The American Spectator

Angel| 3.6.09 @ 1:05PM

Oh, from your headline, I thought you were talking about Obama.

Frosty| 3.6.09 @ 1:09PM

I don't know of any 24 year old who uses the word 'hooey'. Oddball.

ruth| 3.6.09 @ 1:28PM

LOL. RSM, you're just mad because this brat called you (Conservative men), 'girlish men'.

Ran| 3.6.09 @ 2:05PM

Um... "unadulterated" hooey? What, as opposed to virgin hooey? Hey, the dude can do irony straight-up.

[Hey, Ruth, RSM can't be a girlie-boy. He's not at Nautical Review!]

ruth| 3.6.09 @ 2:10PM

Ran, remember, you're a Conservative guy, too.

Robert Stacy McCain| 3.6.09 @ 3:48PM

It's the journalistic Gran Torino -- "You punks get off my lawn!"

Interloper| 3.6.09 @ 5:39PM

You are obviously desperate for traffic to your blog, Robert Stacy McCain. So, will you be publishing your defense of the murder of Emmet Till again? Regaling readers with your most recent participation in a celebration of President Abraham Lincoln's murder? Offering free memberships to the white supremacist and secessionist League of the South to anyone who drops by?

Crusader| 3.6.09 @ 5:43PM

Lincoln's dead?

Willey| 3.6.09 @ 6:11PM

Uh oh, RSM, there's Interloper dog poop on your lawn.

DaveinPhoenix| 3.6.09 @ 8:40PM

The problem with punks like this is that weren't yet born when America was the greatest nation on Earth. They don't have a clue...along with the millions who elected our present legislative and executive disgraces.

Red Phillips| 3.6.09 @ 9:18PM

I'm torn. In the wake of CPAC and the Limbaugh speech, there has been much paleo/alt right criticism of the conservative movement. Much of this criticism is warranted. But much of it also is not strategically helpful.

I do think it is fair for paleo/alt righters of whatever age to point out that the conservative movement has not been particularly successful at conserving anything. It is fair for paleos of any age to point out that it is illegitimate to talk about respecting the Constitution in one sentence and then propose or defend some blatantly unconstitutional program in the next. It is fair for the "Young Turks" to point out that the "Old Turks" like Keene for example fumbled badly by failing to endorse and enthusiastically support Ron Paul.

But I was troubled by the tone of McLaren's article. Paleos need to woo the Conservative Movement to the cause of authentic conservatism, not demonize them.

Jay Evans| 3.7.09 @ 12:09AM

This does appear to be the Other McCain's Gran Torino moment. I like R.S. McCain, but I really don't see what he accomplishes here. Taking down an obscure college kid doesn't really doesn't accomplish much. Nothing like Andy Ferguson taking out Bill Moyers. Also, I think the obsession with David Brooks, and other squishy conservatives, is silly. Far better to focus one's venom on this new crew in Washington. We need both Limbaugh conservatives, and Brooks conservatives, if we want to be players in the arena. Ideological purity is for ivory towers, and musty basements. Get out of the tower, come out of the basement, take your friends where you can get 'em, and focus your wrath on those who wish to punish the entreprenurial class as they reward lawyers and gov't employees.

Robert Stacy McCain| 3.7.09 @ 9:46AM

Yeah, Willey, dog poop on the lawn and more than a million hits in my first year of independent blogging. The repetition of these old second-hand libels doesn't bother me in the least.

Bob| 3.7.09 @ 11:00AM

RSM, you do realize that every time someone posts, or just reviews responses to their posts, it is counted as a "hit". In fact, every time you review your responses, it is counted as a hit. If you want to look at reach, you should count the number of different IP addresses.

By the way, getting hits is not necessarily positive. Mass murderers and Britney Spears get millions of hits a week. The same is true for many You Tube postings.

Angel| 3.7.09 @ 1:13PM

Say something positive, Bob, or don't say anything at all. Tedious.

Bob| 3.7.09 @ 1:16PM

Angel, are you serious? Ok, if none of you make any negative comments about anyone, including Obama and the Dems/libs, I'll follow suit.

CH| 3.7.09 @ 1:26PM

Correction: if none of you MAKES any negative comments. You need a little English refresher, Bob.

CH| 3.7.09 @ 4:02PM

Bob, I thought you were on our side. That's a laugher.

Bob| 3.7.09 @ 5:25PM

CH, thank you for the correction. I don't believe fiscal conservatives get anywhere by demonizing Dems/Libs. We should be promoting fair taxes (i.e., flat tax), limiting government intervention in the form of tax incentives and helping any industry, limiting what government does, and to the greatest degree, staying out of people's lives. Government has a need for proper regulation because business cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Government should make the market fair, not try to stimulate it as neither tax cuts nor spending are significantly stimulative.

In terms of candidates, we should be promoting the best and the brightest. They should be examples of success in both their schooling and life. Our children need examples of why education is important to their success.

I do want to keep government intervention into both are fiscal and social lives to an absolute minimum so social conservatives would not agree with my socially libertarian positions.

I am really tired of dumb posts on places like AmSpec which are ideological without an ounce of reason. I agree more with Frum and Brooks than I do with any of the bloggers here. They want Republicans to win and so do I. Rush and AmSpec couldn't care less.

If I posted at Frum's place, I would be just another sycophant like most of the posters here. That's why I'm here. Good luck.

Basil Plumley| 3.7.09 @ 7:16PM

Bob
If you want to post with Frum and/or Brooks, go right ahead. It won't be as a result of they being more enlightening; but rather that you are tired of getting your butt handed to you by folks with a less glorious education.

Frum and Brooks are actually very bright people. They just now realized that Obama wasn't who they thought he was. Their hatred for Sarah Palin obfuscated the obvious; much like your posts.

Yuppers, you be the star sycophant on those blogs. Go ahead and make everyone's day.

Paris| 3.7.09 @ 7:27PM

Bob, you worship at your own altar. But, yes, I know, your wonderful wife and three pefect daughters adore you, too. :)

Miss Hilton| 3.7.09 @ 7:29PM

pefect = perfect We can't all be as perfect as you, dear Bob.

tonypal| 3.7.09 @ 7:50PM

Everyone lay off poor Bob. None of you can possibly comprehend the enormity of Bob. Until you've occupied the same rarified air as our aforementioned hero, you have no right to question his majesty.

ruth| 3.7.09 @ 8:10PM

Thank you for your timely reminder, Sir.

CH| 3.7.09 @ 8:11PM

You're welcome, Bob.

Bob| 3.8.09 @ 2:54PM

Basil, you are indeed comical. Your lack of comprehension is legend. Perhaps you should go back to school since you admit you have little education. Am I an elitist like Frum and Brooks? If that is what education gets you, then I plead guilty. You, Ruth, tonypal, Quin, RSM, etc., are the reason fiscal conservatism is failing and the Republicans continue to lose their battles.

Matt| 3.8.09 @ 3:12PM

Not even a rubber room could help you, Bob.

Basil Plumley| 3.8.09 @ 4:17PM

Hey Bob

Great comeback!!!!
I've had mosquitos who have been worthier opponents. There is never a reason to shake in my boots waiting for something cogent or hard hitting from you. Is that the best you can do?

So you're the "Fiscal Conservative" who advocates greater government spending and no tax cuts?
You are much closer to Keynes and Galbraith than you are to Friedman, Hayek, and von Mises. What is there to understand?

Angel| 3.8.09 @ 5:41PM

Bob is a gnat. Annoying but harmless.

Bob| 3.8.09 @ 6:16PM

Proof once again Basil that you stand for nothing coherent. You seem akin to a parrot with Limbaugh talking points. Can you even think on your own? I doubt it. Certainly Matt and Angel are there with you.

Is it really true that ignorance is bliss? So Basil, what do you stand for besides limiting my personal liberties. Since your comprehension is limited, I advocate governmental responsibility. If they are going to spend, they should pay for it. You and your friends stand for fiscal irresponsibility where you cut taxes and spend more. Hmmmm...

Angel| 3.8.09 @ 7:15PM

Yeah, that's a true Conservative; spend like a maniac. That's not my definition, and I don't think it's Basil's, Bob. Stop putting your BS words in our mouths. Really annoying.

Basil Plumley| 3.8.09 @ 11:45PM

Bob ............. You arrogant punk ....... SWAT!!

Bob| 3.9.09 @ 9:58AM

Basil, so your true nature emerges. Thank you.

Angel, the point is that historically, whether you talk about Reagan or Bush, spending is never cut. I've tried to explain the reason for that. So here is the reason one more time.

The federal budget is comprised of 53% social security and medicare. About 9% is interest on the debt. 20% is military. That means 82% of the budget is non-discretionary. The 18% that is left funds everything else including Congress, the White House, the FTC, FDA, Fed, transportation, commerce, etc.

The reason you don't see major budget cuts is that you have to cut social security, medicare, or the military to do it. If you cut social security and/or medicare, you will lose the senior vote. Given that Republicans have an older voter than Dems, they can't do that or they will lose even more elections.

Therefore, it is virtually impossible to cut spending significantly especially for a politician who wants to get reelected. That is why it makes no sense to support both tax cuts and spending cuts and why it ALWAYS ends up in increasing the debt. That is fiscally irresponsible and if you and Basil had half a brain, you'd understand that.

Basil Plumley| 3.9.09 @ 11:59AM

Ummm Bob, your numbers are off. Today, only less than 10% is discretionary spending. It was 50% in 1990.
Ummm, Bob, it is the Dems who are very dependent on the old folks vote. In case you haven't noticed (you haven't, what else is new) the members of Congress who represent the areas with the most aged are Democrats.

Your perception of tax-cuts are wrong as usual. There are plenty of stats that show that tax cuts increase receipts to the Treasury. They don't fit your template so you fail to use them. Not only are you a fraud but a disingenuous one at that.

QED---SWAT!!

Bob| 3.9.09 @ 3:24PM

Basil, wrong as usual. Here is a pie chart of the current budget. My information was a couple of months older, but the numbers haven't changed much. I don't include either interest or military in discretionary spending although technically they are. If you use the government technical definition of discretionary spending then current discretionary spending is 38% -- not 10%. (Which hidden orafice do your numbers emanate from?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008

Given that you don't know how to read or analyze data (you would have learned had you attended school), Obama received 45% of the 65+ vote while McCain received 53% of the segment vote. Given that Obama received 54% of the total vote, it is clear proof that people who voted Republican were older. Here is the demographic breakdown from the exit polls:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1

Basil, your intellect is limited to your own mind. Thank you for proving me right once again.

ruth| 3.9.09 @ 6:46PM

Bob, I never need sleeping pills anymore; all I have to do is read your posts at AmSpec in order to nod off fast and sleep like a baby. Thanks!

Basil Plumley| 3.9.09 @ 6:56PM

Bob,

My source of the 10% comes from John Kasich, former Congressman comparing the budget of 1990 and 2008. I think he was Budget Chairman. Citing Wiki; that's lazy.

I suggest you re-read what I wrote and put in context of who was fighting against Social Security reform. You have embarrassed yourself once again.
Remember Bob, the 4 biggest lies are lies, damned lies, statistics, and you.

SWAT!!

Bob| 3.10.09 @ 9:41AM

So let me get this right, Basil. You use hearsay instead of facts and think that's better than using federal government data (check the source of the date on the wiki)? Yes, school could have helped you. Again, an example of why social conservatives are demolishing the Republican party. All belief and no reason.

Basil Plumley| 3.10.09 @ 3:13PM

Ummm, when the Budget Chairman says it, it isn't hearsay. That is good evidence. In fact, it is more believable than your stats.
My lawyer friends tell me that statistics rarely make good evidence in the court of law; even IF admissible.
Being a Budget Chairman would make Kasich an expert in the field; credible and admissible.

Therefore, according to my lawyer friends you are the one using the hearsay evidence. Shouldn't you be on the yellow brick road in search of your brain?
Keep trying Bob............. one of these days............. just maybe .............you may make a cogent argument.
This is just too darn easy .............SWAT!!!

ruth| 3.10.09 @ 3:25PM

I give Bob an 'A' for effort and an 'F' for everything else. Bob, you've flunked, you will have to repeat 1st grade. Could you do it on some other Web-site? Please?