from 20-year-old college kids that just learned about anarchic philosophy and you know it, "tough guy."
MZ

MattZ| 4.22.10 @ 7:32PM

Text straight from the so-called Unabomber Manifesto (look it up)

__________________________

"The psychology of modern leftism

6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the whole truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th century.

9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/.....Its_Future

Unless Wikisource is too liberal of a source for you.
MZ

Bydand76| 4.23.10 @ 1:48PM

Ok?
Whats wrong with me?

You! Slimy little pedantic weasels like you are my problem douche-bag MATTY Z! (Happy?)

First off you start by running your mouth off saying that only the right has resorted to violence.
(Sorry fly boy, but teddy was a left wing LOOOONY)
You can't even acknowledge any of the others I listed for you. No. You choose semantics.
Old una bomber ted was pissed off because the leftists weren't going far enough to the left and had been manipulated by "special interests" but whatever, I digress.

The point I was making was that your premise was a bunch of male bovine fecal matter you insipid vomitous waste of carbon based life-form!

That being said pimple face. Every single " deranged vet I know has more honor, dignity and respect in their pinky toe-nail than anyone of the 20 year old left wing dope smokin hippie douche-bags I have met.

I ought to know because I am one of them!
13 years INFANTRY! U.S. ARMY !

Don't presume to lecture me infant. You are pocket lint!

Do some research about your topic before you presume to understand what it is.

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” Benjamin Franklin

Pro Libertate!

Jeanette | 4.24.10 @ 5:54AM

My stars! You actually read the Unabomber's manifesto? Quite the avid info-junky?

Nick| 4.22.10 @ 9:00PM

Mikey Z,

You are not worth getting your name right, foul mouth jerk.

I'm sure you memorized wack-job Kaczynski's "manifesto", anti-human luddite.

MattZ| 4.22.10 @ 10:40PM

If I actually believed in that sort of nonsense, that would still make me a right-wing lunatic (I'm neither anti-progressive nor anti-leftist.)

And typing the word "fuck" doesn't involve the use of my mouth, so I suppose what you're struggling to call me is lewd or inappropriate.

Trust me, I'm far more in favour of the welfare state than you are, so much so that you would probably say that I enjoy helping people so much with government programs that I'm unintentionally hurting them.
MZ

Nick| 4.22.10 @ 11:32PM

Mikey Z,

Are you claiming that you don't utter profanities on a regular basis? That you just write them?

I just don't believe you, foul mouthed jerk.

I see you didn't object to being labeled "anti-human" or a "luddite." You probably have fantasies about setting off bombs in the middle of Tea Party protests, don't you?

Tom in Michigan| 4.23.10 @ 1:38PM

You guys are always claim to be "in the Air Force" or some other branch of the military then; you turn around and say we're in more danger from deranged vets; using a blatant anti-military, Leftist talking point to prove your bona fides? C'mon.

GreyLion| 4.23.10 @ 12:37AM

Mike,
You are not old enough to remember the 60's.
You are not smart enough to understand your right from your left.
And you are not man enough to own up to your words.
Typical of liars, lechers and lefties.

Aelfgyva| 4.24.10 @ 12:34PM

Wasn't this discussion originally about that low-life from Arkansas?

Northern Rebel| 4.22.10 @ 6:09PM

Clinton is Maobama's only competition for the Presidential narcissist award.

After selling China military secrets for campaign cash, killing innocent people at Waco, blaming it on Janet Reno, and allowing towelhead terrorism to flourish on his watch, he is the last person to counsel anyone against violence.

At least Carter only killed a few soldiers in his inept rescue mission; Clinton has been responsible for thousands of deaths due to his weak liberal foriegn affairs philosophy, and his disengagement of responsibility, during the "Monica crisis."

This man also pardoned Puerto Rican terrorists, to help with hillary's Senate bid in NY.

AmSpec itself catalogued all the mysterious deaths that seemed to follow him around, during his days in Arkansas.

I'm amazed that his wife hasn't met with an unfortunate incident.

jake1492| 4.22.10 @ 7:11PM

Nice echo chamber.

The author's short memory, selective logic, and complete dismissal of Clinton is highly disingenuous. His techniques are not helpful. In all of this there is a germ of useful debate, which is that Clinton didn't have to emphasize the connection between the angry right and terrorist activities... and perhaps he is right that it would have been better not to. All told, the value could have been provided in a few innocuous words....but of course the author's intention is to be mean and hurtful, just to rally the troops. Too bad.

Aletha| 4.22.10 @ 7:25PM

Thank you for saying this. I was at three of the Tea Party rallies in Washington and so am one of those dangerous racists that our truth-telling former president warns against.

JayJay| 4.22.10 @ 8:25PM

Jake, you are correct. Clinton should have kept his mouth shut, he chose not to and to use it as yet another leftist attack. To be honest, him saying this would not have bothered me too much, would have just considered the source, if he had not done it where and when he did. That was totally disrespectful of all that were affected by that tragedy. But like the typical lefty, even though his actions are what set this in motion, he nor Reno have never accepted any responsibility for their actions and I think the days of all us righties just smiling and saying awww... he didn't mean it or awww, that's nice are over. Get used to it.

jumpmaster| 4.22.10 @ 9:03PM

I sure wish we could figure out how to clone and speed grow Reagons dna. I wonder if Reagon would treat the Iranians like he did the Russians? Who we have, not me I don't claim him, as pres. is more like Oliver begging for more porrage.

bluecollarbytes| 4.22.10 @ 10:40PM

Can't blame Clinton for being Clinton, and he and Hillary did get PopMedia to swallow whole their "vast right wing conspiracy" detour. It does show that Clinton has no limit to his bottom-feeding ways.

Slowtrot| 4.23.10 @ 4:01AM

Did Clinton ever smoke that cigar he used on Monica?

Sparco Multi Plast Pvt. Ltd.| 4.23.10 @ 4:43AM

Warning Tape
Caution Tape
- SMPL is a leading converters of specialized plastic films, sheets & cable protection cover.

Pingback| 4.23.10 @ 6:56AM

The American Spectator : There He Gropes Again capital university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…called, the Angry Left. It was an indignant group of ritualistic liberals whose appearance the mainstream media apprised us augured well for Democratic … The rest is here: The American Spectator : There He Gropes Again By admin | category: AMERICAN | tags: are-correct, are-truly, democratic, facts, indignant-group, live-their, lives, long-ago, mainstream-media, something-called, the-facts, truly-stupid…

Pingback| 4.23.10 @ 7:34AM

The American Spectator : There He Gropes Again American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…called, the Angry Left. It was an indignant group of ritualistic liberals whose appearance the mainstream media apprised us augured well for Democratic … Read the rest here: The American Spectator : There He Gropes Again By admin | category: american | tags: angry, are-correct, daily-digest, facts, israeli, mainstream, mainstream-media, our-shared, political-scene, something-called, towards-peace,…

JJ| 4.23.10 @ 8:26AM

Clinton seemed to enjoy the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma bombing. His chance to be in the spotlight. And I think we are coming up on the 12th anniversary of the stop order on the assassination of Osama bin-Laden. I wonder if Good Morning America will interview him on that anniversary -- memorializing Clinton's failure to kill the worlds greatest terrorist.

Imagine. Imagine how different the world would be. Had Bill Clinton not choked.

Aekfgyva| 4.24.10 @ 12:38PM

Imagine how different the world would be had there been no Ross Pierot.

Vic| 4.23.10 @ 5:20PM

No one in the tea party movement is or was as big a terrorist as Bubba,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo.....56113.html

Tom in Michigan| 4.23.10 @ 5:25PM

Interestingly the OKC bombing investigation was an egregious case of profiling by the FBI under Reno's Justice Department - profiling of white Americans, that is. Timothy McVeigh's accomplice, Terry Nichols was from just north of here near Dexter, MI. According to Jayna Davis, a veteran Oklahoma City reporter at KFOR-TV the NBC affiliate in Oklahoma City, the judge who presided over Terry Nichols' 2004 state murder trial ruled the FBI's pursuit of additional domestic terrorists amounted to nothing more than "hyperbole and a dry hole."
Not only that, also according to Davis; the FBI singularly failed to investigate the multiple sightings of Iraqi Republican Guardsman Hussain Al-Hussaini in with McVeigh prior to the bombing as well as witness sightings of him exiting the bomb-laden Ryder truck the morning of April 19, then escaping the ill-fated Murrah Building. Later, two federal court rulings established that this former Iraqi soldier has no provable alibi for the morning of the bombing though the FBI averred he was five blocks away at the time (that was the FBI counter argument to the court rulings!). Five witnesses independently identified several of Al-Hussaini's associates as frequent visitors to an Oklahoma City motel in the months, days, and hours leading up to 9:02 a.m. on April 19. On numerous occasions, the subjects were seen in the company of McVeigh, and during a few instances, associating with Nichols – even at the same motel.
Even twenty-five thousand witness interviews could not tie McVeigh to any right-wing extremist groups. Does anybody remember the hue and cry over “right wing extremist” groups like the "Michigan Militia" at the time? If there was any tie to McVeigh and Nichols of this or any similar group (its leader was a janitor at the University of Michigan); why didn't the Clinton/Reno Justice Department make the link? All the attention afforded the Michigan Militia et al conveniently faded away (well, at least until Mr. Bill decided he could use it to his advantage once again).
Davis also reported when she "attempted to surrender the witness statements and corroborative evidence, the FBI flatly refused to take it. But I persisted, and in 1999, FBI Agent Dan Vogel accepted the witness affidavits and investigative file. From there, the documents simply vanished."
Fundamentally, the Leftist need to profile "domestic terrorists" in order to keep the dogmatic lie of an "angry right" alive is more important to Clinton and the Left than is the safety of the American people and the truth.
There's no doubt McVeigh was a creep, a loser and a terrorist but, for Clinton to conflate the Tea Party folks with him and ignore the obvious Middle East and indeed, Iraqi connection is nothing short of criminal.
P.S. Trolls and Leftists. Don't call me a liar either unless you're willing and able to give counter arguments supported by facts. You can research Davis’ reporting very easily for yourselves.

Bill in ID| 4.24.10 @ 1:10PM

Read Davis' book, "The Third Terrorist" and prepare to be shocked.
We may never know the full story about Waco, but it's sure not what we've been led to believe.

Long Ben| 4.24.10 @ 3:01PM

As for Boy Clinton ; let his bag be cut and his leg be run through it,theres for him !

Nancy| 4.25.10 @ 4:11PM

I was astonished - astonished isn't the right word - no, I was angry when I heard Bill Clinton speak about this. And I was very annoyed that he referred Oath Keepers as a "militia". We are no such thing. I guess if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. We will fight it with truth. No Saul Alinsky for me. That's for Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, et al.

Dorothy| 4.25.10 @ 5:33PM

Bill, why don't you just shut up and go home and play with your weenie. Who cares what you think?

thehawk1619| 4.25.10 @ 11:30PM

I recently saw Dick Morris on Hannity. Morris stated that Clinton was going to dump Reno for his second term. Reno told him "You don't reappoint me, I go public on Waco"! Asked how Morris knew this, Morris responded "He told me"!!!!

fjsdk| 6.30.10 @ 11:55PM

beijing massage shanghai girl

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|97 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|102 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|56 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|24 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|31 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|19 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|32 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|88 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 6.18.13

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

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

By P.J. O'Rourke

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

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

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

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

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

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

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