The American Spectator : Conservative Principles Win

Text Size

Conservative Principles Win

By Quin Hillyer on 9.17.10 @ 6:08AM

It’s as simple as that.

In this piece that also quotes our good friend Craig Shirley to nice effect, Matt Kibbe of Freedom Works and Amy Kremer of the Tea Party Express both make an absolutely crucial point — one which is now becoming accepted wisdom even though just two years ago all the cognoscenti scoffed at it. The wisdom is that limitations on government actually are popular. To quote the article:

To put up the best fight possible, though, Kibbe says he would advise O’Donnell “to focus on the fiscal issues of constitutionally limited government and stopping Congress from spending money it doesn’t have.”

Kremer says this tactic, familiar in this election cycle, could be enough to propel O’Donnell and her fellow Tea Partiers to Capitol Hill.

“When most people go to the polls this year, they’re voting on the economy,” Kremer said. “This whole movement was born out of the excessive taxation, the out-of-control spending, the government intrusion. And people are fed up with it.

“It’s the fiscal issues that are the glue binding this Tea Party together.”

They are so right. And it is a point I have been making for years, often getting laughed at. But here, when things looked bleakest for conservatives back in December of 2008 and then-President-elect Obama riding a wave of hope and change, I wrote at this site that “abundant political history” shows that “advocacy of limited government is a political winner.” I noted that “moderates” and “independents” — what some called “the radical middle” — actually are driven by fiscal issues more than just about anything else. It amazed me then that people forgot the lesson from Ross Perot’s huge popularity (until he flaked out) was that the American public hates out-of-control federal spending and federal debt. Jesse Ventura, of all unlikely people, rode much the same message to the governorship of Minnesota.

I then wrote this:

When Republicans act like fiscal conservatives, they have won, again and again. When they have spent like inebriated mariners, they have lost — again and again.

The obvious conclusion, from more than a quarter-century of modern American history, is that limiting government is either a strong net plus, politically, or at least not in any way a drag on electoral fortunes; profligacy, on the contrary, is either a strong net minus, politically, or at least not in any way an electoral benefit.

The evidence for the contrary conclusion — that voters reward big government — is utterly, completely nonexistent.

The week earlier, I had insisted that conservative principles across the board are winners:

Winning without the principles is an oxymoron. It’s like congratulating an Auburn fan in the name of Bear Bryant. Without the principles, we haven’t won. It’s that simple….

All of this supposedly wise tactical advice to the effect that we should abandon, or significantly play down, any of the main principles that animate us is neither wise nor tactically clever, nor even realistic. It assumes that conservatives could be successful acting as if we’re something that we’re not. But in the long run, inauthenticity never works. Integrity is more powerful.

American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks agrees. This is a man who insists on data-driven analysis. Here is what Brooks has to say on the matter: “The data say that when people sell out their principles, they lose power.” And the best way to win is to “make the moral case for what you believe.”

This is what the Tea Party movement “is all about,” as Bob Dole would say (except that with Dole, “what it’s all about” was just a verbal tic). It is why the movement has been successful. It is why I and so many others have thrilled to its existence and celebrated almost all of its victories. (Even if every once in a while, as in Delaware, wondering if they had chosen the right time, place and vehicle. And even in Delaware, one can be thrilled at the demonstration of raw and productive political energy and hope it bears surprisingly good fruit in the fall.)

This is a lesson Republican politicians need to learn or re-learn. Of course, not all principles are worthwhile: Communist principles and Nazi principles, for instance, are anathema in this country and Americans are too good to adopt them. But conservative principles are specifically principles rooted in the American tradition and the American experience, and they stem from the laws of nature and of nature’s God, which means they are right and good and just.

Right, good, just… and winning as well.

About the Author

Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (128) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Darin| 9.17.10 @ 7:02AM

Principles of limited government by definition support the principle of individual responsibility. Each person has the responsibility to take care of themselves and the obligation to care for their families and communities. When the government takes from one person and gives to another, it's not charity. When the individual gives of their own free will (be it money, time, moral support), it benefits both the recipient and the giver.

Alan Brooks| 9.17.10 @ 11:01PM

It's a non-starter. A conservative wants lower taxes, but he wants the state to help some in his family-- even if they are very well off. So you multiply that times millions of conservatives who want the state to help Grampy and Gran, and you go nowhere with limited government. In the past such duplicity worked because not enough proles knew what the game was all about. Plus the population has aged, meaning more Grampsies and Grannies exist to demand their cut of the state- funded action, even if they don't need it.
Means testing isn't the 'In' Thing, it isn't sexy.

Means testing isn't where it's at, Baby.

WayneH| 9.18.10 @ 12:33AM

More blather. Now Alan thinks he knows what conservatives want. In his world, deep down we all want to just keep careening off the edge of the cliff and then emerge in some great Utopian marxist nirvana where we will all have our very own teleprompters so we can chant in sync with the "one".

Alan Brooks| 9.18.10 @ 11:55PM

STILL, your Granny is living high off the hog.

Life begins at 65.

megapotamus| 9.19.10 @ 8:46AM

Hey, the guy is right. Or he was 'til lately. Maybe.... MAYBE spending cuts were theoretically appealing to the electorate but when it came time to cut Uncle Jim's corn subsidies or Grannie Moses' hip replacement unenlightened self-interest ruled the day. But that is not THIS day. We are so upside-down on entitlements and all the other malign interventions accumulated over the century (not least Bush's) that even the semi-informed majority is forced to see that the status quo can only lead to catastrophic default. There is no other destination on this track. It is a cul de sac. So it is not between a tax cut for JP Moneybags and Tiny Tim's surgery. You can empty the pockets of everyone making the magical sum of $250,001 and still Tiny Tim dies. Either there will be radical reformation of these boondoggles, slashing benefits in some regard or their checks will bounce. The only third alternative is that thing they call "monetizing the debt". What dat? It is the modern equivalent of printing greenbacks in whatever quantity is desired. Surely even the most enthusiastic spender of other peoples' money cannot be ignorant of the downside to that. So cheer up. Things are so bad there is no alternative to the discipline we should have been practising all along and that is real progress, paradoxically.

WayneH| 9.19.10 @ 11:28AM

STILL, no solutions from you Alan, just blind faith in the doomed status quo.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.17.10 @ 7:13AM

Of course, not all principles are worthwhile: Communist principles and Nazi principles, for instance, are anathema in this country and Americans are too good to adopt them.

Why is the above quote in an article about conservatism and the Tea Party? It should be in any article written about the Democratic Party or perhaps the Muslim religion but why place it in an article about the Tea Party and conservatism?

It would be east to grift off an essay about Democrats and Nazism because the principles of Obama and the principles of Nazism and Communism go hand in glove with the Obama administration. In fact, on two separate occasions the Obama administration had to remove two czars/presidential appointees after their communist views were revealed.

It's really ironic how many pundits love to tell the Tea Party not to go too far and this is a common theme you even observe on Fox News.

What we've had in this country for 50 years are two political parties whose radical views on spending have taken us to the precipice of financial disaster. The irony is that the public did not reject it.

The principles of that spending are supportive of big government, whose control of the economy has now become the twin brother of communism.

Is it now too late for the public to reject it? Perhaps not.

But your statement that those principles are rejected by the public are not true. The reason we have the problems we have now is because the public accepted those principles.

Now many in the public appear alarmed as the bills come due and the economy appears to be in a slow motion crash.

The truth is whether you call it Communism or Nazism it was simply big government where economic decisions and policies were all the result of central economic planning.

As I write this the ignoble Bob Schieffer is on TV doing a slam job on Palin, comparing her movement to the failed conservative efforts of Barry Goldwater.

While the media continues to tell the public that the Tea Party may have radical elements, the national media failed for the last 50 years to pinpoint corrupt government practices, corrupt politicians, which has lead to the most radical element of all.

An all encompassing power inside the beltway which has now seized the power to make life and death decisions over your life, i.e., Obamacare.

In essence, the public hasn't rejected the concepts behind Communism and Nazism. In fact, one hand out after another has lead them like lemmings to find the proverbial bread crumbs, down the primrose path to disaster.

Kenneth E.MacAlister Jr.| 9.18.10 @ 12:54PM

Who is Bob Schieffer & why does his opinion matter? Just curious.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.19.10 @ 10:55AM

Bob Schieffer is an alleged journalist whose liberalism blinds him to the real essence of any news article put before him. His opinion doesn't matter, at least to me. He's just another liberal gas bag with delusions of grandeur, fueled by his liberal essence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Schieffer

Appleby| 9.17.10 @ 7:25AM

I propose that we recruit some folks to take copies of the Declaration of Independence, written out in modern English and not identified as such, to the streets, and ask the Ignoranti if they would sign our Petition Against The Government. Odds are excellent that most of them would not recognize it, and many Hippie Scum would enthusiastically sign it. You could even leave in King George, because most of the HS would assume you meant George W. Bush!

What we need is another American Revolution. Or perhaps we need the original American Revolution.

CopyKatnj| 9.17.10 @ 7:33AM

Point well made. At a Tea Party rally on July 4, that is exactly what one speaker did. It was powerful and opened the eyes of many people.

Ret. Marine| 9.17.10 @ 7:48AM

" Or perhaps we need the original revolution" I believe we are witnessing the exact point. Even though, we are not firing lead at each other, but if fact it may come to this, the vitriol is about as damaging. On one side of the camp we have the enemies of the Republic, i.e. demonrat party, little tyrant's of the progressive types, all of those UN backers, the one World Order proponents. On the other side the free market capitalist, Representative Republic types and God fearing, gun tooting Bible holders of our Faith. It would appear to the person paying attention, the battle lines have been clearly drawn. The remaining question is, do we have the numbers equivalent for the final match. Be it literal match that ignites the fire of the original revolution and its cause of the match to ignite the resurgence of what the founding principles, undiluted, are understood to mean or the version of what the unrelenting revisionist have in mind for us all.

Nunya| 9.17.10 @ 2:13PM

Just keep in mind... It's we conservatives that have all of the guns. :-)

Fredrick Ward| 9.17.10 @ 5:11PM

Don't kid yourself on this one. The other side has plenty of weapons. Given the right opportunity they will use them to deadly precision too. Their justifications are simply that anyone against them are enemies of the State, and pose an eminent threat. That is line that will be given for their actions, and no one will question it for too long.

GavInTucson| 9.18.10 @ 1:04AM

Short of using nukes in its own citizens, that's a silly argument. If the government has difficulty suppressing an insurgency in a foreign country where the enemy is out manned 6:1, then you can forget trying to fight an armed citizenry at home where the government is out manned at 80:1.

Not going to happen, not in this life time, not ever.

Fredrick Ward| 9.20.10 @ 12:05PM

GavinTucson,

I do not doubt that there are enough weapons in the public to start such a war. The problem lies in the fact that there is no cohesiveness, and no direction within the population that exists within the United States military. A force of U.S. Marines, or the U.S. Army would have a greater chance of survival against the major populace of this country for that very reason.

How many people would actually pick up arms in this country? I highly doubt that the majority of this country would do so. Therefore, the numbers you show are flimsy at best.

Fredrick Ward| 9.20.10 @ 12:12PM

As an addendum to my comment, or rather an addition, I would point out how long people stood by the war against terrorism. A few years and most people forgot what it was about, and why it is so important. A few years after that a great majority wanted our troops back home without actually finishing the job. Now they have what they want and guess what? The situation has not been resolved. In actuality it has gotten worse due to the lack of finality and the lack of the aim to actually win.

This country's populace is fickle, and care more for their own personal luxuries than they care for their neighbor. Such a populace cannot win in a Civil War against it's own massive, well trained military.

Anna Mossity| 9.21.10 @ 12:53PM

"And now they have what they want?!" What are you TALKING about?!!! The wars aren't OVER, not by a long shot! Simply SAYING that combat operations have ceased does NOT make it so, or it'd have been over that day when Bush made his showy speech under the "Mission Accomplished!" sign.

Fredrick Ward| 9.24.10 @ 3:19AM

Once again, the mission was not to win, and it still isn't. Therefore, the war is essentially over, and already lost whether conflicts continue or not.

TR| 9.18.10 @ 1:46PM

The only "weapon" that leftist commies have is the unwavering devotion of the left-stream media. They are all scared to death of guns, and if they were able to figure out how to operate one after consulting with their focus groups, they would inevitably shoot themselves instead.
The enemy of the state are the anti-Constitutionalists, which just so happen to be against the patriots.

Oh - a postscript. I forgot that the leftists are well versed in how to build and use bombs against citizens of the US as they displayed so well in the 60s and through their hero the Unibomber. And before you idiots refer to McVeigh, he was not a patriot, he was an anti-american satan.

TR| 9.17.10 @ 2:39PM

Hi Ret. Marine.
I enjoy your posts, and this one is, pardon the expression, is dead on. As you may have read in my previous posts, I have a vested interest in the survival of our Republic in its Constitutional form as intended bu our founders. My father is a ret. AF Col, I served in the AF 6 yrs, both of my brothers served in the Navy, and our original American ancestor arrived circa 1760 and we have documented evidence of his service under Gen. Washington during the Revolution.
I agree that forced conflict with our clear-cut enemy may occur. I truly hope not, but I am not blind to what is happening. We are at a crossroads that I have watched unfold over the past 4 decades. The forces of darkness, the marxist democracts, the one-world-order religion types, have pushed us to the brink with their perversion under color of faux law, not Constitutional law.
I do not fear a lack of "numbers" when the crap hits the fan. I have no doubt, based on posts I have read that were authored by you, that you have complete knowledge of our history, and there was never 100% support of the Revolution at that time, many people wanted just to "get along" with the tyranny. Yet my ancestor, Gaspar Roether and his fellow patriots got the job done, thank God.
You, me, and other patriots are well armed and trained. The, excuse me for being so crude, the pussies we face are a bunch of limp wristed hand wringing libturds who will scream and wet themselves as soon as we begin to enforce our Constitution. They are afraid of guns, they are all talk and no balls. They are good at invictive asinine illogic, they are good at using the English language to warp and distort, to convince weak minded people how "caring" they are while ripping unborn babies out of their mother's wombs, but under that sick minded facade they are a bunch of pantywaist wimps and we will take them all out of the picture in short order. And even if the marxist-in-chief wimp demands an military response against us, I predict an immediate refusal to take up arms against a righteous citizenry.
We will win one way or the other against those who are a clear and present danger to our Republic.
Semper fi.

Nunya| 9.17.10 @ 3:37PM

Very cool family history, you should be very proud.

Like you, I pray that it never has to happen, that somehow We the People turn things around. Unfortunately I am not confident in that. So, if the worst has to happen, I will be proud to stand beside a patriot like yourself.

Semper fi

BackToBasics| 9.17.10 @ 6:19PM

I am not confident either. I've sometimes wondered if we will be able to carve out a Republic with some good strength from part of the country, perhaps the Plains, Midwest and a good portion of the South?

I really see the country fracturing first in a civil war and then later geographically. What our outside enemies will doing while this is going on is anybody's guess. It is doubtful that we will be left alone from them if it comes down to this.

Nancy in NC| 9.17.10 @ 4:30PM

I want you guys on my side...I'm an old woman, but I do have a nifty 12 gauge and a SW 38 that I can hit something with occasionally...I don't miss with the 12 gauge though.

I have the occasion to talk to the Marines almost daily, and I can tell you, most of them with any rank or IQ are pretty fed up. Just mention the blue hats to them, and their ire goes up. So I would say your prediction is spot on. Also have talked to local police, and they're on our side.

Now, if the voters will get their butts to the polls on Nov. 2 we will have a start. I hope and pray that a big victory in Nov. will not make folks things are under control...that's just the first battle in a long war.

The progressives have been working on this agenda for about 100 years. They won't go down without a fight, but they are wusses that would crap themselves if it came down to the wire. I'm not sure if most of them one know one end of a weapon from the other.

Semper fi, and keep your powder dry.

Ret. Marine| 9.17.10 @ 8:47PM

Thanks Granny, I have a grandmother, currently 99, just as fisty as you. She tells me not to worry, she'll be there to heal the wounds if it comes to that, back at yah.

RCV| 9.17.10 @ 5:14PM

Ah, yes. The believers in a democratic Republic. They lose one election at the ballot box, and they are so convinced (as I am) that they could never persuade the American people to vote their candidates in, they're already plotting their little armed rebellions. Your fantasies are never going to happen. You try and take over this country militarily and you will see the resolve of the American people in all its fury. And, if you think you have all the guns, you've forgotten about the military arsenal your federal government has built up, and the soldiers -- now drawn in so small part from the ranks of our African American and Latino populations now that we have a volunteer army -- who are ready to fulfill their oaths. When the federal government ordered school integration, even though the majority of those in the state national guard in the south opposed the orders given, they remained true to our nation, and when federalized, moved against the little Jeff Davises in the statehouses in the South. The next challenge will be no different. We didn't watch our ancestors die and be maimed in the Civil War to preserve the Union to let you little Timmie McVeighs take one inch of our country away. Semper Fi is right.

TR| 9.17.10 @ 6:52PM

This is not a democratic Republic, it is a representative Republic.
Our founders warned against a democracy, for obvious historic reasons. So keep your democratic crap.
As to my statement: I know and communicat e with people in the military and the law enforcement, and they agree with the danger from the marxists in charge. They do not respect out glorious dear "leader", and are ready if patriots begin. This situation bears no resemblance to what happened in the 50s with state refusal to fulfill correct and righteous policy. We are opposed to the federal takeover of private institutions and businesses, to the complete deafness of the will of the People. The majority called loudly to drop the govt. takeover of the medical field, but they rammed it through (it will be overturned by the SCOTUS as an illegal power grab).
If you mean losing one election, we do not see an election where ACORN, the Black Panthers and other criminal groups stacked and stuffed the ballot boxes with dead people votes, with multiple votes, with voter intimidation(and every instance of these actions was filmed for all to see) and the refusal of the Justice Dept. to follow law, the favoring of law application based on race, the murder of babies, the absolute soulless corruption and marxist actions by this administration, by the disdain to the Constitution and the verbal and written comments from the president in the years leading up to his 15 minute career in the senate where he proclaims that the Constitution, in essense, matters not when you have bigger objectives, we will take action. We listened to the crap coming from the marxists for 8 years of GW Bush, the death threats on their radio AirAmerica, the constant protests. Now, we are playing from your playbook and you protest "give him a chance!" Bullshit. He is a dyed in the wool anti business anti freedom anti american, and we see it. And if you think that the real patriots will turn on us, you are the one that is sadly mistaken.
As far as your typical red-herring Timothy McVeigh comment, KMA. That devil was not a God fearing Constitution loving American, He was just what he was, a devil.
And as far as taking back one inch of your country, it has been usurped and stolen by the left through lies, theft, and the bully pulpit of the left-stream press. Those days are over, and we will win if it comes to it.
I took an oath and never un-took it. I will defend my Constitution and nation even if it means I pay the ultimate price, just like the patriots of 1776. They were told the same thing you spew and knew that they has the righteous cause. It was difficult, but we know who won.
I do agree that it will probably be a civil war however, not a revolution. I'd be happy to settle for the real America and let the vermin leftists keep the coasts. They have pretty much destroyed them with their policies anyway.
I don;t want it, I am just prepared to act the moment it starts. I will not start the fire, but I will add my gasoline with full and devoted force.

TR| 9.17.10 @ 7:07PM

sorry for the multiple typos in that post. I forgot to proofread before hitting send.

RCV| 9.17.10 @ 7:46PM

You're not taking one inch of this country anywhere. You add your gasoline all you want, and you will be dealt with by our dedicated law enforcement officers. If the Supreme Court finds the Health Care Bill unconstitutional, then so be it. We will respect that ruling. If they find it constitutional, that's your obligation as well. You don't get to pick and choose which elections of the people you will respect. We elected Barack Obama President in 2008, after 8 years of Republican misrule. If you can convince the American people to elect your candidates, you'll then have your choice. But if that doesn't happen TR, that's life.

No sweat on the typos - I'm famous for them.

Ret. Marine| 9.17.10 @ 8:55PM

Hang in there TR, this little louis farrakon thinks he's all that and a bag of crack added to it. He more than likely doesn't even realize TMcV was a terrorist, there was plenty of documented evidence covered up at his trial, i.e. not knowing how to make a Ammonia Nitrate bomb before meeting up with the little Yousef in the Phillipines, and suddenly knowing after returning, etc... yeah and that little line....democratic republic, that was a knee slapper. Notice though how it failed to respond to his marxistness.

RCV| 9.17.10 @ 11:25PM

What do these incoherent ramblings even mean?

SeattleBruce| 9.18.10 @ 9:03AM

What does your ad hominem attack mean? Ah, methinks it means you're not secure enough in your own arguments to let them stand on their own - would that be correct?

Tim*| 9.17.10 @ 7:02PM

"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy."
John Adams

GavInTucson| 9.18.10 @ 1:29AM

Your ignorance of the military and its understanding of the Constitution is so blinding that I had to laugh out loud at your post, RCV.

But, that's okay. You just keep telling yourself happy, happy thoughts of total government control of the populace at your little liberal circle-jerk at Starbucks.

RCV| 9.18.10 @ 12:41PM

You guys are so laughable in your disconnect with reality! You live in the freest, most prosperous society in history, with the ability to transmit your distorted views to millions around the globe in an instant, to elect your governmental representatives, to stockpile your little toy firearms that make you feel like a big guy, and you sit around and whine about "total government control.". You're pathetic.

Tim*| 9.18.10 @ 1:51PM

Uh oh !
The King' s Tory attempts The Talk Down To The Great Unwashed Gambit .

That's Pathetic with Fries.

GavInTucson| 10.18.10 @ 3:06AM

When it's all said and done, you'll be serving me my fries. You don't have a choice. You're already being counted on "the other side."

GavInTucson| 10.18.10 @ 3:04AM

Disconnected with reality??? Freest society in history??? Okay, RCV, keep living in your bubble.

Are you really stupid enough to believe that the ability to post something on the Internet makes you free??? You, me, and everyone, are being watched, you fool.

One day you might actually wake up to the fact that you no longer "decide" the elections in this country. They're bought and paid for by the true masters of this country. A master that been trying to gain control of this country since it's inception, and has been nearly working since 1913.

Fredrick Ward| 9.17.10 @ 5:40PM

"You, me, and other patriots are well armed and trained."

Folks, while I do advocate standing up for what is right, and I have stated in the past that this issue may come to blows, I do not desire this. Mainly because anyone who has been witness to war knows that it is never anything so pretty and clean as it is on TV.

I'm going to get right to it. If this comes to a physical confrontation then this will be anything but easy. Those in power will use whatever weapons are at their disposal to put down the insurrection, as they would see it. That also means that our own military forces, police, national guard, CIA, etc would be against us. Do not think that all the forces will back down from a fight against it's own citizens. That kind of thinking is failure before it begins, and will lead to a quick finish to any uprising. This age is completely different from the time of the first Revolution. The technology and systems in place now make such a conflict much worse, and head on assault incredibly insane. This would need to be a fight of clandestine strategic strikes. That is the only way to fight and have a possibility of winning.

In such a fight some of your neighbors, friends, and family would even call you traitor, and turn on you. They will side with the powers that be, and you will be forced to give up, run from, or fight the very people you wish to protect. The government would put into effect marshal law. Check points would be everywhere, and even the 'innocent', or 'uninvolved' would be persecuted by the fanatical systems set in place to deter the militants' actions. Most of you cannot know what you are even contemplating when it comes to such a horror as this scenario. If the real fighting ever does begin most people in this country will take the chains that the government offers instead of fighting for the freedoms they will lose. They will see living out their lives with their loved ones under the tyranny a better option than possibly losing their loved ones in an assault.

Pray that this current situation does not come to such.

TR| 9.17.10 @ 6:59PM

All of my friends and nieghbors have all spoken out loudly that they will join also. This is not the sheeple nation that ObaMao and the other marxists think it is. The peole are fed up and armed and ready.
Was is ugly, war is hell, and war is not desirable. But a coward dies a thousand deaths, a hero but once.
Tyranny is not acceptable and will not be allowed to progress.

TR| 9.17.10 @ 7:10PM

again sorry for the typos. I must proofread better.

DRed| 9.17.10 @ 7:58PM

You guys lost an election because the republicans bungled running the country for 8 years. Suck it up and stop whining. Nobody is coming to steal your guns, or your freedoms. You're probably about to retake at least the house, if not all of Congress. Christ, you're a bunch of babies. Do you not understand how this country works? If this is how you react when a moderate liberal is elected, I shudder to think would happen if this country ever elected an actual leftist.

TR| 9.17.10 @ 8:13PM

MODERATE LIBERAL?????????
Marxism is not moderate. And this man is a marxist.
Shudder away.

DRed| 9.17.10 @ 8:30PM

Right, a marxist who bails out investment banks. Grow up.

TR| 9.17.10 @ 8:48PM

Just one part of his muti-pronged plan to implode the economy to enact his full marxist agenda. All well documented by people who actually understand what he is doing along with his cloward-piven strategy. I am grown up, you need to wise up. Fool.

DRed| 9.17.10 @ 9:01PM

Sorry, I read your paranoid fantasies about killing people who disagree with you politically and figured you weren't an adult. Tell me about the rest of Obama's multi-pronged plan to implode the economy? It's odd-after the bailout, the economy (while far from doing well) stopped imploding. Instead of such an elaborate scheme, why didn't he just sit back and do nothing?

Do you even know a single 'leftist'? Maybe you should take some time to get to know your fellow
Americans instead of dreaming of the revolution.

SeattleBruce| 9.18.10 @ 9:15AM

"the economy (while far from doing well) stopped imploding."

This is not an economic strategy. The problem is that liberals think that government can innovate and create jobs - when we all know it can do neither. Here's the Econ 101 difference for you DRed - Take $100,000 and create on gubmint job, or take that same $100,000 and invest it in a viable small business and create say 3 jobs, and then with growth another 5 or 10 - and so forth. Meantime that other gubmint $100,000 is being sucked down the drain and for what - some reporting or clerical or paper pusher job?

Like I said, innovation and job creation - government can do neither. Your problem is that you BELIEVE in governement. I don't.

Government has a limited role - for the reasons outlined.

You and BHO are failing because of this.

It's time to MOVE ON!!

DRed| 9.18.10 @ 1:11PM

Again, you're completely missing my point. I'm not trying to convince you to become a liberal. What I'm arguing is that Obama isn't the radical, anti-American marxist that the right wing noise machine keeps claiming he is.

Simon Templar| 9.18.10 @ 10:07PM

I was once a liberal..more like a radical and read all the same books your so-called moderate liberal did that sits in the white house. He is an anti-american, anti-west, liberation theology marxist. Try reading his book, Dreams from My Father, you might actually learn something about your dear leader. Once again facts and reality escape you. This is a typical liberal ploy...make the conservative out to be paranoid, extreme, exaggerating fool. You are losing. Each day more and more people are waking up. No one on this site is exaggerating or using political hyperbole to make a political point. They see clearly what is going on and what your dear leader and his progressive cadre are up to..the gigs up...

Petronius| 9.18.10 @ 10:01AM

In order to carry out his agenda of Marxist redistribution, There must be a store of other people's wealth to confiscate. Ask Castro and Chavez, they'll tell you.

Patriot| 9.17.10 @ 8:58PM

moderate liberal, no not by a long shot, he's a little moa in the making...and many of us have the solution for what ailes him.....

DRed| 9.17.10 @ 9:07PM

Yes, he's a moderate liberal. To pick a few issues: A more liberal president would have put gays in the military, tried hard to legalize gay marriage, not bailed out wall street fat cats, instituted a single payer national healthcare system, not appointed an elitist moderate like Kagan to the supreme court, stopped insisting he has the right to extralegally assassinate American citizens, emptied guantanamo . . . I could go on, but I get the sense most of you aren't open to argument.

UpChuck.Liberals| 9.17.10 @ 11:52PM

If our Dear Leader is a Moderate anything then I'm a full fledged, card carrying member of the Communist Party. You sir are a fool. I'm also willing to bet you think that Islam is the Religion of Peace. BTW, yes the Repubics had the White House for 8 years but the Dems and their RINO Repubics had the Congress since Jan 5, 2007. Bush was a idiot for signing the stuff that they put out but your Socialist buddies and the idiot RINOs were the ones that wrote the stuff that is causing the problems today. Your Dear Leader is a lazy idiot bought and paid for by Soros and the other left wing Socialist loons.

Yes, if it does come to it there will be a fight and the guys with the guns will be on our side, they are predominately Conservative. You liberals don't have the guts to stand up and fight for something you really don't believe in.

DRed| 9.18.10 @ 12:26AM

Well, comrade, I suggest you pack your bags for Cuba. First, I don't even like Obama that much, so you can stop with the dear leader nonsense. I listed a bunch of things that I think a strongly liberal president would have tried to do. Which ones do you disagree with? Obama gave us a wishy-washy stimulus, a wishy-washy healthcare plan-what's so radical about him?

If Bush and his Rino buddies were so bad, where were when they were running this country into the ground? Oh, that's right-voting for them. Man up and accept some responsibility. What are you, a liberal?

SeattleBruce| 9.18.10 @ 9:19AM

"instituted a single payer national healthcare system"

Great Britain is looking at moving back toward private medicine - Europe is reeling from their socialism - yet you and Barack Obama want to move us toward socialism.

It's not that we're not 'open to arugment' - au contraire - we're just not open to socialism.

Sorry.

DRed| 9.18.10 @ 11:33AM

No, you missed my point. Single payer national healthcare is what a non-moderate liberal would have pushed for. But that's not what Obama did. Am I wrong?

SeattleBruce| 9.18.10 @ 9:09AM

Moderate liberal baloney! Fact- BHO was the MOST liberal Senator period.

TR| 9.18.10 @ 11:21AM

You are correct Bruce. I forgot in his extremely brief senate career he was awarded the most liberal award. Pretty amazing considering his puppet string pullers had him start running for president about a week after being sworn in.

RCV| 9.18.10 @ 12:44PM

Well said. It reminds me of when the John Birch Society used to claim that Eisenhower was a communist. The disconnect with reality is mind boggling.

RCV| 9.18.10 @ 12:45PM

The well said was to DRed.

megapotamus| 9.19.10 @ 8:59AM

There isn't going to be any new American revolution or civil war for the simple reason that there is no one militarily on the other side. This is why Obama's Freedom Corpse or whatever in hell it was called was so problematic but like so much else it proved to be naught but vaporware. That being the case, just who are the militias and minutemen going to fight? Not the US military, do you think our guys are going to, say, herd us into camps for re-Ned-ucation? Will the cops do that? The state Guards? Happily, there is no military presence worthy of your powder and shot. It wouldn't be surprising to see the Leftoids of the Ayers stripe doing some Symbionese Liberation Army claptrap but that will not avail them. If there were bombings here on the scale and frequency of Iraq it would not recruit young men of vigor and honor or even basic physical fitness to their cause. Nope, no Red Dawn here. We are stuck with jaw-jaw rather than war-war and that suits me. Those who want to participate in this particular American Revolution, which is of course a Counter-Revolution, had best keep the Mountain Dew off your keyboards. These are our arms and armor. Our love and respect for our nation and fellow citizens are necessary and sufficient to our purposes. Good thing, too. The prospect of a Parisien style bloodletting, remote as it is, should be addressed only with the greatest seriousness and reticence. I'm no pacifist, believe me you, but relish for war, especially against our own, is frankly disgraceful and I'm sure it was a slip of the brain for the fine people commenting here.

Nunya| 9.20.10 @ 11:52AM

Mega, just to sum this up... NOBODY wants it to come to a confrontation. NOBODY. Especially me.

Unfortunately, we have a Congress that is out of control, followed by a megalomaniac as a President, and they're passing legislation over the cries of the MAJORITY of folks out here in "flyover country" (and everywhere else). Our "representative republic" is not representative of what the people want. If we can't regain control of the idiots in Washington with our votes, we have little choice but to follow Thomas Jefferson's advice--otherwise, we are going to be slaves to the puppet masters in DC.

K. Orengali| 9.21.10 @ 3:46AM

Calm, please. Well armed- yes. Well trained- absolutely. A not so open albeit running dialogue is "what would it take for you to take up arms against your countrymen?" We all have varying degrees of tyranny to light the match (using the Marine's metaphor). However, I have seen three years of combat now and counting. We fight relentlessly abroad so that those at home can exist in bliss and enjoy the latte along with the head nodding to the NYT. Combat is horrible. Combat among ourselves at home would be furious and exponentially more horrible than what occured between 1861 and 1865. The military and the vast majority of armed government agents (I am both) are on the "right" side of this issue. Ruby Ridge and Waco are oft examined and scrutinized among ourselves. Be yourselves always ready, but please- let's for now be the master of the social commentary, a la RCV et al.

scotchieguy| 9.17.10 @ 1:18PM

Speaking of George, by George, a few years back a film about King George III came out. It was supposed to be called "King George III," but the studio declined, thinking it would confuse the masses into thinking it was the third in a sequel (like the Godfather part 3). This must have been 15-20 years ago, but it was then that I realized our days are truly numbered.

NVA Patriot| 9.17.10 @ 7:44AM

Quinn - your essay would be more powerful had you not backed Castle in DE. That's action that determines if you get the point. Unprincipled pregressivism embodied in Castle is NEVER acceptable.

Quin| 9.17.10 @ 10:39AM

As a correction, for the record, I made clear again and again that I did NOT back Castle in Delaware, but that I thought it was a fight that non-Delaware conservatives should stay out of -- for all the reasons I gave. I clearly was not enamored of Ms. O'Donnell, especially because she filed a ridiculous lawsuit against one of the great and true conservative organizations in this country, ISI. But I also specifically and repeatedly said I was not urging support for Castle. I DID, however, note, and I insist, that a 55% friend is better than a 5% friend. That's not an abandonment of principle; it's a practical step to support principle. If Castle had won the nomination, I would have fervently hoped that he wins the general election. I now hope that O'Donnell wins; conservatives may need her vote.

Siegfried X| 9.17.10 @ 11:26AM

"I thought it was a fight that non-Delaware conservatives should stay out of ..."

Would it be fair for out of state conservatives to stay out of it when Castle got 3/4 of his money from non-resident liberal Republicans, including money from the NRSC?

What you are advocating seems to be the same old political pacifism and unilateral disarment which has allowed the RINO leadership to control the party against the will of the majority for so long. Non-Delaware establishment money and support is OK, but conservative money isn't.

R Martin| 9.17.10 @ 3:54PM

One problem with that 55%/5% argument is that history does not always support it. Remember the 2004 Pennsylvania Republican Senate Primary when Pat Toomey opposed Arlen Specter? President Bush and Rick Santorum backed Specter, because they thought Specter was a better bet to retain control of the Senate. Specter did win, but the senate was lost in 2006, and then Specter showed his appreciation for Republican support by switching to the Democrats last year. If the Bush/Santorum strategy was successful, it was only in the short run. Republicans would have been wiser to go with Toomey in '04. That lesson has not been lost on Delaware Conservatives.

NVA Patriot| 9.17.10 @ 3:55PM

Peace on the record, but as a point of order, we outside the beltway are done with process that means conservatives lose. We expect and are demanding results. It is the way our world works in Capitalism when the gov stays out of it.

Your position, which is fine - makes the RESULT THE SAME - more progressiveism COUPLED with tarnishing the Conservative Republican Brand. We're done with that.

We believe that the contests should be straight up - consevatism vs. socialism. Thanks to Coons being a closet, self proclaimed Marxist we will now have a straight up decision from our fellow citizens in DE. I expect that they will choose the conservative NOW THAT THERE is a clear, bold, brightly colored difference.

And...if you see anyone from the Weekly standard or NRO let them know that if they spent as much time looking into Coons as they did ODonnell, Odonnnell would be even or ahead in the polls.

We're done with discussions of process that are stacked against conservatives such that liberalism always wins. NOT. AGAIN. EVER.

albert constantine jr.| 9.17.10 @ 8:13AM

Having observed Castle's record up close in Delaware, I'm not sure he is best described as an unprincipled progressive. I think he pandered to the left and "middle" regularly to pad his margins of victory, thinking that the right had no other place to go. While this may be well described as unprincipled, opportunist may be more accurate than progressive.

R Martin| 9.17.10 @ 2:07PM

Unprincipled opportunist may be accurate, but it is vague. Here's what Castle did: he sold-out unreservedly to special interests with his support for the Democrats' Cap and Trade bill. Delaware generates 65% of its electricity from coal. Therefore any carbon tax is going to hit consumers hard. Delaware is also home to a number of major corporations who are not carbon emitters and who would be able to sell their valuable carbon credits under the proposed law. And, of course, there are many large banks headquartered here who will do the trade part of Cap and Trade and benefit accordingly. Those banks and the corporations were big contributors to Castle. He chose their support rather than look out for the interests of his other constitutents. He lost my vote on that issue alone.

logmank| 9.17.10 @ 8:25AM

NVA - Exactly so. Quin Hilyer backs Castle, then uses the victory of O'Donnell to bolster his thesis on the power of the conservative message. What's wrong with that picture?
I don't appreciate someone supporting a Republican progressive, in violation of the very conservative principles he purports to champion, then patting himself on the back for his consistency.

Quin| 9.17.10 @ 10:40AM

Please see my note above. I did NOT "back" Castle. And I defy ANYBODY to show me any statement in the record that shows I did. And no -- not some extrapolation from some sentences of mine taken out of context, but an actual statement, in context. I never did so.

Mel Torme| 9.17.10 @ 11:10AM

Well, Quin, it depends on what context the statement below (taken from your reply above) was in. I admit, I may have missed your previous writing about the Deleware R-primary.

"I DID, however, note, and I insist, that a 55% friend is better than a 5% friend."

That's all fine, if it so happened that Castle won that primary. It is very reasonable, given that voting for the libertarian or constitution party guy (which I STILL would) is such a long shot.

If you said the above statement (or thereabouts) to explain why you would vote for Castle in the PRIMARY, then you are now in a contradiction (this article today). What I mean is, many people did insist that we should support the 55% guy in the primary, as then the chance of winning of the D would be higher. That is something I would argue strongly about, and your article today would back me up. Vote for your principles, and don't waver, as most of the (real) Americans believe in these same principles and will vote that way in the general election.

So, you should clarify to some of these posters who say you are contradicting your previous views - were you saying that people should have voted for Castle in the primary, or just saying that conservatives should back the winner of this primary in the general election? (I don't agree even with the 2nd, but that has been debated by American Spectator commenters earlier this week(?) with some really great points, especially re my view ;-)

Quin| 9.17.10 @ 1:34PM

Why is this do difficult to understand? I did not recommend that anybody vote in ANY particular way; I recommended that outside conservatives not make this battle a cause celebre, while specifically wrote that "I have no brief for Mike Castle."

Anthony| 9.17.10 @ 3:23PM

Wow Quin, It appears you are doing some mighty fast and fancy disembling here.
" I have no brief for Mike Castle"
vs.
"A 55% friend is better than a 5% friend"

" I thought it was a fight non Deleware conservatives should stay out of"'
vs.
" I was not enamoured with O'Donnell because she filed a law suit against a great and true conservative organization".
I think Mel Torme has deconstructed your nuianced denials and has found them wanting, as did I.

Mel Torme| 9.17.10 @ 9:57PM

Nuance is in this year, and so are denials. Next year, it's gonna be gold, guns, and Revelations.

RCV| 9.17.10 @ 11:32PM

Quin - don't waste your time trying to explain yourself to the conspiracy fantasists attacking you. They are exactly like the French revolutionaries and will continue to turn on each other for lack of "purity" until there's no one left.

Tim*| 9.18.10 @ 2:00PM

The King's Fop consults Quin.

Curly Smith| 9.17.10 @ 8:27AM

If "Conservative Principles Win" then shouldn't we conclude from "Compassionate Conservatism" and "Big Tentism" that either the GOP doesn't want to win or that it doesn't want to advance Conservative Principles?

We can, and should, blame Karl Rove for a lot of the Bush failures but Rove wasn't doing anything that the leadership of the GOP didn't want to have happen. They're the ones who loudly proclaimed in 2008 that "the era of Reagan is over". It's over because they killed it.

The blueprint for winning elections and holding majorities until the end of time is clear... and it's hermetically sealed in a lead-line vault guarded 24/7 by pork-addicted GOP operatives. The blueprint is a stake in the heart of the freedom-sucking State.

Siegfried X| 9.17.10 @ 9:31AM

Exactly. The message comes through, loud and clear, that the Republican leadership thinks conservatism is a loser in most of the country. They think conservatism is dying, and the sooner we move away from it the better off we are. (Which is what conservative countries are doing in Europe -- making themselves "left-wing light" parties).

It is obvious that they don't want conservative victories on the issues, because by selecting and supporting RINO candidates they are GUARANTEEING that eventually the left will win. It's like the votes on homosexual rights and immigrant amnesty next week -- if enough RINOs combine with the Democrats to give 60 senate votes, then the Democrats will have won. They will have passed their laws. The fact that Snowe, Collins, etc. have (R) after their names won't stop them from voting for amnesty.

Ned the Red| 9.17.10 @ 10:10AM

"The data say that when people sell out their principles, they lose power."

The Democrats got their power back in 2006 because they followed their principles and went left. I remember a “National Review” cover showing the Democrat Party, represented by a car, driving on a road with steep cliffs to the left. The car was heading left indicating a wreck.
Well they didn't wreck. Their drift left motivated their base, which took advantage of several Republican gifts, McCain, scandals, and of course the ever present Republican fear of the Media, and won big time in 2006 and 08.
Now the Republican Party is turning right. Sure it is requiring a little help in the form of having tea dumped down the leadership’s nostrils while they are strapped to a board, but they are going right.
Now everyone believes (with the possible exception of President Clinton) the Democrats governing far to the left is the cause of their probable demise. Going left got them elected, but governing left is getting them booted, as it did in 1994.
The question I ask, if going right gets the Republicans elected will governing right get them booted? Will they try to move to the center once in office? You know the old reach across the aisle bit.
The difference is most of the country is conservative and not liberal. So rather than suffering the Democrats fate, the Republicans will succeed if they stick to their principles and govern as such. They will fail if they pull the same old crap and go to the center. Hopefully their newly acquired fear of being “T-boarded” will be stronger than their fear of the Media.

scotchieguy| 9.17.10 @ 1:31PM

Excellent post. "The difference is most of the country is conservative not liberal." True, but the MSM will more than counter that advantage. That is the real problem. I see them governing in the middle, and having the dems regroup and back in power in no time. A vicious cycle.

Ned the Red| 9.18.10 @ 7:15AM

"True, but the MSM will more than counter that advantage."

I remember the 80's and all the sitcoms trashing Republicans (aimed at Reagan). Remember all the specials on HBO to help the homeless (I doubt Billy and Whoopi are gearing up for new ones now). In 94 I don't think Bill Moyers could have sounded more forlorn if we had been hit with a nuclear strike when lamenting the Republican takeover of the House.
I am hoping with talk radio, the internet, Fox News, and the Tea Party showing the ability to put RINO’s out of a job will help this time around.

megapotamus| 9.19.10 @ 9:09AM

The real difference is that what we know today as "Conservatism" is only good sense, at least fiscally while "Liberalism" is fantasy unconcerned with history, economics, decency or current performance. The transient popularity of this or that does not alter that. Understanding this to be the case, having those musty old "convictions" is really the secret to enduring the current foolishness with good nature. Look at it this way, if you see your kids out in the back yard making a cruiseliner out of pop bottles and duct tape, you may have several rational concerns. That you will be telephoned to come pick them up in Portugal is not one of them.

Oldefarte| 9.17.10 @ 11:19AM

I can't remember the exact words, but as the old saying goes, IT IS BETTER TO HAVE TRIED AND LOST, THAN NEVER TO HAVE TRIED AT ALL! Or if you prefer, IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED, THEN TRY, TRY AGAIN! Or finally, as Barry Goldwater Sr so correctly stated, EXTREMISM IN THE DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE! I'm elated and so encouraged by Rush Limbaugh's radio requests of his listeners to contribute to the political campaign of Christine O'Donnell against Coons; of Mitt Romney's big time endorsement of her candidacy; and of the brave, courageous tea partiers expending of their time/money to rally in opposition to this dictatorial expansion of government. It/they are a beautiful thing, and.........THE TIMES THEY BE A CHANGIN'!!!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 9.17.10 @ 11:21AM

PS, no doubt due to Limbaugh and Romney, it's now being reported that O'Donnell's campaign has recieved nearly $1 million in donations, so she can now afford to take the the fight to Coons in Delaware!!!!

TR| 9.17.10 @ 2:43PM

Amen, oldefarte.
Are you my dad? I have heard him say almost the same things since I was a youngfart.

RacerJim| 9.18.10 @ 10:13AM

Here's another oldfart saying for youngfarts to heed..."BETTER DEAD THAN RED!"

Oldefarte| 9.18.10 @ 10:46AM

TR, No doubt your father and I grew up with similar life/political experiences of the Kennedys, Huntley & Brinkley, Cronkite, Camelot, Johnson, the Vietnam War, race riots, the Great Society, the hippie culture/EASY RIDER culture; and had to reguritate all of the above in order to survive. The current liberal/Harvard, radical-extremist movement is a REGURITATION [so to speak] of that era, but IMO, their very last shot at relevance [since I believe this current tea party/conservative rebellion will once and for all put an end to it [or I truly hope so]!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TR| 9.18.10 @ 11:38AM

Yes, oldefarte, my dad was born in th early stages of the 1st Great Depression, and my formative years in the 60s were spent watching Huntley Brinkley, Cronkite. We lived in the San Fernando Valley in So Cal when the Watts riots occurred (he bought his first handgun then).
I pray that this vomit that is our president will serve as an example to cause the complete rejection of all of the dangerous and foolish radicals of that era. This marxist president's protest that he was only a child when his mentor Ayers was terrorizing America doesn't wash with me, he follows their radical agenda today.
I attended the tea party in Pinky Reid's hometown earlier this year, and the true passion displayed to save our Republic gives me hope. And BTW, the only violence I saw was the counter protesters (all 10 of them) in Searchlight that threw eggs at the Tea Party Express motorcoach that Sarah Palin was riding in as it passed through the town. It was ignored by the so-called MSM, but I witnessed it. We must motivate those who, like us, are the true Constitutional patriots, to GET OUT THE VOTE and send these morons scurrying. They are cockroaches , and all it takes is light to send them running.

Oldefarte| 9.17.10 @ 11:26AM

PSII: I failed to note that every blogger/reader here needs to realize the extreme GUTS/COURAGE exhibited by Quin Hillyer and the staff at TAS [and other publications] to go out on the literary limb to expose the political truth, and they all should be commended and thanked for same [if you doubt/question this, then you should read BIAS by Bernard Goldberg as proof]!!!!

Siegfried X| 9.17.10 @ 11:50AM

I agree with you. The conservative media is finally opening up, compared to the tight censorship when McCain was running for the nomination.

TR| 9.17.10 @ 2:46PM

Yes. Thank you, Quin for your willingness to bravely state what needs to be said.
I have read Bias by Mr. Goldberg. Another brave man who put his future in his field on the line for speaking the truth.
Both of them and many other in this vein are true patriots.

JFC | 9.17.10 @ 11:49AM

The OBAMA Crisis is a Terrible Thing to Waste

“A crisis is a terrible thing to waste”.

It seems to me that the insurgent leaders of the Republicans, from extant top dogs like McConnell and Boehner, down to and most vitally including, emerging superstars like Rubio, should make the following perfect proof argument a key part of their red meat talking points---say:

“I agree that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, as the Obama administration told us all, before going on to do so many horrible things. Indeed, the absolute truth is that the very Obama administration, and its partners in crisis crime, ARE the crisis!

And, we should not waste this once in a generation chance!

So, in November we must exploit the hell out of it, and blast away the people who are causing America to commit economic and political suicide.

Out, with their damned "SPOT!”

Another takeoff from this sure-to-be-included-in-the-book-of-famous-quotes gift from Rahm Emanuel is--- “Let’s get wasted.”

You see, the Obama plus cohort can be characterized many ways, but at their core they are unrepentant hippies, defined by taking mind-altering drugs. And, the first choice of such people is marijuana, the consumption of which is purposed by the desire to “get wasted”.

Yes, think of Obama, and now his unhappy wife, also, as people who are suffering from the crisis THEY have unconsciously created, and in so much psychological pain that getting loaded seems to be the only way to get Absolute relief.

I speak from unfortunate experience!

Entropy is always beaconing, while we humans are busy creating and maintaining as much order as we can tolerate, so getting wasted is just one of the ways to dip into that seemingly ecstatic experience of nothingness. Oh, the pressure is just too great!

Also, “Crisis = opportunity.”

It is unnecessary to say more, right? Remember, there are around 300,000,000 humans in still-free America, so the few hundred of us who are willing to get into the ring of political fire and exploit the Obama crisis represent many millions of others who could do so.

Finally, picture that old ad, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”, which, if I recall correctly, was aimed at black Americans, who were failing to apply themselves to “book learning”, and thus wasting their “minds”. Of course, this problem persists, and I think is even worse.

So, “Mind” up, cowboys!

Surprise, surprise!

Another way that hubris seems to be blowing in the wind, a la Bob Dylan---and Peter, Paul and Mary!---is also thanks to the unwitting Marxist fool, Obama and his minions.

I’ll betcha the phrase, “It’s a teachable moment” has just begun its run as a used label to apply to---most anything. So, just as wasting the crisis that is Obama is a terrible thing, so is it stupid to ignore the teaching moment that he and his far left idiots ARE.

NOW—Karl Rove, and even Mark Levin, are exhibiting all-too-human behavior, and they need to wake up. As we taught students about to take the SAT’s, when facing multiple possible answers to a question, be very wary of those that use the words “always” and “never”.

So, when Rove said O’Donnell could NEVER win in Delaware, oops! Of course, there is ALWAYS the constant true ongoing opportunity = crisis of the NOW point of space-time, at which to use NEVER:

You are NEVER in danger of knowing a single thing!

A being, from the human on down to the amoeba, and even if a quark can be considered “a” being, NEVER knows the future!

And, that’s the truth—blech!!!

Anthony| 9.17.10 @ 3:40PM

JFC, Just a small point here, but what have I missed with Mark Levin? He has been a staunch supporter of O'Donnell, he came out early and put it all on the line.
Frankly, I was somewhat sickened when Limbaugh, on the following day, appeared to take full credit for O'Donnell, when he stood quietly on the sidelines.

Peter McGrath - Specifics?| 9.17.10 @ 12:04PM

Mr Lord's generalities are well taken but oft-repeated, and preached to the choir, here.

For 8 years, the prior Republican president mouthed the same platitudes while a Republican-dominated legislature dramatically expanded entitlements, from prescription drugs to "No Child (ahem) Left Behind" - not to mention corrupt deals involving farm-state ethanol, "Big Sugar", and earmarks.

The voting public, I'm sure, would appreciate some specifics as to how platitudes like "smaller governmennt" and "lower taxes" would actually be implemented as national policy.

Conservatives, even Tea Party conservatives, in order to obtain a mandate, MUST enunciate specific policy prescriptions to advance the cause of a smaller, less intrusive Federal government. How is the size of government to be reduced? In what ways will its tentacles be severed?

I'm all ears. I want to know what a Republican-majority in the House intends to do, and not do. Simple opposition to the Imbecile-in-Chief is a good start, but will not suffice for purposes of establishing a mandate. Even with a veto-threat hovering, Republicans must develop - and quick - a platform of goals to pitch to the fence-sitters.

DRed| 9.17.10 @ 3:59PM

Good luck with that. Hope you have a comfortable place to wait.

Giovanelo| 9.17.10 @ 1:48PM

Quin is trying to ignore the obvious:

"Would it be fair for out of state conservatives to stay out of it when Castle got 3/4 of his money from non-resident liberal Republicans, including money from the NRSC?

Seek| 9.17.10 @ 2:49PM

Roanld Reagan liked to say, "My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy." Mike Castle might not have been a "pure" conservative, but he was still one of us and more than electable. Thanks to the Red State Uber Alles/Tea Party types, we've got Christine O'Donnell, a smarmy and inexperienced Christian fundamentalist, representing the GOP.

Before any of posters on this site excoriate me for my latent RINO tendencies, keep in mind O'Donnell is every bit the feminist as anyone on the Left. A number of years ago she filed a bullshit lawsuit of nearly $7 million against the Intercollegiate Studies Institute in Wilmington, Del., one of the oldest and most respected of all conservative think tanks, alleging "sexism" was involved in her demotion. She eventually dropped the action for want of funds, but it didn't speak well of her.

Never trust a radical feminist, even one on the Right. That goes as well for Sarah Palin, our own Evita. Can't stand either woman.

Anthony| 9.17.10 @ 3:34PM

Well Seek, I wasn't going to excoriate you for your latent RINO tendencies, but I do find your misogynist rant that O'Donnell and Palin are "radical feminists" to be quite revealing.
You "can't stand either woman"?? God knows what we'll really find if we scratch the surface of those two comments.

UpChuck.Liberals| 9.17.10 @ 11:57PM

I'd guess an Islamist. Or he has a serious issue with real women. Much the same thing.

GavInTucson| 9.18.10 @ 2:30AM

Radical feminist? What in the hell does that have to do with a lawsuit on sexism?

If you worked for a female boss and were being paid less than your female counterparts, would suing make you a "radical male chauvinist?" Hardly. I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

And what does inexperience or "Christian fundamentalism" have to do with anything? I can't find those litmus tests in the Constitution. Can you?

Personally, I'd rather support someone that sticks to their values, and doesn't sell out to the highest bidder, as opposed to someone that simply has an "R" in front of their name. I sleep better at night as a result.

I will no longer hold my nose and compromise myself just to get RINO "Republicans" like Dole, Bush & Bush, McCain et al elected. I'd rather sit on my ass on election day and let a Democrat get elected, which is the same as voting for a RINO.

The letter in front of the name is irrelevant. Screw their "electability." What good is their electability if they're voted in and then constantly vote against your values?

WayneH| 9.18.10 @ 12:28AM

Good post kj. I often find myself wondering why none of the GOP leaders or their strategists have made any attempt to counter Obummer's ridiculous analogy. It almost seems like the GOP is accepting the argument that they ran the economy into the ditch. If they could successfully counter that argument, I think a much larger portion of the "independents" might swing to the GOP in 2010 - and we certainly need them.

Petronius| 9.18.10 @ 10:24AM

Yeah kj
Ross Perot was going to get under the hood and fix it. Mechanics? People get into government so they don't have to do anything for a paycheck. They are the service managers who tell you that the first appointment to get your broken down vehicle looked at will be 3 weeks from tomorrow.
And as to padding the bill, can you say porkulus?
The car dealership service dept. isn't a bad analogy. The top Government Motors union shops here have a base rate labor charge of $82 an hour. But customer or taxpayer, we're nothing to them but objects of contempt.

rdman| 9.17.10 @ 5:13PM

The Hapless, Insecure Establishment Republicans

With very few exceptions, the career republican fears if they act too aggressively, they may jeopardize their pursuit to be part of the Washington DC Ruling Elitist Clique and will suffer some sort punishment as a result. As a result, they become prey to intense anxiety, seeking reassurances that, no matter what they have done in the past, their pursuit to be accepted by the DC Ruling Elitist Clique is still a possibility, revealing a frightened, insecure, spineless person beneath the facade of the tough authoritarian.

Career republicans who exhibited blustering toughness during election cycles, even projecting that they no longer need to be accepted by the DC Ruling Elitists, once elected and seated now shift abruptly. Almost tearful and obsequious, they become frustrated and disgusted with themselves for not being tough enough to stand on their own two feet to defend themselves, to be independent, to stand on their principles. They feel cowardly because they have not had the spine to sustain their blustering toughness.

Career republicans become ineffective because their self-disparagement and insecurity which creates intense feelings of inferiority and worthlessness. Their indecision and evasiveness has now deteriorated into massive insecurity and anxiety, convincing them that they are incompetent and unable to do anything effective on their own. They can only marginally function with the hope of being accepted by the Ruling Elitist Clique by “morbid clinging” dependency.

The longer career republicans remain seated, the more worthless they become, whining and complaining and disparaging themselves to the extent that they weaken whatever remaining influence they have, becoming an emotional drain on their constituents and everyone else around them. Their despondency has the uncanny ability to induce their anxieties and negativity into others, virtually forcing their constituents to make other choices in their voting booths.

Good-bye and good riddance, Establishment Repubs.

GavInTucson| 9.18.10 @ 2:54AM

God bless you, sir.

The average establishment republican, these days, looks more like Sally Fields wondering if the establishment "really, really, likes them." Pathetic.

If they can't show leadership, can't stick to conservative values (few have in the past 20 years), and can't legislate without wondering how the self proclaimed, so-called, "cool kids" think, then they deserve to lose.

If Republicans can't learn from Reagan's landslide victories, then let them keep their balls in their spouse's purses, where they belong.

rdman| 9.17.10 @ 5:17PM

The Exploitative, Opportunist Establishment Democrats

The darlings of the Washington DC Ruling Elitist Clique and their fawning so-called Main Stream Media (MSM), failure is one of the most humiliating prospects for democrats. When they overextend themselves and cannot make good on their claims, and to protect their status with the DC Ruling Elitist Clique and the MSM, they will resort to exploitation to maintain their self-inflated esteem.

As democrats see it, exploitation is necessary to continue to project a superior self-image. Ironically, they believe they are superior not only to everyone else, but also to themselves by exceeding the limits of their talents, thus they must take what they need from others to maintain their superiority.

Their fear of failure makes democrats more than willing to be dishonest to get what they need to maintain at least the illusion of superiority. They are pragmatists and have no principles other than what works for them… the consequences: they lie about their policies, take credit for the work of others, or plagiarize to make themselves seem more outstanding than they are. Democrats are determined not to be losers, no matter who must pay the price for their corruption.

They are ready to sell out, lie, betray their loyalties and take advantage of others to come out on top. Because they have never developed a conscience, they do not feel guilty about exploiting others. In colloquial terms, democrats are hustlers, people "on the make," opportunists taking advantage of situations and crisis’… always to the detriment of others. Their lack of affect is also particularly valuable now… they can callously use people without the slightest thought for their welfare… "What's in it for me? How can I use this for myself?"

Hapless, insecure republicans, aware of the democrat’s opportunism are usually afraid of confronting them. Democrats count on the fact that others dare not say or do anything about their behavior for fear of retaliation. Their lack of decency makes it difficult for others to defend themselves against democrats because they know that democrats will go lower than they are willing to descend into the gutter.

Exploiting people reveals the contempt in which democrats hold others. Because they do not see other people as real or as having value without reference to themselves, using people is not a moral problem for them… because they have no morals. Others are merely providers of attention and admiration, as objects to be used to aggrandize themselves. This is why there is absolutely nothing reciprocal about a relationship with democrats. They will keep a relationship going as long as they get what they want, but will drop the “useful idiots” under the bus without a second thought, particularly if someone more desirable comes along.

Yet why are citizen voters so often taken advantage of by democrats? The answer lies in the strength of the narcissistic desires democrats awaken in some citizen voters. Voters unwittingly give democrats power over them to the degree that they lack true self-esteem themselves. They mistakenly think that democrats will somehow endow them with what appears to be their limitless self-esteem. This never happens… the sad fact is that democrats would have no power over others if people did not give it to them.

Unfortunately for hapless, anxious, insecure republicans, democrats remain highly functional. Democrats do not become depressed, anxious, emotionally conflicted, incapacitated, or self-destructive. On the contrary, they depress others, make others feel anxious and conflicted, incapacitate others, and drive others to self-destructive acts. It is always others who suffer. Democrats are able to walk away from relationships as if nothing has happened, and as far as they are concerned, nothing has.

Like sharks, they are extraordinarily well adapted to their environment. And like sharks, they injure and kill cold-bloodedly, and keep moving.

However, as long as they keep moving, they keep breathing... viligence is the key!!!

GavInTucson| 9.18.10 @ 3:10AM

Awesome... a "two-fer" in one night!!! If you ever decide to run for office, I volunteer to be a member of your campaign staff.

/RaisesGlass
/Cheers

rdman| 9.18.10 @ 1:21PM

GavInTucson,

Following is a portion of another paper I wrote several years ago that follows the theme of the last two posts:

"The Rise of the Government Class
After decades of progressive incrementalism, the United States Government has finally surfaced to reveal a culture of ungodly and soulless tyrants, thugs and bullies. Cynically disguised as distinguished, articulate, self-appointed elitists, these despotic, vacuous, narcissistic, image-oriented hypocrites emphasize symbols over substance and reality. The pursuit of excellence is being replaced by the celebration of the artificial. Politicians are more concerned with the display of personalities and pursuit of personal power than with principles or the use of power for the common good.

This generation of politicians has become experts at deceitful duplicity, selling their calculated positions to the public to the point that voters can no longer tell the fabricated image from a real person. The voters are so seduced by the slick package that they often do not realize that there is nothing in it… the slick package is the message.

The shallow values and beguiling oratorical skills have become the norms by which everything is measured. The only guideline is the ability to gain attention… what is noticed has value. Calculated images successfully masquerade as reality. Exhibitionism and self-promotion is now acceptable as Government Class factions compete to be the winner… to be famous and celebrated."

In my opinion, the problem We the People have faced is what good patriot of integrity and character would want to expose themselves to the snake pit that is Washington DC.

It is absolutely gratifying that the great silent majority has finally risen giving true constitutional patriots hope and confidence that we can indeed run and WIN, which has exposed the "inside the beltway" establishment class as shallow whiners and cowards. We have come to realize that the real power is with We the People... just as our Founding Fathers intended.

chirs haynes| 9.17.10 @ 6:18PM

Castle supports legal abortion. 42 million, 7 times the holocaust, innocent humans killed with his blessing.

Hey Karl Rove, Krauthammer, Steele. That's not enough to rule him out?

TR| 9.17.10 @ 7:28PM

You are so right.
The person who was going to discover the cure for cancer was an innocent child murdered 30 years ago, but the murderer called it "choice".

GavInTucson| 9.18.10 @ 3:13AM

Thank God Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein weren't choices, right?

TR| 9.18.10 @ 2:10PM

Yes, Gav. They were all born in a time where the absolute evil of abortion was recognized plainly. Our 1960s - anything-goes-if-it's-right-for-me mentality that was fed and nourished by the sick-minded leftists has given us "choice". Liberals always use feel-good terms to make their sins more palatable to the ignorant. I truly feel for the impressionable young girls that are snookered by them when they are in a moment of personal crisis. Every woman I have ever met that had an abortion regrets it almost daily and they carry the pain forever.

Etiquette Man| 9.18.10 @ 6:51AM

Wow! This guy's legs are so long, he really CAN be on both sides of the fence at the same time!

You can always count on good ol' Quin to say "I was with you the whole time!" when a conservative beats one of his favored RINO's.

Then we get to experience his fully nuanced "Beltway Shuffle" as he recasts each of his problematic past statements with a mendacity that would make Bubba Clinton blush.

You can expect a column next week about how the Delaware situation raises some "serious concerns" for "longtime conservatives" like himself.

Vote conservative! Vote early (and, if in Chicago, often)!

Screw the RINO's and their Hillyerian water carriers.

MtTopPatriot| 9.18.10 @ 9:03AM

You said it Mr. Hillyer! Everything good and noble about our American way of life stems from this.

wodiej| 9.18.10 @ 9:07AM

Unfortunate that the overwhelming response to this article involves violence, fighting, guns, bloodshed. If we put our faith in God, He will do the rest. We reap what we sow. God expects us to stand up for values and principles but the best way to do that is through example. If you get even that is what you are-even. You are no better than the opposition. Let's lead by example not by imitating the very thing we propose to be fighting against.

aware| 9.18.10 @ 9:38AM

The enemy is and always has been the State. Neo cons would argue that what the State does is the problem. This is wrong. It implicitly accepts a monster and futilely tries to make accommodations with it. The State doesn't care who feeds it as long as it is fed.

The real fault line is the existence of an entity that has unquestioned power over all aspects of our lives. This is becoming more apparent everyday. With all the battles and elections, with all the laws passed and amended or repealed, with all the articles written for or against, and with all the strawmen stood up and knocked down in the past 100 years one fact emerges, the State has now become bigger than ever. It hasn't been pruned in generations.

All support for the State is socialistic and the State is the enforcer of socialism.
For those advocating some sort of armed rebellion one very important aspect of the State should be understood, it seeks and maintains a monopoly of violence. Without this there is no State. Those who support the State in any way support the use of violence, implicitly or explicitly. This is why rebellions rarely succeed.

The real fight should not be for control of the means of exploitation(the State), it is not enough to see the State in a "dormant" phase, as has happened before. It flairs up again every time, more powerful and virulent than ever. This is rightly called the Ratchet Effect.

The State and liberty exist in a finite world where augmenting one diminishes the other. It is impossible to have maximum liberty and the all powerful State at the same time.

In my own opinion, the real battle is not about what the State does or doesn't do, or who is running it, it is about the existence of an entity that can do what ever it wants to whomever it wants through "the law".
The rinos don't understand this and neither do the neo cons, but either you resist the State or you are feeding it. With the Ruling Elite the litmus test to be passed if you want to be "in" is simply acceptance and accommodation to the State, regardless of party.

Tim| 9.18.10 @ 9:41AM

This whole matter reminds me of the Movie Braveheart.

William Wallace tells Robert the Bruce in responce to Robert informing Wallace that the Scottish Nobles were in bed with the English Lords and both conspired against the Poor

Wallace correctly pointed out to Robert the Bruce:
That people don't follow titles they follow courage!

Thus those that display courage and speak truth to power will political destroy the lie driven scum this November. It's just that simple!

Petronius| 9.18.10 @ 10:37AM

Aye
But did Sir William Wallace yell "FREEDOM" as he was disemboweled?

dale wrigley| 9.19.10 @ 12:53AM

"I couldn't have said it better myself:

"conservative principles are specifically principles rooted in the American tradition and the American experience, and they stem from the laws of nature and of nature's God, which means they are right and good and just."

You see, what the liberals can't understand is that we're right, because we're following the laws of God and nature. How can you tell our policies are following the laws of God and Nature? Because they're right. If we were wrong, then we wouldn't be. It's as simple as that.

martin j smith| 9.19.10 @ 11:42AM

Even in very Blue nyc there are many voters who do not buy the Liberal BS. Bloomberg you may have heard is going to help moderate candidates ( that means Democrat Party folks ). In this siutation you are really getting who the RINOS really are--The are Socialist Democrats who are LIARS about their true political leanings. As with Bloomberg,Castle and others you all know they show their true colors when they lose.

Joanna | 6.6.11 @ 6:02AM

I agree with most of these comments too.
UTI Treatment

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|96 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|98 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|55 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|24 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|29 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|17 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|32 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|88 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6:34PM

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6:01PM

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 4:55PM

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

Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 4:01PM

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 2:46PM

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 2:24PM

Boehner to Enforce Hastert Rule with Immigration Reform

Jordan Gonzalez | 1:10PM

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?