The American Spectator

Dan| 2.20.10 @ 12:08PM

This is nonsense, and belied by the fact that on the very day she urged one and all to avoid going after Obama, John Bolton remarked that on the day Obama was sworn in he wasn't qualified for the office, and 13 months later, STILL isn't qualified for the office. Then he went on to observe that we've been saddled with the first post-American President.

Does Amity believe that Bolton doesn't have anything substantive at hand to rebut the serial idiocies of this idiotic administration.

Republicans should start to zero in on Obama, now that his numbers have fallen below a crucial threshold. This doesn't mean we should avoid going after his policies.

But what it means is that now it's the time to go after BOTH him AND his policies. Our goal should be to make him, his name, his face, the whole creepy icon of the creature in question utterly TOXIC.

Make of him and his followers a ground zero.

And don't in any way be apologetic about it.

They went after GW in a way utterly beyond the pale, and now we should return the favour in spades.

darcy| 2.20.10 @ 1:38PM

I'm with you, Dan. Amity Shales cast a search light on the destructiveness of the New Deal, and for that we cheer.

But Overreacher is poison to this nation, and his unthinking (as well as his committed) followers need to start seeing him the way we do: as someone out to destroy every last vestige of our Founding heritage. Perhaps the committed will grow less ardent -- we can pray.

Let me add, that J. McCain took Shales's very approach during the campaign and Never exposed O for who he was, never attacked him as it is the responsibility of opponents to do. (Mind you, I'm not in anyway endorsing McCain as presidential timber and am working to term limit him here in AZ).

McCain failed us: he chose popularity with a leftist press over telling us the truth. The truth will out; let's remember this always.

Bob| 2.20.10 @ 1:09PM

Amity Shlaes is precisely right. The lies and overstatements found here at AmSpec exist because no one here is really a fiscal conservative. This blog, and current "conservatives" are just extreme religious right bigots instead of being focused on fiscal conservatism and limited government. When you advocate belief over reason, you have no argument.

We know that entitlements are over half of the federal budget and non-military discretionary spending is less than 1/6th of the budget. Yet, we hear more about gays in the military than ideas to reform Medicare. We spend 17% of GDP on health care in this country and don't get a better result than over 30 other countries. That's not fiscal conservatism. Unless we lower the cost of health care in this country, we will never increase our manufacturing base as we start out producing products in the hole. While things like tort reform are necessary, they won't reduce costs dramatically. Currently, insurance companies help us ration care, but we need more rationing than that. We spend far too much keeping people alive for a month or two or on machines. We need to let people die when their time comes. It's the religious freaks who have problems with this and no sense of fiscal responsibility.

I also endorse Ryan's plan, and have endorsed it in a number of responses. It is a start. Yes, it will cause more grandma's to die. But since health care is a privilege, not a right, that's OK. I also endorse Chris Christie who is trying to make people show their citizenship before they are able to get free -- or cheap -- medical care.

Nick| 2.21.10 @ 12:02PM

That would really hurt, 3/5 /Bob, if it weren't for the fact that you are an anti-Christian bigot.

darcy| 2.21.10 @ 8:24PM

Yes, Nick, what's with that, anyway? Must be somethin' goin' on there.

Bob, truly, I said a prayer for you last night that God would " . . . satisf[y] your desires with good things, so that our youth is renewed like the eagles's." Psalm 103:5. Actually, the entire Psalm is amazing, not just verse 5.

Jeff Perren| 2.20.10 @ 2:55PM

"The lies and overstatements found here at AmSpec exist because no one here is really a fiscal conservative."

Bob, I agree with many of your positions - and I'm not a conservative by any stretch - but this kind of attack is precisely what Ms. Shlaes is arguing against.

Note, for example, that Quin Hillyer - who writes here often - was on that same panel. Though he is a Christian - and I am not - he is both a fiscal conservative and a very decent human being, as are most of the AmSpec writers. Paint with a smaller brush, please.

Bob| 2.20.10 @ 3:09PM

Jeff, I accept your criticism regarding lies, but not overstatements. Lies require the individual to knowingly misstate facts and the bloggers here believe they are telling the truth. Quin is perhaps, the most vile of all of the bloggers here. He consistently calls the opposition socialists, Alinskyites, etc., more than anyone else. He has a racist streak in him but doesn't think of himself that way.

Yes, I believe that most of the writers at AmSpec are decent people, but they constantly misstate facts regarding taxes, health care, and especially, economics. They may not know better, but that is no excuse. Then again, I have the same disrespect for those ultra-leftists at Huffington Post who do the same thing. I believe those are decent people as well. I get as much upset at Olbermann and Maddow as I do with Beck the Limbaugh. Olbermann and Maddow have absolutely no respect for fiscal issues and just don't understand the huge problem facing us.

But at the end of the day, my contempt mostly goes to those social conservatives who think that the Republican party is an evangelical tool for spreading Christianity. This, and the misstatement of facts found here at AmSpec, takes away from the largest secular issues facing us and our progeny -- fiscal responsibility. And that is truly immoral.

Quin| 2.20.10 @ 4:03PM

Bob,
I repeat, as I have before, that to call me of all people a racist is to mae the word mean nothing. If you dealt with threatening phone calls because you worked so hard and long against David Duke; if you chaired an educational enrichment program for inner city kids; if you wrote column after column in Mobile, Alabama urging support for impoverished, 90% black Prichard, AL as it was literally bankrupt while arguing that Prichard had all sorts of good reason for hope; if you wrote columns taking on racists in Mobile; if you have a personal history of deep and long-lasting friendships with people who happen to be black; if you tacitly endorsed a black Democrat for mayor in Mobile against a white Republican and wrote a column for The New Republic explaining why the black Democrat would likely win even though Mobile remained nearly 60% white (in voter registration); if you had enthusiastically and wholeheartedly embraced and supported all of Jack Kemp's initiatives for poor (and usually black) people; if, in short, in these ways and many others, you had dedicated large parts of your life to racial understanding -- then maybe you would understand why I take such great offense to you repeatedly calling me a racist, and why I ask again that you refrain from spewing your venom on this site. As for name-calling: No, I haven't called anybody a socialist. I did write a column explaining the similiarities between Obamanomics and Mussolin economics, while specifically noting that Bush also followed some of the same wrong tracks and while clearly saying that to amke a comparison was NOT to try to make Obama or anybody else sound like a Nazi. And I did call Obama an Alinskyite, which is not name-calling but a simple fact. It was The New Republic which first ran a lengthy, detailed story that demonstrated conclusively that Obama was a devoted follower of Alinsky; it was Obama who write a paper about Alinsky; and it is Obama's own Organizing for America that recommends Alinsky's work as a primer for its volunteers.
I stand behind the honor, integrity and decency of everything I have written. You cannot do the same, sir.

Bob| 2.20.10 @ 7:24PM

Quin, I did not call your racism overt. I think you truly believe that nothing that would come from your lips could be racist. And perhaps racist is too strong a word. But my problem with you is that you dabble around the edges of racism. Let me give you an example. You said this:

"That is the first time I have ever heard of arrogance described as a trait associated with black people."

Haven't you ever heard of "uppity blacks"? In your mind, you don't make the connection. I grew up in a black neighborhood in South Central and believe me, they make that connection -- quickly and easily.

Your continued rants on Obama as an Alinskyite -- a communist sounding attribute -- makes his blackness sound ominous. Have you ever read Marx? Does that make you a Marxist? Did you know that Rush Limbaugh uses many of the Alinskyite principles?

Then there was Sotomayor and her "wise Latina" comment. If you were familiar with the Latino community and lived with Hispanics, you'd know this was just a Bronxian wisecrack. But you have not lived with Hispanics (I married one) and thus may be too naive to understand.

Perhaps you are not racist -- but you sure are racialist. Let me see, where have I heard that one?

Quin, I think you are a good guy with a good heart. But it seems you lack perspective on minorities along with the vastly white Republican party. You seem to gravitate to these issues more than any other blogger here. What is it in your constitution that makes you do that?

My attempt in your columns was to point out the subvert "racialism" in your comments. But you seem to be so closed in your thinking that you can't, or won't comprehend it. I have many black friends, and when they are around whites, they don't talk the same way as they probably do around you.

I suggest you talk to some moderate or liberal blacks who grew up in poor neighborhoods, and talk about these issues, perhaps even some rappers, telling them that you want to get at the truth, and have an honest discussion. I must assume you are just naive. Most Republicans are naive when it comes to racial issues.

My larger point here is that the types of arguments you make when it comes to non-white people takes away from our greatest problems which are due to a lack of fiscal conservatism and fiscal literacy in both Democrat and Republican parties. Republicans need to get away from these social and racial issues and concentrate on limiting the size of government, accepting all people even if you can't understand them, and unify the American public rather than being so divisive.

CalMark| 2.20.10 @ 8:05PM

Bob's posturing reminds me of Al Franken's picture on his book jackets. But a dignified pose with a pipe and a serious, important frown, are not enough to camouflage vicious, condescending slander.

astonerii| 2.20.10 @ 11:57PM

When every argument is off limits because someone at some point in time used something that is similar to that argument in a slightly or even overtly racist manner, then the person making the argument is not the racist. When you walk around town and every person you meet is a jerk to you, maybe you should figure out who the jerk is. So, when every person you chat with or towards in a blog is a racist, I would tend to think that it runs in the same direction as the jerk argument; the person who sees racism in everyone's chat text except their own, is the true racist.

Jeff Perren| 2.21.10 @ 2:10PM

"Haven't you ever heard of 'uppity blacks'? In your mind, you don't make the connection."

Huh? Maybe that's because he's not the one who has race foremost in mind.

Racism is a trivial problem in this country now, anyway. Sure there are troglodytes here and there (among many different demographic groups). But vanishingly few are denied housing, employment, or even friendship on that basis these days. It's time to move on and embrace the truly non-racist mentality - by ignoring a person's genetic or geographic origins.

This, however,

"Your continued rants on Obama as an Alinskyite -- a communist sounding attribute -- makes his blackness sound ominous."

suggests that you have a hard time doing that. What has being a communist or Alinskyite got to do with a person's race?

And, correct me if I'm wrong but I've never read Quin Hillyer call Obama a communist. To the contrary, I pointed out (as did he) the articles he wrote making a parallel between Obama's political philosophy and that of Mussolini.

I'm not really surprised that you couldn't come up with the evidence I requested. Quin Hillyer is a deeply honorable man and you'll find nothing to smear him with that will stick.

As to the bogeyman of "social conservatives," this is more selective bias on your part. When was the last time you read about a national campaign to get Playboy censored, or even barred from being sold at 7-11? When was the last time a book and it's author was put on trial?

About the only example you'll find that comes close are the many referenda -- supported by an ample majority of the voters -- to forbid gay marriage. I disagree with the majority on that issue (I don't advocate that the government be involved in marriage rituals), but my opposition's view is hardly limited to social conservatives -- unless you believe in the unlikely position that the Democratic Party is also dominated by them.

I agree that fiscal conservatism (a poor choice of words, since what we're talking about is not conservatism per se, but free market capitalism and limited government) is a hugely important issue. But like all political issues it is undergirded by an ethical view. I don't share that of the social conservative, but I understand why they're distraught and agree with many of the reasons.

None of them have to do with a desire to return to the days of burning witches.

Jeff Perren| 2.21.10 @ 8:28PM

Some hard data on the dishwater popularity of "social conservatism" within the conservative movement.

At CPAC, a poll showed dealing with Illegal Immigration ranked at 5%, Stopping Gay Marriage at 1%. The significantly higher priorities were reducing the size of the Federal government, lowering spending, lowering taxes, etc.

CPAC Poll.

Jeff Perren| 2.20.10 @ 4:04PM

"Quin is perhaps, the most vile of all of the bloggers here. He consistently calls the opposition socialists, Alinskyites, etc., more than anyone else."

That's not been my observation, so if you run across some statements to that effect, please email me at jdperren@gmail.com (I do recall a two-part article in which he showed how Obama's views are uncomfortably close to the Italian Fascists of the 1920s, which was accurate according to my reading.)

That said, is it not true? Technically, Obama, Boxer, Waxman, and many others fascists, not socialists, but potay-toe, potah-toe in my view.

This, however,

"He has a racist streak in him but doesn't think of himself that way."

is bizarre in light of Mr. Hillyer's real-life experience in Louisiana and explitic statements on the subject. If you have any evidence of this, please email the address above.

As to whether or not the bloggers here understand economics, I would again have to see specific misstatements.

Naturally, that represents a chore for you, so feel free to simply collect a few along the way and - if you would - email them to me at your leisure.

I often disagree with AmSpec bloggers (and many conservatives) about issues of religion, abortion, and other things, but I've not seen the type of errors to which you allude.

I'm open to being educated on that subject.

Thank you for the lengthy and honest reply.

Jeff Perren
Shaving Leviathan

martin j smith| 2.20.10 @ 4:50PM

Nope, fascists,marxists,communists,socialists,ideologues,
demogogues you name it they all fit. And, they are un-American,Anti-American,unpatriotic,unpopular,undeserving,undercheiving,underpants and should be voted out of office. That is my view of the democrat Party.

Margie| 2.20.10 @ 8:33PM

Question: Can "Bob" ever post once without bashing Christians?
Answer: No. Unless he is so caught up in posting his charts n' graphs "data" that he forgets to.

TMF| 2.21.10 @ 9:42AM

Of course you're aware that McCarthy was right.There were communists in the United States government. Today we have more czars in our government then Stalin ever dreamed of.

ccoffer| 2.21.10 @ 11:01AM

"Perhaps you are not racist

You sanctimonious little bigots are truly sickening. Calling Brakabama the communist he obviously is only "makes his blackness seem ominous" to a mouth-breathing bigot like YOU, "Bob".

You scumbags need to learn some new material. That would require a degree of creativity you could never muster though.

Nick| 2.21.10 @ 4:30PM

Mr. Klein,

"[...] when McCarthyite attacks became a substitute for criticizing policies [...]"

What policy would that be? Letting democrat commie spies run rampant throughout the State department giving away China and the atom bomb?

Senator Joseph McCarthy was a patriot, trying to protect this great country. He was the first victim of the slanderous and libelous onslaught of the MSM in modern politics.

I'm surprised when people, who should be better informed, repeat the lies of the 1950's.

Lazy Jack| 2.22.10 @ 9:57AM

Amity is correct in most respects here, with one exception. It is a necessary maxim that ad hominem attacks are like suppression fire with artillery. In politics, as in war, sometime you just have to blow a lot of stuff up to throw the enemy off balance. But, your ideas, not your insults, ultimately win the war.

Amity argues that the ideas of limited government must win the day. Unfortunately, Republicans lost their moral authority early this century when they decided to spend like drunken sailors. Amity is wrong in her description of what happened. It was not “Democrat Lite.” It was the full monty, with Republicans increasing spending at a rate that made Ted Kennedy get all frisky. How else can you explain that in 2008 the annual federal spending was $1.3 trillion larger than 2000, with $1 trillion of that annual increase coming in the form of civilian and entitlement spending?

Republicans also tear at their beards over the intrusions the Democrats force on our lives through federal legislation. Yet when given the chance, Republicans enact laws that do the same things, only from the far right. Hypocrisy is apparently easy when votes matter more than the Constitution.

In truth, the ad hominem attacks on Obama are misguided because his administration appears to be nothing more than a recycling of Johnson with Carter’s leadership skills (How is that for Ad Hominem). The real terror we should all feel is that the Democrats have controlled the federal legislature 80% of the time since 1932, and we are being asked to double down all the bad bets made during those years. In other words, the entrenched interests on both sides of the aisle appear hell bent on establishing the hegemony of the welfare state.

For reference to those of you on both the right and especially the left as to what our future holds, please see Greece, Portugal, and Venezuela. Amity is correct; we should stop trying to insult an admittedly easy target and start doing the math. Policies of endless government are demonstrably deadly to liberty and lives alike, not to mention everyone’s pocketbooks. Just ask the Greeks.

Lazy Jack

www.thanksforthelaughs.wordpress.com