The American Spectator

William R| 5.26.09 @ 9:57AM

Levin is one of the worst NeoCons. Thinks the war in Iraq is a great sucess and now wants to expand it to Iran. Just another 3rd rate Likudnik.

Deborah D| 5.26.09 @ 10:11AM

I read your excellent piece on Republican elitists over at your site, Mr. McCain...great stuff, and thanks. Levin is too smart for those lightweights (and so are you!).

BD57| 5.26.09 @ 10:15AM

Ahh, William .... couldn't resist the "Likudnik" reference ....

I WONDER what that's supposed to mean????

What's your policy toward Iran, Bill? You have no problem with them getting nuclear weapons? If that's inaccurate - if you believe it would be a bad thing - you have a policy suggestion for how we should deal with them?

William R| 5.26.09 @ 10:24AM

Iran is no threat to the United States. If Israel is worried about Iran's nuclear program they should start pushing for a nuke free Middle East. Give up their nukes. But Likudniks like Levin think if it isn't good for Israel then it is not good for the USA

Basil Plumley| 5.26.09 @ 10:43AM

William R| 5.26.09 @ 10:24AM
Iran is no threat to the United States. If Israel is worried about Iran's nuclear program they should start pushing for a nuke free Middle East. Give up their nukes. But Likudniks like Levin think if it isn't good for Israel then it is not good for the USA

Hmmm, sounds like William R is a candidate for Most Likely To Be A Human Shield.

Yeah, the Mullahs are good people in need of love and understanding ...... and looking for a few more "human shields".

Likudnik? Neocon? That's two strikes against you.

William R| 5.26.09 @ 10:48AM

Where did I say the Mullahs are good people?? They're not. That still doesn't change the fact that Iran is no threat to the United States.

JP| 5.26.09 @ 10:59AM

Dreher is a strange bird. A one time Evangelical turned Roman Catholic turned Eastern Orthodox, Dreher is constantly seeking a life that is forever elusive. Don't get me wrong, many of Rod's critiques are dead on. There are some principles that must be eternal, and taking the model of the Greeks and the Medeval Church to build a strong foundation for society is a great ideal. In some ways, Dreher reminds me of JRR Tolkien. He too grieved for a land, a way of life, and a mode of thought and manners that was long past. Tolkien's depiction of The Shire and the Hobbits (a people deeply rooted in Nature, but at the same time the Hobbits were deeply connected to each other. Thier connection to both Nature and civic society was enduring -as Bilbo Baggins commented, nothing really changes in the Shire. Tolkien believed that the Industrial Revolution and its destruction of not only Nature, but also an entire mode of life was a disaster for England. Tolkien's conservatism, therefore, was much different than that of say, Disreali or Salisbury. JRR Tolkien, as far as I know, was never politically active (he was probably a Monarchist and a fan of the natural artistocracy), and spent most of his life hidden inside of his library, his pub, and The Catholic Church.

Rod Dreher, in many ways is a foe of Modernity. Like Tolkien, Flaubert, and Stendal, he is a romantic with a deep resentment and distrust for the Bourgoisie. He see virture in the poor, as long as they remain poor (But, Lord help them if they start shopping at Wal Mart); he is an enemy of vulgarity and philistinism -especially religious vulgarity. Dreher longs for the days when a socially conservative urbanite could stroll the parks, shop at the corner bakery, walk a block to his local parish and take the trolley to work. Dreher has no time for the hectic, superificial life of the modern suburbanite. He flees from the endless concrete jungles of malls, strip malls, fast food restaurants, and suburban mega-churches.

In many ways, Dreher has done a good job in critqueing the US; his is another perspective that should be listened to and debated. However, like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and Alan Keyes, Dreher saves his most viscious critiques for fellow conservatives. Like a brother who can see the faults of his siblings better than outsiders can, Dreher sees no problem in leveling his best shots at them. This kind of double standard isn't new.

What Rod Dreher should realize is that his quest ultimately isn't about politics. He conflates his religious and social pieties with politics much in the same way Presidents Wilson and Teddy Rooselvet did. Of course, society will never live up to the standards of religious orthodoxies. Christ himself said he came not to give peace, but to bring war. Christ's allegory points to a permanent, but vital tension in any Christian society. Beware of the person who wishes to remove that tension.

Dreher, for all of his eloquence and knowledge, still has much to learn.

William R| 5.26.09 @ 11:09AM

IMO, Dreher finds it hard to believe that he was part of the National Review crowd during the run up to the Iraq war. He actually looked favorably on David Frum's piece " Unpatriotic Conservatives" Conservatives opposed to the Iraq hated the United States and were antisemitic.

Old Texican| 5.26.09 @ 11:13AM

William
In all respect, sir, I just cannot believe you really meant your words above.
You were just pulling our chains, right?

Sir, I know you were just repeating Obama's words, so does that settle it in your own mind?

Nahhh, you have just been joking with us.

Old Texican| 5.26.09 @ 11:15AM

William
I was referring to your joke about Iran not being a threat to us.

Teflon93| 5.26.09 @ 11:15AM

Mark Levin's great sins in the eyes of the Fauxcons are that he adheres to conservative principles, will not grant the good intentions of our enemies, and will not take their bullying in gratitude for the attention.

His greatest sin is wanting to win.

Dreher and Frum spend all their misbegotten time trying to find that mythical "Third Way" between liberty and tyranny. How successful are they? Well, Dreher used to be a columnist with nationwide reach writing for National Review. He's now stuck in Dallas watching newspapers die around him. Mark Levin got Frum to admit on his program that his latest book sold around 25,000 copies. This is from a former White House speechwriter beloved by the Left Wing Media as a candidate for the David Brock Growth In Journalism Award (aka the Backstabber).

Meanwhile, Levin's got one of the top-rated talk shows in the nation and a #1 bestselling book.

The Frums, Drehers, Friederswhatsis, and Powells of the GOP were utterly discredited when the party ran their favored "moderate" maverick candidate and got shown the door.

You can't beat something with nothing and you surely can't beat liberal fascist with moderate quislings.

It is Mark Levin who rallies the troops for the battle we must wage to save this nation and its Constitution.

Let these clowns sulk in their tents.

(My apologies to Achilles for placing him in such poor company.)

William R| 5.26.09 @ 11:29AM

Reagan’s wisdom on the Middle East: Leave

http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/?s=Reagan's+wisdom

William R| 5.26.09 @ 11:30AM

I'll repeat it again. Iran is no threat to the United States!

William R| 5.26.09 @ 11:33AM

Dreher didn't support Insane John McCain.

Basil Plumley| 5.26.09 @ 11:35AM

@ Teflon93

Good job! Great Post!!

To those who think Iran is not a threat, ask yourself what happens when Iran gets their nukes?
Let's start with $4+ gas as the balance of power in the Middle East becomes restless. Do you think the Sunni Saudis will sit idly by while the Shia Iranians become ruler in the Middle East?

The Left looks at danger in only terms of imminent to America borders, never in terms of asymmetrics and potential.
Of course, they are the first to demand why we failed to "connect the dots" after events occur.
That is one a hell of a price for being stylish.

William R| 5.26.09 @ 12:05PM

If you want sky high oil prices then bomb Iran. They could close the straights of Hormuz where something like 65 percent of the worlds oil supply travels.

Tom Rowan| 5.26.09 @ 1:03PM

William, you lost all credibility from the start: "Levin is one of the worst....."

I think the article and responses are interesting and informative. Like an IQ test, the debate clearly identifies morons, imbeciles, and idiots.

Basil Plumley| 5.26.09 @ 1:26PM

William R| 5.26.09 @ 12:05PM

If you want sky high oil prices then bomb Iran. They could close the straights of Hormuz where something like 65 percent of the worlds oil supply travels.

Duh, really?
This is quite amazing. Before the NIE was released in December of 2007, sanctions were the solution to the Iranian nuclear threat. Once the NIE was released, sanctions were taken off the table.
Those of us who believed the NIE to be false were chastised and derided. After all, Iran posed no threat to anyone. Now, Iran poses no threat to America.

Thus, we are left with the proverbial 2 options: Do nothing or do something.

If we do nothing, we will pay what amounts to a ransom in hopes that the Iranians do nothing. I envision the Sword of Damocles.

If we do something, we will pay high prices in the short term but gain stability over the product in the long term.

The window of opportunity is rapidly closing where our options are severely limited. What do we do?

bobbymike| 5.26.09 @ 1:39PM

William - in the paraphrased words of Mark Levin - The Great One - NYTimes best selling author with the most substantive political book in decades (I'll wait for your book Bill) GET OFF THE BLOG YOU BIG DOPE!

But one point Iran is no threat yet if we attack they will block the Straights of Hormuz against the most powerful Navy of earth..hmmmm that shounds like they are a THREAT to global energy supplies which IS a threat to the world.

Ran| 5.26.09 @ 1:53PM

Iran isn't a threat? Until one examines the data and historical record: What their mullahs would accomplish when armed with whithery tech... that's a question the Left deliberately avoids.

That Iran's mullahs are our past and present enemies and that they are an ambitious nuclear danger is well described by Michael Ledeen. They've got fingerprints all over NK's nuke tests and their engineers all over NK's missiles. Conclusion? William "I just don't like Likudniks nudge wink" R is just full of shit or a deliberate liar. Doesn't matter which.

Right. The Conservative Bar Brawl... Um, look at it this way: Anyone want to run the numbers on the combined sales of say, "Crunchy Cons" and "Comeback" and compare that to the sales of "Liberty and Tyranny"?

Red Phillips| 5.26.09 @ 2:39PM

Rod Dreher is not a moderate reformer. He is a crunchy con which is similar to a paleocon. (Does crunchy con entirely equal paleocon deserves an article all its own.) His criticisms are in general philosophically from the right with maybe some political pragmatism thrown in. Frum’s are from the left or moderate center. If Levin really does not understand the difference between Dreher and Frum then he needs a lesson in Conservatism 101.

One can not just have an all critics be damned attitude. Nuance and distinctions are important.

JP| 5.26.09 @ 2:58PM

One could say that as far as threats go, we are 0 and 2. From 1995 to 2001 we allowed AQ to plan and execute many attacks on the US property. Until 9/11 we ignored them as a horse ignores a fly. After 9/11 we could ignore no more.

Personally, I thought the invasion of Iraq was a good idea (we did promise military attacks if Saddam didn't comply with the UN Resolutions. We didn't change; our allies did). However, President Bush's War On Terror lasted maybe 3 months; after that it was a War on Iraq. Gone was his insistence that we do not wait for the other shoe to drop. By November 2002, we began to talk about WMDs and Iraq. Using CIA data, he dispatched Powell to the UN, and the rest was history. No WMDs, no moral right to invade. The Left used his own words against him. If he would have stuck to his orginal line of reasoning, things would have been different. The graves of 3000 civilians were enough to give him the moral authority to dispatch Saddam and flank
Iran from both West (Iraq) and Afghanistan
(East).

But Compassionate Conservatives do not fight Bismarkian Wars (remember, it was the French who declared war on Prussia in 1870, which allowed Prussia the means to fullfill Bismark's geopolitical goals). Besides, the Beltway Chattering Class and DC bureaucracy hadn't the stomach for it. Bush decided that not every changed on 9/11, and here we are.

I seriously don't think Obama would lift a finger to defend Isreal. If we had intel that Iran was going to bomb Iran within 6 hours, would Obama share it, and risk the Isrealis launching 15-20 bunker busting tactical nukes Iran's way? Would Obama use American assets to defend Tel Aviv? Remember there are as many Muslims living within a half a day's drive of Tel Aviv as there are Jews. But Obama and the European Elite do not see it like that.

So, William you miss the point. Even if Iran had 10-15 weaponized nuclear tipped missles that had a range of 1000 miles, Obama would just "live with it", and attempt to use it to get his chance at glory -An Isrealis - Palestinian Peace Treaty. We've had 2 now (Carter, Clinton); Obama needs his Nobel.

Ran| 5.26.09 @ 3:41PM

Red,
Frum's policies are not as you describe them... His views span the spectrum from Right to muddle, as it were, and that's his problem: Squishing on major big-government tax mandates such as "global climate change" is the sort of naive "centrism" that illuminates his lack of principled core. Yeah, he agrees with libertarians and conservatives here and there... until it comes time to support such a candidate (cough! PALIN cough!) when the going gets tough. We're not talking nuance here, but clear distinctions.

Dan| 5.26.09 @ 3:52PM

JP says a good deal.

Red, Mark Levin observes the salient point about Dreher and Frum, Brooks too, he sees they're all losers. And that's about all he needs to know. They represent the dubious resurrection from the undead of the Rockefeller wing of the party, a wing real comfortable with existing for decade after decade in the political wilderness, all the while congratulating themselves on how "classy" they are. TEFLON93 was right to note their fixation on a "third way" that doesn't exist. In reality, their "third way" is a Republican party that ceases to allow moral norms to inform her domestic agenda, {NOTE BENE TOO how they desire America's foreign policy to continue to be informed by a morality that they disdain when it comes to domestic matters, this is incoherence}.

The GOP was born from the Abolition movement. Any attempt to strip moral norms from her domestic agenda turns back the clock, and seeks to transform the GOP into the Whigs, which it replaced back in the day.

They're all modern Steven Douglasses, and they don't even have the historical depth to understand as much. They want states to be able to sanction decadent interpretations of marriage, because they're privately convinced that homoism is the wave of the future, an unstoppable force that's going to force itself on an unwilling Uncle Sam. They're privately uneasy with absolute moral norms. They reject Natural Law. And they're not likely to lose sleep pondering the fate of 40 million unborn obliterated in the womb.

And they're real comfortable with an immigration policy that's diluting the voting power of the native American citizenry.

Loss of sovereign perogatives doesn't get them excited.

And to their accomodationist trumphet call, they delude themselves that vast numbers of Americans will rally.

Good luck with that. One thing more, which I'm sure you guys noted, they're whiners, and they appear to be constantly pleading on television.

Man up you wimps!

William R| 5.26.09 @ 4:07PM

Tom Rowan| 5.26.09 @ 1:03PM

He is one of the worst Neocons. He wants more of the last eight years. Well the past eight years have shattered the GOP and conservatism. There is nothing conservative about invading nations that haven't attacked the United States and certainly were never a threat. Trotskyites and their offspring NeoCons think otherwise.

William R| 5.26.09 @ 4:07PM

Tom Rowan| 5.26.09 @ 1:03PM

He is one of the worst Neocons. He wants more of the last eight years. Well the past eight years have shattered the GOP and conservatism. There is nothing conservative about invading nations that haven't attacked the United States and certainly were never a threat. Trotskyites and their offspring NeoCons think otherwise.

Red Phillips| 5.26.09 @ 4:08PM

Ran, I don't think you got my point. Frum is a centrist on all things (big government, social issues) except foreign policy where he is hawkish. But as a non-interventionist paleocon I don't consider his hawkishness either a good thing or conservative properly understood. He is coming from the center and counseling centrism (except on foreign policy).

Dreher is not counseling centrism per se (as much as I understand him) , but a different kind of conservatism. Read JP above. He gets Dreher. Dreher is a critic of modern movement conservatism, but he is coming from a much different place than Frum. Dreher does not equal Frum and Crunchy Cons (his book) does not equal Comeback (Frum's book.)

JP, I don't care if rightist critics of the conservative movement spend more time criticizing conservatives to their left than they do the left. The conservative movement needs a good criticizing. (Lord knows the neocons and centrist have spent careers demonizing anyone to their right.) The rightist criticisms must just be identifiably rightist.

If Levin truly does not get the difference between Dreher and Frum then he is ignorant. If he does and conflates the two anyway (which is what I suspect since he is a bright guy) then he is being dishonest.

It is one thing to want everyone marching together against a common foe (Obama and the Democrats) and feeling that dissent on side items is harmful to the cause, but it is another thing to demand conformity in an attempt to ostracize all critics whether from the left or the right.

Ran| 5.26.09 @ 4:13PM

JP,
Dan's right... thanks. "Man up you wimps!" Sure... they'd have to admit to certain absolutes, such as the existence of genuine evil.

BD57| 5.26.09 @ 4:36PM

Bill:

Thanks for answering the question - it gave me valuable insight about your judgment.

That is all.

hmm_contrib| 5.26.09 @ 4:40PM

Ah, the old "substantive criticisms" gambit!
Yeah, that old "stay on point and not resort to insults involving relative fame" is quite a sneaky and shallow move. I mean, all Levin should have to say is, "Do you know who I am?" and the discussion should be over, right?

bobbymike| 5.26.09 @ 5:04PM

I have a suggestion instead of dividing ourselves into crunchycons, paleocons, fiscalcons, defensehawkcons, etc. why don't we unite under Constitutioncons?

Answers to every public policy is contained therein. Where it is not, conservatives should vigorously promote state, local or - the best solution - free market principals.

Ran| 5.26.09 @ 5:07PM

"Frum is a centrist on all things (big government, social issues) except foreign policy where he is hawkish." "His views span the spectrum from Right to muddle, as it were." Hey Red, it's OK to agree!

Your point about the distinctions between Frum and Dreher are good... and their books and viewpoints see the world differently. I get that.

The thing is, Levin's views are vastly more popular than Frum's because they hold to a principled core not beffuddled by political opportunism or a snob's condescension. Levin's views are more popular than Drehers - I am guessing here, not having read Dreher's books - because Levin tackles the Enemy, not the Allies, and he does it with fearless gusto.

I've read Levin's book: He's not demanding conformity with his view of Conservatism in the least. He isn't even clarifying his own Conservatism: rather, he is demanding unity in opposition to bloody statism. It's a rallying cry to first defeat the real Enemy before us. We can have our squabbles once we've cut the Fed down to Constitutionally tolerable size. For all their differences, it's not a message Dreher or Frum deliver.

Red Phillips| 5.26.09 @ 5:50PM

"Red, Mark Levin observes the salient point about Dreher and Frum, Brooks too, he sees they're all losers. And that's about all he needs to know. They represent the dubious resurrection from the undead of the Rockefeller wing of the party, a wing real comfortable with existing for decade after decade in the political wilderness, all the while congratulating themselves on how "classy" they are."

Dan, are you really that clueless? So much wrong. Where to begin? First of all, Dreher is pro-life and against homosexual marriage and most certainly does not reject moral absolutes. To assume otherwise because some know-nothing lumped him in with Frum and Brooks means you need to inform yourself. While Dreher may advocate some sort of “third way” in a Catholic social teaching sense, this criticism of free market capitalism is not leftist if you understand what left and right originally meant. Frum simply endorses managed and regulated capitalism. Dreher is not a resurrection of the Rockefeller Republicanism. (That statement is breathtakingly ignorant.) Frum is. Dreher is closer to a resurrection of Kirk and the Southern Agrarians than he is to Rockefeller Republicans. Ugh!

Ran, how principled are the movement cons criticizing the RINOs? Do movement cons really want to eliminate ALL spending not specifically authorized by the Constitution? Doesn’t your use of constitutionally “tolerable” instead of constitutionally authorized tacitly acknowledge this? Where are the movement cons calling for the abolition of Social Security, Medicare, and all other unauthorized programs? Conservatives who do are ostracized by the mainstream conservative movement and called kooks. And if the Dems accuse a modern conservative of contemplating it they react with righteous indignation. “How dare you suggest I want to cut socialist New Deal program X.” You know it’s true. This is actually where some in the “Constitutionalist” alternative right are coming from. Standing steadfast on principles is in the eye of the beholder. Today’s "principled conservative" was yesterday’s proto-socialist.

bobbymike| 5.26.09 @ 6:28PM

Red - real conservatives who discuss adherence to the Constitution do not recommend immediate abolishment of programs like social security and medicare. If the country stays the course these programs will abolish themselves through bankrupcy. Constitutional conservatives recommend free market changes and personal saving accounts to slowly replace SS - which to repeat is currently unsustainable. Medicare solutions should again take this direction.

Mark Levin has said it best when he says that it has taken 100 years to get to our current unconstitutional federal government and it will take 100 to get it back.

Ran| 5.26.09 @ 6:35PM

Red... Constitutionally tolerable = constitutionally limited, authorized, mandated, permissible, legal etc. by definition. Substitute your preferred term as you see fit. I did not say simply "tolerable" nor "politically tolerable." Please read what is said, not what you wish was said.

Hey, someone, off-topic: Why did WFB ditch the Birchers?

Dan| 5.26.09 @ 6:58PM

Red,

Supposedly so is Frum, but his support seems to wobble when he's pressed on the subject.

Which is why I've suggested that really they think those pathologies are the wave of the future, and that the GOP is going to get tarred forever for opposing them.

Dreher is working hand in glove with the Rockefeller wing, whether he knows it or not. His concern about "tone" is exactly the kind of thing we're hearing, and have been hearing, from the Rockefeller wing.

Is it that much of a stretch to say that Dreher's position on moral absolutes is beginning to decay? Frum used to be rock solid too. And now? Frum is wholly unreliable.

When I hear a "Conservative," any Conservative, be they paleo to neo, when I hear a Conservative express concern about "proper tone," I usually suspect that I'm dealing with a squish.

Now maybe Dreher is the exception that proves the rule, --------------- but without hard and fast evidence indicating that Dreher has held the line in the clutch, and not back in the day either, but in the here and the now, absent that, I'll consider Dreher a squish until proven to a certitude otherwise.

Robert Stacy McCain| 5.26.09 @ 7:39PM

How did this turn into a debate on Middle East policy?

Let me point something out, just in case some of you didn't notice: Democrats control Congress and there is a Democrat in the White House. Republicans arguing over foreign policy is kind of a waste of time at this point because Republicans have zero influence over foreign policy.

So whether some Republicans think we ought to bomb Iran is kind of irrelevant, considering that no Republican has any say-so in the matter.

To paraphrase what the late great Sonny Bono said when asked to debate illegal immigration, I'll say of foreign policy: "What's to debate? They're foreigners."

Red Phillips| 5.26.09 @ 8:30PM

"Red - real conservatives who discuss adherence to the Constitution do not recommend immediate abolishment of programs like Social Security and Medicare."

Bobbymike, I didn't suggest immediate abolishment. Clearly there will have to be some phase-out. My point was that mainstream movement conservatives haven't exactly distinguished themselves in the steadfast adherence to principles vs. political pragmatism department. How many mainstream movement cons counseled a vote for Chuck Baldwin over John McCain for example? The modern conservative movement was essentially established with the concession that FDR's New Deal programs were a fait accompli. To hold up movement cons as defenders of rock solid principles against RINO squishes just sounds naive as today's cons are yesterday's squishes.

Ran if I was wrong about what you were getting at then I'm sorry. I guess you will join me then in calling for phasing out the 80-90% of Federal spending that is not constitutionally authorized.

Ran| 5.26.09 @ 8:40PM

"How did this turn into a debate on Middle East policy?" Um, welcome to the talmudic tradition, Stacy? Someone did bring up the point that Levin is outselling both Frum and Dreher combined, i.e. he's killin' em in influence. Dan just finished calling Dreher a squish.

Right. [channeling the Levin voice:] "Dreher's a squish. Dan -Go!"

Red Phillips| 5.26.09 @ 8:41PM

RSM. I think you are being naïve re. the foreign policy issue because the non-interventionist and interventionist sides are so far apart. If we are all going to make common cause against Obama and the Dems then we will have to criticize his policies. But if one side says Obama is too weak and ought to bomb Iran and the other side says we should pull out of the Middle East entirely and mind our own business then that is not a unified opposition. While I am certainly more sympathetic to the hardcore movement cons than I am the moderate RINOs, I simply can not listen to Levin or Hannity because they can’t go a segment without some fear mongering jingoistic aggression as first resort foreign policy babble.

I appreciate what you are trying to do. Turn all the guns on the common enemy, but the foreign policy differences are just too great.

Ran| 5.26.09 @ 8:45PM

"I guess you will join me then in calling for phasing out the 80-90% of Federal spending that is not constitutionally authorized." Heh... EVERY THIN DIME, man. Every thin dime.

Red Phillips| 5.26.09 @ 8:52PM

Dan, part of any intelligent analysis is being able to make distinctions where distinctions exist. You see faithful movement conservatives and moderate squishes and that is all you see. Someone like Dreher doesn't fit your dichotomy so you try to hammer a round peg into a square hole. Frum is a moderate squish. Dreher is not. And no amount of mental gymnastics on your part is going to make him one. Read JP's assessment above again. Dreher is a "foe of Modernity." How that makes him a squishy moderate is beyond me. Frum, Brooks, Parker and the rest of the moderates are the consummate moderns.

Basil Plumley| 5.26.09 @ 9:04PM

Hey RSM,

Here's the guy who started it all with this gem of a post:

William R| 5.26.09 @ 9:57AM
Levin is one of the worst NeoCons. Thinks the war in Iraq is a great sucess and now wants to expand it to Iran. Just another 3rd rate Likudnik.

Outside of the ignorance and bigotry portrayed in that post, it went south from there. Mea culpa. I couldn't let such an opportunity pass.

Ran| 5.26.09 @ 9:59PM

Basil old chap... You're telling RSM that going south is pejorative? Man. You've got 'em bolted on.

Basil Plumley| 5.26.09 @ 10:14PM

Ran
I was going to say *downhill* instead but in reality there was a lot of good things in this thread.
I thought *south* was a little more appropriate.

Thanks for reminding me there are some "cretins" like to throw that stuff in RSM's face. I will be more careful.

ruth| 5.26.09 @ 10:25PM

I was going to comment on William R's confident assurances that Iran isn't our enemy and my resultant relief--but after Ran's last post, I believe my comments are no longer pertinent. Lovely, Ran.

Red Phillips| 5.26.09 @ 10:26PM

Basil, Levin is a neocon. Does anyone even attempt to deny this? He does think the Iraq War has been a success, and he does want to attack Iran. You may object to the tone or the third rate comment, but William R was factually correct.

ruth| 5.26.09 @ 11:01PM

Red, how can you guys be so sure that Iran isn't a threat?

Red Phillips| 5.27.09 @ 12:23AM

I didn't say they aren't a threat. It would be silly to dismiss them as no potential threat to us whatsoever. As long as we are hanging around over there, they are a potential threat. If Israel decides to do something we will inevitably be dragged in. That is one reason why we need to leave. If we aren't in their proximity, then they are certainly not a threat to invade us. They couldn't even if they wanted to. I don't give much credibility to the threat of "loose nukes" or them giving nukes to terrorists as that would be suicidal on their part.

The question is how to deal with them in a way that maximally decreases that threat. Saber rattling and barely veiled threats is certainly not the way to do it. It makes conflict more likely, not less. You can not initiate violence "just to be on the safe side." You can't start a war because a country might be a threat. This is elementary Christian Just War Doctrine.

We should withdraw our troops from the Middle East, end all foreign aid to all sides, declare diplomatic neutrality in the Israel Palestinian conflict, and otherwise mind our own business while trying to re-establish normal diplomatic relations with Iran. We should also quit antagonizing Russia because they are friendly with Iran and could help us wield some influence with them. As China does with North Korea.

Terrorism on our shores is not primarily a military or war issue. It is primarily an immigration issue. Attacking nation states because of stateless terrorists has always been counter-productive and immoral.

Basil Plumley| 5.27.09 @ 12:41AM

Red-

Please be careful how you use the term "neo-con".
A neo-conservative, be definition, is someone who has been socially liberal/liberal who then embraces a "conservative" viewpoint w/r/t foreign policy. Many of these "new" conservatives (hence neo) tend to be of the Jewish persuasion. See Charles Krauthammer.

Mark Levin has always been a conservative; socially, fiscally, and in foreign policy. He is not some "Johnny-come-lately" to the Conservative Movement.
When folks use the phrase neo-con to describe Levin, I consider it a veiled bigoted, contemptuous comment as to Levin's Jewish persuasion. Of course, William R didn't just stop at "neo-con", he also used the term "Likudnik". That usage leads me to believe that William R is not only bigoted but libelous as well. It is quite an ignorant statement.

I am well aware of your naiveté w/r/t foreign policy. You would rather have a Fortress America than be the world's policeman. In some ways, I would prefer America not play the role of world policeman. However, in this day of bad guys in many parts of the world, we can not retreat or have a bunker mentality.
I have no problem with taking out Saddam. I do have a problem with the actions of Lord Bremer and other folks in the State Department and Pentagon, who in essence bungled the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad.
I think Bush was quite clueless as to what was going on.

As to Iran; if you understand the hegemony in the Middle East, you will understand why Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is quite dangerous. It is not just in Israel's interest to stop Iran but also many of Iran's neighbors who are also at risk. You also have to understand the Sunni/Shia struggle as well as the Arab/Farsi resentment. Should Iran become nuclear, what happens to Turkey? To NATO? The EEU?

This is why yes, Iran is not an imminent threat to America's borders but it is an imminent threat to America's interests abroad. There are real problems in Turkey. It is quite possible that Turkey could possibly become another Mullahcracy. The fundamentalist movement is taking root in Ankara.

Therefore, William R is factual wrong and by extension, if you agree with him, you are also wrong.
Was there anything else?

moderatebutlistening| 5.27.09 @ 2:45AM

Rod Dreher is not the enemy. He is conservative. Maybe not as conservative as others, but do you really want a Stalinesque Purge of allies?

ruth| 5.27.09 @ 2:51AM

What a mess. You men are intelligent, obviously knowledgeable, thoughtful and passionate about your beliefs--yet still there is no resolution. Could drive a person crazy or something. I honestly don't know what's going to happen to our country; we are polarized in so many different ways. IMO God is the answer, prayer is the only thing that makes sense to me anymore. I hope He's listening.

Conor Friedersdorf| 5.27.09 @ 2:51AM

Stacy,

The quote at the top of your blog says: ""ONE SHOULD EITHER WRITE RUTHLESSLY WHAT ONE BELIEVES TO BE THE TRUTH, OR ELSE SHUT UP." -- ARTHUR KOESTLER"

Do you believe that? Because what you seem to think Rod Dreher and I should do is ruthlessly write what we believe, unless it happens to be criticism of a talk radio host.

Tom Rowan| 5.27.09 @ 9:28AM

William: RE: "He is one of the worst Neocons. He wants more of the last eight years. Well the past eight years have shattered the GOP and conservatism. There is nothing conservative about invading nations that haven't attacked the United States and certainly were never a threat. Trotskyites and their offspring NeoCons think otherwise. "

William do you know any of the definitions of the made up liberal pejorative "NeoCon?" Mark Levin has been a leader of the Conservative Movement since before the Reagan Admnistration. So Mark is not a "new" Conservative.

As to the anti-semetic sneering definition of a NeoCon, (a former Democrat Jew who saw the light after 9/11 and became a Jewish "Uncle Tom" Conservative,) Mark does not fit that definition. So I guess that leaves you with the most common meaning of the use of the word today. NeoCon as a sneering anti-semitic slur against a Jew who is smarter than yourself.

As to your ignorance of recent history regarding American wars of liberation:

In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Less than one year later, American led forces liberated 3.5 million Kuwatis. A cease fire ended the shooting, but not the war. We remained under the legal definition of a state of war with Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime since Operation Desert Storm. Hussein repeatedly violated terms of the cease fire up until the day we pulled him out of his rat hole and had his ass strung up over a decade later. Since the liberation of Kuwait, American forces have liberated over 55 million Arabs and Muslims.

Now William, what could be more American than liberating people from despostism?

But factual reality and historical perspective is obviously not your forte, is it William? Again, as I have said, this has been as revealing as an IQ test. The morons, imbeciles, and idiots, try as they might, just cannot move up the bell curve.

William R| 5.27.09 @ 10:06AM

Rowan, no matter how you try and spin it Levin is still a NeoCon. He's a firm believer in big government. Yes that's right, Big Government. Spending trillions overseas on wars that we didn't need to fight. Just google " Mark Levin Iraq"

Tom Rowan| 5.27.09 @ 10:40AM

William, you stated things that are not based in factual reality. Calling Levin a supporter of big government is an uninformed opinion. It is in fact the opposite of the truth.

The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States plainly sets forth 3 vital functions of government; establish a just court system, keep the peace, and provide for the common defense.

Your opinions and views of fighting wars have been summarily dismissed by congresses of both parties, elections, and the judgements of those charged with the constitutional duty to defend America. You lost the argument then and you lose the argument now. Our vital national security interests have been well served by men and women swearing an oathe to protect and defend us. You are just a sore loser.

Mark Levin's continued appreciation and support of our fighting men and women in just causes and just wars, mandated and directed by presidents and congresses of both parties, only shows Levin to be a patriot regardless of party labels.

What does that make you William? Maybe you can google that and tell us.

Basil Plumley| 5.27.09 @ 10:45AM

@ William R
No matter how you try to spin it, you are still a bigoted ignoramus.
Do you dislike all Jews or just the ones who disagree with your worldview?

You have very little concept on the realities of the world and you have no ideas how to solve these realities except demeaning good people like Mark Levin.

Dan| 5.27.09 @ 11:18AM

Red,

I'm not interested in Dreher nearly enough to go to the mattresses over whether or not he's a bona fide "squish." And I'm certainly not interested in going through "gymnastics" over him or anyone else for that matter.

Dreher doesn't rate that much attention, however the wider phenomenon of ostensible Republicans trying to alter the conservatism of the grassroots does rate comment.

I'll simply stand by the observation that whatever he is, he's working, again, whether he knows it or not, he's working with those trying to warp the Republican party and trying to get it to go in a direction that isn't "conservative."

If, as you say, Dreher is nostalgic for an era that long ago was described as "gone with the wind," well he's even more lost than Frum is, and that's saying something for Frum is now well and truly out there.

Red Phillips| 5.27.09 @ 1:24PM

Tom,

"In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Less than one year later, American led forces liberated 3.5 million Kuwaitis."

We should not have engaged in the First Gulf War. The purpose of the American military is the defense of America, not to police and liberate the world. Such nonsense is rank internationalist liberalism. It is Jacobin and revolutionary. It is in no way conservative.

"Now William, what could be more American than liberating people from despotism?"

Oh I don't know, following the Constitution perhaps. Where, pray tell, is world liberator in the Constitution? Article and section please because I must have missed that. So when are you going to advocate sending the troops into Dafur? And I'm sure you will be banging on the local recruiter's door to sign up since you are so gung ho for world liberation. This foolishness would make Robespierre blush.

And BTW Tom, conservatives do not appeal to the preamble of the Constitution to justify things. Liberals do that. What Article and section authorizes the American military to police and liberate the world?

Speaking of history perhaps you should read up on your Washington who told us to avoid entangling alliances and practice neutrality and your John Quincy Adams who told us not to go forth seeking monsters to destroy and your history of the Old Right which understood that non-intervetionism was the inherently conservative position. Or are conservatives not supposed to appeal to the wisdom of the past? It's all about the world wide revolution now.

Red Phillips| 5.27.09 @ 1:56PM

"however the wider phenomenon of ostensible Republicans trying to alter the conservatism of the grassroots does rate comment."

Dan, Dreher is trying to make the "conservatism" of the grassroots ... well ... actually conservative. A noble cause in my opinion.

I am well aware of the meaning of the term neocon. At one time it did mean new. These were new converts to the GOP who were hawkish on foreign policy. They could be seen as a revolt against the new left that they felt was overtaking the Democratic Party. Pacifistic, anti-American, pro-Palestinian, and socially libertine. The neocons were socially conservative in comparison to the free love hippies but were generally not as socially conservative as the religious right (a later phenomenon.) As ex- Democrats and even ex-Social Democrats they were not opposed to a social safety net and were generally supportive of FDR's New Deal programs.

However, the term neoconservtive has traditionally been applied to people beyond this original group. If not, it wouldn't be a very useful term because it could only rightly apply to a single generation. The fact that Levin has been a Republican his whole life does not exclude him from being a neocon unless one is using a very clipped definition of the term.

Neoconservative implies a certain philosophy. Problem is that philosophy is not conservative historically speaking. It is a form of rationalistic, universalistic Enlightenment liberalism. That is why Kool-Aid drinkers like Tom have no problem advocating world wide revolution to make the world over in our image. It is a revolutionary dogma in the minds of many of its adherents.

This ideology has in many ways overtaken the conservative movement. You can understand much about modern conservatism (the New Right) if you view it as a reaction to 60’s radicalism which is the milieu under which it originated. The inability to tolerate any criticism of America and the reflexive bellicosity in foreign policy. The total inability to comprehend that there could be opposition to foreign wars from the right. Modern conservatism is the anti-hippie reaction. Conservatives support wars because that is what good conservatives do. Only long-haired America haters oppose wars. Problem is the world did not begin in the 1960s. There is a long history of American conservatism before that and it was not whooping it up for war. Conservatism inherently counsels discretion.

Tom Rowan| 5.27.09 @ 5:04PM

Red: "We should not have engaged in the First Gulf War. "

Ok, you lost that argument back then and are upset. The fact is that we did kick Saddam out of Kuwait. His actions after that led to his own regime change as he was an intolerable threat to our nation's securtity interests. We have fought many wars of liberation, including our own, and against our own, all for the just cause of liberty.

The point of bringing up the Preamble; The framers wanted a limited government. One that did a few things and did them well. One of the charges of our government is to provide for the common defense. Levin's patriotic support of our military does not make Levin a supporter of "big government" as William implied.

I did not imply that the constitution mandates that we liberate people. The constitution does allow a free people to define and fight our enemies both here and abroad and to fight for freedom when we see fit. Where, pray tell, does the constitution forbid us the power to make war?

And BTW Red, I will point to the preamble anytime I please. I must have missed Red's Conservative Do's & Don't List.

Perhaps you should read up on your Shakespear you swarmy little puke, for your "Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing."

Red Phillips| 5.27.09 @ 6:29PM

"One of the charges of our government is to provide for the common defense."

Exactly! Our common defense. Not the defense of other nations or the liberation of far off people.

"We have fought many wars of liberation, including our own, and against our own, all for the just cause of liberty."

Do you really think the Iraqis who lost family and friends think we were fighting for their liberty? That we will be greeted as liberators scenario that the neocons were always invoking didn't work out so well did it? Funny, people don't like to be invaded and have their family, friends and fellow countrymen killed. This little thing we call human nature. They did not all like Saddam (most Sunnis did), but they did not want "liberty" as we conceive it either. The Kurds wanted Kurdistan. The Sunnis wanted a continuation of the status quo, minority Sunni domination of greater Iraq. And the Shiites wanted Iran West including domination of the Sunni and Kurdish minorities.

The blinded neocon ideologues can't conceive that not everyone wants to be a good little Westerner. That is what I meant by neoconservatism being a rationalistic and universalistic dogma. If it is good enough for us it must be good enough for them.

That this is a utopian and revolutionary idea and not in any way conservative is evident to anyone who has the slightest clue what those words mean.

Jessie Andrews| 5.27.09 @ 6:32PM

Venezuela and Bolivia are supplying Iran with uranium for its nuclear program, according to a secret Israeli government report.

The two South American countries are known to have close ties with Iran, but this is the first allegation that they are involved in the development of Iran's nuclear program, considered a strategic threat by Israel.

"There are reports that Venezuela supplies Iran with uranium for its nuclear program," the Foreign Ministry document states, referring to previous Israeli intelligence conclusions. It added, Iran Not ? a threat to America ?
"Bolivia also supplies uranium to Iran."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088087.htm
The report concludes that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is trying to undermine the United States by supporting Iran.

ruth| 5.27.09 @ 9:06PM

Red, if we depart the Middle East will Hugo also become our friend then, too?

Basil Plumley| 5.28.09 @ 12:34AM

Red
You said---Speaking of history perhaps you should read up on your Washington who told us to avoid entangling alliances and practice neutrality and your John Quincy Adams who told us not to go forth seeking monsters to destroy and your history of the Old Right which understood that non-intervetionism was the inherently conservative position. Or are conservatives not supposed to appeal to the wisdom of the past? It's all about the world wide revolution now.

Well Red, did you understand that at the time Washington was saying those words, we (the US) were paying ransoms and entangling ourselves in foreign affairs. There was a thing called the XYZ Affair. Perhaps, you should read up on Fisher Ames and his take on the influence of the French Revolution in American life and politics.

I understand your desire to maintain a Fortress America as well as your desire to live in a different era. It is unrealistic as well as irrational.

We face challenges every day. We must accept these challenges as long as there is some American interest involved. If we show no resolve to keep our word and defend our interests, how do we maintain our honor and respect? Do you fully expect the "bad guys" to respect us when we will not respect ourselves?

We face challenges and your response is not until it reaches our shores. 3000 Americans died on 9/11, what would you have done on 9/12?

Yes, you curse the Neo-cons but at least some of them have the conviction to stand on principle and do what right for America. You curse Mark Levin because he dare agree with the Neo-cons on some issues. In your tortured logic, that makes him a Neo-con?

I guess in your view of History, Jefferson should never have taken out the Barbary pirates and should never have made the Louisianna Purchase. Subsequent administrations have made treaties and purchased other land to append to this nation. Last I checked, the Constitution did not give the Federal Government the right to buy land to add to this nation. If you are going to hold to a strict standard for what is Constitutional and what is not, why not go all the way?
Let's return all the land to the French, Spanish, English, Mexicans, Russians, and Indians. There was no Constitutional authority.

Like I said earlier, there is a naiveté to your thinking or you are certainly using a very clipped definition of the term Constitutional (as well as Neo-con).

ruth| 5.28.09 @ 2:29AM

They don't call us Mexifornia for nothin'.

Tom Rowan| 5.28.09 @ 7:54AM

Red,
Your liberal talking points were stale and of no value when debating the war when we proposed to fight it and they are even less relevant now after we have won it. You apologists for tyranny make me sick. The people of Iraq are free now, get over your hissy fit.

Again, I submit that this discussion has been very revealing. None of conservatisms heros, both contemporary and past, would ever lower themselves to use the anti-semitic term "neo-con." It is a liberal slur demeaning to Jews in an attempt to brand former Democrats as "Uncle Toms." I find the use of the term repulsive and sickening.

Conservatism has a good name because of great men like Mark Levin. The reason he has mass appeal is because of his unmatched logic and reason in buttressing his arguments for conservatism. Those of you like minded dim witted pretenders who dismiss Levin reveal yourselves as unthinking howling baboons.

For years conservatives have listened to pretenders say: "I am a conservative but....(insert your pet liberal banality here.)" You add nothing to the debate, you are recognized immediately for who you are and what you think, and you are rightly deserving of the scorn and ridicule you bring upon yourselves.

Critics of Levin have tended to be nothing more than opportunistic weasles and easily offended liberals. And really, who cares what they think anyway.

Basil Plumley| 5.28.09 @ 10:10AM

@ Tom Rowan

A minor point of order. It isn't liberal talking points as much as libertarian talking points.
Unfortunately, this is where Libertarians tend to "jump the tracks". They do a great job on economic issues but when it comes to foreign policy and world events, they hunker down into a 1930's Fortress America mindset. It is what bothered me most about Ron Paul.
It is a shame because Ron Paul would certainly know how to fix the financial mess we are in.

You did a good job in your posts TR.

ruth| 5.28.09 @ 4:12PM

I think Red has some valid points but his attitude upsets me. I am a traditional Conservative and by no means a Neocon but I do believe in keeping promises; I do feel a sense of responsibility for Israel. Pretty much makes me an Israel firster or a traitor in the eyes of Red and many Libertarians; and I don't think that's fair. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground with these guys. That's why I didn't support Ron Paul.

Tom Rowan| 5.30.09 @ 2:49PM

Since 1990, more Kuwaitis, Iraqis, and Afghans parents have named their male children George Bush, (as opposed to Barack Hussein Obama.) By the hundreds and thousands. Factual reality baby, dontcha just love it?

Thank you Basil

jordan| 8.19.09 @ 10:07PM

air jordan 8
air jordan 9
air jordan 10
air jordan 11
air jordan 12
air jordan 13
air jordan 14

Nfl jerseys| 8.26.09 @ 11:33PM

It is a wonderful article: NFL jerseys,Photoshop CS2,ghd Hair Straightener,Adobe Photoshop CS4.

biniki| 9.1.09 @ 9:51PM

bikini
bikini swimwear

abercrombie and fitch| 9.3.09 @ 3:33AM

good post!abercrombie and fitch on Sale, Hoodies, Jeans, T-Shirts, Pants, Polos abercrombie and fitch abercrombie fitch abercrombie cheap
abercrombie and fitch Abercrombie Men Tee abercrombie womens polos
abercrombie and fitch Men, women, and children's clothing

ugg boots| 9.3.09 @ 5:46AM

ugg boots
classic ugg boots

micky&vicky;| 9.4.09 @ 11:03PM

ghd Hair Straightener
Bose headphones for sale

NFL jerseys| 9.6.09 @ 11:30PM

It is a wonderful article,I like it!Welcome to read following news: NFL jerseys,Photoshop CS2,ghd Hair Straightener,NFL jersey,Adobe Photoshop CS4,cheap uggs.

rentacar| 11.12.09 @ 5:50PM

This article is very interesting. Thank you very much for sharing .