The American Spectator

Big Java| 10.2.09 @ 1:01PM

Well, after reading Mr. Brooks' op-ed piece, I can appreciate the true meaning of the title "Birdacaged."

Big Java| 10.2.09 @ 1:01PM

er "Birdcaged"

around the track| 10.2.09 @ 1:37PM

Boy Jeri, your first paragraph is spot on. Conservatives are fooling themselves if they ignore the fact that there is a cultural/lifestyle divide with the movement with the Brooks' types stoking its flames.

louis tully| 10.2.09 @ 1:55PM

Right, the GOP needs more guys like Brooks with their eyes glued to the Presidential trouser crease.

I'll take one Rush or one Levin over a thousand trouser crease girly men.

Brandon Lachner| 10.2.09 @ 2:11PM

Good column. Thank you. I wrote a note to the NYT Editorial pg. The downfall of the Republican Party coincided directly with the downfall of President Bush and our Republican representatives in Congress who turned into the fat, sloppy, arrogant Democrats who were thrown out in 1994. When a party goes bad it is not the fault of those who are commenting upon the spectacle.

Ruth Pittman| 10.2.09 @ 2:49PM

When I worked so hard to get the 40 year controled Democrat party and the Republican in: then they become those fat,sloppy,representatives I was heart sick. But why can't we rename this mess. I think grassroot Americans is a great name for those who believe in the Republic and not Socialism. who believe in the Bible Base the Constitution was written on.

S.L. Toddard| 10.2.09 @ 2:54PM

"It may be that Rush or Mark Levin, or now Fred, for that matter, endorse or encourage support for a particular cause, but conservatives, particularly grassroots conservatives, are independent thinkers. They do not simply walk in lock step with their radio overlords"

Uh... yes, actually, they do. Anyone care to cite me any examples of the talk-radio listening Right deviating en masse from talk-radio prescribed orthodoxy?

Didn't think so.

Tim| 10.2.09 @ 3:24PM

Dr. Egon Spengler: Oh good, you're here!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Yeah, what have you got?
Dr. Egon Spengler: This is big, Peter, this is very big. There is definitely something here.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Egon, this reminds me of the time you tried to drill a hole through your head. Remember that?
Dr. Egon Spengler: That would have worked if you hadn't stopped me.

Johnno| 10.2.09 @ 7:41PM

Conservative ideals shape both Rush and his listeners, dope. If you really were a Conservative you would know this, Turddard.

ConservativeWanderer| 10.3.09 @ 11:04AM

Anyone care to cite me any examples of the talk-radio listening Right deviating en masse from talk-radio prescribed orthodoxy?

McCain becoming nominee.

I don't listen to Rush (not on XM), but neither Hannity nor Levin was promoting him during the primaries.

QED.

J.D. King| 10.3.09 @ 2:42PM

One problem in framing an answer to you, S.L., is that your descriptions are so vague and ambiguous. For instance, exactly what is "talk-radio prescribed orthodoxy", and how do you identify those who subscribe to it? I am unaware of any polls taken at teaparty rallies, asking, "Do you admire Rush?" It is safe to guess that the great majority of teaparty protestors are conservatives, but what of it? Moreover, it is just as logical to accuse conservative radio commentators as slavishly adhering to their listeners' opinions as the other way around.
What you really want, S.L., is for conservatives to become voluble liberals in order to prove their "independence." Nice try, but too transparent to take seriously.

S.L. Gerard| 10.5.09 @ 12:00AM

David Brooks says talk radio doesn't have much influence, you say they do. This article says conservatives don't go in lockstep. I think it may be a chicken and egg kind of thing. The popular conservatives on talk radio are popular because they reflect the values of a segment of society that isn't served well by old-fashioned media. There are certain things that you will never get a true conservative to change his mind on; gun rights, strong defense, fiscal sanity being three. But I believe their opinions can be influenced by talk radio when talk radio chooses to highlight certain issues, such as immigration. The problem I think we had in 2008 was too many candidates fracturing conservatives as a group. Hugh Hewitt was endorsing Romney, large numbers of Christians wanted Huckabee, Rush didn't endorse anyone, but he was basically the anti-McCain. We just didn't have a chance as a group to come together in a unified fashion.

Joseph Brown| 10.2.09 @ 3:29PM

Maybe if the Republicans had their SA and waffen SS, like the SEIU and ACORN they could have won.
Thankfully they don't.
Personally I think the NYT makes good outhouse tp.

mbs| 10.2.09 @ 4:18PM

People like Brooks make the mistake of thinking that talk radio shapes conservative opinion. They haven’t figured out that conservative opinion shapes talk radio.

Bob| 10.2.09 @ 4:36PM

"... but conservatives, particularly grassroots conservatives, are independent thinkers."

Thanks for the humor, Jeri. By definition, independent thinkers will listen to all parts of the political spectrum. Thus they would listen to MSNBC as much as Fox and Olbermann as much as Hannity. But, alas, AmSpec conservatives are not of "independent" thought as most of them readily admit they don't listen equally to both sides.

Besides, independent thinkers would eschew the group think of tea parties and utilize factual research rather than ideological blather.

As proof, if you hear it on Rush or Beck, you'll hear it repeated on blogs the next day. I'm not sure the Buckley's of this world would recognize the neoconservatives of today as worthy of the title.

By the way, I'm proudly in the Brooks/Colin Powell wing of the Republican party...

JadedByPolitics| 10.2.09 @ 6:11PM

"By the way, I'm proudly in the Brooks/Colin Powell wing of the Republican party... "

Do what you are saying is you voted for The Won...guess what WE on the RIGHT don't need Republicans who vote for leftist's. WE would rather prefer you all just stop deluding yourselves and move.on to the party you actually belong in. You make the Republican Party look BAD and yourselves look like the traitors you are!

Nobama| 10.2.09 @ 7:38PM

Yeah, we know you're a RINO, Boob--and you voted for Obama, too. You're a loser just like him.

If you are the best Harvard has to offer, no wonder our country is so screwed up. Dumbazz.

Samual Admans| 10.3.09 @ 1:02AM

Bob,

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom – go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” –Samuel Adams

jr| 10.2.09 @ 5:34PM

Ditto mbs -- I would not listen to the vast right wing conspiracy radio if it did not agree with my beliefs and principles.

Joshua| 10.2.09 @ 5:37PM

Amen Jeri. The idea that conservative = Republican is long gone, with what the party has espoused over the last several years. Fred did a great job at one of the debates (can't remember which one) at debunking pretty much every other candidate's ideas as "...ideas of the Democratic party."

Rush, Beck, and the like are sometimes over the top, but if the Republican party doesn't start to represent their ideology more than the wrongfully-perceived, 'beneficial, moderate stance that it has taken as of late, we can be assured that Liberal D's will stay in power for a long time!

Cincinnati Whig| 10.2.09 @ 5:47PM

"independent thinkers will listen to all parts of the political spectrum"

REALITY CHECK: it takes great effort to NOT receive the 'mainstream' media's version - it's everywhere. Getting the conventional wisdom Party Line talking points requires little if any effort. You have to deliberately LOOK for the conservative side.

KeithCu| 10.2.09 @ 7:47PM

Hilarious!! Thanks Jeri! My guy was Rudy, but Fred would have been great as well.

Mary Louise| 10.2.09 @ 9:52PM

Quite a few years ago a friend gave me a beautiful 3-volume set of the Decline and Fall. Copyright is 1946. The illustrations in these volumes are from the etchings of Gian Battista Piranesi, and they're magnificent. Reading Gibbon is such a pleasure though I have to return and return to certain passages in order to properly parse and comprehend. He wrote for a very literate readership. I often think how nice it would be to re-introduce serial publication of history and literature via the Net. To begin in the same way he began. I would definitely pay for that.

The truism that capitalism unmoored from a guiding set of principles and morals is doomed, is one that I learned from Rush more than a decade ago. Rush was right when he spoke at CPAC, and said that conservatives love people. We do, and he does. And so does Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, etc.

I read something at Amspec the other day that made me reconsider a couple of things. As I read, I wondered if a share of contributors here think of the grassroots as a mob that you can’t live with and you can’t live without?

Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, interviewed someone at the 9/12 event in Washington. He was a life-long republican operative whose name I can’t remember. Very well spoken, very civil; this gentleman said that what animated the crowd there was the belief that no one, regardless of party, was looking out for the welfare of the Country, best measured by the broad middle. The Mob: the model maker, the registered nurse, the small business man, AKA the pack-mule, etc. This operative said that the possibility of the emergence of a 3rd party was strong. Glenn agreed. Neither was agitating for a 3rd party, nor am I. I’m just saying that a lot of people are starting to realize that both parties think of us as a mob to be manipulated and milked. In other words, deep down -maybe right at surface, really- they despise us.

I understand that liberty beggars a perfect ordering of social life. We wouldn’t be free if it didn’t. But that’s no reason for the kind of top-down, womb-to-tomb, existence they’re either planning for us, or their dependable transactions against us will eventually bring about.

Brooks recently wrote, regarding the filthy peddling of charges of racism, that contrary to race being the issue, the battle (the people vs. progressives) touched upon something much older and much deeper. My goodness, how many of us figured that out years ago? Another one of his recent gems is his finding that the new culture war will be economic in nature. Is he the consummate hollow man, or what?

Thank you, Mrs. Thompson. I wanted your husband to become our President. Listen to your show when I can.

All the best to you.

Liberal Reader| 10.2.09 @ 10:41PM

Ms Thompson can't be blamed for being a little nettled by Brooks's piece.

I think her logic here is a little weird, however. Brooks's entire point was that Republican primary voters were not persuaded by Limbaugh et al. In the end, the VOTERS chose McCain.

And rightly so. I'm a fan of Thompson's acting. He seems like a decent man. But McCain was the best candidate the Republicans have run since Reagan.

He almost won, too. If he weren't following a president with a 30% approval rating at a time when the economy was tanking, or if he'd been running against Kerry or Gore, he'd have won.

(Or, if he'd chosen Lieberman as his running mate instead of the Priestess down from Alaska.)

Ms. Thompson offers no evidence to substantiate her argument against Brooks.

Where's the proof that Limbaugh really moves votes?

He has a huge listening audience, but as a percentage of the entire electorate, it's not that substantial.

C4P| 10.2.09 @ 10:50PM

Yeah, that's a recipe for republican success--listen to a numbnut liberal's political advice.

As the 'Priestess' says, "Thanks, but no thanks."

Liberal Reader| 10.2.09 @ 11:43PM

Brooks's point was that your party listened to the VOTERS' advice. This is what you guys are having a hard time understanding.

It's called a PRIMARY. People VOTE. They cast BALLOTS. The ballots are COUNTED.

It has nothing to do with my opinion, C4P.

C4P| 10.3.09 @ 12:24AM

Oh, really? Then what's with the Lieberman crack, Numbie? We really aren't interested in your peanut gallery, absolutely forgettable, 2 cents worth, Jeremiah. Buzz off.

Liberal Reader| 10.3.09 @ 12:57AM

C4P --

The Lieberman "crack"?

I didn't make a crack.

If McCain had chosen Lieberman he would have won the race. Instead, he chose someone who was entirely unprepared for national politics. It was a rash gamble that damaged his credibility.

Lieberman would have drawn independents and some Democrats.

C4P| 10.3.09 @ 1:15AM

I thought you said it had nothing to do with your opinion. Liar.

Told you so.

Yellowhorse| 10.3.09 @ 1:28PM

Talk about someone without a clue...
BTW......Your village is looking for you.

C4P| 10.2.09 @ 10:43PM

Mary Louise, Sarah Palin DOESN'T think we're a mob; that's why I will work my butt off on her behalf. Republican elites dismiss Palin just like they dismiss us. Let's see what next ensues when the 'mob' starts to mobilize.

Palin 2012

Liberal Reader| 10.3.09 @ 12:09AM

Palin 2012!

The rallying cry of the Neo-Know-Nothings!

Good grief.

Mark D E| 10.3.09 @ 7:04AM

I had to comment on that moronic statement.

"neo-know-nothings"?

You wax on about about how thoughtful you are and by extension Brooks is, because you share his disdain for the unwashed rank and file. The elitism is sickening in it's depth and rank hypocrisy. You and Brooks would never, ever dain to belittle the unwashed mobs of liberals who make up the ranks of the DNC's foot soliders,

would you?

You'd never call the high school drop out three time loser who has 7 kids by 5 diferent women but always votes dem, who mouths the idiot refrains,.. "Palin, Alaskan priestess", or She's not really a woman, the Trig truthers, the gap toothed dolts who slur out all repuglicans are racists....

would you ever slp them around as morons and know nothings, lemmings who blindly follow the orders of ACORN or which ever serial race baiter the democrats trot out tody?

No, you, and that fool Brooks make a living of bashing rank and file republicans and conservatives as ignorant without any proof or substance, you just throw it on top of the old pile as if repetition made a smear morph into reality.

I've seen the poll numbers, bsic quiz questions asked, and after reading what everyone knows, and leftists lie about,

the average listener to conservative radio, average conservative voter is better informed, and better educated on basic civics, than most congressmen are. Our ranks can pass a high school civics test, when many if not most democrats couldn't even tell you which party had controled Congress 06 to 08...

so tell me again,..

"know-nothings",.. must make you feel all warm and superior typing that, when you and the left depend, absolutely are addicted to public ignorance of the rank and file left to get elected.

The truth is, after seeing ll the post election man on the street enterviews,..

If I were you, before insulting us, I'd be deeply ashamed my party were so invested in keeping people uninformed and stupid, to keep their power.

The left is a quivering mass of the uber opinionated barely room temperature IQ types who fill college dorms, just because, daddy's paying, and like dude,...

work is HARD,..

and that Olby's such a righteous guy,.. he calls those repugs racists, and stuff,.. I HATE that Palin chick dude,.. she's like smart and stuff,.. Hey,.. pizza's here,.

pay?

dude, I'm a liberal,.. come on guys, let's go beat up that wingnut guy up the hall and make HIM pay,.. he's a repug, and we all know that they're rich,.. Olby says so,..

I detest the whole dripping rotten lie,..

know nothings?

Our voters are invested in making America work,. ya know, the dream and the like?

yours are invested in class war and hate, taking away from others, rather than teaching them how to make their own way.

I can be proud of our base,

yours?

Poor white trash and barely literate dorm rats who think Stewart is a news show.

ummm, yeah,. so proud huh?

C4P| 10.3.09 @ 12:40AM

Right. President Numbnuts can't even bring home the Olympic Games. Makes this huge production out of flying to Copenhagen just to pitch his hometown to the IOC and gets burned big time. On the world stage, no less.

If you had any brains you would be hanging your head in embarrassment, dope.

Liberal Reader| 10.3.09 @ 12:54AM

No, I wouldn't.

The president TRIED, along with the leaders of several other countries, to try to get the Olympics for this country.

It was the right thing to do. He tried; it didn't work.

Why should I be embarrassed?

Did you ever try at something and not succeed? Were you absent on the day in kindergarten when they went over this: you try your best, and it's O.K. if it doesn't always work out.

The response of you reactionaries to this Olympics issue has been absolutely contemptible.

Michelle my Belle| 10.3.09 @ 1:05AM

"For the first time in my life I am proud of the IOC"

C4P| 10.3.09 @ 1:32AM

"The Ego has landed." LMAO!!! Sorry, I know that's racist; mmm, mmm, mmm.

Whine, bitch and whine some more--that's the liberal mantra.

C4P| 10.3.09 @ 1:28AM

Geez, Michelle, that's big of you: The IOC sure wasn't very proud of you. I bet THE Oprah was sure pissed. Ha ha.

Dan| 10.3.09 @ 2:09AM

I used to agree with moderates like Brooks. Since the election, however, I've come to the realization that the conservative movement needs men and women of militant convictions.

Compromising the working with the Democrats is a road to nowhere. Moderates like McCain and Brooks and Graham are aiding a abetting the Democratic Party's slow but steady strangulation and destruction of our way of life.

Daisy| 10.3.09 @ 3:28AM

They're bare-knuckle fighters, Dan; we've got to take a page out of the democrat's book or we're doomed.

Me? I've slipped on the brass knuckles, and I'm ready to go. I guess I've always been a street fighter at heart.

Mark D E| 10.3.09 @ 7:28AM

I apologise for the typo's, my visions not what it was, and I didn't take the time to proof read as I should. I stand by my points, though.

The same refrain heard by Brooks and his like minions..

The poor dumb ol rank and file, must be tamed and whipped into following us enlightened Harvard grads who are ever so much smarter nd better suited to rule you mere peasants.

davey ol chum, my IQ is 133, I doubt yours is, but class being what it is, I went to serve in a cold war, and build a family in a trade. I'm proud of what I did, the choices, but I know many of us are better than you Davey, smarter, more concerned with peoples welfare than who got into what college, and wears what kinds of suits.

We worry about our children being constrained, being pigeonholed by an ever growing government populated by Brooks like lovers of the latest trend, who's thoughts are as flashy but carry as much weight as a humming bird.

Principles should rule, a code of honor, honor is something we still adhere too in an America that is increasingly ruled by an incestuous group of insiders to whom honor is an abstract they herd about once.

martin j smith| 10.3.09 @ 8:35AM

From my point of view David brooks is a professional oportunist with no values except one: "my fame,fortune and opportunity". As long as you recognize that you have him pegged. And, as for the McCaine,Powell, Brooks wing of Republican party--they lost--and in my oppinion might have at least made it much closer and possible eeked out a win IF John McCaine ran a more effective campaign. Also inspite of this lousy campaign performance--and because of Palin being on the ticket the difference was not as bad as it could have been. Finally--If Rush,Beck et al as well as Palin as so in effective and inconsequential why is it that the media and the obama administration time andfter time tries to discredit these guys. THEY ARE CONSEQUENTIAL--that is why --finally--Letys look at the name calling of the Tea Pary goers and 9/12ers. That too indiocates they are a threat to the status quo. So in conclusion--you can keep David Brooks but I will not. Thank you and good night. !!!

Mary Louise| 10.3.09 @ 9:17AM

CP4, I told you before that I admire what you’re doing.

I happened upon WFB’s son’s book. At the library, of course; I’m very mindful of whose pockets I line.

For instance, The Smile Train is a great charity. For a small amount of money you can get a kid’s cleft palate removed. Even above restoring the ease of eating, you give a kid a chance to look in the mirror without his heart breaking into pieces.

I think one of the things that separates the Mob (model makers, registered nurses, stay-at-home Moms, the small business man, AKA ‘pack-mule par excellence,’ etc.) from the progressives is that mob members won’t disrobe their fathers, once in the grave, for all of the world to see. Their shrunken, shriveled body, their dementia and incontinence, the aspect of Mom as vinegary spinster, stay in the family. In ancient times a son would have been exiled for gushing like a woman. And Dante reserves a place close to Lucifer for those who betray their kin.

The thing about Palin, her American life, is that she doesn’t really need government permission or paternalism. If anarchy broke loose, she could take care of herself. She could feed and defend herself and her children. No doubt she comes from a long line of people who could and did.

When Contentions allowed comments one of their best and brightest posters, Athiopel, wrote that Brooks and the other party morticians exhibit a kind of reverse Ressentiment. Nietzsche thought that the inferior guy was always trying to take down the superior guy and was successful in no small measure because there are so many of the former and so few of the latter. In so many ways, the superior man -“every inch the woman, though” is Palin.

What is that thud that I feel in the pit of my stomach, and that many others seem to feel too? Is it what MEP Hannan said, that we’re becoming ‘less American?’ Whatever it is, it won’t go away.

Sometimes I think the best thing that could happen to the US is to be visited by a real economy. The thing that keeps me from hoping for that is that it could also result in our complete disintegration.

Nick| 10.3.09 @ 12:18PM

Hey 3/5 Bob,

You forgot McLame and Grahmnesty. You are proudly in the McShamnesty wing of the party. And you guys got your hats handed to you a year ago.

So, by all means, let's listen to your advice. It's worth a warm bucket of spit.

By the way, for those new to TAS, up until last June, 3/5 Bob thought that blacks had 3/5 of a vote under the U.S. constitution, as originally written. This explains RINO mentality, they are ignorant of the constitution and the Christian virtues that formed it.

Nick| 10.3.09 @ 12:25PM

Marxist Reader,

Has any previous president gone to the IOC on their knees, hat in hand, begging "Please, oh please give us the olympics?"

B.O. diminishes the Office of the Presidency by the hour. Just like "bubba the pervert" did.

Liberal Reader| 10.3.09 @ 2:30PM

Nick --

So ... Obama going to the IOC, along with the leaders of Spain, Japan, Brazil, and so on, is analogous to Bill Clinton's sex scandal?

That's not very careful thinking, Nick.

Obama climbed aboard Air Force One, flew nine hours, gave a 45 minute presentation, and flew home.

It was a fine effort. It didn't work.

Only a childish and petty person would find anything in his action to criticize.

And this IS an important issue:

The increasing INABILITY of conservatives to distinguish between legitimate, even compelling lines of critique and empty, foolish gestures of petulant complaint.

This is the EMPTYING OUT of dissent. It is dissent WITHOUT CONTENT.

This is extremely dangerous for a democracy, which depends upon vigorous, sustained, RESPONSIBLE critique of government.

I make such a big deal about this because it is my sole and chief reason for posting here at all.

My argument -- as I was discussing with Mr. Hillyer, an affable good sport -- has NEVER been with substantial, well-reasoned criticism of Obama or the Democrats.

My argument -- my deep concern -- is with the rodeo-clownification of dissent on the right, the fact that what has traditionally been a well-spring of healthy, vigorous intellectual challenges to liberal governance is now becoming a joke: its perfect, most exemplary image being the blubbering, paranoid, unhinged and hysterical Beck.

In a season that has seen the deaths of Novak, Kristol, and Safire there would seem to be the need for some serious or at least partly serious reform of conservative discourse.

Now -- as knee-slappingly funny as it is to refer to Obama as "B.O." (get it? get it:? B.O. ... like "body odor"!), you'd do better to set aside the Beavis and Butthead inspired humor and come up with interesting, compelling arguments that might interest thoughtful adults.

THAT is how a people remains worthy of SELF GOVERNMENT.

Ed| 10.3.09 @ 3:04PM

Wow, LR, you didn't just go off on a tangent in replying to Nick, you blasted off toward the Andromeda Galaxy.

First of all, you misconstrued what Nick was telling you. BHO is diminishing the office of the presidency -- in HIS way, obviously, because no one except you is claiming that the IOC blunder is in any way analogous to the Monica Lewinsky scandal here.

Each was a diminishment of the presidency but quite plainly for different reasons.

BHO looked foolish. He jetted off, at great expense to the American taxpayer, at his whim, to go bow his knee as the American president at the altar of the IOC plutocrats and beg their favor.

The president should not be doing sales pitches to any quasi-official body. He's bigger than that. If there's a chance he will lose anything he needs to send someone else. He should step in ONLY when it is definitely "winning time," because that is what Americans expect of our president: not to be a damn loser for all the world to gloat at.

He basically gave the IOC a free pass to boost their own presumption of global power, a free swing to knock down the (putative) "leader of the free world", which it is not at all clear that BHO is anymore, given his cluelessness & ineptitude on the world stage.

martin j smith| 10.3.09 @ 3:15PM

This precisely where Obama failed. Not his going to Copenhagen but his failure seal the deal first. As stated before--this chump change in the arena of international issues but-in the arena of public oppinion every thing counts and this does get scored. Obama is the loser. Now how will Obama look when it comes to real high end issues such as Iran's nuclear threat and does not come home with a very convincing win--and it cannot be "Peace in our Time"

Liberal Reader| 10.3.09 @ 7:22PM

Ed ---

Mixed in with some rather ungenerous and cynical remarks in your post are some thoughtful, lucid observations.

What can I say?

Keep working at it.

With a little practice, you could actually end up sounding like a sensible critic of the president.

But now, peremptorily I speak it: the president did not diminish he stature by speaking to the IOC. Presidents make these kinds of gestures all the time -- for trade, for prestige, for American business interests abroad. There's nothing new here.

You say Obama looked "foolish," but have you ever seen him any other way?

Have you ever once said, "Well, I don't know about this guy, but he carried himself well [on this or that occasion]?"

You'll have to excuse me, but your judgment just doesn't MEAN very much to me because there's never any variation on the theme:

Obama is evil; Obama is an illegal alien; Obama is incompetent; Obama is a communist; Obama is a fascist; Obama is Hitler; Obama is a baby killer; Obama wants to destroy America and our way of life.

SandyC| 10.4.09 @ 11:08AM

Liberal- He spent over one million dollars of our taxes to fly to Copenhagen for a 70 minute appearance. His wife Michelle and Oprah went on separate planes at even more millions in fuel and security. They released Michelle from her hiding place to go there are tell the world what a sacrifice it was for her and her chit-chat friend Oprah. When they lost the bid, they had to go on to France for a week of shopping, because they couldn't face the American people with all that egg on their faces. This story will die down in time, but, his credibility with the world has been hurt. It's about time they learned what the word NO means. They will be hearing it alot.

Nick| 10.3.09 @ 3:18PM

Marxist Reader,

"So ... Obama going to the IOC, along with the leaders of Spain, Japan, Brazil, and so on, is analogous to Bill Clinton's sex scandal?"

I made no analogy, I simply stated that both men diminish/diminished the office "by the hour". Why must you liberals constantly see things that aren't there? And as our parents used to say, "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you?" If other leaders want to lower themselves to pitch-men, fine. The President of the United States should be above such spectacles.

"Obama climbed aboard Air Force One, flew nine hours, gave a 45 minute presentation, and flew home."

He spent millions of dollars of taxpayer money, in the middle of "the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression", to beg for pennies and FAILED. What an embarrassment.

It demeaned the office. Which is why no other president has ever done it. Even "bubba the pervert."

Oh, he also got a photo-op with Gen. McChrystal. Do they think anybody believes their garbage?

And the letters B and O happen to be his initials, Hussein being racist and all. I've been referring to him as B.O. since he was elected, as opposed to "the One" or messiah. I was being original. Did you also get your panties in a bunch with all the names President Bush was called?

You've had no problem in the past with engaging my arguments or enjoying my humor. Why do you now? Lately, you seem to be exhibiting Jekyll and Hyde behavior.

Liberal Reader| 10.3.09 @ 3:39PM

Nick et al

Frankly, I don't see the Olympics bid as an issue. We're talking about 18 hours out of his presidency.

What I'd be curious about is someone capable -- as Mr Hillyer was -- of dealing with my larger and more important point.

This farting around with the IOC issue represents a precipitious decline in the dignity of your dissent.

The issue is not whether Obama compromised the dignity of the office by making a move for the Olympics.

This issue is to what extent YOU are willing to debase the dignity of dissent in this country.

Physician, heal thyself!

Guess Who?| 10.5.09 @ 11:32PM

Hello Mr. Hillyer,
You ARE the consummate schizophrenic personality now, aren't "we?"

Liberal Reader| 10.3.09 @ 3:43PM

In short --

The Liberal Reader is more DEMANDING of you than Glenn Beck.

For this, you should be grateful!

The Liberal Reader wants worthy opponents! not oatmeal-minded ankle-biters!

For God's sake, toughen up. Don't insult me with mediocre returns.

Ed| 10.3.09 @ 4:32PM

My, my, Liberal Reader.

Aren't you full of yourself?

Daisy| 10.3.09 @ 8:25PM

Or full of SOMETHING, Ed. Couldn't help myself, he's a punk.

Nick| 10.3.09 @ 5:08PM

Marxist Reader,

Wait until the next round of polls come out.

By the way, wasn't the election of B.O. supposed to make the world love us again?

The Bard| 10.5.09 @ 11:33PM

What are you, Shakespeare?

Bob Belvedere| 10.3.09 @ 3:58PM

Quoted from and linked to at:
COME ON BABY, LET'S DO THE FISK

Liberal Reader| 10.3.09 @ 6:40PM

Nick --

Why should I wait until polls are released to speak the truth?

Obama's obviously popular abroad. How much this matters is very difficult to determine, but it can hardly hurt.

I'm not sure but I think you're actually taking the IOC's decision as some kind of world-wide referendum. If so, you're making a ludicrous error.

Daisy| 10.3.09 @ 7:31PM

Bottom line, Jeremiah, no matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, Obama couldn't close the deal: Makes him look like a loser. Michelle, too.

Sorry.

Nick| 10.3.09 @ 8:34PM

Marxist Reader,

I meant the polls in this country.

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? Besides you bleeding heart liberals, that is.

Liberal Reader| 10.3.09 @ 9:59PM

Nick --

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

Well ... everyone, actually.

That is, everyone whose opinions are listened to by anyone.

A better question is this:

Your reactionary leaders want YOU to think that we shouldn't care what the world thinks.

Why do you think that is?

Nick| 10.3.09 @ 10:55PM

Marxist Reader,

And by "everyone", you really mean just liberals. You libs like to delude yourselves that you speak for everyone, but you don't. I think it's because liberals tend to be narcissists. For proof, just read B.O.'s and Michele's speeches at the IOC.

Americans have never, and will never, care what the rest of the world thinks. The only leader I have is His Holiness, Pope Benddict XVI.

Laughing Gas| 10.5.09 @ 11:34PM

Speak the truth? That is hysterical coming from you, little miss Priss.

Mary Louise| 10.3.09 @ 7:22PM

Via Hot Air, we are well informed both philosophically and materially.

Brooks can schmooze and hang w/Obama and Van Jones, paradigms of erudition that they are. But he’s powerless to convince that Obama is anything more than 'slightly educated.' No paper trail detailing his brilliance, nothing except a good crease in his pant leg. Extremely light weight with breathalyzers and tire gauges, public plan as Post Office, public plan leading the way to cost effectiveness, etc. That’s exactly what’s happening in the unraveling of Obama.

We know that Obama's pitch for the public plan is unreliable based on what we already know about the current system, and the transfer of all difficulties to the Congress for competent redesign and execution.

Beck took Jones out nice and clean. That’s good, but Jones was still there, and that colors the perception of Obama too. A Truther as one of his Czars. You can try to underplay that, but it really doesn't work.

And, final question on the Olympics, was the rejection of Obama’s lobbying the equivalent of getting The Shoe? Listen to the journalist squeal.

You have to give it to President Bush, ‘sit down, sit down, don’t worry about it.’ Not thin-skinned, not self-impressed.

That said, please Lord, force the Country to disgorge a new Patriot, a new Leader who will faithfully execute his duties, and who can keep two necessities in his thoughts at once, and turn the Country back towards itself.

Daisy| 10.3.09 @ 7:36PM

Agreed, Mary Louise: If Obama and Michelle had scored great grades in college and law school, they would have hired sky writers to publicize the fact.

They're obviously ashamed of something or they wouldn't have scrubbed their records clean.

Mary Louise| 10.3.09 @ 7:59PM

Daisy,

Michelle Obama's thesis at Princeton tells you all you need to know about her ability to think and write. She's not the president, so it's interesting only in that it shows how much more readily you can observe the ill effects of the democratization of education at the top of the heap as opposed to the bottom. And as unimpressive as Obama is becoming with notes, without them he shows us pretty much the same thing.

Palin would have done well to have gone after him for his gaffes. They were really stupid. 57 States? C'mon. Gaffes like that don't happen because you're overtired. They happen because your education is a whole lot less than what it should be.

Oh, and we ought to seriously think about donating to the republican opponent in McCain's bid for re-election. God bless the Senator for his patriotism and courage under fire, but it's time we sent the Meddlesome Maverick packing. He's not very bright and he's a loose cannon. Enough. Let him retire and make appearances on TV with his yellow teeth and slightly deranged smile.

Daisy| 10.3.09 @ 8:23PM

Slightly? Last year, I laughed so hard when Rush's web-site portrayed McCain as Yosemite Sam. McCain's face was super-imposed over an image of the cartoon character. Looked just like him. That was evil.

Rush is hilarious.

Mary Louise| 10.3.09 @ 10:23PM

I caught a glimpse of Rush on a vid at Hot Air. He was on Leno, IIRC. He looked great. Trimmed down, energetic. Not that his portliness mattered to me. I’m glad for the sake of his health, first of all. And secondly because it eliminates the possibility of people like Schwarzenegger referring to him as the ‘600 pound gorilla.’

A few days ago Hot Air linked a piece
from the Washington Post. A couple of excerpts below. Emphasis in bold is mine, and the Pavlov response can be seen right here at Amspec. The title is hackneyed, but the info on Adams and Pestritto make it worth the read:

***“The best-selling conservative books these days tend to be red-meat titles such as Michelle Malkin's "Culture of Corruption," Glenn Beck's new "Arguing with Idiots" and all of Ann Coulter's well-calculated provocations that the left falls for like Pavlov's dogs. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with these books. Politics is not conducted by Socratic seminar, and Henry Adams's dictum that politics is the systematic organization of hatreds should remind us that partisan passions are an essential and necessary function of democratic life. The right has always produced, and always will produce, potboilers.”***

[…]

***“Yet Beck's distinctiveness and his potential contribution to conservatism can be summed up with one name: R.J. Pestritto.

Pestritto is a young political scientist at Hillsdale College in Michigan whom Beck has had on his TV show several times, once for the entire hour discussing Woodrow Wilson and progressivism. He is among a handful of young conservative scholars, several of whom Beck has also featured, engaged in serious academic work critiquing the intellectual pedigree of modern liberalism. Their writing is often dense and difficult, but Beck not only reads it, he assigns it to his staff. "Beck asks me questions about Hegel, based on what he's read in my books," Pestritto told me. Pestritto is the kind of guest Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity would never think of booking.

Okay, so Beck may lack Buckley's urbanity, and his show will never be confused with "Firing Line." But he's on to something with his interest in serious analysis of liberalism's patrimony. The left is enraged with Beck's scandal-mongering over Van Jones and ACORN, but they have no idea that he poses a much bigger threat than that. If more conservative talkers took up the theme of challenging liberalism's bedrock assumptions the way Beck does from time to time, liberals would have to defend their problematic premises more often.”***

After reading Buckley’s son’s book, it struck me that WFB’s preference to be ruled by the first 200 people in the telephone directory was a tremendous paroxysm of honesty.

Daisy| 10.3.09 @ 10:38PM

Rush looks great! I'm glad he's healthier; his success makes Michael Moore look even fatter. Funny. Rush made a couple of Oprah overeating jokes the other day, too. His confidence must be up. Good.

Not impressed with Buckley's kid; how could he betray his mom and dad like that? Absolutely disgusted me. Shame on him.

Nick| 10.3.09 @ 11:59PM

Mary Louise,

Thanks for the link to Mr. Hayward's excellent column.

I especially agree with his take on Hannity. Mark Levin needs to sit Sean down and teach him how to debate, not repeat talking points like libs do. Drives me batty. He also needs to learn what it means to be Roman Catholic.

But Hannity is probably going to run for office some day, that's why he has McLame on as much as he does. He may need him for fundraising in the future.

By the way, did you notice how Mr. Hayward shamelessly plugged his Reagan books in his own column? And then went on to praise Beck's show, perhaps to get on said show to promote one's own books?

Kudos, Mr. Hayward. Well done, sir.

Mary Louise| 10.4.09 @ 12:38AM

Nick,

You're welcome on link and all. It was a good piece, and I'm glad you thought so.

Hannity does need to learn what it means to be RC. And what he can't accept, he should keep to himself instead of openly contradicting Church teaching. Bad formation.

Don't know if you'll appreciate this or not, but taking the chance that you might I'll relay it.

A couple of weeks ago I ran into a friend, a pastor, who I worshipped with a few times during a period of real crisis for me. I found him through an acquaintance. Anyway, the pastor told me that this acquaintance recently told him I was the one responsible for changing his mind about Roman Catholics.

He worships in a Lutheran church right now. Who knows, maybe one day, he’ll be Confirmed a RC. He doesn’t have to travel to Rome, obviously. But if he does, and he thinks of me that will please me more than he can know.

Nick| 10.4.09 @ 1:04AM

Mary Louise,

I'll keep him in my prayers. And you too.

God bless.

Mary Louise| 10.4.09 @ 2:02AM

Nick, thank you.

Liberal Reader| 10.3.09 @ 10:03PM

He didn't say there were 57 states. He said there were 57 CONTESTS, and he was right: there are primaries in American protectorates, like Guam and Puerto Rico; AND there are states, like Texas, with more than one contest.

I can't remember if he misspoke and said "states" once; he may have. But he also said -- and clearly meant -- contests.

YOU would have to be really naive -- almost appallingly ignorant -- to think a United States senator who just finished a two year run for president believed there were 57 states.

Again -- this is a really good example of the reactionary right simply losing the ability to distinguish between it's own good arguments and the really puerile stuff the blubberers dish out on the radio.

There's no compensating for such a debasement of political discourse. It really is disgusting.

Daisy| 10.3.09 @ 10:20PM

He said 'states', libtard. Only an Obama knee-padder would presume to know what Obama meant when he screwed up. Moron.

Mary Louise| 10.4.09 @ 12:23AM

Sorry, Daisy. I meant for my last reply to be directly under Jeremiah's.

Mary Louise| 10.4.09 @ 12:27AM

Was looking at things incorrectly. I think all is aligned as it should be.

I sort of like this reply scheme, and I sort of don't.

Mary Louise| 10.4.09 @ 12:20AM

I don’t think that Obama doesn’t know that there are only 50 States, that’s why I called it a gaffe. But he never caught himself on the 57 States gaffe, when I think most people probably would have.

His education has been little more than a concentration on America’s sins, as is easily seen by his self-impressed and adolescent like speeches. So not catching the gaffe is perfectly natural.

As Richard Epstein of University of Chicago Law School said of Obama “he is an activist merely mimicking the mannerisms of an intellectual.”

He’s like you. Mostly supposition, no real argument. In that way you’re the same as any other ideologue. You’re left arguing this way: the public plan is necessary, market reforms won’t work, I admit I don’t have faith in Congress to be able to properly design and execute said plan, but only two things are certain in life, death and taxes.

You think adding to the vitality of the Country is accomplished by protesting the assassination of an Archbishop. Mourning it, I can see. But protesting it? He’s already dead.

Other people, your betters and mine, are more energetic and more intelligent. Their efforts provide others the ability to earn a livelihood, to put food on their tables.

Obama’s comments revolving around the breathalyzer/inhaler and tire pressure discussions were pretty stupid. And it was all free-form. He could hardly think, and apologized for being tired. But there was nothing there, and there’s not much there now. He’s probably the most under qualified president to ever hold office, and because of that he’s opened up the floodgates for more of same.

You don’t have any moral standing when accusing people of being 'reactionary,' when you have slandered people en masse here by calling them racists, white nationalists, fascists, for no good reason. You have absolutely NO moral standing. And I’d point out that it’s a tic of progressives to go off on the reactionary rant, but I won’t. I’ll just point out that that’s what you do.

You’re so very greasy. And too right is the poster who wrote that the only reason you’re here is because you’ll get the attention you’re denied at liberal blogs, where you would just be one among many. You know the blog where you post under your real name and do little more than take your own side to task? Yes, that blog and others like it.

Nick| 10.4.09 @ 12:55AM

Mary Loise,

Ouch!

Especially enjoyed this: "He’s like you. Mostly supposition, no real argument. In that way you’re the same as any other ideologue."

"As Richard Epstein of University of Chicago Law School said of Obama 'he is an activist merely mimicking the mannerisms of an intellectual.'"

Yes! Exactly.
He is Cornel West or Michael Eric Dyson. Or Noam Chomsky or Katrina vanden Heuvel, for that matter. Don't want to be accused of being RACIST or SEXIST. Right!

If B.O. were a movie, he would be "The Candidate", or to be more accurate "Blazing Saddles." Axelrod would be Hedley Lamarr, of coarse.

Daisy| 10.4.09 @ 1:04AM

Geez, Nick--that's Hedy Lamarr and she's one of my all time Hollyweird faves. So sad that you besmirch her beautiful and elegant memory with Axelrod's ugly, brutish persona.

Boo!!

Nick| 10.4.09 @ 1:14AM

Daisy,

"It's not Hedy, it's Hedley. Hedley Lamarr."

Governor William J. Le Petomane: "What the hell are you worried about? This is 1874. You'll be able to sue her."

Daisy| 10.4.09 @ 1:28AM

Are you talking about the actress?

Nick| 10.4.09 @ 1:40AM

No, I'm sorry.

Hedley Lamarr was a character played by Harvey Korman in "Blazing Saddles."

Mel Brooks played Gov. Le Petomane, a clueless puppet (B.O.). Hedley Lamarr wielded power behind the throne (Axelrod).

The running gag during the movie is that everyone keeps calling him Hedy Lamarr, and he keeps correcting them.

Daisy| 10.4.09 @ 1:34AM

Ha ha! I thought you meant Hedy Lamarr. Was 'Hedley Lamarr' a spoof of the actress? Blazing Saddles kind of grossed me out.

Should have known Harvey Korman was involved, what a nut. Is he still living?

Nick| 10.4.09 @ 1:43AM

No, Mr. Korman passed away. Last year, I think.

Daisy| 10.4.09 @ 12:55AM

"He's an activist merely mimicking the mannerisms of an intellectual ." Ouch! One of the best descriptions of Obama I've read. That cut to the bone.

Poseur in Chief.

Idiot Wind| 10.5.09 @ 11:41PM

Stupid you... he DID say there were 57 states. And he also said there were 2 states left that he hadn't got to yet. It's on You Tube dummy. There you go again sticking up for your lover boy. Talk about bring down the political discourse, lol. Your stupid lover boy couldn't have gotten his High School diploma with that "knowledge." Heck, how did he ever pass grade school?

Liberal Reader| 10.3.09 @ 9:08PM

Again: your criticims of Obama individually would MEAN more if they were offered less relentlessly and on every one of his traits.

If you can't find something to like in him, your criticisms will always have the ring of bad faith.

In short, I just don't believe you.

Now, does this matter?

Not really, no. But unless you want to speak only to those who already share your views, you might as well figure out some way to make more responsible arguments.

Daisy| 10.3.09 @ 9:17PM

Results matter, moron; regardless of what Obama Knee-padders like you think. Talk about tainted arguments; you're a joke.

Liberal Reader| 10.3.09 @ 9:56PM

"Obama knee-padders"?

Again, you're having trouble making even the most basic distinctions between one class of things and another.

I voted for Obama; I think he's doing O.K.; I'm not without criticisms of him.

But to you, anyone who expresses anything other than frothing, almost demented hatred qualifies as a "Knee-padder."

It's ludicrous. You wonder why people don't take you seriously?

Daisy| 10.3.09 @ 10:16PM

Not only are you an Obama knee-padder, Jeremiah, you are a paid Obama knee-padder propagandist.

Sad, sad, sad.

Sold your soul for a few dollars. Was it worth it?

Nick| 10.3.09 @ 11:20PM

Marxist Reader,

Again, by "people" you really mean to say LIBERAL people.

Just like when liberals said the "world" disapproved of President Bush, they really meant the LIBERAL world disapproved.

You guys need to stop thinking you speak for some kind of majority. You don't.

MinnItMan| 10.4.09 @ 10:32AM

Brooks may be too metro and bobo for most conservatives, but he does have THE key insight about the state of conservatism: it lacks any real vision for the public good (other than contempt for it) and hence has no standards for good government. Consequently, it's "ideals" never seem to mesh with what its politicians end up doing in office.

Take three issues: immigration, gay marriage, and the Federal Reserve. Populist conservatism is losing badly on all three, despite it's conviction that the overwhelming majority is on its side. 1) Maybe the majority isn't on its side; and 2) Maybe the majority has a far more nuanced expectation of those who engage these issues to actually produce a better situation rather than a partisan stalemate.

I've pretty much stopped reading, listening or even bothering with conservative media because there is never anything interesting and it is the same old dry well. God is dead, and no amount of Amway conservative hucksterism will change that. In fact, it just confirms the statement.

MinnItMan| 10.4.09 @ 10:32AM

Brooks may be too metro and bobo for most conservatives, but he does have THE key insight about the state of conservatism: it lacks any real vision for the public good (other than contempt for it) and hence has no standards for good government. Consequently, it's "ideals" never seem to mesh with what its politicians end up doing in office.

Take three issues: immigration, gay marriage, and the Federal Reserve. Populist conservatism is losing badly on all three, despite it's conviction that the overwhelming majority is on its side. 1) Maybe the majority isn't on its side; and 2) Maybe the majority has a far more nuanced expectation of those who engage these issues to actually produce a better situation rather than a partisan stalemate.

I've pretty much stopped reading, listening or even bothering with conservative media because there is never anything interesting and it is the same old dry well. God is dead, and no amount of Amway conservative hucksterism will change that. In fact, it just confirms the statement.

Summer| 10.4.09 @ 12:15PM

You were so happy with your drivel you posted it twice. Thank you for that.

That's 'illegal' immigration, in case you haven't noticed; only a fool doesn't support the sovereignty of his own country. A liberal fool.

Conservative ideals are immutable, they'll never die.

SandyC| 10.4.09 @ 11:25AM

Steven Hayward's article, Brain-Dead Conservatives, was as much a stab at all us unwashed fools, and the radio talk show hosts as the Brooks article. Quite surprising coming from a Reagan Historian. The first thing that proves him to be irrelevant in his assessment is the fact that millions of Americans have bonded with Sarah Palin, who speaks plainly, honestly, and from the heart. I'm sure he would dismiss her because she didn't graduate from the Liberal bastion that is Havud. I'm sure we all would be dismissed as well. He is out of touch with the pulse of the citizens of the US.

Mary Louise| 10.4.09 @ 12:29PM

Brooks ought to get the insight, at least w/Obama’s performance to date, that the state of liberalism can't escape the results of its woolly headed patrimony. Its nostrums executed, producing a debilitated and usurping electorate. Always needing more, never less.

Structurally, our economy is very unsound and you might be able to re-inflate a bubble here and there, but when your debt is such that you can't repay it, your future looks quite grim indeed. Couple that with a population that thinks the good life is its due, and you have the makings for spectacular disintegration. And I don’t think there will be anything multicultural about it. Public good number 1 is a job: Bone up on the history of living comfortably.

You're commenting on a Conservative site so you must want to be heard by conservatives. Can we hear you? Yes we can! Do we believe you and yours can solve what ails us? At the risk of speaking for my friends here: No we don't believe you're the ones we've been waiting for!

And speaking of the Federal Reserve and Amway…

I’d worry a whole lot less about God being dead. He can take care of Himself. You should worry about the dollar being dead, and the fact that no amount of Robbing Peter To Pay Paul can restore a true and proper value to it.

You will, of course, have the pleasure of contemplating and executing with nuance the better and eminently vital issues of gay marriage, immigration, etc, all brought to you by the precious dividend of peace, and the leisure that provides for the pursuit of division via identity politics.

The US will return to a belief in limited government, personal responsibility and a respect for the rule of Law, or it'll disintegrate. And that’s no Brimstone talk. The Law is all around you, and even if God doesn’t exist that Law shaped history, providing for safety and progress and gaining precious liberty, little, by little for all. Foundational. What you bring in its place is vastly inferior. You want what can never be, order without Foundation.

Liberal Reader| 10.4.09 @ 1:16PM

It is ironic how little effort Brooks and Hayward need to make their case.

Each makes a fairly temperate, sensible argument -- then relaxes while you people demonstrate the amazing truth of his claims.

Jesus. READ your responses to Brooks (and, now, Hayward).

You offer no good REASONS to reject their arguments.

You call names; you insist on the absolute purity and goodness of your "principles"; you reject any critically minded examination of assumptions; then you call more names.

It is only because people like you are in such small numbers -- maybe 10 or 15% of the electorate -- that this country can still govern itself. Unfortunately for the rest of us, your hysterical and loud-mouthed leaders on talk radio are given way too much air time.

You seem incapable of comparing Palin to Reagan, Beck to Buckley. Without the ability to make comparisons like these, you will continue to degenerate into mere purveyors of hate speech.

Daisy| 10.4.09 @ 5:17PM

With the garbage you liberals have puked out as leaders, you have no reason to lecture us, Jeremiah.

Hate is the mother's milk of liberals like you. Begone, little demon!

Like Mary Louise said, "You're greasy." Perfectly apt in your case.

Liberal Reader| 10.4.09 @ 6:46PM

Again --

You don't offer any arguments, just more name-calling.

If you ONCE would try to make a series of logically connected, reasonable claims, I might think otherwise.

But for now I can only conclude you are an irrational mob.

Daisy| 10.4.09 @ 7:32PM

Like I've said before, (too many times to count, moron), if I thought you argued in good faith, I'd engage you: But you don't so I won't. I just don't have enough respect for you to do so.

You're a liberal troll whore who has sold his soul for a few dollars and are of no consequence to me.

Mary Louise| 10.4.09 @ 8:32PM

Daisy, you're a good girl. And you realized long before I ever did, that "there is no such thing as 'fighting dirty,' because there is onlyfighting."

Daisy| 10.5.09 @ 12:10AM

Thanks, Mary Louise: I admire you and your compliment means a lot to me.

I always CONSIDER THE SOURCE!!

Mary Louise| 10.4.09 @ 3:02PM

All of us come to our set of beliefs more through a process of discarding than pure embrace.

I’ve not read much of Buckley and I’m not planning to. The stuff of his I’ve read (I had to put one of his novels down, I found it so bad) hasn’t moved me much. And now, with The Conservative Mind more or less under my belt, he seems even less original and substantive.

This election brings the law of unintended consequences, and how that inflates and deflates opposing visions, into full view. Economic collapse and the immaturity of Obama’s ideology brought it to the fore in a just a few months. Sort of like high speed photography.

Hayward doesn’t want us to compare Beck to Buckley. Though he is saying we need both. And his quoting of Adams was wonderful because it’s manifestly true.

I’m not sure but I don’t think many of my fellow Amspecers post at Huff Post or NYT Blog, etc. There’s nothing there; I, and I’m thinking they too, have long discarded liberal nostrums because the possibility for their mere existences is predicated on the bedrock that immutable principles erect. They don’t change.

A small amount of debt may be unavoidable, but an enormous amount the road to ruin. No amount of tax revenue taken in can make up for a lack of personal responsibility. No amount can make the Fatherhood of State less expensive and more hale than maintaining that fatherhood in family.

I’m on the 3rd Volume of the Decline and Fall. My goodness, how beautifully he wrote. What a pleasure it is to read his thoughts:

**The scandal of an abstract heresy can only be proclaimed to the people by a blast…but the most ignorant can perceive, the most torpid must feel, the profanation and downfall of their visible deities.**

Lastly, from Kirk’s (he and Burke are all about discarding and grabbing prescription simultaneously) Conservative Mind and that crazy and ‘delightful reactionary’ Fisher Ames:

**“It is indeed a law of politics as well as that of physics, that a body in action must overcome an equal body at rest.” This, said Ames, is an eternal handicap of conservatism; and he thought the game already played out and lost in the United States.**

I can’t remember if it’s Mises or Hayek who advises fight, fight against a gluttonous State. Remind people of liberty and limitation and personal responsibility because if you don’t you’ll accelerate the swallowing whole of State, and then only catastrophe will allow for a reordering and unfortunately that will usually be from scratch.

Mary Louise| 10.4.09 @ 6:27PM

Should read existence and not existences.

Mary Louise| 10.4.09 @ 8:17PM

Mrs. Thompson’s blog entry is saying Brooks is talking to himself, and he is . His column was treated with a perfunctory paragraph or two at NRO for the same reason.

Brooks’ premises are his own. Rush, to the best of my knowledge, never said he could do what Brooks is accusing him of not being able to do. Same for Beck. Except Beck has proven he can actually take someone out and do it cleanly. Beck at this point has proven far more powerful than Brooks.

And if I were Glenn I’d make sure I had some really good security detail.

Breitbart is an important figure here too. Ridicule is very important and the Right is starting to understand that. Breitbart is smart, media savvy and very much on our side.

If the US is moving towards a more libertarian view, Rush and Beck fit right in. And the kind of higher-end thinking that sustained conservatives in ages past is going to head in a new direction. Brooks won’t be on that band wagon. His time, for whatever it was worth, has passed.

I’m a big proponent of venerating, but not idolizing, worthies who came before. Veneration is quiet and contemplative and can lead to an opening up, idolatry is just going to dry up a movement.

From Reagan’s ‘64 Speech, A Time For Choosing:

**“[I]t doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life or death over that business or property? ...Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.”**

And here we are again.

I don’t know if the results of Germany’s election portend a libertarian trend or not. I do know that we’re a unique people, and without freedom of movement we’re absolutely lost. Rush gets that and so does Beck.

Daisy| 10.5.09 @ 12:31AM

Exactly, Mary! Ridicule is one of man's most potent weapons. Use of ridicule is one of Alinsky's basic tenets. We Conservatives have come late to this realization because we are not sociopaths like Jeremiah/LibReader and others of his ilk.

I was not reared to be cruel and manipulative; it goes against my grain, but being a Scot, I won't give up easily--and I hate to lose!

Besides, most importantly, Leftist tactics are evil and I can't just stand by and watch as evil prevails. My love of God will not let me.

Mary Louise| 10.4.09 @ 8:49PM

This thread was a good thread. I'm going to hit it a couple more times, just with quotes.

Here's one from Democracy In America on the liberty of the press.

**If any one could point out an intermediate and yet a tenable position between the complete independence and the entire subjection of the public expression of opinion, I should perhaps be inclined to adopt it; but the difficulty is to discover this position. If it is your intention to correct the abuses of unlicensed printing and to restore the use of orderly language, you may in the first instance try the offender by a jury; but if the jury acquits him, the opinion which was that of a single individual becomes the opinion of the country at large. Too much and too little has therefore hitherto been done. If you proceed, you must bring the delinquent before a court of permanent judges. But even here the cause must be heard before it can be decided; and the very principles which no book would have ventured to avow are blazoned forth in the pleadings, and what was obscurely hinted at in a single composition is then repeated in a multitude of other publications.

The language in which a thought is embodied is the mere carcass of the thought, and not the idea itself; tribunals may condemn the form, but the sense and spirit of the work is too subtle for their authority. Too much has still been done to recede, too little to attain your end; you must therefore proceed. If you establish a censorship of the press, the tongue of the public speaker will still make itself heard, and you have only increased the mischief.

The powers of thought do not rely, like the powers of physical strength, upon the number of their mechanical agents, nor can a host of authors be reckoned like the troops which compose an army; on the contrary, the authority of a principle is often increased by the smallness of the number of men by whom it is expressed. The words of a strong-minded man, which penetrate amidst the passions of a listening assembly, have more power than the vociferations of a thousand orators; and if it be allowed to speak freely in any public place, the consequence is the same as if free speaking was allowed in every village. The liberty of discourse must therefore be destroyed as well as the liberty of the press; this is the necessary term of your efforts; but if your object was to repress the abuses of liberty, they have brought you to the feet of a despot. You have been led from the extreme of independence to the extreme of subjection without meeting with a single tenable position for shelter or repose.**

Bruce| 10.5.09 @ 6:47AM

First time looking at the National Review webpage. I have to say: What a load of low-brow partisan rubbish!

Johnno| 10.5.09 @ 11:42AM

It's a CONSERVATIVE web-site, what do you expect, Leftist HuffPo rants? Liberals never fail to amuse.

Silas| 10.5.09 @ 2:40PM

Brooks is a wanna-be liberal, but is just too smart to sign on to their program. If Brooks took time out of his day to dig a ditch, pay employees, change a tire ... You know, work . . . his tune would change.

There is something that happens to the mind when one lives in the Northeast and frolics among the "beautiful people." The mind numbs, and a horrible case of naive and stupid strikes.

lam| 1.12.10 @ 7:43AM

They do not simply walk in lock step with their radionike outlet overlords, unlike pundits in Washington who enjoy getadidas outletting a call from the Obama White House and touting The One at every turn.