-
The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal
June 18, 2013 | 105 comments
-
The IRS Ten: The New Keating Five
June 13, 2013 | 54 comments
-
Mark Levin: The Constitution’s Churchill
June 11, 2013 | 215 comments
-
George Clooney’s Perfect Storm
June 6, 2013 | 91 comments
-
IRS Commissioner Aided Tax Cheat Congressman
June 4, 2013 | 55 comments
Political Hay
The Case for a Conservative
National Review goes Establishment Republican as movement faces 2012 election and the future.
Did you hear the news about National Review?
Somebody dug deep into the archives and came up with a couple of the old classics from the days when William F. Buckley Jr. was sailing at the front of the conservative movement.
Who could forget that great 1964 cover story: Earth to Barry, illustrated by an astronaut-suited, helmeted and visored would-be GOP presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, bug-eyed behind the trademark black-framed glasses, floating above the earth tethered to an Arizona cactus way down below. With the cover banner reading “The Editors: Against Goldwater.” In which Buckley’s National Review roasted Goldwater for his proclivity to shoot from the hip, his countless verbal miscues (“Let’s lob one into the men’s room at the Kremlin”), his seemingly perpetual addiction to applying minor ideological rigidities to major policy, giving liberals a chance to paint conservatives as extremist nuts.
Then there was that jewel of a cover story from January of 1980: “Acting Conservative: Reagan’s Love Affair with FDR and Truman,” the cartoon depicting a lecherous Reagan on bended knee to a demure, smitten GOP elephant wearing a bridal veil. Discreetly pinned to the underside of his wedding tailcoat were political buttons reading “Happy Days Are Here Again: FDR Forever” and “I’m Just Wild About Harry.” Accompanied by the cover banner declaring “The Editors: The Case for Bush and the GOP Establishment.”This one excoriated presidential hopeful Ronald Reagan for pretending to conservatism when he had voted repeatedly for FDR and campaigned actively for Truman. It scorched Reagan for his inattention to detail, his intellectual idiosyncrasies that let him blurt gaffe after gaffe along the lines of trees being responsible for pollution. And made a strong case that the time-tested wisdom of the GOP Establishment should have Republicans looking at smart, reasonable people like George H.W. Bush, Howard Baker, Bob Dole or John Anderson.
And perhaps best of all there was that famous column by National Review’s current editor a mere five years ago titled ”Run, Newt, Run,” an admiring look at former Speaker Newt Gingrich and urging him to run for president in 2008.
Wait. Stop.
No, those first two stories were never written by William F. Buckley Jr. In fact, they never happened, period. Much less did his famous National Review flee the conservative field as the incoming missiles from the GOP Establishment (not to mention the rest of the outside liberal world) rocketed into the conservative camp in the days of Goldwater and Reagan. Buckley never picked Rockefeller or Scranton over Goldwater, and he chose his great conservative friend Reagan over the GOP Establishment favorite George H.W. Bush and the Establishment rest in 1980. Buckley was first, last, and always making the case for conservatism.
But in fact, yes indeed — that third story mentioned? “Run, Newt, Run” — a genuinely admiring 2006 story urging Newt Gingrich to run for president in 2008? That is not a figment of anyone’s imagination. It was in fact written by National Review editor Rich Lowry and can be found right here.
Which leads to the obvious question.
When one picks up the current issue of National Review with its mocking cartoon cover of Newt Gingrich entitled Newt’s World and a banner headline reading ”The Editors: Against Gingrich,” one wonders what happened to Mr. Lowry over the course of the last four years. How did Newt Gingrich, the man enthusiastically touted for the White House a mere five years ago by Lowry as having “reestablished himself as a party leader through sheer intellectual energy” — become transformed into an arrogant intellectual nut whose “character flaws — his impulsiveness, his grandiosity, his weakness for half-baked (and not especially conservative) ideas made him a poor Speaker of the House.”
If the latter assessment from NR is true now, certainly Mr. Lowry should have noticed all this in 2006. But, alas, apparently not. Meaning either Lowry was asleep at the switch in 2006 — or something else has happened since that period at NR that mysteriously changed the perception of Newt Gingrich’s performance in what was already by 2006 long ago history.
I don’t mean to pick on Mr. Lowry here, or my friends at National Review. In fact, Andy McCarthy at NR made bold to dissent from his editors, and Thomas Sowell was on the pages of National Review Online differing from the editors as well.
But I do think Lowry and company have provided something to reflect on as we stand at the edge of the 2012 elections. Something that was touched on by our friend Brent Bozell in his reaction to the National Review anti-Gingrich editorial. And for those who came in late and are familiar with Mr. Bozell only from his regular appearances on Hannity discussing the latest findings from the bottom of the liberal media barrel as discovered by his great invention the Media Research Center, why and what Bozell said is important. He is both the nephew of NR founder William F. Buckley Jr. and the namesake son of Mr. Buckley’s brother-in-law, himself a prominent conservative Founding Father.
Here’s Brent’s take on the NR editorial as reported by Newsmax:
“National Review’s endorsement of Romney & Huntsman proves only that this is no longer the magazine of William F. Buckley Jr.,” he posted on his page above a photo of Buckley and President Ronald Reagan sharing a laugh. “My uncle would be appalled.”
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (286) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/27/the-case-for-a-conservative
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Clint| 12.27.11 @ 6:36AM
" The New Hampshire Gazette
The Chickenhawk Hall Of Shame
name:
Willard Mitt Romney
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
March 12, 1947
home state:
Michigan
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
excuse:
None to speak of
preferred activity:
Trying to talk people into becoming Mormons
occupation:
Climbing ambition's greased pole
When your daddy's a Governor and a Cabinet Secretary, it's amazing how your odds of being drafted diminish."
Jack in Wi.| 12.27.11 @ 8:03AM
I was a contributor and financial supporter of National Review for 42 years. I even had dinner with Buckley twice. When Buckley sold out to the neocons he destroyed any credibilty the magazine ever had. It just became a bad and poorly written copy of Commentary. Ann Coulter called the guys who run National Review a bunch of girly men. She sure got that right. They are all a bunch of chickeh hawks who love wars for Israel, as long as they don't have to fight in any.
Doorgunner| 12.27.11 @ 8:48AM
Jack and Clint-
Two never-served, subversive, chickens***, racist, b.s. artists doing everything they can to re-elect Obama.
"[E]verything they can", of course, amounting nothing more than running their mouths and trolling... lots of trolling.
Clint| 12.27.11 @ 8:56AM
You're The Troll, DogHummer.
" Dr. Ron Paul served in the United States Air Force as a flight surgeon for several years (1963-1965). While in the air force, Paul reached the rank of Captain. Directly after his service in the air force, Paul worked again as a flight surgeon for the United States Air National Guard (1965-1968).
" Paul served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force in the 1960s, spending time on the ground in countries like Ethiopia, Iran, Pakistan, South Korea, and Turkey. He also sits on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Doorgunner| 12.27.11 @ 9:10AM
So much for Paul's service record; what's yours?
As Army aircrew, once a year our flight surgeon uses his FINGER on me. But for presidential material, I have to pass on Paul. I don't want a President whose foreign policy consists of having his THUMB up his own butt.
Clint| 12.27.11 @ 9:59AM
Apparently, Lots Of Men Have Had Their Fingers On You And Their Thumbs Up Your Butt, DogHummer.
I Was Killed At The Battle Of Spectator Hill By General Mittens Romney And His Red Coats.
They Flipped And Flopped Me To Death.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
kl mcklavin| 12.27.11 @ 10:28AM
What miserable pieces of shit make comments on this page! Rave on shitheads!
doo dah| 12.27.11 @ 10:31AM
Miserable? You got that right.
Most of these old men are "disabled," and a few of them have genuine disabilities and sit in wheelchairs all day long.
What else are they going to do with their time?
Wrinkly Stinky Old Dude| 12.27.11 @ 11:28AM
Your mom.
Mitzi| 12.28.11 @ 2:24PM
Good job Wrinkly! Sooo funny!
Occam's Tool| 12.27.11 @ 12:22PM
Yes, we know that you did no service, despite the fact that you were apparently a college athlete, Clint. We know that you aren't worth the poo that your dad crapped out in his final moments.
Clint| 12.27.11 @ 12:45PM
Uh Oh !
American Spectator's Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firster Propaganda Squad Cheerleader Captain,Tool Job Tries To Sell AnotherOne Of His Israel Firster Crap Sandwiches, Again.
Why Didn't Ya JoinIsrael's IDF Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Traitor Bastard, Con Job.
Hmmmmm ?
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
effin away| 12.27.11 @ 1:52PM
Clint's a wheelchair case. Go easy on him; he's full of rage.
WJ| 12.27.11 @ 2:31PM
Hey Einstein, how were those guys racist? Have you elevated Israel to the level of it's own race?
L. Ross| 12.27.11 @ 10:16AM
Clint:
I know there is really no sense in responding to you. And frankly, there is a great deal about Dr. Paul that I like. However, I find his foreign policy to be foolish and his support for Bradley Manning to be reprehensible.
All that said, to praise him as a "warrior", while calling other people who may have received draft deferments "chickenhawks" is ignorant.
Flight Surgeons, indeed all Air Force doctors, enter the Air Force as captains. To say that Dr. Paul reached the rank of captain is disingenuous. He was COMISSIONED as a captain. He was never promoted. He didn't serve long enough. Additionally, by serving as a flight surgeon, he ensured a safe job with the military which had zero opportunity for combat.
I say all this as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force who has been flying since 1985.
The notion that Dr. Paul's military service makes him more suitable for commander in chief than his opponents is risible. Maybe Surgeon General, but even that is a stretch.
His service is not in the same league as Carter's, Nixon's, Bush 1's, LBJ's, Kennedy's, Eisenhower's, Truman's. It is much more in line with the service of Bush 2.
Please not that some of our worst presidents had extensive military careers (LBJ, Nixon, Carter) while one of our greatest had none (Coolidge). I wish you would upgrade your standard rant, since it shows a profound lack of insight into what is required from a commander in chief as well as undue regard for a flight surgeon as a warrior.
Jack in Wi.| 12.27.11 @ 10:25AM
Ron Paul gets by far more contributions from the active military then all the rest of the candidates combined. He gets 10 times as much as Romney and 100 times as much as Newt. Our men and women in iniform know that Ron Paul will think of them first and formost, not some foreign country or some intrest of some big plutocrats like the oil business. For 10 years they have been used as cannon fodder for these intrests. They want a sane foreign policy, if they have to shed their blood. War should absolutly be the last option, not the the first. It also be properly debated and declared like the Constitution mandates.
Joe R| 12.27.11 @ 10:56AM
That's complete bullshit. Where are your figures that RuPaul gets more contributions from active military than all the other candidates combined? Post a link or something to prove it. You won't because you can't. That statement is false just like most of the other RuPaul crap you read here in the comment section.
Clint| 12.27.11 @ 1:12PM
Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Ad ~ Who is Mitt Romney? Created by NIU Students for Liberty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1wPrsEP2nc
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Jack in Wi.| 12.27.11 @ 3:09PM
Joe R. They had an article on this site up all weekend that proves that Ron Paul gets the most contributions by far then all the rest of the Republicans combined. I got the 10 times more then Romney and 100 times more then Newt from that article. It was writen by Doug Bandow, probably the best writer on this site. Ron Paul got the most funds, by far, from the active military in the last election as well. These figures are well known to all chicken hawks here who want to place their heads in the sand and pretend that they don't exist.
coal carrier| 12.27.11 @ 12:47PM
For you Ron Paul fans, do your homework. The reason we still have Bubba with his bony finger and his lying wife is because people voted for a 20% candidate, Ross Perot.
rhoetus| 12.27.11 @ 2:17PM
coal, Are you looking in the mirror again? I didn't vote for Perot ever. I did vote for Ron Paul in 1988.
David| 12.27.11 @ 6:11PM
And I fear the fall out which will follow Ron Paul to an independent bid in 2012 will be even greater than that for Perot.
I'll be one of those voting independent rather than for the Obamessiah or any neocon big government Republican the establishment selects (and is backed by conservatives duped by the neocons), even knowing it may give us four more years of the Obamanation -- we will lose just as much with four more years of the Obamessiah as we will with neocons/neocon servants like Gingrich or Romney.
Margie| 12.27.11 @ 7:10PM
Reality and truth aren't their strong suits, they just don't care.
Occam's Tool| 12.27.11 @ 12:10PM
I was a VA doc. I did have my background check, etc., and worked extensively with vets. That gives me no claim to military service. Being a flight surgeon compares not to DGs ACTIVE combat service. You, Clint and Jack, are scumbags.
Thank you for your service, Doorgunner. Colonel Ross, I share your sentiments on Paul. I don't have a significant problem with his financial pronouncements. But his foreign policy and Bradley Manning support is disgusting. I thank you for your service and your insight, sir.
Clint| 12.27.11 @ 12:58PM
Interesting, That American Spectator's Resident Israel Firster Smear Bund Captain,Tool Job Makes It A Habit Of Attempting To Smear American Military Officers.
You're The RINO-CINO Israel Firster,Who Said He'll Vote For The RINO-CINO Frontman. Mittens Romney.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
C Bowen | 12.27.11 @ 6:51PM
You are the one who wants to nuclear genocide the Middle East right?
Margie| 12.27.11 @ 7:11PM
Bravo, O.T. well said as always, and with CLASS.
Clint| 12.27.11 @ 12:51PM
Interesting,That The Israel Firster RINO-CINO Smear Bund Doesn't Wanna Talk About Mittens Romney And The Bradley Manning Issue.
Mitt Romney Responds to Question about Bradley Manning / War Crimes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EtmGted3D0
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Ted| 12.27.11 @ 6:01PM
"The Bradley Manning Issue?"
There's really no issue: he is currently an active duty Army PFC (E-3) accused of giving classified information to people who weren't supposed to have it.
Pretty soon, he's probably going to be a convicted active duty Army PVT (E-1) who has lost all pay, allowances, and entitlements who is going to have a rather long assignment at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Ft. Leavenworth, KS.
There he is going to have all the time in the world to deal with his "problems." He can clench his little fists, stomp his little feet, and just generally carry on to his heart's content.
Fred| 12.27.11 @ 9:09PM
Who cares whether he was a warrior? In a republican society, active-duty military should keep their political views to themselves; that's what Washington did.
Quartermaster| 12.29.11 @ 11:30AM
LBJ did not have an extensive military career. He remained a Congressman while he was "in" the Navy during WW2 and was recalled to DC, along with the rest of the political officers who were just getting in the way.
That Lord is just now finding out that NR has gone establishment is truly disappointing given how he likes to appear to be so intelligent and observant.
Colonel, just because a man got a draft deferment does not mean he isn't a chickenhawk. Frankly, most of them worked at getting those deferments. The current younger crop simply didn't want to go. People like Jonah Goldberg are Chickenhawks in the truest sense of the word.
You are right about Paul and his rank. I've pointed this out to Clint in the past, but either he doesn't read honest criticism (unlike what the majority of the trash talking talking 16 year olds masquerading as conservatives dish on these threads) or he is blind. But even those trash talking 16 year olds that point out the business with Bradley Manning are correct.
effin away| 12.27.11 @ 11:45AM
Time to change your Depend diapers, Clint.
Sorry to hear you're inCONtinent.
Clint| 12.27.11 @ 12:54PM
Time To Sniff Bibi's Depends RINO-CINO Smear Bund Boy, effin Asshat.
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Asshat.
joystick| 12.27.11 @ 1:54PM
Schoolboys on recess. That's what you posters are. Perpetual schoolyard bullies.
USSAlabama| 12.27.11 @ 2:18PM
Only they're not the bullies - they're the sissies.
"Israel firster" is a far-left fringe code word which one expects to hear from the mouths of supporters of Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul, among other carefully disguised commie groups like ADL and ACLU.
Here, they just ruin the comment threads.
WJ| 12.27.11 @ 2:34PM
Actually Israel Firster is a patriotic American declaration that the interests of the USA come before Israel.
Some un-patriotic anti-American types around here don't agree. In fact, they would say that those dead US sailors from the USS Liberty had it coming.
USSAlabama| 12.27.11 @ 3:32PM
Respectfully WJ, it has a much more progressive provenance than you might think.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2.....ism-smear/
chuck| 12.27.11 @ 7:57PM
The Paulbots just can't admit that their Messiah's foreign policy is as left wing as Dennis Kuchinich's.
MM| 12.27.11 @ 8:31PM
...bingo...
Fred| 12.27.11 @ 9:11PM
"Left-wing?" Since when is bringing the boys home from Okinawa "only" 66 years after the surrender "left-wing?"
T. Holcomb| 12.27.11 @ 8:50PM
Ron Paul is not now nor has he been a Tea Party Republican. He's too Liberal. Newt is the Tea Party's Presidential candidate.
Fred| 12.27.11 @ 9:13PM
Only if the Tea Party wants a candidate who in 1979 cast a vote in Congress to create the Department of Education, wrote a book in 1982 advocating a dramatic increase in the NASA budget for the purpose of intergalactic settlement (where's that in the Constitution?), favors cap-and-trade, and favors the individual mandate. Oh, and who's for amnesty.
If the Tea Party likes Newt, it might as well vote for Obama.
Jack in Wi.| 12.27.11 @ 10:17AM
I meant to say subscriber and financial contributor of National Review, not editorial contributor.. I think the reason that the editors of National Review are for Romney is because they think that Newt with all his baggage is unelectable. They are right on that. Newt has huge ethics problems. He also is a hopeless windbag and self promoter. Romney is their boy because they think he has a chance to be elected.
They are wrong on both counts. Romney and Newt are both Neocon, chicken hawk, warmongers who love bailouts, and Obamacare, Romneycare or Newtcare. There is not a dimes worth of difference between Newt, Romney, or Obama. It is all more of the same, more war, more bailouts for the rich, more big government, and more financial collapse for the rest of us.
Alan Brooks| 12.27.11 @ 1:59PM
"Two never-served, subversive, chickens***, racist, b.s. artists doing everything they can to re-elect Obama."
It's not wrong to be racist if one admits it. If a David Duke says "I don't like blacks" we know where he is coming from; but he doesn't. He is hiding behind evolutionary racism.
So if Clint or Jack writes they don't like Jews, who says they have to?
Alan Brooks | 12.27.11 @ 2:39PM
... we can't force anyone to like the Other, but if they fire on Ft. Sumter, their Appomatox will come someday.
Clint| 12.27.11 @ 3:32PM
We Don't Like Israel Firsters,ObamaBoy Brooks.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Alan Brooks| 12.27.11 @ 6:34PM
"Clint| 12.27.11 @ 3:32PM
We Don't Like Israel Firsters,ObamaBoy Brooks."
You got the second part right; but I'm an Obama-Firster, not an Israel-Firster.
Alan Brooks| 12.27.11 @ 6:36PM
...Blacks come first, because one you go black you never go back. Try it sometime Clint; you live in NY, don't you- well, you can have your pick there.
JimP| 12.27.11 @ 9:07AM
Speaking of Ann Coulter. It's "bizarre" to me that she could lambast the guys at NR, yet she is a big Romney supporter. She apparently hates Rudy Giulianni and said in '08 that she'd vote for Hillary if Rudy got the nomination, yet she's a big Mitt fan and he's to the left of Rudi. Anybody have any ideas on what is going on with her?
W| 12.27.11 @ 10:12AM
Rudy was a good mayor and exercised leadership during the 9/11 attack. But Rudy supported Mario Cuomo over Patacki in the NY governor race. Rudy also said during a 2008 debate that since abortion is a constitutional right then there should be federal funding of abortion otherwise one could not exercise that constitunioal right.
Dan| 12.27.11 @ 10:44AM
Years and years of being a slut in her private life are finally catching up with her.
Her intellect is finally, and inexorably, reflecting this darkening of her life.
Dai Alanye | 12.27.11 @ 11:24AM
Why would anyone go out of his way to make a comment as stupid and destructive as Dan's? Ann Coulter has been a force for the conservative cause for many years despite a tendency to hyperbole and the occasional backing (mostly tongue in cheek) of oddball candidates.
Attractive conservative women receive so many pointless attacks that one factor must be, I suppose, a feeling of sexual inadequacy on the part of the attacker. But perhaps Dan has some rational thought behind his brief screed. If so, let him offer something more explicit than a smear.
steve| 12.27.11 @ 11:35AM
Dan is an idiot
Dan| 12.27.11 @ 11:43AM
You forgot your adjective that you threw in the other day.........
It's not my fault that Romney can't persuade the rank and file that he's the best candidate.
Nor is it my fault that the Democrats and the media will use his mormonism against him in the general, and are just waiting eagerly for the chance to do so, just holding their fire as it were.
But hey, continue to think that Ann Coulter's behavior is perfectly normal, continue to think that Coulter's commentary is perfectly rational.
Continue to justify and rationalize to yourself her bizarre utterances, such as that one against Romney of less than a year standing, that if Romney were to gain the nomination that it would ENSURE Obama's victory, and that now all of a sudden ONLY Romney can prevail against Obama.
Continue to tie yourself into intellectual knots trying to justify that one.
Me, on the other hand, will just write off such observations from her, AND THERE ARE OTHER observations too, crying out to be equally written off as intellectually bizarre from her.
Moreover, I'll let you answer the guy's query, as to what explains her recent behavior, and which if you've not noticed, isn't so recent anymore, which seems to be a trend.
As for her personal life, it's hardly a closed book now is it? If you've read some of the articles about her, articles she's cooperated in, she's pretty open about the fact that's she's been around the block.
Or is that just too much for you.
Dan| 12.27.11 @ 11:37AM
NONETHELESS Coulter HAS been going off the deep end with her recent utterances hasn't she?
Who here would proclaim that she is the exact same voice that she was five years ago, or five years before that?
The guy asked for what could account for her recent behavior.
And I pronounced upon that subject.
She's been bouncing around from guy to guy. That's not some figment; that's just a fact.
Who here believes that women in particular can do such things without that inevitably having an impact upon overall judgement?
steve| 12.27.11 @ 12:11PM
How is your personal life Dan? Have you been with one woman you entire life? How about Newt, is his judgment affected by three wives? So a woman's judgment is affected if she sleeps with more than some number (what is it,enlighten us) of men? How about men? How many women can we have?
Your comments are bizarre.
Dan| 12.27.11 @ 1:52PM
Is Coulter exempt from the kinds of ferocity she typically dishes out?
Was it me, or was it Coulter who got up at CPAC as I recall, and tarnished John Edwards as a what? ---------------- Do you recall what she branded Edwards?
Coulter is no Saint, and she'd be the first to acknowledge as much.
But my point wasn't so much about her personal life, as it was that the misdeeds in one's personal life can warp judgement.
Witness former Governor Mark Sanford.
Witness former Governor McGreevey.
Witness former Senator Christopher Dodd.
Moreover, how is that you can blast Gingrich for his personal life, and hold that against him, and simultaneously say that such activities cast into doubt his political judgement, yet spare Ann Coulter such skepticism.
Either personal deeds affect public judgement, or they don't. Or maybe as I've remarked, that decades worth of such behavior CAN warp judgement.
Have you ever taken a good look at demographic break downs by party? Take a good look at the political predispositions of single women over a certain year. Newsflash, those women by overwhelming numbers don't vote Republican.
Now why would that be?
Why would single women, single career women, almost uniformly vote Democrat.
What we're seeing is that personal lifestyle will ultimately reflect itself in public attitudes and votes.
What did you make of her cheerleading Christ Christie for instance? Christie is a guy who religiously avoids Mark Levin, and why does he avoid Mark Levin, a well-known radio host that broadcasts throughout his state?
Ann Coulter has been getting erratic for quite some time, but she's a big girl, she can take the shots as well as dish them out.
Haven't you asked yourself why would such a woman be pals with a cretin like Bill Maher?
Other Conservatives certainly have.
But this isn't about Ann Coulter; she's irrelevant to the gravity of the issues confronting the GOP right now.
And I certainly didn't have any intention of going to the mattresses over her or her personal life. And yes I've several of her books upstairs.
And moreover, I've had some personal interaction with her............
W| 12.27.11 @ 6:41PM
Dan,
I don't know anything about Coulter's personal life. But I have read all her books, and her latest "Demonic" is her best. Her weekly column is good. I don't know what you mean that she has changed or is erratic. She does not support Gingrich, but that does not make her erratic. Not to belabor this but how has she changed or is erratic?
I can't stand that weasel Maher. I remember she was a guest on his old show Politically Incorrect. She was selling her books.
pinkelephant| 12.29.11 @ 12:18PM
I wouldn't go so far to make the claims you're making, but you have a point ---
Coulter has called Gingrich and Huckabee liberals, but has called Romney and Christie conservatives. What is the biggest difference between the two sets of people? Romney supported much of Obama's health care plan in his state. Christie takes a moderate position on gun control. Could it be that both Romney and Christie are non-committed on gay marriage, while Gingrich and Huckabee never changed their opposition? Wait, wasn't Ann Coulter named the Honorary Chair for the Advisory Council of GOProud?
Why doesn't Coulter come out and admit that she doesn't like Gingrich and Huckabee because they oppose gay marriage.
JR| 12.27.11 @ 10:29PM
Hey I like Ann but even I feel she is a slut. If my two daughters came home with any of the guys she has been with I'd be in the Everglades with a shovel and a bag of bones. Like I tell my girls all the time date white guys of European descent. Since they are daddy's girls the thought of doing otherwise makes them sick. If any of ya'll dont like it kiss my ass. So no offense but Ann is a slut and I wouldnt want my little girls to emulate her.
rhoetus| 12.27.11 @ 11:20AM
She knows how to sell books.
Dan| 12.27.11 @ 1:58PM
THAT she does.
Alan Brooks | 12.27.11 @ 2:35PM
"Anybody have any ideas on what is going on with her?"
Coulter shoots her mouth off to sell her books.
Alan Brooks | 12.27.11 @ 2:37PM
"rhoetus| 12.27.11 @ 11:20AM
She knows how to sell books."
Didn't see your comment until after posting mine; We can ALL see what Coulter is about.
Margie| 12.27.11 @ 7:18PM
Speak for yourselves.
rhoetus| 12.27.11 @ 7:45PM
I've been active in politics since the 60's, read a lot of books and keep my own counsel.
Hayek, von Mises, Read, Clarence B. Carson, James Burnham were my early political mentors.
I don't need the kids at National Review to think for me.
Margie| 12.28.11 @ 12:59AM
I've got my own Counsel, too. His Name is Christ, the LORD.
And I sure know phonies when I see them.
Anybody accusing Ann Coulter of being a "slut" when they know no such thing, is a FRAUD.
VonMisesJr| 12.27.11 @ 9:23AM
Jack,
My favorite website over time has been www.jewishworldreview.com and I used to read Lowry since I thought he was intelligent. But he continually ticked me off and I scorned him several times via their comments to the contributor before I stopped reading his garbage. Sowell, Williams, Krauthammer, Victor Hanson Davis, Barone and Blankley still make this a wonderful cite, but I simply ignore Lowry and his GOP bootlicking.
By the way, Jeffrey Lord, you have summed up what I have been feeling since I was treated like yesterday's lunch as 75 AFP patriots and I protested McConnell's support for earmarks. He recanted on the floor while we occupied his Senate Office promising never to give to the RNC again.
And Boehner made us proud recently with his being the only Republican named in the "insider trading" scandal along with Pelosi, Kerry, Moran and other liberals.
Oldefarte| 12.27.11 @ 1:51PM
"....".... Newsmax....Ron Paul: Long-Time Former Aide Eric Dondero Slams Candidate Tuesday, December 27, 2011 12:09 PM...By: Tom O'Connell...Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas “was opposed to the war in Afghanistan and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11,” but ultimately voted in favor of them because of pressure from his staff, a former aide says.The aide, Eric Dondero, worked for Paul from 1987 to 2003. In a statement released Monday, Dondero said he resigned over political and personal issues, including Paul’s opposition to the war in Iraq, reports DailyCaller.com.
Dondero claims Paul subscribed to conspiracy theories behind the Sept. 11 attacks, including that they were “coordinated by the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about” them. Paul also took a cold stance on the victims, says Dondero.“He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration,” the statement reads.Dondero writes that he and other Paul staffers agreed to resign if Paul voted against the invasion of Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks, and that Paul changed his vote “at the very last minute.”“I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide,” Dondero says.Dondero’s statement also responds to allegations that the candidate is anti-Semitic, homophobic, and racist.On anti-Semitism: Paul, is “absolutely” not an anti-Semite, he continued, but he is “most certainly anti-Israel and anti-Israeli in general,” and “supports [the Palestinians] calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.” On racism: “In short,” Dondero said, Paul is not a racist — just “out of touch with both Hispanic and black culture.”On homosexuals: Dondero writes that Paul has no interest in their private lives but is ” personally uncomfortable around homosexuals, no different from a lot of older folks of his era,” Dondero writes........'
Clint| 12.27.11 @ 3:48PM
When Will The Media Smear Bund's Gloria Borger Apologize To America For Being A Smear Artist,Who Failed To Be A Professional Journalist?
Even Dr.Ron Paul's Israel Firster Staffer Turned Opponent, Dondero/Rittberg Demonstrates That The Media Smear Bund Are Agenda Driven Liars.
" Written By : Eric Dondero
Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92
Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President
1987/88
I have been asked by various media the last few days for my comments, view of the current situation regarding my former boss Ron Paul, as he runs for the presidency on the Republican ticket.
I’ve noticed in some media that my words have been twisted and used for an agenda from both sides. And I wish to set the record straight with media that I trust and know will get the story right: conservative/libertarian-conservative bloggers.
Is Ron Paul a “racist.” In short, No. I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant. It’s safe to say that I was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual, whether it be traveling to Fairbanks, Alaska or Boston, Massachusetts in the presidential race, or across the congressional district to San Antonio or Corpus Christi, Texas.
He has frequently hired blacks for his office staff, starting as early as 1988 for the Libertarian campaign. He has also hired many Hispanics, including his current District staffer Dianna Gilbert-Kile. "
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Media Smear Bund.
Oldefarte| 12.27.11 @ 4:16PM
Again, the above Newsmax article was dated today and can be viewed on their website. Quit fabricating your BS w/o proof, specifically dated articles which can be independently verified/viewed from its original sources!!!!!!!
chuck| 12.27.11 @ 8:01PM
He made these same statements here on AS last week.
American Spectator.. still at the cutting edge!
Fred| 12.27.11 @ 9:22PM
Anyone who quits a congressman's staff and then says that the congressman did something under pressure from his staff has no idea of the actual relationship between a congressman and his staff. Staffers are a dime a dozen. They're paid squat and they beg for their jobs. When one goes, there's a pile of applications on the desk the next day.
Ron Paul: pressured by staffers. Give me a break.
emo| 12.27.11 @ 8:47PM
Everything about you comes down to the "Joos" doesnt it Jack?
martin j smith| 12.27.11 @ 6:59AM
I too want a Conservative and not a "Moderate" or a person with no convictions on such areas as the Pro-Free Market and American Exceptionalism.
I do not support Huntsman,Paul, or Romney and Gingrich is mighty close on the borderline there.
What troubles me most is the Republican Leadershit ( and I do mean SHIT ) having a mighty haughty attitude towards say the Tea Party when it was the Tea Party that energyzed 2010 and the victory there in. I totally distrust the Republican leadershit at this time.
Clint| 12.27.11 @ 7:21AM
"ANKENY, Iowa – 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul won another local tea party presidential straw poll in Iowa tonight, outshining his competitors in a display of growing organizational strength around the state.
This local win follows Ron Paul’s endorsement by two Buena Vista-area tea party co-founders, his endorsement bytwo Dubuque-area tea party founders, and his winning first place in the Dubuque Tea Party presidential straw poll."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
USSAlabama| 12.27.11 @ 1:13PM
Clint - just in case you don't know . . .
Ron Paul's support does not come mainly from Republicans.
Clint| 12.27.11 @ 3:40PM
Do Your Homework Propaganda Squad Boy.
" The survey finds Paul’s small government attitudes and straight-talking approach are his clearest strengths. More than half of all Republicans and GOP-leaning independents say his views on limited government are a major reason to support him; fewer than one in five hold such views against him."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Oldefarte| 12.27.11 @ 5:07PM
'......Ron Paul supporters are easy to recognize, their signature headgear, when properly applied also keeps fat from dripping on your grill and flaring up. Also his name is Barry.
Ron Paul supporters not only appear when his name is invoked 3 times, it drives them crazy, an admittedly short trip.
The Federal Reserve killed most of Ron Paul's supporters puppies.
If you're bitten by a Ron Paul supporter if you don't become one, you do become a carrier.
Where do Ron Paul supporters have their meetups? A house of mirrors.
Ron Paul supporters never get sick and can only be killed by decapitating them. There can be/is only one.
When Ron Paul returns to the Earth, his followers believe he will restore the constitution so well that the ink will smell wet and also miraculously restore the moat around America to its pre-civil war glory.
To a Ron Paul supporter the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution are collectively known as the Bill of WRONGS!
Every time a bell rings a Ron Paul supporter get his mouth very salivated.
Ron Paul supporters think everyone who doesn't support him fears him like they fear getting abducted by aliens, again.
When the feces found in the U.S. Capital was determined to be Ron Paul's, his supporters were quick to hail it the best idea, anywhere, ever and also delicious.
If Ron Paul falls in a forest, his supporter(s) will claim it's because gravity is inherently unconstitutional.
Some claim Ron Paul supporters spam online polls, the truth is they just all have the same I.P. address because... Hey! LOOK kittens!
The most ardent of Ron Paul's followers think the US government is too big when it has more people than the secret number Ron Paul has written on his magic anti-alien hemp underpants. ......'
W| 12.27.11 @ 6:44PM
O/F
Excellent points. I usually avoided your comments because I would get eye strain with a one page paragraph. Now I can see! Keep it up.
Miss Rumbumb| 12.27.11 @ 7:21PM
Who the Hell are you? The resident school marm?
W| 12.27.11 @ 10:31PM
Do you have a problem with school, Mullah?
USSAlabama| 12.27.11 @ 3:54PM
My research was done before I commented.
You seem to be the one in need of facts, so this may help enlighten you - just a little.
http://campaign2012.washington.....ace/276751
USSAlabama| 12.27.11 @ 4:08PM
I'm still laughing over having been called a "Squad Boy".
Guess I didn't realize Clint was just a troll.
Any of the many who also comment on face book will be laughing at that too. It really would be better here on the site if we did as we are encouraged and skip troll comments without replying.
Fred| 12.27.11 @ 9:23PM
By "Republicans," you mean "dittoheads," right?
Oldefarte| 12.27.11 @ 2:53PM
'....Newsmax...Paul: Defense Funding Bill Marks 'Descent Into Terrorism' Tuesday, December 27, 2011 11:40 AM...By: Newsmax Wires...The Pentagon spending bill that Congress approved this month represents an abomination against democracy, says Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, Politico reports. The remarks, which came in a weekly phone message to his supporters, represent another verbal assault by the Texas congressman against what he sees as government overreach, but what other politicians on both sides of the aisle see as necessary national defense.The National Defense Authorization Act includes almost $670 million to pay for military budgets and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The more Paul rails against the Pentagon, the less likely it becomes that he will win the Republican nomination. That would be a long shot, regardless of his defense policy views, though Paul has polled very well in Iowa.As for his comments, “The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty,” Paul said. “To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured. The Patriot Act, as bad as its violations against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly.”One element of the defense act that particularly riles Paul provides for the detention of terrorism suspects and reaffirms the administration’s authority to detain those suspected of having connections to terrorist groups.“The Fifth Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning,” Paul said. “It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about the due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented and without access to legal counsel. The danger of the NDAA is its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the U.S. government without trial.”Paul says the bill not only allows our government to imprison members of al-Qaida and the Taliban, but anyone accused of supporting or being associated with groups like them.“How closely associated, and what constitutes substantial support?” he said. “What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or suppose a political candidate? Are all donors of that candidate or supporters of that candidate now suspects and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?” Declaring war on the war against terrorism probably isn’t such a shrewd political idea on Paul’s part either. Both Republicans and reasonable-minded Democrats, including the Obama administration, support the same vigilance against terrorism that Paul criticizes.But the Texas congressman is sticking to his guns — or lack of guns in this case. He sees it as a case of presidential authority run amok.“The president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law,” Paul said. “That should chill all of us to our cores. The Bill of Rights has no exceptions for really bad people or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system, it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire United States is a battlefield in the war on terror. This is a very dangerous development, indeed. Beware.”........'
Oldefarte| 12.27.11 @ 4:17PM
"... Written By : Eric Dondero..." Prove your BS if possible by providing verifiable sources for this!!!!
USSAlabama| 12.27.11 @ 5:10PM
He's tired out by now Olde. We will do better not to respond to these trolls anymore.
mittlieder| 12.27.11 @ 7:07AM
I quit my subscription to natl review awile back. iT SEEMS TO LOVE THOSE MUSHY MODERATES AND ATTACKS CONSERVATIVES its sad because we have so few outlets for our view and with so few taxpayers
mitch poremba| 12.27.11 @ 7:45AM
As a conservative, very well done, but one that was not talked about which can be somewhat of a conservative is Perry. He wants to get rid of some of the blouted Federal Dept's and cut Congress's role to what it should be, to me, more like Reagan then any other canidate I've heard in a long time. I do like some of what Ron Paul says yet Mark Levin hates his guts, I like Mark Levin and have learned a lot from him, but he does have a ego and if someone says anything bad about Reagan, they are on his hate list. Paul never said 9/11 was our fault like Mark says, he says with our foreign policy and being in every country, it contribute to it. With over 900 bases around the world, in every country, we have republicans wanting to police the world, yet what I learned from Mark Levin and he forgets what he teaches us, we sure didn't like the British being in our country in the 1770's. We didn't like that USSR was putting missles in our back yard in Cuba, but here is were Mark Levin is really going wrong, since he and a lot of us believe Reagan was the greatest modern day Presidents, part of the reason the Soviet fell was that we out spent with our military. Since then we have kept spending on our military to police the world, we have about 10 times the military size of all the other countries put together and here's where Levin his missing his own point, we spent and busted the Soviets, we have kept spending on the military policing the world and it helped to bankrupt ourselves. Here's another point not being said by people like Mark Levin, I saw a National Geographic show on one of our aircraft carriers, their research showed that of all the crude oil coming into this country, 70% is used by the military, all of this building and policing is costing, in part, our country. So we do need a true conservative as President, who will cut, spend on our military wisely and get rid of the TSA, why is no one talking about the establishment republicans that have a hand in some of these tranny agencies, never wanting to get rid of them, they can't admit to a mistake, instead they always want to add more rules, so now we have a country under the police state of the government just like the Soviet Union was, people are going to realize when it's too late and nothing can be done about it. Hopefully we can correct it, but with weasals like the speaker, we are going farther the wrong way, as much as I like Ryan, his budget was justing cutting the increase, he and the others all voted during the Bush years for big government, so we need true Conservatives and lets hope we vote for the right ones.
LindaF | 12.27.11 @ 7:53AM
We're in the situation of a nation that needs to remove a bandage that hides a festering infection. We can, as many have over time, take it off a little at a time. We can start to uncover it, then, getting a whiff of the pus under it, decide to just cover it up again, and deal with it later.
Or, we can forthrightly rip the bandage off at one swoop.
I recommend the third strategy. We then have the entire situation before us, open to inspection, and can deal with the problems that arise. At that time, a triage mentality is necessary - some have small issues, and can be safely ignored. Some have terminal issues, and nothing I do will save them, so I also ignore them.
The third group is the one that has injuries that, untreated, will kill them, but are not so injured that they will die, regardless. Those ones, we treat.
Many of our problems are simliar.
- foreign relations - which are safe to neglect, which are terminal, and which, with the right kind of assistance, might be salvagable?
- Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security - who has enough money to survive, who will need to be moved to welfare/public housing for lack of resources, and who might be able to cut loose from public aid, with a little assistance (perhaps ongoing coverage of certain conditions - cancer, child's medical, etc.).
- Welfare/unemployment beyond 1 year - kick off able-bodied people who could qualify for a minimum-wage job, continue supporting those who are totally unemployable (although with restrictions - if they have further children, the amount of money won't increase), and dedicate most of your effort to those who could be employable, with some effort.
All other government spending - make each agency/bureau do zero-based budgeting. If their aims aren't sufficiently compelling/urgent/fit in with federal core obligations, close them down.
If they yell about their impending unemployment, point out that the illegal aliens are taking perfectly good jobs that they could otherwise work. Then, see if they still think open borders are a good idea.
Occam's Tool| 12.27.11 @ 12:13PM
Linda---superb thoughts. Triage is PRECISELY the point!
Chootee| 12.27.11 @ 9:49PM
Tough job but someones gotta do it, for the greater good. Maybe Hillary?
Redatheart| 12.27.11 @ 7:55AM
Follow discussions at Redstate to grasp the anger at what is happening with the Virginia ballot situation. There is palpable anger w/ Romney's latest refusal to release the identities of his bundlers, not to mention his tax records. The media, including and especially Fox News, refuses to acknowledge that about 80% of the GOP does not want Romney. They have slighted other candidates with non-coverage. The fix is in for Romney and the gains of the grassroots in '10 still stick in the craw's of the ruling class Republicans and they aim to take it back. Doesn't matter if they've picked a moderate that represents Obama's 1% in the ongoing class warfare. Doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter..........
Rick Perry is the most conservative in the race but the Powers that Be will ensure he will not be nominated. In fact, his conservatism is the first eliminating quality.
emo| 12.27.11 @ 8:04AM
The only anger you should have over the VA ballot fiasco is Perry's and Newt's inability to garner 15,000 signatures to make it over the threshold of having their signatures validated.
John Navratil| 12.27.11 @ 8:57AM
emo,
Newt failed to reach the bar. The next question is whether the bar was set properly. Ultimately, the Republicans of Virginia have had a legitimate choice removed from their consideration by the Party. No one suggests that any Clem Kadiddlehopper (with all respect to Red Skelton) should be on the ballot, but it seems the discriminator is arguably of whack when a nationally credible candidate is barred. That, however, is a problem for Virginia's Republicans to address.
W| 12.27.11 @ 10:15AM
John,
I knew you had taste. You like Rob Long and Red Skelton. I liked Freddie the Freeloader and the two seagulls. A friend of mine has an impressive collection of clown paintings by Red.
John Navratil| 12.27.11 @ 12:07PM
W,
Real humor reflecting on the human condition. Self-deprecating, tasteful, funny. It didn't need to shock and no-one needed to giggle from embarrassment.
It's a different style, but Foxworthy comes to mind as a funny guy with similar sensibilities.
Occam's Tool| 12.27.11 @ 12:15PM
Mr Navratil, W, thank you. Happy New Year, guys.
Red was a goodie. Red Green also comes to mind as tasteful family humor.
emo| 12.27.11 @ 8:49PM
the 2008 field had no problem reaching the bar...
T. Holcomb| 12.27.11 @ 9:14PM
It will go beyond that. It will most likely end up in the SCOTUS because what the Commonwealth of Virginia is doing is denying many of it's citizens the right to cast a vote for the candidate of their choice and that is UnConstitutional.
Fred| 12.27.11 @ 9:26PM
Let me guess: you like Newt. Only a Newtie would be calling for the SCUS to intervene in a new area: a state party's ballot-access process, where race is not an issue. Wonderful.
Chootee| 12.27.11 @ 9:53PM
Yeah, right. And if it was Ron Paul who couldn't come up with enough valid signatures you'd be claiming he had no support. Newts "surge" was obviously an MSM illusion, much as we are seeing the ramping up of a Santorum "surge" in the MSM.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.27.11 @ 11:24AM
Redatheart,
Perry is actually quite articulate...and he is "real"!
A fundraiser in New Hampshire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxjJ9QMjHzo
Chootee| 12.27.11 @ 10:01PM
Snort. He's as real as the rest of the NWO global government CFR stooges running. Ron Paul is the only true conservative in the field and the fact that most posters here hate him and embrace the leftist "conservatives" illustrates the fact that there is one party, the government party. That government party hates the thought of competition and loss of power and so marginalizes Ron Paul. What you don't get is that Paul has ALREADY won. He has awakened enough of the nation that acquiescence to slavery as usual will gradually decline until there is a tipping point. You can cheat Ron Paul out of his nomination and elect another Israel First Republicrat/Democan but it won't matter. No ruling regime will remain in power once a critical mass of the people withdraw their consent to be ruled.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.27.11 @ 7:58AM
Fhttp://www.newt.org/news/video-christmas-day-1776-victory-or-deatholks.....
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.27.11 @ 8:00AM
OOPS! that link won't work. Please go to big government and watch the video of 1776
John Navratil| 12.27.11 @ 8:48AM
Corrected link: http://www.newt.org/news/video.....y-or-death
Deborah D | 12.27.11 @ 9:06AM
Thank you, Ken and John. That was three-minutes well spent. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you both. God save the USA!
Al Adab| 12.27.11 @ 10:23AM
John, Ken, Deborah:
Merry Christmas and a Happy new year to you as well. Let us hope that the new year see a new birth af freedom and that the government of the united States allows us both Liberty and Prosperity in the coming year. Those, not anything else, are the birthright of all Americans.
Carol| 12.27.11 @ 7:59AM
Jeffrey Lord:
You are one of my favorite authors. You have nailed what is wrong with the GOP today.
Why would people want to elect Obama lite with Romneycare (my preferred name for him so as to remind people what Obamacare was based on) so that the GOP continues to give into the Democrat's wants? You never see the opposite from the party whose Speaker said, "You'll have to read it to find out what's in it." Does any body really think Romneycare will repeal Obamacare? He never said he would. He said he would give waivers to the states - not the same as repealing. He would tweak it like the GOP tweaks everything the Democrats have give us.
I will not vote for Romneycare. He is like a used car salesman who will tell you what you want to hear and only later will you find out he sold you a lemon. Let the GOP destroy itself. They are making me more angry then the Democrats these days because of their inability to go after Obama.
I've had it.
After this article I will be making a contribution to the American Spectator. Thanks Jeffrey Lord.
Peggy | 12.27.11 @ 9:18AM
Great response Carol! I too just donated to American Spectator and Jeffrey Lord nails it
VonMisesJr| 12.27.11 @ 9:31AM
Well said Carol and ditto Peggy. I will be donating some of my Christmas gift money to thank Jeffrey Lord for stating the obvious truth. The country needs it more than I do.
Obama has made times lean for me, a prior self-employed professional in a previously capitalist country. But when companies are in the fetal position, they do not hire outside professionals. So I bought gold (up 45%), pulled a double on silver from $19 to $38 and other commodities that are necessarily skyrocketing when Ben "The Bank" Bernanke and Obama crash the dollar.
Occam's Tool| 12.27.11 @ 12:16PM
Jeff is a very class act.
Vern Crisler | 12.27.11 @ 11:41AM
Dittos. I donated a few weeks ago; might do it again pretty soon.
USSAlabama| 12.27.11 @ 1:17PM
Well worth supporting.
Now if I could only figure out how much to donate to get the trolls blocked . . .
(Not that I really would, but for a time it would be such a pleasure.)
Vern Crisler | 12.27.11 @ 4:52PM
Sometimes the trolls are a riot, especially when they explore every nuance, every possible way, in which they can accuse each other of being homosexuals.
USSAlabama| 12.27.11 @ 5:13PM
Guessing that comes after accusing everyone else of being racist.
Wonder if they ever think how these comments exist in perpetuity? I do think it ruins the threads though, and knowing more of who they are - I will skip ever replying to one.
emo| 12.27.11 @ 8:00AM
Does it really matter??? Obama will be re-elected and in 2016 I fear Hillary at the ripe old age of 68 will be elected to serve 8 years. The GOP is looking at being out of power until 2024 if not longer thanks to demographics.
Hillary 2016 in a way is like Hoover in 1928. The public likes her, she appears competent, lots of experience etc.
Maddox| 12.27.11 @ 8:07AM
If your predictions are right, the end of the world belief from the Mayan calendar ending next December would be preferable to the slow and painful death our country and citizens would suffer.
Purp| 12.27.11 @ 9:35AM
We can only hope to reverse the damage that conservatives and Republicants have done to this country. It took them over 30 years to destroy the American economy, it will take at least that long to repair the damage done by the Corporate takeover of our government, economy and society.
Al Adab| 12.27.11 @ 10:20AM
Purp:
Please send me a bottle of whatever it is you've been drinking. Certainly beats living with reality.
chuck| 12.27.11 @ 10:24AM
The Federal Government today is nowhere near what it was when Reagan left office. There are so many more crushing regulations on business, from environmental, to Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, and a whole host of others.
Taxes are much higher, Reagan's highest rate was 28%, the highest now is in the upper 30's, and your party wants them higher. Obamacare is hanging over our heads, scaring the crap out of business. No one has as clue what the tax policy will be next year, or the year after. It's no wonder businesses are planning to hire, they have no idea what they are facing.
The Reagan economy was great, rapid growth, prosperity across the board. It took 30 years for the politicians of both parties, the Dems, and the GOP establishment to destroy the economy. It's time for the next Reagan to emerge and put things right.
Purp| 12.27.11 @ 1:59PM
You have no idea what's going on around you, do you? Pay attention now -
During the Clinton Presidency, the economy was far better than in Reagan's era, with rapid growth, and prosperity across the board. Poverty fell as the middle class grew and the U.S. balanced it's budget along with the largest tax increase in history. It took just 8 years for the politicians of the Republicant Party and their K street lobbyists to destroy the economy.
If all the money is concentrated at the top (1%) how many of anything do you think they can buy? Small business is what creates jobs in this country, and they can't without customers. How many cars can the 1% buy vs. the 99%? Without disposable income the 99% cannot buy. No customers, no jobs. And small business doesn't outsource jobs to India and China - Multinational Corporations do.
Get with the program to help this country:
http://www.businessweek.com/ne.....nauer.html
chuck| 12.27.11 @ 2:47PM
The Clinton economy was built on the tech bubble, perhaps you've heard of it. NASDAQ at 5000. Then the bubble went pop! Recession of 2001. Perhaps you heard of that. NASDAQ 1600.
Reagan's policies led to the longest peacetime expansion of the economy in the 20th century.
And he's still pissing off liberals, who have to lie about him.
Purp| 12.27.11 @ 3:06PM
No, Im not p-od about Reagan - I voted for him. But the Clinton years far surpassed Reagan in economic growth and prosperity - unfortunately a lot of right wingers can't get their head around that fact. Reagan did some good things, but also some bad. He raised taxes 6 times, raised the National Debt 18 times and told everyone "Deficits don't matter" which led to our current national debt issue - Republicans took him literally and added 10.7 Trillion to the national debt between Reagan and Bush I and Bush II. Clinton added a Trillion of his own too, btw. Obama has added 3-4 Trillion of his own now.
W| 12.27.11 @ 7:03PM
Clinton provided a lot of work for lawyers, investigators, judges, and court reporters, comedians, authors, and others. I miss him.
He also increased the net worth of Paula Jones by $900,000.
Ted| 12.27.11 @ 10:47AM
No, not true at all. The problems were caused by liberal politicians in both parties, although there are more of them in the Democratic Party. But alas, the Republicans have their enablers, too.
Purp| 12.27.11 @ 1:59PM
See comment above.
W| 12.27.11 @ 10:54AM
Purp,
My subscription to the magazine "The Nation" expired and I watch either the cooking channel or repeats of House instead of MSNBC. So I don't know the details of how the Reps destroyed the economy.
Please give us the details of the laws passed by the evil empire (Republicans) that did this. Also, please name the corporations that took over the government, economy, and society and how they did this.
You said you work for a Fortune 10 company. Which one? Is it one of the evil corporations you speak of?
Occam's Tool| 12.27.11 @ 12:17PM
It's GE, obviously. Think about it. Purp is Jeffrey Immelt.
chuck| 12.27.11 @ 12:52PM
Nah, probably the guy that cleans Immelt's toilet.
Would explain why he's so full of liberal crap.
W| 12.27.11 @ 1:14PM
Occam and Chuck
Thanks, it must be GE
Have a Happy, safe , and prosperous New year.
Purp| 12.27.11 @ 3:13PM
None of your business who I work for - suffice to say none of you will work for a Fortune 10 firm anytime soon - yet you don't see what they are doing to your country in the interest of profit at all cost. Just as in the "Robber Baron" days in the late 1800's and early 1900's we need to break up the concentration of wealth just as Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower warned us about. Google them and you'll see the warnings they gave that you WON"T hear on Fixed News, I assume because the 1% owns the media.
W| 12.27.11 @ 7:00PM
Purp,
Please keep posting. We need the comic relief and your views are a rich target.
Happy New Year.
Purp| 12.27.11 @ 2:02PM
Read it for yourself, you're smart enough to figure it out: http://alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed
It's utterly amazing this collusion isn't illegal. Democrats are not your enemy and Republicans are not my enemy - but the corporate funding of all our politicians is definitely the ENEMY of our democracy and republic.
JmsA| 12.27.11 @ 2:31PM
You're not fooling anyone; you're a democrat purple parrot.
Purp| 12.27.11 @ 3:06PM
Do you have trouble reading or is comprehension your issue?
Purp| 12.27.11 @ 2:04PM
Yes, it is evil and has laid off American workers at the same time it hires the same number or more workers overseas. It's clear they can make money without the American worker - wake up before we're all out of work. Small business doesn't ship jobs overseas - but they need customers here - the 99% with good paying jobs, and they will hire.
Remember, Adam Smith warned about the concentration of wealth and the damage it can do to capitalism....
JmsA| 12.27.11 @ 2:27PM
Thank you for that tacit admission that bubba clinton was not all he was cracked up to be.
JmsA| 12.27.11 @ 2:32PM
Thank you for that tacit admission that bubba clinton was not all he was cracked up to be.
JmsA| 12.27.11 @ 2:33PM
Thank you for that tacit admission that bubba clinton was not all he was cracked up to be.
Maddox| 12.27.11 @ 8:03AM
Moderation is not going to save the country, it has fallen too far. The time is growing short and I see only politicians, not patriots. Speaking softly to the leftists will not cut spending and protect our nation. Political and economic conditions in America are so dire, even a turnip should be able to defeat Obama. Why not a true conservative (NOW) who stands on principle and does more than preen for the press? Republican establishment is more concerned with its status than the country or we would not have such a split in the Party and principle stance. Martin J. Smith is right, it is disgusting, but we have no choice. Anybody but Obama!
Purp| 12.27.11 @ 9:37AM
We should be thankful for President Obama - he saved this nation from going over the cliff by enacting unpopular legislation that is good for the country - whether Fixed News sees it that way or not.
Ted| 12.27.11 @ 10:48AM
Not one word of what you have written is true. And you know it. Nice try at stirring up the pot, though.
VonMisesJr| 12.27.11 @ 11:18AM
Perp must have confused Christmas with the change in daylight savings time. The light is Christ, not the government monkeying with the clocks.
He usually sleeps in until 10:30 and he inadvertantly started his MoveOn day by mistake an hour early.
USSAlabama| 12.27.11 @ 1:19PM
Haha!
I love you VMjr - thanks for the 'timely' laugh.
(I hate time-change.)
Purp| 12.27.11 @ 3:15PM
What is this obsession of yours with me in bed? Do you enjoy thinking of me in bed? Or maybe you pine to be there with me? Is that it, b* pirate?
VonMisesJr| 12.27.11 @ 5:45PM
Conservatives don't think like that. That is projection.
I just figured that is when you get up to start blogging stuff nobody agrees with. It all seems so pointless. At least I can laugh.
Purp| 12.27.11 @ 6:46PM
You mention it all the time. Is that supposed to be some sort of put down? It really is lame and tiresome - if you want me in bed, say so. In this day and age, adultery, homosexuality, pornography are all okay with the conservative movement. It's okay, you can admit your deep seated desire to bed a young man. I just wonder if you can keep UP with me.
VonMisesJr| 12.28.11 @ 7:56AM
Your man is government Sam. He protects and supports you.
You seem to have conflated your government Sam in red, white and blue with a big hat with your sex life.
I'll stick with my wife of over a quarter century, thank you. We will be fine in spite of irresponsible mooches turning the government into a sugar daddy and their sole provider.
Purp| 12.27.11 @ 3:14PM
So, you think President Obama enacted popular legislation?
JmsA| 12.27.11 @ 2:29PM
I thought the One promised unemployment would not reach 8 percent if the stimulus was passed. Just heard on the radio that K-Mart and Sears are about to close 100 to 120 stores in the coming year because of poor sales. Just thought you'd like to know.
Purp| 12.27.11 @ 3:18PM
No, he didn't - one of his advisors did - who is long gone from the administration.
Yes, I'm well aware of Sears/Kmart's woes. Unfortunately for them, when WalMart went whole hog for Chinese goods (AFTER Sam Walton died, who would be ashamed of his company now), Sears and other retailers did not and lost out to the Walmart juggernaut. This is a competition story, not a federal government issue - so what's your point ?
JmsA| 12.27.11 @ 3:23PM
The obvious: The economy is not doing well and the One hasn't made it any better it.
Purp| 12.27.11 @ 5:43PM
Ah, but he has. We ARE better off then we were 4 years ago.
chuck| 12.27.11 @ 8:14PM
BULL F%^&KING; SH$%!
I'll trade now for 2007, or better yet, 1987 when Reagan was President.
Atlanta's home price have declined again, lowest point in years.
Just how the hell are we better off? 3 years after the recession, and growth is minuscule, jobs hard to come by, businesses afraid to expand, but purp, Immelt's toilet cleaner, says we're better off.
VonMisesJr| 12.28.11 @ 8:00AM
Chuck, don't let the court jester upset you. That is his job at MoveOn. He resembles the King's court jester who does tricks for King Soros and the King gives him food and grog for his trouble.
William L. Gensert| 12.27.11 @ 8:17AM
I do not understand the attraction of Mitt Romney as a candidate. He is not only a John McCain clone, but he seems to be the one Barack Obama wants to run against. Those 2 things alone should disqualify him.
Mitt Romney is clearly the Obama-approved candidate. He almost never gets bad press. They’re waiting until the general election to release the hounds. First up, he will be called a racist, because he is a Mormon, and his church did not allow blacks as full members until 1978, when Mitt was 31 years-old. He was voluntarily a member of a racist organization for the first 10 years of his adult life--at least that’s what they will say. Romney will spend the entire campaign apologizing.
Obama will destroy him; by the time he and the media are done, his own wife probably wouldn’t vote for him. Add in Romneycare as the father of Obamacare, and the President’s most unpopular legislative abomination is lost as a campaign issue. If voters accept one, then they accept the other. Why vote for Obama light, when you can have Obama classic?
Mike Rogers | 12.27.11 @ 8:21AM
The very same day that NRO published their article Against Gingrich, I wrote and published an open letter denouncing their obvious membership in the Ruling Class. It has almost reached point where one reads NRO, like the NY Times, for opposition research!
http://granitegrok.com/blog/20.....ectability
USSAlabama| 12.27.11 @ 1:23PM
True.
And many subscribers have cancelled subscriptions over the years (mine many years ago) that I think was the genesis of the on-line edition, which up until very recent times, one could not freely read the articles without an online subscription. I didn't bite.
Now I think it will survive on the ad dollars from the website as people will still read VDH, Tom Sowell, and maybe another contributor or two.
But as a print magazine - perhaps soon to be Gone With the Wind.
Deborah D | 12.27.11 @ 8:29AM
Thanks for this, Mr. Lord. I'll await the attack you're sure to receive from National Review Online. I love the speech by Reagan. It leaves me wondering where are our Republican statesmen today? I think Sarah Palin is the closest, and you'll notice the establishment beat her bloody.
Another Reagan line to keep in mind, you establishment types: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
I fear we are at that crossroads. Republican establishment types, read that and remember it. We can't afford business as usual. If not now, when?
teflon93| 12.27.11 @ 12:56PM
You'll be disappointed.
National Review typically ignores criticisms it can't brush off as the "lunatic Right seeking purity."
Since Lord's well-reasoned criticism comes from within the wheelhouse, it will be ignored.
He simply will never be invited to Frum's cocktail parties or on an NR cruise again.
USSAlabama| 12.27.11 @ 1:25PM
And I just don't think Rich has those kind of b@lls.
teflon93| 12.28.11 @ 12:04PM
Nope---still no response.
teflon93| 12.29.11 @ 3:57PM
No response as of today either.
W| 12.27.11 @ 8:39AM
While Reagan surely helped its demise, there were other important causes of the Soviet Union's collapese.
First, is the Solidarity union movement in Poland led by Lech Walechsa that directly challenged the Soviets. The Poles put their bodies and lives on the line and did not just make nice speeches.
Second, the Poles' rebellion was aided and supported by Pope John Paul which gave it the moral support of many people. Reagan and Thatcher were great in supporting this and calling for the end of the evil empire. Gorby helped also by not overreacting and sending in the tanks.
Also the Soviets were bogged down in Afghanistan and did not have the money or will for another war in Poland.
To say there would have been no collapse if Romney were president is just plain stupid.
John Navratil| 12.27.11 @ 9:00AM
W,
Two counter-examples come to mind: the Hungarian uprising of 1956 and the Prague Spring of 1968.
W| 12.27.11 @ 9:06AM
John,
Nobody supported the Czechs in 1968. We were bogged down in Vietnam with LBJ, and most countries were demonstrating against US because of Vietnam instead of the Soviets.
Hungary had no supporters and it unfortunately occurred at the height of the Cold War.
You can say these two set the stage for Poland.
Interesting topic, though, that can be discussed and analyzed.
Have a happy new year, John
RCV| 12.27.11 @ 11:25AM
The Hungarian revolution also collapsed because Eisenhower was distracted by his foolish campaign against the British-French-Israeli move to recapture the Suez Canal. The Russians timed their suppression of the Hungarians knowing of Eisenhower's preoccupation with Suez.
Occam's Tool| 12.27.11 @ 12:18PM
Thanks, RCV. Eisenhower's move there made NO sense to me.
Bob K.| 12.27.11 @ 7:10PM
It makes sense if you consider that Eisenhower honored the agreements made at Yalta between Roosevelt and Stalin. (Churchill was largely ignored there.) The Suez was beyond the scope of these Yalta agreements so it was fair game.
Nor, for that matter and at that time, would we or any other western power have given any support to any other Eastern European country put under the hegemony granted to Stalin and his USSR in these Yalta agreements had they revolted.
It was a done deal back in 1945 and it was still in effect in 1956.
1968 and the Prague spring was 12 years later and the Yalta agreements were beginning to wear thin by then and so it is a different kettle of fish.
JmsA| 12.27.11 @ 12:23PM
You're mistaken, RCV. Eisenhower was not distracted by Suez; he told the British, French and Israelis quite promptly the U.S. would not intervene. He was actually playing golf, which he did most of his time in the White House.
chuck| 12.27.11 @ 12:59PM
I really think there was nothing that could be done, other than mouthing a few words.
As for Poland, Gorby was not Brezhnev, and the Red Army was depleted from Afghanistan. Times were different, and with the moral leadership from JPII, and leadership from Reagan and Thatcher, the Poles were able to kick out the Commies, and the Iron Curtain was well on its way to collapsing.
W| 12.27.11 @ 1:23PM
Also, in 1956 the Soviets dominated the commie world which was a monolith. By 1981 the Chinese were rivals of the Soviets. I forgot to add Richard Nixon who with his China policy helped break the monolith which contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union.
John Navratil| 12.27.11 @ 2:05PM
W,
The legacy of Yalta! As I wrote a few days ago, the agreement between FDR and Stalin created untold misery in Eastern Europe. None of it should have happened. The Russkies were on their heels and could have been kept there, but for feckless Western leaders.
We come full circle to Reagan and the Berlin Wall.
W| 12.27.11 @ 5:00PM
John,
Someone said Britain and France declared war on Germany because Germany attacked Poland, then we gave Poland to Russia at the end of the war.
chuck| 12.27.11 @ 8:22PM
Sorry John,
The situation on the ground was that the Red Army was in control of all of Eastern Europe, and Stalin was keeping it, come hell or high water. The only way to get them out would have been the use of force, which was out of the question, as Japan had yet to be defeated.
And who would have even wanted to attempt to take on the Red Army at that point? We were winding down armament production at that point. The war in Europe was over, and no one wanted another war, this one against an ally.
In short, FDR and Churchill were powerless to change the situation without an attack on the Red Army.
John Navratil| 12.28.11 @ 10:18AM
chuck,
Please explain the Prague Uprising when the Americans stopped for days to let the Russkies catch up and "liberate" Prague.
rhoetus| 12.27.11 @ 11:24AM
John,
My second cousin John left CZ in 1968, the last one out.
We need a "Velvet Revolution" in America!
John Navratil| 12.27.11 @ 11:45AM
rheotus,
My father begged his brother to leave then. He even went over in the Summer of '68. It was his first time back to visit. His escape was illegal and it was the first time he thought he could return without being arrested. He returned just a couple of weeks before Dubcek was ousted.
(PS - I expect the book you recommended today. My Father is visiting over the New Year. I'll be pleased to see what he thinks of it.)
Mimi| 12.27.11 @ 9:09AM
I'll continue to see REAGAN, THATCHER, & Pope JOHN PAUL as the leadership, Also AMERICA's people being just themselves....Free people for example to Russia......Are we as a Nation bordering on giving this UP to an unworthy group led by OBAMA ??
For Gods sake this is NO time to flirt with a moderate. A deep exicision must be made!
Dai Alanye | 12.27.11 @ 11:39AM
Without Reagan there would have been no collapse of the Soviet Union, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling himself. Without Reagan's encouragement of the rebellious movements inside the Communist empire and his pressure on the USSR itself none of these things would have come to fruition.
American weaponry and support enabled the Afghans to defeat the Soviets, and right at the beginning of his first term the firing of the air traffic controllers served notice to the Red Oligarchs they were dealing with a different America.
The collapse of the USSR could have come earlier, of course, all it needed was a President with the insight and self-confidence to make it happen. But as we've seen, those are rare.
JimP| 12.27.11 @ 9:21AM
I caught part of O'Reilly's interview with Romney last night. Romney looked to be a nervous wreck. In my estimation he was on pins and needles that O'Reilly would ask a tough question and Mitt might have to commit or admit or just flub the whole thing. The effect was, 'Here's a guy with no confidence in himself, his positions or track record who wants to be President'. As Mr. Lord might put it, Mitt looked like he was ready to run for the smelling salts. He's obviously not up to the job and this is just padding for his resume or something. Compare Romney's body language in the interview with Newt's during his frequent appearnces with O'Blowhard and Brett Baier. If Mitt gets the nomination I am going to have a very difficult time holding my nose and pulling the lever for the de facto Third Bush Administration. Since we have 75-80% of the GOP and we know conservatism sells to Reagan Democrats we can create a third party and win elections in my opinion.
rhoetus| 12.27.11 @ 7:06PM
Bill O'Reilly was so very obsequious to Romney it made me sick. O'Reilly can be charming but he has become a fool to the establishment power brokers. He needs to lose the arrogance and taste "Humble Pie". He is losing his grasp on objective reality.
JimP| 12.28.11 @ 7:59AM
I thought I picked up on that same thing but was so distracted by Romney's nervousness that I discounted my reaction to O'Reilly. Frankly, I was so stunned by Romney's nervousness that I don't even recall what O'Reilly asked him or what Romney's responses were. Thanks for reminding me and confirming my gut reaction.
Mimi| 12.27.11 @ 9:30AM
Jeffrey Lord...another great article....and one of the best!
The National Review will be sure to read this because it will catch their notice and maybe they'll learn some things at just where the "FOLKS" are. Thanks for mentioning Mark's book coming out in Mid January..if it catches on like Liberty & Tyranny ...It may just help the country and Conservatism.
Newt's been hit pretty hard by so called Conservatives. Our own Quin Hilyer did a blistering piece:
" A Grand wizard Kluxer under his sheets
(a la David Duke) can't hide his wizardry
and no debate can help Newt alter his
lizardry"
That was in the American Spectator !
Dan| 12.27.11 @ 11:35AM
QUIN'S piece was yet another example of personal bitterness warping judgement, and warping one's ability to properly assess the overall situation.
Quin is going to have spend many years in probation with the rest of us for that hit piece.
And we'll be watching him like a hawk!
We don't forget.
We're not like Lowry, we're not like Kathryn Jean Lopez, ------------- we're not like some pathetic passive-aggressive like Romney.
Mimi| 12.27.11 @ 11:44AM
Thanks Dan... I felt lonely in my disgust!
chuck| 12.27.11 @ 1:07PM
Nope, you're not alone. The hit pieces on Dr. Newt (if Paul has to be addressed as Dr. Paul, I'm calling Newt, Dr. Newt) are disgusting.
Quin can eat me!
Margie| 12.27.11 @ 7:28PM
Quin needs to kill the Liberal streak within.
Jeremiah| 12.27.11 @ 9:31AM
Despite its occasional moderate spasms, National Review has been my go-to conservative publication for decades. Sadly, these last few months have persuaded me it really is going the way of Peggy Noonan and Doug Kmiec - once clear conservative beacons that have lusted too long for approval from the New York Times and so, become house-broken conservatives that arfe no threat to Democrats or the status quo - and thus, irrelevant in the battle for the soul of America.
Another beacon shall rise, but it is always sad to see an old friend pass into the ash heap.
Bob Miller| 12.27.11 @ 9:33AM
We're in the usual bind that any conservative third party effort would put the worst choice over the top in November, and not the best choice. The Republican establishment, which only wants a piece of the government's action, plays this bind for all it's worth. The only way out is for Republican primary voters to coalesce around a real conservative right now.
Petronius| 12.27.11 @ 9:39AM
The "Republican Establishment" does not want to lead and govern. It never has nor would it if it won by acclamation. That bunch wants nothing more than the benefice of office as a vehicle for graft. It deplores the TeaParty because we are honest and desirous of economic and social advancement which both they and the Liberals totally oppose. Most Americans are overgrown children relative to politics and culture. Emotion always trumps reason and they cast votes based on the way they feel about issues and candidates when election day comes. A "Conservative" in their eyes is the square parental type who says "No" to their foolish hazardous behavior. The Establishment knows that only too well; even when it leads to economic ruin and social chaos. But they care not. They have their piles with which to insulate themselves from the mayhem. What they will never admit is that the day is fast approaching when they will need Us to defend their sorry asses from the 60's trash they've allied themselves with. Let them decamp to the Caymans. We do not have that luxury nor desire it. But we do want Our Country and Our Freedom back.
RustyG| 12.27.11 @ 9:48AM
There's no denying that National Review has poo-pood in their Post Toasties with a lot of folks including myself. If Newt should pull out the nomination, then how will NRO get out of the corner they have painted themselves in? You could certainly expect to see quotes from NRO in Obama attack ads everywhere.
As the new year approaches here is my hope and prayer...... In the year 2016, may we all be alive and well reflecting in the folly of our 2012 thinking, as we bask in the many Conservative victories and policy decisions brought to us by the Romney administration.
Dan| 12.27.11 @ 11:21AM
They won't be able to extract themselves from that bind, a bind they themselves fashioned.
But what's really troubling here is the level of BITTERNESS.
It would be one thing to write a piece that said: Hey, we don't think Gingrich can make the final sale and here's why.....
But that's NOT what they did.
They just VALIDATED decades worth of Democrat and liberal hit pieces by scorching Gingrich as a kook, a nut, an insane bomb thrower, the guy that caused the heightened partisanship that now prevails.
Their own personal bitterness WARPED their ability to assess the OVERALL situation.
It's just amazing to me!
And they did all this in favour of ROMNEY! A guy who hasn't accomplished spit in regards to a Conservative agenda. Romney supposedly balanced budgets, -------------------------- well he could hardly do otherwise in Mass when it's illegal NOT to balance 'em.
It's one thing if they were going off after Gingrich in favour of another Reagan, with all that Reagan had going for him. But to do so for a pathetic, little man like Romney...........
Unbelievable!
It's surreal!
JimP| 12.27.11 @ 11:34AM
Dan,
Amen, amen, amen! You got it right. I had been searching for a word and bitterness is exactly what is palpable in the attacks on Gingrich: and like you said for a "little" man like Romney. I've been stunned by his weakness, displayed in the O'Reilly interview, and during and after the Baier interview where he whined that the questions were too tough. I saw that interview too and calling it too tough was absurd. If Mitt gets elected we are in even bigger trouble than I thought before seeing him in these interviews.
Deborah D | 12.27.11 @ 11:43AM
Jim -- I had the same icky feeling after watching Mitt's interview with Brett Baier. It worried me. I couldn't believe how short tempered he was. That was eye-opening.
Dan -- You are exactly right about National Review's "bitterness." I was shocked and I actually wrote on their website that I thought their attacks seemed desperate -- so over the top. They need to get out of D.C. and NY. They're out of touch with the country IMHO.
JimP| 12.27.11 @ 11:55AM
Deb-- I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw it that way. Thanks for the confirmation.
Margie| 12.27.11 @ 7:31PM
Haha. He actually said he thought the questions were too tough??
I don't have t.v. so I don't watch, but that seems really weird! He comes off so confident in the debates.
Guess with one on one, the real him comes out.. and that's why he refused to go one on one with Newt!!
JimP| 12.28.11 @ 8:04AM
Yes he actually did complain that the questions were too tough. Baier was very polite and respectful throughout the interview but, as he should, asked Romney about some of his flip-flops and asked him about RomneyCare. Mitt got very flustered and was angry about the RomneyCare question. He tried to disguise his anger, but it was obvious.
I think you are onto something about why he will not go one on one with Gingrich.
bioshine| 12.27.11 @ 9:54AM
What happened between 2006 and now? Barrack Hussein Obama happened, that's what. Newt will look like an angry old white man next to the American Idol In Chief. What is likely to happen is four more years of Obama but with a Republican controlled Congress; therefore, not much will get done, which can be a good thing. When the individual mandate kicks in and the Bush tax cuts expire, Obama II and the democratic party will go down in flames, and Sarah Palin can run on a platform of repealing Obamacare. Let the fur fly.
bluecollarbytes| 12.27.11 @ 10:00AM
Republicans caving before the battles are even begun is the biggest obstacle to 'change'. National Review concedes on a host of issues. The end result will be a compromise that moves us left. It always moves us left because establishment Republicans are perfectly willing to do the compromise that gets us there. Democrats and PopMedia know this and play their counterparts like fiddles that know only one tune.
teflon93| 12.27.11 @ 10:05AM
Mr Lord has lent his considerable voice to what I and others have been saying for years: Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru are going the way of David Frum, Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, Peggy Noonan, Doug Kmiec,Rod Dreher, and other conservative apostates (all of whom wrote for NR under Lowry's watch, not incidentally).
I'd been a subscriber since 1991 but cancelled my subscription upon the publication of the "Against Gingrich" editorial, an act of Establishment backstabbing such as I never expected to see from Buckley's publication. And I won't even vote for Newt if he does get the nomination!
It isn't just the political stupidity of embracing the Rockefeller wing of the GOP which I find so disgusting but the sheer dishonesty of a number of NR writers. Commenters on NRO called them out for being in the tank for Mitt Romney early in this campaign. Ramesh Ponnuru in particular publicly denied it prior to his "Thanksgiving Epiphany" and derided conservatives taking him to task over it as "delusional"---right up until his "Mitt's The One" article. As the campaign trickles on, more and more NRO commenters are coming out of the Mitt closet----where we knew they lurked all along. Why wouldn't they simply admit it?
I suspect because they knew if they had conservatives would be furious---right at the time they were begging those same conservatives for much-needed funding.
Adieu, National Review, with a note to former editor John O'Sullivan's Law: "EVEN instituitions which are manifestly right wing become left wing over time."
I'd suggest AmSpec treat this as a cautionary tale---remember that when Tyrrell's gone the same could happen to you.
W| 12.27.11 @ 10:19AM
Teflon,
William Buckley wrote a funny book "Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription," about the letters from readers cancelling their subscription. You may enjoy it.
teflon93| 12.27.11 @ 12:59PM
I have it and I took the great man's advice.
I suspect many others did in the wake of that editorial.
We'll know shortly as NR will either be looking for well-heeled benefactors or launch yet another fundraising drive as soon as they think the outrage has died down.
I think they go under in 5 years unless somebody like the Koch brothers steps in to take it over.
W| 12.27.11 @ 1:17PM
Teflon, have you read the great man's Blackford Oakes books? Terrific reads.
teflon93| 12.27.11 @ 5:11PM
I have not but need to. I've heard "Stained Class" is excellent; which is your favorite?
W| 12.27.11 @ 6:30PM
Teflon
1.The Story of Henri Todd. setting is the construction of Berlin wall in August 1961.
2. Mongoose. About the CIA to kill Castro.
All the Oakes books are excellent. Let me know your favorite.
Practical| 12.27.11 @ 10:13AM
Good article, however when other possibilities were mentioned it was back to Jindal, Ryan, and somebody else...all seem to be good men. However, an objective look at their real records show they usually toe the line, and are insiders. Only Palin stands out as a true reformer and should have had a mention too. Also, no mention of the biggest reason for 'moderation'- fear- always a loser. I am not sure the author learned all the Reagan lessons. (BTW-media wake up call: we won't vote for RP but are showing our displeasure and it's working isn't it?)
Al Adab| 12.27.11 @ 10:31AM
The constant tension within the Conservative Movement is between compromising principle for electability and standing by principle for the sake of honesty. That, in microcosm, is the meaning of politics.
We have most likely reached a point where simple electability will fail to serve. Can there be any point, given what is at stake, in simply electing an accomodationist republican? What the nation, and the world, needs is a man of competence and principle who can govern according to our lights and not by simple pragmatism. I am not sure such a candidate is among us.
W| 12.27.11 @ 11:07AM
Al Adab,
I agree with you this is always the question for conservatives, and even for true liberals. Where do you draw the line? Do you go with the true conservative who has a poor chance of winning, such as Goldwater. Or do you go for the moderate or accomodationist who has a better chance of winning, but who will be with the conservatives less than 100%, like Bush 41 and 43? I wish I had a good answer.
Santorum may be the only true conservative and Mitt is clearly the moderate.
Hope you had a pleasant and merry Christmas and best wishes for the new year.
Al Adab| 12.27.11 @ 2:20PM
W:
I too wish there was a clear answer to the dilemma. Of course that is the definition.
I wish also it were a simple matter of finding someone with us 80% of the time. Did we get that with Nixon? Did we get that with Bush 41? What about the "Conservatives" ala Cheney, Rumsfeld who backed Ford against Reagan in 1976 thereby giving us Carter? The history of the Movement is repleat with such examples even to the local level.
We continue the struggle for to persevere is to prevail.
W| 12.27.11 @ 5:02PM
We will be fortunate to get 50%
rhoetus| 12.27.11 @ 6:59PM
There is a solution and the Czechs led the way in 1989- We need a "Velvet Revolution" in America.
American politics is too corrupt to save. We need to re-establish our Republic.
Jeff Perren| 12.28.11 @ 2:25PM
Goldwater did NOT have "a poor chance of winning." I was alive and aware then and know he had a good chance of winning. His campaign made some missteps, particularly in not taking Johnson to task for some grotesquely dishonest ads suggesting Goldwater wanted to start a nuclear war. He also neglected to emphasize his long-standing views in favor of economic liberty. Instead, he went for the middle of the road as the campaign progressed and it cost him dearly.
Deborah D | 12.27.11 @ 11:36AM
I just wish "electability" actually worked! I hope it does this time. A disillusioned and disheartened base is never good. I think that is what National Review has created with their bashing of Newt and others. Competence and principal and governing with the goal of keeping the country free for our children would be a welcome Republican. I keep looking around!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, Al. You're always a joy to read here.
Deborah D | 12.27.11 @ 11:37AM
Should be "principle" -- drives me nuts when I do that!!
Al Adab| 12.27.11 @ 2:22PM
Deborah:
Mutual admiration society 101. Thank you for the kind words as I wish all our people had the common sense you display. Christmas was wonderful.
John Navratil| 12.27.11 @ 11:57AM
Al Adab,
Fortunately for us, the people seem to have awakened and the "people's house" is, after a fashion, working once again for the people. I didn't say we are out of the woods or that the old guard doesn't remain a serious, perhaps fatal, problem; just that the trend is in the right direction.
I'd love to see a good conservative in the White House. Like you, I see we don't have a white knight in the bunch. My personal favorite is Santorum, my least favorites, bottom up, are Paul, Huntsman, Romney. But I'll take any one of them over Obama.
If the people really are awake, we don't need a white knight.
What I really want to see is what Dingy Harry does one he (one hopes) loses the Senate. Will he spent his last four years as a "back bencher" or retire? The contemplation does make me smile.
Al Adab| 12.27.11 @ 2:24PM
John:
Indeed we do not need "a man on the white horse". In fact that search is how we got to this impasse. Instead of seeking someone to rule, we need an executive who can govern. A great distinction truely.
John Navratil| 12.27.11 @ 2:59PM
Al Adab,
I do get your distinction. We have a ruler, today. I have no argument with your thesis and would agree wholeheartedly over the last thirty years or so when we have had Democrats and Democrat-lites. To the extent we have Democrat-lite today, I agree with you still. To the extent that we have an angry electorate who will put the starch back into the Republican party, I am no less desirous, but much less demanding of a white knight.
I'll propose a test. I saw that Obama is requesting another $T1.2. If this passes as business as usual, I'll concede your point absolutely. If this generates the indignation I hope it does, I hope you'll see my point.
Cheers!
teflon93| 12.27.11 @ 1:01PM
We can never know who's electable and who's not until we have the election.
We can, however, know who's conservative and who's not by their records.
We should judge on this basis, not on the phony chimera of "electability".
George S| 12.27.11 @ 10:54AM
If the litmus test was conservatism then Herman Cain would still be in the race. But he is not; done in by his personal problems magnified by a hostile media even though conservative outlets defended him. Now we have Gingrich and reports that he lied about his marital situations.
If these character issues define a candidacy then Gingrich will have a huge problem. If Herman Cain couldn't get past it, how will Newt? A person who follows and applies conservative beliefs would never put himself in that situation in the first place (Ronald and Nancy Reagan marriage was beyond reproach). Newt is going to have some major challenges, to put it mildly, and maybe NRO and others have a point: is Newt electable in the light of Herman Cain?
Whether Newt is a conservative in the same mold as Reagan or Goldwater is another story. Reagan never defined himself as applying conservative solutions to existing problems. Reagan rejected the premise of those problems out of hand, which is why his "conservative" solution to the Soviet Union was We Win They Lose. Can Newt say the same thing about government mandated health insurance or global warming? History says otherwise; Newt is closer to Romney than Reagan. Maybe that's why NRO had liked him the first time around.
teflon93| 12.29.11 @ 4:00PM
Let's nominate Obama then----if ideology doesn't matter as the RINOs say and the only thing which counts is not being brave enough to go head-to-head with a shrew like Moochelle.
OLDRAY| 12.27.11 @ 10:54AM
Mr Lord!!!!!!!!!!! Wonderful article..The best I've seen anywhere on Romney and the "elite" establishment Republicans. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joe R| 12.27.11 @ 11:02AM
National Review was once the Bible of conservatism. Now, it's become little more than Weekly Standard II. What was once great has become a carbon copy of mediocrity.
Peter McGrath| 12.27.11 @ 11:27AM
Nice summation, Joe R. Very close to my take on the passing of NR to a sort of moribund moderate-ism. Even worse, it isn't much fun to read anymore. NR used to elicit Menken with its acerbic wit and keen eye for hypocrisy.
NR has reached the point where any hint of WFB has vanished.
NR - RIP.
rhoetus| 12.27.11 @ 11:38AM
NR, RIP
Rightmindedmom| 12.27.11 @ 11:17AM
Those of us who don't swallow the Media hype regarding Sarah Palin know her conservative record of fighting corruption in her own party, fighting against oil companies that wouldn't drill on their own leased land, and fighting for energy independence for the USA.
Sarah Palin is the only person to carry the Ronald Reagan mantle. Come on, Iowa! Start the earthquake! Caucus for Sarah Palin -- the reluctant warrior for conservatism.
Seek| 12.27.11 @ 7:20PM
Won't happen in a thousand years. She's unpopular even in Alaska; that's pretty much why she stepped down to begin with.
Dan| 12.27.11 @ 11:27AM
Here's some little bit of news to confirm Lord's piece.
Just yesterday I tried to comment on three posts over at NR.
EACH comment was NOT approved for posting.
The first concerned a post about Santorum surging. So I tried to comment that even if Santorum were to surge, then NR would take off after him in the manner they did Gingrich, because it's been clear all along that NR has seen fit to clear the field for Gingrich. Then I remarked that maybe NR would caricature Santorum maybe as Marvin the Martian's pet or something.
Rather bland observation.
BUT JUST TOO MUCH for NR.
The other post I tried to comment upon was Virginia's primary restrictions. I remarked that the GOP establishment and NR by their efforts to make clear the paths for Romney have only opened the door for Paul.
THAT TOO was just TOO much for NR to post.
There was nothing profane, nothing vulgar, nothing not commonsensical in my comments.
But nonetheless NR saw fit to deny them approval.
NOR have I some past of such commentary with NR. In fact, I've never really posted over at NR on their stories or blog entries.
But again, the story here is that NR is now acting completely in concert with an establishment they once understood to be an impediment to the emergence of a GENUINE Conservatism.
NR has become a disaster.
A flat out disaster.
Deborah D | 12.27.11 @ 11:48AM
Hey Dan -- I don't know if you're a "gold star" commenter on NRO or not, but if not, then it takes them a while to approve comments. If you comment on a weekend or holiday they do not update at all unless you have a "gold star." I know, I don't have one either! Check back. They might have approved you by now. Just FYI....
james wilson| 12.27.11 @ 11:35AM
What happened to National Review is it did not survive the storm of neocons within. As Irvine Kristol advised, "One can say that the historical task and political purpose of neo-conservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy."
Suitable to them.
Citizen Jerry| 12.27.11 @ 11:36AM
Good column from Jeffrey, although he does tend to write in novella sized offerings. He's right that National Review has gone establishment. I can only hope they'll pay dearly for it.
One other thing, which I see happening on about every discussion board. It doesn't take long for the group to divide into those who think Ron Paul is nuts, and those who think he's the remedy for everything that's wrong with the universe.
USSAlabama| 12.27.11 @ 1:34PM
I don't think it could have fit in any less words.
It is up there in the top all-time AS articles. One of the very best.
USSAlabama| 12.27.11 @ 2:23PM
Should read "...all-time BEST..."
rhoetus| 12.27.11 @ 11:37AM
The "Conservative Movement" is dead. Its founders have all passed away; Frank Chodorov, Leonard E. Read, Bill Buckley Jr, Whittaker Chambers, M. Stanton Evans, Rev. Edmond Opitz, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Willis E. Stone, Barry M. Goldwater, Ronald W. Reagan, et.al.
There was some hope that the election in 1980 of Ronald Reagan as President of the United States, that the “movement” had influenced public opinion enough to turn the preverbal corner toward traditional American ideals. The “Movement” has been weakened in recent years its strength had been drained by squabbling about single issue politics and Conservative politicians that governed like Left-Liberals.
Alas, the younger generation having taken the reins of publications such as National Review has lost the meaning. With their 15 minute attention span they no longer advocate individualism and strict observance of the US Constitution. They seek legitimacy in supporting the established Progressive government institutions. They are no longer motivated to advocate free-market solutions to counter arguments for government programs.
Mimi| 12.27.11 @ 12:17PM
Not at all sir! Since , the LIBERTY & TYRANNY book, Obama commie-land, the Tea Party...the cake is now baking with untold NEW voices of Conservatism.....when Ameritopia hits the world all the evidence will be there for all eyes to see and the CAKE will be done!!! On to 2012 !
Seek| 12.27.11 @ 4:15PM
Rhoetus: I have a piece of good news and a reality check: Stan Evans is still alive.
rhoetus| 12.27.11 @ 8:18PM
OK- thanks, I was being rhetorical.
Jeff Perren| 12.28.11 @ 2:29PM
I wish there were a big fat "approve!" button for posts like this one.
Jeffrey Lord | 12.30.11 @ 10:36PM
rhoetus...
Ahhhhhh...how do I say this? Stan Evans spoke at the American Spectator dinner ...last month. He looked fine to me. Please take him off of your list of dead conservatives?
Kent Lyon| 12.27.11 @ 12:00PM
Unfortunately, your hero Newt isn't making that case. He's been busy getting his palm greased by Freddie Mac, by making commercials pro AGW with Nancy Pelosi, and giving slobbering speeches in Iowa extolling the virtues of corn ethanol (now there is a really stupid idea!, to quote Newt), bashing Paul Ryan for right wing social engineering and demanding that Romney give back his ill-gotten gains from committing capitalism. Give me a break. Newt is the least conservative candidate running. Whatever he might have been in an earlier incarnation, he now seems like Teddy Roosevelt bent on destroying the Constitution with Progressivist proclivities. You want results? You want big ideas? Romney provided the ideas that got Ron Wyden in synch with Paul Ryan and may yet get our most serious entitlement problem fixed, e.g. Medicare. Come on, Mr. Lord. You're suffering from the "Evangelical affliction": Holding Mr. Romney's religion against him above all else. At least you don't seem to be enamored of Ron Paul like your fellow Evangelicals in Iowa (thank God for small favors).
Kent Lyon| 12.27.11 @ 12:15PM
Unfortunately, your hero Newt isn't making that case. He's been busy getting his palm greased by Freddie Mac, by making commercials pro AGW with Nancy Pelosi, and giving slobbering speeches in Iowa extolling the virtues of corn ethanol (now there is a really stupid idea!, to quote Newt), bashing Paul Ryan for right wing social engineering and demanding that Romney give back his ill-gotten gains from committing capitalism. Give me a break. Newt is the least conservative candidate running. Whatever he might have been in an earlier incarnation, he now seems like Teddy Roosevelt bent on destroying the Constitution with Progressivist proclivities. You want results? You want big ideas? Romney provided the ideas that got Ron Wyden in synch with Paul Ryan and may yet get our most serious entitlement problem fixed, e.g. Medicare. Come on, Mr. Lord. You're suffering from the "Evangelical affliction": Holding Mr. Romney's religion against him above all else. At least you don't seem to be enamored of Ron Paul like your fellow Evangelicals in Iowa (thank God for small favors).
Jeffrey Lord | 12.30.11 @ 10:33PM
Kent...
Interesting that you believe me an Evangelical. I do not believe Romney's religion an issue...period. This is America. Freedom of religion. Next!
Jerry Velona| 12.27.11 @ 12:30PM
I've been a regular subscriber and reader of National Review since the late 70's. While I've noticed that the magazine does feature a more even-handed approach on certain topics of late, I don't see any evidence of it being more "establishment" than in the past. I think the editors of NR would welcome a more viscerally conservative candidate than Mitt Romney but realistically assessing the viable alternatives at this point, they are going with the guy who has the best chance of beating Obama. I believe that WFB, who always said that he applied the opposite of the JK Galbaith dictum of supporting the "leftwardmost viable candidate" in any election would approve.
teflon93| 12.27.11 @ 1:06PM
There is no evidence Mitt Romney has "the best chance of beating Obama." The top 3-4 GOP candidates at any time have polled within the MOE of each other in head-to-head matchups with Obama. Moreover, the candidates aside from Romney have two strong advantages over him: they have exceeded 30% of GOP support at one time or another, meaning the base can be expected to rally behind them; they also put into play states needed in the general whereas Romney does no such thing. In fact, it is inconceivable Romney will appeal to the Blue Dog Democrats in NC and VA that will be absolutely essential to get if the GOP is to win---Obama's more red state than Romney is.
Despite this, the GOP Establishment keeps beating the same "electability" drum they did for John McCain---with a similar, "inevitable" result.
Who Knows?| 12.27.11 @ 1:09PM
What’s that saying---“Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds”?
Or---how about selective memory?
In 1992, Mr. Read-My-Lips Bush was done in by the dastardly un-patriot Perot. Also, the slimy Clinton won the donkey nomination for president because no better men chose to run against GHW Bush, due to his high popularity ratings after the Gulf War.
Then there’s cherry picking. A veritable idea factory like Gingrich, who honed his rhetorical skills as well as learned about how to bludgeon a crowd of fresh kids, when getting his public life started as a college prof, after forty years or so, has surely said more words than a sane person could spend time rereading. So, there’s bound to be SOMETHING he put out there that “makes sense”---indeed, his point about EMP’S is super.
So, go ahead and enjoy yourself in making the case for a conservative president. I sure yearn for such an outcome. However, I also yearn(ed) for Raquel Welch, and to become a millionaire.
Besides, Newt is NO conservative. And, Romney is more conservative that he’s had to campaign as, or indeed, govern as in liberal Massachusetts---IMHO. To maybe suicidally boot, no more conservative Americans, who stand out more than those running, chose to enter the race. So far.
I’m a Steyn-iac. It’s ALREADY too late for America. Arguing about who’s more conservative, especially nitpicking about the history of National Review—which is closing in on half a CENTURY in age---brings to mind some famous deckchairs.
The putative “Greatest Generation” raised perhaps the “Least Generation”, whose own progeny are one- “downing” that. So, what is a parent to do when the kids have been bad? There will be no more behavior mod, spare the rod! Spankings are a coming!
The universe will not, cannot, be mocked. A spinning Ferris Wheel, if it gets too much out of alignment, just has to shake itself apart. The only REAL wonder is if America still has a solid enough framework to endure the coming shakedown. And survive as a free people.
Maybe it’s a sign from the deity that the corpulent Gingrich---a great representative of the majority of Americans who are overweight or obese---is currently such a big deal. Fat people deserve their spokesman too! It is, however, quite the cognitive dissonance to see this gross body---the expression of an in-your-face bad diet---wiggle its mouth and voice box SAYING stuff about conservative values.
The fooled American majority CHOSE Obama as the cherry on the liberal cake that was ALREADY in power---congress and the bureaucracy, unions, Hollywood, academia, on the dole Americans. Grow up conservatives!
There are too many OTHER signs of the quickly arriving apocalypse---fat weathermen, grossly obese contestants on game shows, and the latest one I saw: the quarterback of the Chicago Bears, who recently found out he has Diabetes type A or 1 or whatever, has donated some of his gross salary to set up a camp for kids with the same “malady”.
What a hoot!
Allow me to share an eternally true maxim.
Humans ALWAYS focus on the symptoms, not the disease. It’s a form of short term investing, which is so extreme, that it almost totally ignores the long term investing needed.
The “common” cold is the perfect example. The conventional wisdom has always been that science doesn’t know the “cause” of this mysterious event. So, we are “graced” with a large section of an aisle in stores with myriad remedies to ameliorate the SYMPTOMS. The store giveth, and the store taketh.
“Food” stores are filled with products guaranteed to make us sick and fat---hello Newt! And, “over there”, is the section to “malox” away the gulped down crap.
Ah, it’s too bad AIDS has slipped off the noospheric radar. It’s the perfect DIS-EASE with which to understand America’s dire bodily, AND therefore, also, politically, ignorant situation.
AIDS---acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The appropriate emphasis should be on the ACQUIRED. That is, chosen, by free behavior.
I have come to realize that the entire American experiment is the logical playing out of an AIDS dance, from the micro, as one bite of gross “food” at a time into one mouth, to the macro, exemplified by today’s GOP presidential contest.
The human body has a great defense mechanism, known as the immune system. Therefore, isn’t it blatantly OBVIOUS that a wise person, who would prefer to be healthy and alive, would do what is best to maintain it in top form? Instead, indubitably IGNORANT people are acting out the mostly unwise and immature “baby” or “child” within, by putting tasty crap into the body---thereby overwhelming the immune system.
I leave it to ANY readers of this cri de coeur to EASILY apply this AIDS paradigm to the entire American political scene. IMHO, there are a whole lot of dead men and women running the show---who said zombies don’t exist?
Oh well---the One, and Only, Reality always finds ways to multiply into amusing forms, for a while.
It’s actually quite easy to instantly realize this. The other day, when getting dressed, I faced two shoes. I HAD TO CHOOSE just ONE of them, to put on, as the first ONE! Hey---just try to put TWO shoes on, at once.
See---ONE.
Philip Makowski| 12.27.11 @ 3:24PM
So are you suggesting that Newt will have the courage to say "congress, give us a carbon tax"?
Doctor Of Dental Surgeries| 12.27.11 @ 3:59PM
You do remember that NR endorsed Romney for the Republican nomination in 2008 right?
Stan Lippmann| 12.27.11 @ 4:09PM
Edmund Burke was not a conservative, he was to me as much of a utopian Communist as Obama. That's why he is traditionally known as a liberal, not a conservative. By extention, the Republican Party under Eisenhower and since has not been conservative. When Ron Paul is elected President, all this phoney conservatism since the 50's and the hypocrisy of the neo-cons will be shown for what it is. Why do you think Bush and Clinton play golf together?
teflon93| 12.27.11 @ 5:24PM
You don't know anything about Edmund Burke, do you? Or about communism, which wasn't articulated until 1917 by the Leninists, Marxism having not appeared until the 1st half of the 19th century (while Burke thrived around the time of the Revolution some 50 years prior).
Burke is considered a liberal largely through a similar anachronism, but in this case you've got your terminology all wrong: Burke was a liberal in the classical, European sense of the word, the sense Austrian economists insist upon to this day: he supported free markets and opposed totalitarian regimes of the sort favored by Robespierre and his various admirers (in short, the people who would become socialists, communists, and today's "liberals".)
Ron Paul isn't a conservative, but a libertarian. Since he is also something of a bigot and an anti-Semite, the closest he will come to the White House is taking a tour of the grounds.
Libertarians would do far better to cut him loose; he does the cause more harm than good.
Stan Lippmann| 12.27.11 @ 5:54PM
By liberal I mean anything divergent from Leibniz, another term for Modern. By conservative I mean post-modern, i.e., Burke is a Communist in the sense that he believes in mythical constructs such as the nation state. In the coming era, all secular ideologies will be seen to be Communist. The true path will be seen to be deterministic based on genes and atomic properties in motion.
W| 12.27.11 @ 6:34PM
Stan,
Stan Laurel was a lot more clear. In other words you don't have any idea how to reply to Teflon because he 100% correct.
teflon93| 12.28.11 @ 12:08PM
Stan- your definitions are extremely idiosyncratic; there's no discussion to be had given such anachronistic and incorrect labels.
Burke was a Communist in no sense of the word and you don't seem to understand that one goal of the Communists has always been to eliminate the very notion of the nation-state---this is what is meant by Marx' rallying cry, "Workers of the world, unite!"
I suggest reading Burke's excellent "Reflections on the Revolution in France" to understand what he was all about. Indeed, the embrace of the American and rejection of the French Revolution is the defining line of the conservative movement to this very day. Liberals embrace the French while rejecting the American Revolution, so it's as epochal an event for them as it was for us.
martin j smith| 12.27.11 @ 4:58PM
Ron Paul is not a Conservative. He is a Libertarian and isolationist. Ron Paul is not a serious candidate he is an irritant so are his supporters. Thus, how can he be a candidate for President of the United States for the "Republican" Party when he sounds
like Obama on foreign affairs and national security--These are giant issues. In fact I truly believe he supports Obama in these areas and I believe he would like to see Obama win a second term. I believe he will run as an "Independent " or as a Libertarian or whatever just to help Obama.
Paul knows full well he will not get the support of the Republican Party for Presidential nomination and knows full well that waving a red flag at Jewish voters is really politically foolish. But I believe he does not care about that. Like his supporters ( Clint or any of the known others ) they are there to irritate not to offer serious debates no--this is a operation possibly even conjured up in the White House itself.
Going back to Clint this person ( ? ) posts an immense amount of time. he is either very weatlhy in the 1% crowd or is a payed operative. Who has such time to spend ? The reasons in the end are not important what is important is to look beyond the dust and obfiscation created by Left trolls and the Clints and other Paul supporters and get down to the more serious issue of choosing a viable candidate who we ( who do not want Obama for domestic or foreign affairs ) both in terms of being a Conservative and an able opponent.
1-2 Punch| 12.27.11 @ 5:28PM
@martin j. smith Glad to see people realizing Ron Paul for the opportunist nut job fraud he is. Pertaining to Clint, who knew there is so much money in nazi memorabilia and joooo skin lamps huh?
Clint| 12.27.11 @ 6:40PM
Uh Oh !
Punchy Attempts To Play His Dog Eared Nazi Card On Tea Party Clint.
The RINO-CINO Israel FirsterFaux Conservative Smear Bund Is In Full Swing Because They Are Scared Of We Tea Party Patriots And Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Dr.Ron Paul.
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The RINO-CINO Israel Firster Faux Conservatives.
1-2 Punch| 12.27.11 @ 9:21PM
If your raw tonnage of stupid spewed across these boards could be converted to its equal weight of evil joooo' gold you'd be dangerous.
Stan Lippmann| 12.27.11 @ 6:03PM
If you got you DNA sequenced, I'm sure it would be different from the other rabid fantasist how have hijacked the Republican party since Taft lost to Eisenhower. Since you have no organic connection to the other fantasists, your connection to them is mythical. So you express nothing but an alienated persona. No wonder you buy into this nuke Iran BS. You may get your way and get Romney or some other banker stooge in there, though we will run Ron Paul as a Libertarian if you can't place reason above your selfish grasp of power for you and your war-mongering buddies. I can deal with Ron Paul losing by consoling myself that when you start WW III, perhaps the east coast will be wiped out, so at least I won't have to pay federal income taxes anymore, either way.
USSAlabama| 12.27.11 @ 6:32PM
Your name is not Lippmann. Get your own DNA sequenced.
What Hebrew do you know? Any? Let's talk.
Richard Baker| 12.27.11 @ 5:15PM
I rarely read National Review anymore. Started reading it in the early '70s and was drawn to the WFB no-nonsense style. However, today the magazine has lost that conservative snap that drew me in. NR, RIP.
W| 12.27.11 @ 7:34PM
I read the Mark Steyn and Rob Long stories then lose interest.
obadiah| 12.27.11 @ 5:35PM
Intelligent and discriminating conservatives like William F. Buckley are no longer wanted.
The dittoheads are in charge. Now, it is abuse, abuse, abuse, morning, noon and night. Romney's big problem is that he's not sufficiently abusive.
Of course Obama is a socialist. Rush says so. Obama's a marxist communist fascist. They all say so. Obama loves islamic jihadists and bows to ackie the irani.
teflon93| 12.29.11 @ 4:02PM
Romney's big problem is he's a liberal. He can't run away from his liberal record with so many clips on YouTube attesting to it.
For a man who isn't a Marxist, Obama sure has inadvertently stumbled upon a bumper crop of card-carrying Communists in his administration---Van Jones and Valerie Jarrett being just two.
WM| 12.27.11 @ 5:57PM
Just because Romney isn't conservative doesn't make Gingrich a conservative. Gingrich is simply not a conservative. Wishing won't make it so.
Please stop with the self-destructive fantasizing and face the reality. The last thing the tea party needs is to get associated with a progressive like Gingrich. That would be destructive over the long run.
Seek| 12.27.11 @ 7:23PM
I've heard from a number of reliable sources that certain Ron Paul's supporters may try to start a floor war -- possible a brawl -- at the forthcoming CPAC convention in Washington, D.C. in February.
Margie| 12.27.11 @ 7:39PM
Probably Clint & co.
MM| 12.27.11 @ 7:43PM
Why bother? Ron Paul always wins the straw poll there. Loaded like one of Obama's audiences.
Not much 'C' in CPAC outside of a few speakers.
Should Have Impeached| 12.27.11 @ 8:20PM
"And as a result…post a 1980s Romney Administration there is every reason to believe the Soviet Union would still be alive and well, the Berlin Wall still standing."
Now you're really scaring me to death.
Bob K.| 12.27.11 @ 11:02PM
Why be scared? The comment is nonsense. "If Hitler had won the war there would have been no Berlin wall to knock down." That is nonsense also. Does it scare you?
Charles| 12.27.11 @ 8:47PM
Through the heroic efforts of diligent historical researchers and first-hand observers such as Frank Meyer, Gary Wills, and Murray Rothbard we now know so much more of the hidden backstory of the origins of the modern "Conservative” movement than we shall learn from this fanciful cherry-picked account by Jeffrey Lord.
Specifically, we now know that William F. Buckley Jr.'s entire career as a 'public intellectual' was built upon one ignominious deception after another as a servitor of state power. The synthetic "movement" he help spawn has continued unabated, growing like a cancer in the American body politic
Bill Buckley was a student at Yale University (Skull and Bones 1950) where he served as shill and informant for J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. One of Buckley's Yale professors, former Trotskyist Willmoore Kendall (formerly of the OSS and later consultant to the CIA) was a recruiter of talent for the newly created Agency.
Kendall recruited Buckley in 1951. Kendall introduced him to former Trotskyist James Burnham (also formerly of the OSS). Burnham was consultant to the CIA's Office of Policy Coordination, the CIA's covert action division, actively working on the coup d'etat against Mossadegh in Iran.
Burnham first introduced Buckley to agent E. Howard Hunt in his Washington, D. C. apartment. Buckley then served with Hunt in Mexico where Hunt was chief of station and Buckley's control officer. Hunt later figured as a principal in the Watergate Scandal that brought down Richard Nixon.
Hunt, in his memoirs, American Spy, (in which Buckley wrote the introduction) observes that prior to his stint in the CIA, Regnery published Buckley's God and Man at Yale, an indictment of the supposed pervasive liberalism on that campus. The book launched Buckley's career as spokesman for the emerging "Conservative movement" of the early 1950s. With what we now know about CIA covert recruiting on college campuses during this period, particularly Yale, Buckley's initial book bears a new revisionist examination.
What is not widely known is that the whole enterprise was largely that of a "vanity press" arrangement, with the Buckley family operating covertly under the clandestine guise of the Catawba Corporation, commissioning and financing the book's publication and publicity. The book's ownership copyright secretly belonged to Catawba, not WFB.
Buckley was later approached by Regnery to serve on the board of directors of the publishing firm, along with that of William J. Casey. Casey was a prominent Wall Street attorney who had served in the OSS and later became CIA Director under Ronald Reagan.
Hunt pointed out that Regnery was subsidized by the CIA during its early years.
At this time James Burnham, who had maintained many of his former leftist connections, was active in the CIA sponsored front, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which was secretly funding left-wing, anti-Soviet scholars and publications networks producing magazines such as Encounter.
When later, at Burnham's urging, Buckley created National Review magazine, the premier "Conservative" publication of the past fifty years, joining him in the endeavor as principal editors were Kendall, Burnham, and his sister Priscilla, all of whom had been employed by the CIA.
William J. Casey drew up the incorporation papers for National Review, and served as its long-time legal counsel.
The mysterious early funding of this "non-profit" publication has long been an enigma to researchers. One hoped that Hunt (and Buckley) would finally shed light on this subject, for in one of the most fascinating, if incomplete, chapters in Hunt's memoir, "The Great Propaganda Machine," he describes some of his activities in the CIA's on-going efforts to manipulate, subsidize, and influence the news media and, through it, American public opinion.
The great unanswered question remains: What was Hunt's role in assisting his old colleague in creating the CIA's synthetic "Conservative movement?"
Buckley's National Review editorial colleague Frank Meyer (and his good friend, National Review contributor Murray Rothbard) believed that the magazine was a CIA operation run by Burnham as Buckley's control. And Hunt does detail in the book how the CIA was engaged in many clandestine operations of covert front groups and foundations using media manipulation and propaganda to project American imperial power and hegemony throughout the world.
Buckley and Hunt are dead.
Why not come clean about National Review? Buckley remained close to Hunt and, as he relates in the memoir, helping him through some trying post-Watergate legal difficulties after the mysterious airline death of his wife Dorothy.
Years later, Buckley was outted as a CIA operative by former CIA agent William Sloane Coffin (Skull and Bones 1949).
Coffin was a long-time colleague of George H. W. Bush (Skull and Bones 1948) when they both attended Phillips Andover Academy and later Yale together.
Former CIA Director George Bush later presented Buckley the Presidential Medal of Freedom, something Hunt never got for his years of clandestine service.
Buckley subsequently created his famous fictional character of CIA agent Blackford Oakes, as Hunt had done earlier in his own series of eight spy novels (under the pseudonyn of David St. John) featuring CIA agent 'Peter Ward.'
But it is not Hunt with whom Buckley should be compared but author Mary Shelley.
Buckley's entire life as America's premier "conservative" public intellectual was sheer fiction based on lies and deception. And so has been the Frankenstein "movement" he created for his intelligence community masters.
GMAFB| 12.27.11 @ 9:15PM
Charles -- As a conspiratorialist, you put Ron Paul to shame. If you believe Wills, Rothbard, and Meyer, you're drunk on pinko lemonade.
Charles| 12.27.11 @ 10:20PM
Slurs and name calling are not arguments. Point out specific facts I related which can be proven erroneous or untrue. The association of Buckley, Burnham, Kendall, and Casey, with the Central Intelligence Agency are a matter of public factual record, as is their association with the founding of National Review. You may want to check out the special issue of National Review published after the 1987 death of Burnham for clues to solving this enigma.
Chootee| 12.28.11 @ 3:43AM
I'm afraid slurs and name calling ARE considered argument in Trotskyite NeoconLand. They are creating their own reality.
Charles is an idiot| 12.27.11 @ 9:19PM
Charles, Lyndon Larouche lives!!
Charles| 12.27.11 @ 10:21PM
Again, slurs and name calling are not arguments. Point out specific facts I related which can be proven erroneous or untrue. The association of Buckley, Burnham, Kendall, and Casey, with the Central Intelligence Agency are a matter of public factual record, as is their association with the founding of National Review. You may want to check out the special issue of National Review published after the 1987 death of Burnham for clues to solving this enigma.
Chootee| 12.28.11 @ 3:40AM
Can no one defend with real argument that WFB was a CIA operative and NR a CIA front to cleanse the GOP of any meaningful conservatism? And no, Neoconservatism is NOT conservative, which is why there is no difference between the GOP field (with the exception of Ron Paul) and Obama. Obamas policies are embraced by most of the Neocons running and those that aren't the candidates do not have a track record that can be trusted.
Poor Rich Lowry| 12.27.11 @ 9:00PM
The author of this article was too kind to Rich Lowry, who is a despicable, social climbing, calculating narcissist who singlehandledy befouled and bemanured NR's credentials. So it will be with all GOP establishmentarians who coalesced and brought about the reelection of Barack Obama in 2012. Conservatives should keep a diary of this political primary season, and when the Establishment tries to capture the open POTUS seat in 2016, take revenge on Jeb Bush.
MikeN| 12.27.11 @ 9:42PM
You should have seen this coming. Rich Lowry wrote a column that ended with "Don't fear fingerprinting, it is the future."
Cato the Younger| 12.27.11 @ 10:48PM
As a 36-year subscriber to NR I can only tell you: you said what needed to be said, with more restraint than I personally would have used. Andy McCarthy should be running that magazine. How well I remember the NR 50th anniversary celebration in D.C., WFB's final appearance. Rush Limbaugh was there and delighted to be there. The list of attendees was incomparable. Stan Evans told us "SURE there's a vast right wing conspiracy--you're all part of it!" Does anyone think such a muscular, unified gathering of conservatives could happen now? The leader of the opposition, Limbaugh, when he refers to NR on the radio now often speaks with barely-concealed frustration and scorn. What is clear is that an editor-in-chief of the conservative flagship publication has to be a person who cannot be softened by excessive interaction with the fashionable, powerful N.Y. media establishment. What made WFB rock-solid in this respect, in my view, was his devout Catholicism. It gave him spine that you just don't see nowadays. In NR's defense: if Ryan or Daniels had run they would surely have endorsed them. Both would have been fine choices for conservatives. Alas, they aren't running.
Anonymous| 12.28.11 @ 10:28AM
As Conservatism was the future of American politics in 1968, such is libertarianism today. The intellectual elite of the younger generation backs Ron Paul and his vision for America. Yes, the unthinking cult of Obama has numerical superiority, but they don't understad their point of view and Obama's liberalism cannot provide the hope and change they seek. Ron Paul is the candidate of real hope and real change. Obviously, liberals and neo-conservatives don't want that because they like things pretty much as they are. Ron Paul would "fundamentally transform" America by reversing pretty much the entire Progressive project, including the Wilsonian foreign policy, the New Freedom of Wilson (Fed), the New Deal of FDR, and the "Great" Society of LBJ. That is unacceptable to those of the left and to those of the Romney-Gingrich center-right. However, I am certain that Ron Paul's son Rand will be a future President. I am just uncertain whether our time will arrive in 2012 or whether we'll have to wait a few more years.
JaimeInTexas| 12.28.11 @ 11:44AM
Mr. Lord:
Which item(s) in your list does Dr. Paul fails? I can only see one item that only appears not to agree with Dr. Paul.
And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of "peace at any price."
As POTUS, unless it is in reaction to an imminent or actual attack, Dr. Paul will simply put it to the Congress the question: do you declare war or not? If yes, then Dr. Paul as POTUS will prosecute the war. If no, then he will not.
I suspect that the so-called Constitutionalism of the Buckley and post-Buckly eras will do just like the liberals and advocate ignoring the Constitution.
Shyster| 12.29.11 @ 1:33PM
An excellent article and very overdue.
Perhaps the current regime at National Review has become too comfortable.
Ambro| 12.31.11 @ 6:45PM
El Mittbo a Conservative?? His vetos as Mass. Gov. were pro forma and responsibility free ways to toss bones yo state conservatives. The state legislature was Dem controlled and immediately overrode his vetos. Any supporter of the 2nd Ammendment should have qualms about his support. Anyone who is concerned about illegal migration, border security and amnesty for illegals feel reassured about his positions or support? A 59 point campaign document...really?? Hugh Hewitt's white hot man- crush on Mitt is an endorsement that you buy? Sadly, I've voted in the last 20 years against Clinton (twice), against Gore, against Kerry and for Palin (and the grumpy white geezer, wotsizname). Looks like I'll be voting against Obama this time. Same old same old.