-
U.S. News: Obama-Kelley Meeting
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Columnist Paul Mulshine of the Star-Ledger in Newark, New Jersey is a conservative. If you don’t know that, don’t worry he’ll tell you. He’ll also tell you who really isn’t a conservative.
There’s Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. Then there’s Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Ann Coulter. Don’t forget Dick Cheney and Charles Krauthammer and NR’s Jonah Goldberg and…well…you get the idea. He’s not so sure of Paul Ryan, either.
Our friend Dan Riehl over at Riehl World has disappointingly gotten there first with a jewel of a nickname for Mulshine that I wish I had thought of first…”Moonshine Mulshine.”
Moonshine the conservative, you see, derides our friend Mark Levin because Mark is a “liberty-hating left winger” “pseudo-con” and “neo-con.” Really? Really??? Levin’s a Lefty? Yes… in Moonshine’s world. On the other hand, anyone who has spent two seconds listening to or talking to Mark Levin understands one is listening to or speaking with a plain, old-fashioned deeply well-read conservative. A Reaganite who knows his Burke (and a lot more than that… we call him The Great One only in semi-jest). Moonshine dislikes Rush and Sean because among other things (he seems to have a list) they sell advertising on their programs, a process known to most conservatives as capitalism. Hannity is dissed as a “steak salesman” (along with being the standard “pseudoconservative”) because one of his advertisers has been Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse. One is curious as to why Moonshine works for a newspaper that pays his salary by selling ads for things like the one-hour $49 massage (true — you can’t possibly make this stuff up!) but hey…consistency and hobgoblins and all of that. Maybe Moonshine likes the $49 massage. In a style that recalls a prim Columbia Journalism Review editorialist, Moonshine’s attacks on Limbaugh, Levin and Hannity sound an awful lot like a last defender of the Church of Elitist Mainline Liberal Journalism.
Apparently forgetting Buckley’s zinger about preferring to be governed by the first hundreds in the Boston phone book rather than the Harvard faculty, Moonshine’s elitism shines when he goes after “lowbrow lunkheads like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity who pander to people who lack the education and intellect to qualify as conservatives.” Huh. I didn’t know Newark had a country club.
He ponders contemptuously whether Ann Coulter is a “clueless idiot or parasitical wretch.” Dick Cheney is no conservative because he supposedly panicked after 9/11 and defended the country. He hated Jonah Goldberg’s book on Liberal Fascism although, he admitted, he hadn’t read it. And…as I said. There’s more. A lot of it. This really is moonshine kind of stuff, as Riehl quickly perceived. And I think Riehl is on to something when he says that what really drives Mulshine is a “jealousy of popular, genuinely accomplished conservative thinkers.”
But as is our tendency here, let’s put aside over-the-top nutty slurs of the type Moonshine doles out to just about everybody he deems as less conservative than himself…which, as mentioned, would be just about everybody. Let’s focus not on the nutty rants (apparently the Star-Ledger’s idea of what a real conservative is about) but on the substance Moonshine holds aloft as his obviously bleary guiding star.
Moonshine is firm. A conservative, he lectures, is one who “is a strict believer in the limited powers of the federal government imposed by the Constitution and will not vote to expand those powers.”
Fair enough.
Then why, one wonders, is Moonshine a believer that the other, few true-blue conservatives out there are Congressman Ron Paul and the late Senator Robert Taft? I like Congressman Paul…indeed…although I’ve had quibbles here and there with various of the 2012 potential GOP candidates, I like them all. Any of them will be better than he-whose-name-must-not-be-mentioned. But if Moonshine really is determined to press on substance — he is a strict believer in the limited powers of the federal government, so he says — you have to wonder why he settles on Congressman Paul. If Mitt Romney has his health care problems and Jon Huntsman his global warming problems and Mitch Daniels his social issues problems and Haley Barbour his lobbying issues and so-on with the rest, it can easily be said that Ron Paul has his limited government problems.
Back there in 2007, on the eve of the 2008 GOP race in which the Congressman made a run for the nomination, a group called “Conservatives and Libertarians United Against Ron Paul” did its homework and explained just why they weren’t impressed with Paul.
It seemed they found some 65 federal projects in which the Congressman was decidedly not opposed in the least to expanding the role of the federal government way, way beyond the idea of “limited powers…imposed by the Constitution.” He wanted beaucoup federal bucks for all 65. My personal favorite was Congressman Paul’s apparent belief that the Constitution’s limited powers included $3 million to “test imported shrimp for antibiotics.” Now, I first met up with Mark Levin on a phone call in the middle of the Reagan-era when he quickly launched into an explanation of the Constitution within the first …oh…thirty to thirty-five seconds. In all the years since, whether in conversation or listening to his radio show or reading his books, I can honestly say I never heard him say, “Americans have a constitutional right to $3 million clams to test for juiced shrimp. Article I, Section 107, the ‘shrimp testing clause.’ There, I’ve said it. Get off the phone you big dope.” Congressman Paul apparently believes otherwise, a sin that surely will take him out of that lonely small “last conservative” club where Moonshine serves as president and keeper-of-the-flame.
But don’t worry, Moonshine still has the late Robert Taft, whom Moonshine upholds reverently as a pillar of “the true American conservative tradition of small government and limited powers.”
Uh-huh. That would be the same Robert Taft whose belief in support for “small government and limited powers” translated into support for providing millions in federal aid to education and public housing and NATO and…well. Again. You get the picture. Ron Paul and Robert Taft must now shuffle in shame to join the list of Moonshine’s “not really conservative conservatives” that includes the other low brows, lefties and pseudoconservatives like Levin and Limbaugh, Hannity, Cheney, Palin, Bachmann, Goldberg, Coulter, maybe Ryan and….gee…did anyone notify Reagan and Burke?
Plain and simple? Moonshine Mulshine is no conservative or anything close. He’s just a guy with a soft-spot for elitism and liberal journalism who seems to be jealous of the success of some better-known conservatives in the media and has concluded he can elevate his profile by punching them in the philosophical nose and shrieking “Neo-con! Neo-con!” “Clueless! “Steak salesman!”
Maybe the next time readers of the Star Ledger check out the $49 massage ad that help pays Moonshine’s salary they can read his latest to see if he’s spent some time over a plate of Congressman Paul’s federally paid-for juice-tested shrimp — and read the Constitution’s shrimp testing clause.
Moonshine Mulshine as an arbiter of conservatism?
Oh please.
View all comments (22) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/04/06/moonshine-mulshine-of-the-star
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
bobmontgomery| 4.6.11 @ 12:56PM
Besides mediaites telling us who bona fide conservatives are, I really like them telling us who bona fide ....senatorial candidates ......presidential candidates.....are.
WilliamR| 4.6.11 @ 1:47PM
Face it Lord, most the people that Mulshine talks about are NeoCons. And that includes Limbaugh and the idiot Levin. They both were big boosters of the Bush Cheney foreign policy of endless war in the Middle East. War is nothing but big government especially when they're needless wars. Which by the way is responsible for Obama being President today. After Tom Woods made an ass out of Levin on the War Powers act he's been doing what he does best. Calling people names.
Going on Neil Cavuto's show on Fox and calling Ron Paul RuPaul only makes Mark Levin look like an immature jerk. And the fact that you're defending him doesn't make you look any better frankly.
Chris Wysocki | 4.6.11 @ 1:52PM
You've nailed Mulshine pretty well. I've been reading him for years, and corresponding on and off with him during that time. He's married to the notion that anyone who dares to opine (ie bloggers) has to have "paid his dues first" by, for example, spending decades toiling in obscurity covering city council meetings.
So yeah, he's an elitist. And if you think his attacks on Conservatives are bad, you should read what he writes about beer. If it isn't brewed from the distilled secretions of an endangered strain of organic hops by a micro-brewer who learned at the knee of Belgian monks, it's not worth his time. And anyone who drinks Bud or Miller or Coors isn't a Real American by his reckoning.
Red Phillips | 4.6.11 @ 1:56PM
I don't think calling people who are identified as conservatives not conservative is always the most helpful approach. People like Levin, Hannity, Limbaugh, Palin, Bachmann etc. are conservative by our modern reckoning/nomenclature so saying they are not potentially confuses the issue. But Mr. Lord is smart enough and understands conservatism enough to understand what Mulshine is getting at so playing dumb for effect for the audience at AmSpec is not becoming. Mulshine would probably be well served to turn down the rhetoric, but his point (a point which Mr. Lord certainly understands) is valid. The conservative movement and its leadership and spokesmen have not been rigorously and consistently constitutionalist since its inception. The post-war "modern conservative movement" as opposed to the "Old Right" esentially accepted the New Deal as a fait accompli.
Mr. Lord (and Mr. Riehl) also understands that Mulshine's primary objection at present to his list of non-conservatives is on interventionist vs. non-interventionist foreign policy. While it isn't always helpful to say Rush or whoever isn't a conservative, it is always appropriate to label policies that aren't conservative as such. So Rush is someone who is generally conservative by disposition but who espouses a liberal policy in interventionism.
I will be happy to debate Mr. Lord, Mr. Riehl or whoever, starting with first principles, about which policy, interventionism or non-interventionism, is the authentic conservative position. That is the issue here, an Mr. Lord's attempts to play gottcha in front of a favorable audience won't change that.
Also, why do I get the feeling this post was also an excuse to take a few shots at Ron Paul. I'll address that issue when I have more time, but to suggest that any of the potential candidates are more constitutionalists than Ron Paul is laughable and intellectually dishonest. He is by orders of magnitude and Mr. Lord knows it.
WilliamR| 4.6.11 @ 1:57PM
Why war and conservatism are not compatible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
Occam's Tool| 4.6.11 @ 2:16PM
Ron Paul is a Libertarian; not a Conservative. Sorry, but his Drug Policy is idiotic. And, unlike Buckley's lapse of common sense which is something that is regrettable but happens, Paul's policy is directly in keeping with the Libertarian line.
Paul is also a Neville Chamberlain on fighting terrorism, without Chamerlain's capacity for remorese and growth.
Occam's Tool| 4.6.11 @ 2:17PM
Sorry, "Chamberlain's capacity for remorse and growth."
I hate Galveston (went to Med School there), and I can't stand Ron Paul.
john udy| 4.6.11 @ 2:18PM
Mr. Lord, Thanks for the article.. For those of us whom some would say are the uneducated and unwashed, your article is informative and educational.. We as a people need to be tutored as to the principles of Conservativism. It will help the common man / women distinguish the difference between the Patriots and the Rino's, Professional Politicians, status' and Cronys'. Please continue, there those out here in America who are paying attention, learning, and educating others... Itching for the chance to vote..
Occam's Tool| 4.6.11 @ 2:19PM
Incidentally, and I have NO financial interest in this---Ruth's Chris in Beverly Hills is quite good, but the one in B'ham, Alabama is simply fantastic. Sean Vannity may be wrong about many things (liking Pat Buchanan, for example), but he's sound on steak.
john udy| 4.6.11 @ 2:26PM
Reality is Rep. Ron Paul thows tons of earmarks into bills he knows will pass, then votes against the Bill, taking the position that there is a bunch of pork in it.. It is fairly common knowledge.. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.. Paul is simply a professional Politician.. Perhaps we can get behind the True Conservative with enough Courage to tell us the Truth, and actually work to present a realistic budget, and then Vote for it.. Paul Ryan
WilliamR| 4.6.11 @ 2:32PM
Ron Paul is a conservative. Besides Buckley, George Schultz also favors legalizing drugs. Fighting endless war in the Middle East is not conservative. It is radical.
We should follow Reagan's advice and be neutral in the Middle East.
Jonah| 4.6.11 @ 2:48PM
We should be like our Founders and mind our own damn business!
I agree--fighting endless wars is not patriotic, it's a death wish.
WilliamR| 4.6.11 @ 3:31PM
Ron Paul earmarks. But before he can money has to be appropriated. He votes against the appropriations, but once passed he tries to bring back some of the money his constituents send to Washington via taxes.
Who is going to spend the money?? The executive branch or congress.
The earmark issue is boob bait for meat heads.
Sean| 4.6.11 @ 3:36PM
What!! Paul Ryan a truer conservative than Ron Paul?
http://www.rinolist.org/2010/0.....-for-tarp/
Ryan's name is on that list.
Red Phillips | 4.6.11 @ 4:05PM
OT, I think legalizing drugs would be a disaster, but drug laws are a state issue, not a federal issue. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes federal drug laws or the FDA or DEA. Do you disagree? Then show me where in the Constitution they are authorized, and if you cite the interstate commerce clause I think I will scream.
WilliamR| 4.6.11 @ 5:27PM
Ryan is okay. He's made a few mistakes.
There is a battle going on for the soul of the Republican party. On the one hand you have those that have no problem with the Bush Cheney militaristic freedom agenda. That's Limbaugh, Levin, Jeffrey Lord, most of National Review etc etc.
But gaining traction are those that want to return to a more traditional conservative Republican foreign policy. Even though the left painted him as a crazed warmonger, Ronald Reagan was anything but. And I'm afraid in today's GOP Reagan would be considered an isolationist.
I don't see how anyone who considers themselves a conservative can defend the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures. We are broke and it is time to reduce our military footprint around the world. Lets trade and talk with those that want the same. That includes Cuba and Iran.
CopyKarnj| 4.6.11 @ 9:29PM
Are all you commentators for real? Who's got low "T" and who doesn't!
Paul Mulshine wrote three hit pieces containing four criticisms of Mark Levin starting the day Mark Levin went on vacation. He used references to people he considers experts to make his point. I disagreed with his claim that Mark Levin was a "statist" simply because Mr. Levin complains about the plunder of Social Security. In Mulshines view, because SS is a statist program, anyone who complains about it must support it. What Mulshine misses is the point that "WE" by force of law have to pay into it thus we are entitled by social contract to have the benefits. I made that comment to Mulshine and received his rather off point reply, what ever.
Those that purport to hold Ronald Reagan in high esteem should also consider his disdain for conservatives berating conservatives such as I have more "T" than you do. Stop the infighting, it's unbecoming.
John Carnal| 4.7.11 @ 11:14AM
Am I the first to suggest that Mr. Mulshine is a liberal plant? Would anyone confuse the "Star-Ledger" with a bastion of conservative thought? Can't you just picture all those products of our right-thinking (ala Woodrow Wilson) educators reading Mr. Mulshine for the pleasure? The pleasure of re-enforcement of what they knew all along. There is no such thing as a "conservative thinker" that goes through the day without foaming spittle in the corner of his mouth. I see a fictional character named Mr. Mulshine whose assignment is to keep the caricature of loony Conservative ever present in the imagination of the casual observer of governing philosophy.
Margie| 4.8.11 @ 4:40PM
Mulshine is one of the nastiest S.O.B.'s you'd ever want to meet, exactly the same demeanor of the rest of the holier-than-thou Libertarian and Paleo-Cons. Only they are the "true conservatives."
And what is their version of conservative? You must be non-interventionist, and anti-Israel. It's a fact.
I was booted by him after just one post to his nasty condescending blogs on the Ledger. If you go right to where he's at and call him on it, like a venomous filled snake he goes on the vicious personal attack, insulting and demeaning~ and then bans you from posting!!
The exact same behavior from many, many of the same ilk here~ and above.
You are no conservative if you despise other good conservatives like Rush and Mark Levin. And they despise them because they are strong on defense mostly.
Isn't it about time we make a division among us? The non-interventionists are just as Leftist as Obama~ look at how Ron Paul votes with Dennis Kucinich~ they have the same view. If you vote like a Leftist, hate the good conservatives among us, hate Israel, you are no conservative!
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....!
Trucker| 4.9.11 @ 8:02PM
Seems to me that he and Alex Jones have been drinking from the same sippy cup of how great am I juice .May he and Mr Jones develop a kidney stone
Marde Wilson| 4.10.11 @ 12:57AM
He is working hard to help the left hate conservative- like so many other self proclaimed conservatives that are paraded through the Sunday shows to demonstrate what they want people to believe is a "real" conservative- but who in reality is an elitist opportunist who craves attention. No wonder the public believes conservatives are idiots- it's personified in these imposters so the media can make the public hate them.
Ted Moore| 4.11.11 @ 7:12PM
That happens to be incorrect. It is not he-whose-name-must-not-be-mentioned, the correct term is he-whose-lies-must-not-be-exposed.