MY CONSERVATIVE APOSTASY AND WHY I DON’T GIVE A F**K WHAT YOU THINK
If I ever find the time, and the motivation, I am going to peruse the archives of this site and pull out all of the posts that have landed me in hot water with one conservative faction or another over the years.
It will be an interesting exercise for a couple of reasons; 1) I can reread all those commenters who swore they’d never visit this site again and feel just awful about that a second time; and 2) I will be able to track the descent of conservatism into a riot of paranoid conspiracies, rigid ideological litmus tests, unreasonable devotion to idiotic personalities, and catalog how conservatives have become a frothing, hate-filled, imprudent gaggle of screeching, populist harpies who reject reason and logic for a crass emotionalism.
Other than that, I see nothing wrong with the right today.
Now, am I being unfair to my brothers and sisters on the right?
Apostasy pieces are never about delivering your former comrades from the grip of dreadful error. They’re about showing off how much more enlightened you are, using your misspent youth as a prop for credibility. I’ve read apostate tell-alls that I thought were true, but I’ve never read one that made me think I’d like, or trust, the author if I met him.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell what loyalty demands of you. Whether to turn your klepto brother into the police, whether to make a play for your best friend’s girl after they break up—these are tough questions. But if your old ideological compatriots ever did you a favor, ever took you into their circles or into their confidence, ever gave you a damn cake on your birthday, then you owe it to them not to write the hit piece. You owe them. That’s a no-brainer.
First of all, I write what I write because I feel like writing it. Prior to writing an “apostasy piece,” rarely do I contemplate the consequences to my “standing” (such as it is/was) among conservatives, or how my diatribes will be received by the targets of my invective.
However, self-examination reveals that I probably should not get so personal in my criticisms, and that my juvenile name calling - while serving the purpose of allowing me to stretch my vocabulary and entertain myself - nevertheless impacts others in such a way that disqualifies my critique as mindless twaddle. If I were really interested in getting those who consider themselves “true conservatives” to embrace reason and logic, I would not write unreasonable tracts of spittle flecked tirades denouncing…spittle flecked tirades.
Except the effort to cajole, convince, or otherwise engage the minds of the true believers is something akin to pissing into a hurricane wind where one is likely to be splashed in the face no matter where the stream is aimed. It is impossible to reason with someone who believes Rush Limbaugh correctly ascertains the motives of Obama and the left when he spouts about the political opposition wanting to “destroy the country.” Not that their policies might have that result, but that its is their actual plan; to impoverish us so that we become dependent on government.
Limbaugh a couple of weeks ago:
It’s going to be a long, cold winter, ladies and gentlemen. “One Million Workers Could Lose Unemployment Benefits in January Unless Congress Extends Aid — More than 1 million people will run out of unemployment benefits in January unless Congress quickly extends federal emergency aid, a nonprofit group said Wednesday.” So the pressure being brought to bear — does anybody doubt that we’re going to extend unemployment benefits? I don’t. This is exactly the agenda. This is the point: Get as many people as possible depending on government. I’ll tell you, the more you extend unemployment benefits, the less — this is just human nature. The less people are going to look for work.
Gently pointing out that Rush is full of it doesn’t work. Trying to reasonably argue that Sarah Palin is a lightweight, intellectually lazy, and a fear mongering prevaricator gets you nowhere.
So why not chastise, berate, and attempt to rhetorically castrate those who reject anything reasonable you might have to say by referring to you as a “dupe,” or an “idiot,” or a RINO or a liberal?
Conor Friedersdorf - something of an apostate himself according to many true believers - has an interesting answer:
In her post, Ms. Rittelmeyer is reaction to Charles Johnson’s “break with the right,” as described on Little Green Footballs. I found it a weird piece for all the reasons that James Joyner mentions. The incoherence of the post is due to an underlying mistake in the way that Little Green Footballs, and the whole corner of the blogosphere where he operates, understand ideology and political argument: they regard it as a team enterprise, where orthodoxies of thought are to be enforced, positions are taken out of loyalty as often as conviction, and honest disagreement is tantamount to betrayal.
Though I’ve written against loyalty as it is sometimes understood in Washington DC — see here and here — I met some exceptional people during my time in that city, close friends to whom I am incredibly loyal. I imagine they know they can turn to me for help at any time in life, and count on me to cheer their successes and rue their failures. As I think about those people, who are different from one another in many ways, I am aware of one similarity. Despite the fact that I’ve often talked politics with many of them, and that we’ve been on the same side of certain arguments, none of them would dream of being offended were I to honestly disagree with them in print on some matter, or forcefully argue that they are mistaken on some question, even if we formerly agreed about it and I changed my mind.
Friedersdorf exists within a charmed circle indeed. In my case, I have discovered that most of my online friends are perfectly capable of throwing every bric-a-brac I toss toward them back at me - in spades - but that when all is said and done, most of us are still on speaking terms at the end of the argument. At bottom, we simply don’t understand each other - a fate that has befallen the major conservative factions who look across the divide and rather than seeing allies in a common cause, view their putative friends as obstacles to their goal of controlling the agenda/narrative/party.
I don’t think I’ve gotten any more or less reasonable over the years. But I have become more willing to dig in my heels at being pulled along when some of my fellow conservatives seek to hurl themselves over an ideological cliff. If I have changed, it’s recognizing that excessive ideology in politics, rather than illuminating or aggrandizing conservatism, forces a rigidity of thought and intransigency against reason that makes it easy to reject the logic of change.
When conservatives talk about “change” these days, what they are really promoting is more of the same, only believed with more conviction and said in a louder voice. The drive for “purity” is a reflection of their conviction that the reason conservatism is in disfavor is because their potential leaders and the Washington elites do not share their rock solid certainty in their own infallibility.
There is much wrong with many inside the beltway conservatives. I agree that they should be castigated for their hypocrisy; running as pious conservatives back home while playing fast and loose with conservative principles in DC. Such cynicism should be punished severely and I have no qualms about taking them to the woodshed for their sins.
But the world looks a little more complex to the “elites” than it does to most conservatives. In fact, many on the right reject complexity entirely, seeing it as just another excuse for a lack of adherence to principles among establishment conservatives, and others like Friedersdorf. It is their lack of fervency that is suspect, not necessarily any deviation from principle that riles the critics. That, and a slightly different interpretation of what “conservatism” is all about, convicts establishment righties of the crime of “not being conservative enough,” and thus a target of the true believers.
Not recognizing that this attitude is the gateway to permanent minority status is perhaps the primary beef I have with those who are so eager to throw most of the conservative establishment overboard. Sacrificing lock step ideology for victory at the polls is not a betrayal of principle but a pragmatic, and realistic assessment of how to throw Obamaism on the ash heap of history. That goal, however, is sacrificed on the altar of “purity” and fervid absolutism.
If my apostasy brands me as “disloyal,” so be it. If conservatives can’t take one of their own pointing out where this madness is heading, then there is little hope that President Obama’s leftist agenda can be slowed or halted.
And if that’s not the goal that we all want to achieve, what exactly do those who question my conservatism want?
They want you to shut up, stop asking questions, and become another lockstep writer enabler for their ’cause’.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 12/3/2009 @ 11:32 am
I see conservatives and Republicans who cannot agree on what the top priority should be for the 2012 agenda, and even if all could agree on that…..too many are not willing to agree to disagree on the other issues so they can focus on the One that could win the election.
Too much infighting.
Do I need to add “Divided we fall” ?
My heels are dug in as a pro-lifer ….But I would still vote for a pro-choice Republican in 2012, because obama MUST be defeated before he can do more damage with his socialist agenda.
The socialist agenda will ruin Everyone’s life and I cannot stand to think of the USA as anything but the Republic it is, based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The conservatives who stayed home in 2008’s election and didn’t vote at all because “McCain wasn’t conservative enough”…..are ALSO reponsible for obama winning. They should be Very ashamed.
Comment by SB Smith — 12/3/2009 @ 11:44 am
“apostasy” is a stupid term, when used this way, however I can understand many peoples irritation with you. It’s almost as though you are proving your independence by flipping off your allies. Not saying that’s a bad thing, but sometimes you do seem more focus on proving you are independent, no matter what “your side” says, rather than saying “hey jerkwads, I’m independent” to those who aren’t on your side.
In general I see it, but I ignore it, because overall you are on my side, and someone who can think for themselves, but at the same time I can see what some people don’t like about it.
Comment by Douglas — 12/3/2009 @ 11:46 am
Long story short, Dick Cheney is not a traitor for calling President Obama as much on the eve of his West Point speech but you are.
Terrific post.
Comment by shaun — 12/3/2009 @ 12:14 pm
Why is it that you believe that far-right ideology will be less successful than far-left ideology? Why does that which worked for the Democrats (hyperbole, demagoguery) not work for Republicans? I’m not saying it is the right thing to do for either party, but your concern is stated (”primary beef”) that permanent minority status is the ultimate destination for this tact. Will you at least admit that the Democrats played this strategy to success? And if so, why should the Republicans not do it?
This strategy, while quite vulgar to you, is working: polls are showing the partisan gap is now at 3% and shrinking every month (5% last month). Republicans kicked ass in New Jersey and Virginia, and a no-name conservative nearly won with no funds, little time to campaign, and both the Democrats AND the Republicans national committes working against him.
Object if you want to the tactics on priciple, but stop denying it’s effectiveness. “Permanent minority status” is a cliche now- Republicans will clearly close the gap next November, and there is at least a chance (remote right now, but Obama still has plenty of time to f*ck things even more) that the House could have a Republican Speaker.
Comment by lionheart — 12/3/2009 @ 12:15 pm
That sums it up nicely.
All we have to do is pass Health Care Reform and focus on jobs, jobs, jobs and pounding the banks over mortgage fixes for the next 10 months.
Obama has made the correct choice on Afghanistan militarily and politically. In fact the delay was based on his insistence that the military move faster, not slower to implement the plan. Shock and Awe for real this time.
Republicans will have no choice but to appease the teabaggers by opposing Unemployment Insurance extensions, public works, and continue rooting for failure of bailed out firms.
GM and BofA’s repayments will kill that narrative.
The GOP is well and good frakked.
Depending on the level of teh crazy, perhaps a little bit in 2010 and reamed for certain in 2012.
Bye. Bye.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 12/3/2009 @ 12:19 pm
At various points in life you find yourself with a group of friends or acquaintances who are heading in a direction you don’t want to go.
If all they want to do is go to a restaurant you don’t especially like, you shrug and go along. If what they want to do is go to a strip club and that’s over the line for you, you say, ’see you later, guys.’ If what they want to do is rob a liquor store you go apostate on them and call the cops.
This is middle school parenting 101: trying to teach your kids when it’s okay to compromise, when it’s good to walk away, and when you need to actively intervene.
I try to teach my kids (emphasis on ‘try’) not to be loyal to people so much as loyal to themselves, to what they believe, and to what is right. I would guess Rick, that you got some of that same thing from your parents.
Friends may come and go, even family may fade. In the end you’re standing there looking at your own face in the mirror, and that’s the guy you answer to.
Comment by michael reynolds — 12/3/2009 @ 12:25 pm
The motives of many commenters on the right and left is to show they’ve ‘got it going on’. Maybe me included. So I don’t mind being called out (rightly or wrongly) once in a while. Ghosh, why do people take themselves so seriously?
However, let’s take unemployment. That is a serious problem whether you are on the right or the left. So it is not surprising that we want to do something about it. Now of course, depending on your political leanings, the ‘medicine’ will be different. However, to think this is a ‘plot’ or whatever is just crazy (like Rush) as you pointed out. So even if it gets people riled up, even if it were to help win elections, even if it helps ‘fire up the base’, it’s still crazy.
One last thing, I don’t believe in name calling in any discussion as angry as I might be. In addition, it’s counterproductive if your goal is to win votes. Like, ohh he called me a marxist traitor, I better change my outlook, it must be true.
Comment by funny man — 12/3/2009 @ 12:40 pm
“Friends may come and go, even family may fade. In the end you’re standing there looking at your own face in the mirror, and that’s the guy you answer to.”
Somewhere in the world pigs are flying because for once I agree with MR. You are your own man, Rick. Call yourself whatever you would like - Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Marxist, Minimalist, Cubist. It doesn’t matter to anyone outside of “your own face in the mirror.”
And regardless of the tag you place on yourself, I will still come and read what you have got to say.
Comment by SShiell — 12/3/2009 @ 12:41 pm
@lionheart: Why does that which worked for the Democrats (hyperbole, demagoguery) not work for Republicans? I’m not saying it is the right thing to do for either party, but your concern is stated (”primary beef”) that permanent minority status is the ultimate destination for this tact.
The teeth-gnashing of the far left is not what worked for the Democrats, if anything it hurts them. What worked for them is inclusiveness. It’s the same thing that worked for the Republicans in 1980. Have you noticed that the Democrats talk a lot more about fiscal restraint and a lot less about gun control than they did 10 years ago? It’s because pro-gun-rights folks and fiscal conservatives are completely welcome in the Democratic fold. Hell, michael reynolds is trying to recruit Rick Moran, who for the most part doesn’t agree at all with Democrats on policy issues. But if you’re capable of critical thought and not a xenophobic dickwad, the Democrats are happy to have you. The overall effect of this is that the Democrats inching slowly from idiocy toward pragmatism while the Republicans are embracing idiocy with a reckless abandon.
Comment by Aaron — 12/3/2009 @ 1:25 pm
After 100,000,000 or more words and innumerable twists of mind in essay after essay we will read soon on the web, all of this turbulence will boil down to simply voting for or against Republican/conservative candidates in 2010 and 2012.
If any of this flood of essays that will surely wash over us in the next year have the effect of deflecting votes away from conservatives and towards liberals, it would be a very regrettable thing indeed.
If these essays focus upon how to heal the wounds, fill the cracks, make bedfellows of snarling dissidents, and show the way to a winning conservative approach, they would be a huge service to the cause.
Every word, however, that widens the cracks and fuses dissent in the party, without also showing the right and inclusive path to success, is a waste of time and effort and is potentially very harmful to the cause. We must look for uniters, not dividers, whose core principles we can support. Which do you want to be?
Comment by mannning — 12/3/2009 @ 1:35 pm
Rick,
Count me among those on the right who agree with your assertion that “sacrificing lockstep ideology for victory at the polls is not a betrayal of principal but a pragmatic and realistic assessment of how to throw Obamaism on the ash heap of history.” What conservatives should be focusing on right now is developing a coherent message, firmly based in conservative principals, that will clearly resonate with a majority of the voters in the next election. Along with that, we should be doing all we can to support those candidates (incumbent or not) who share our conservative principals. Having said that, silliness like the proposed “purity test” to be floated by the RNC (which I actually thought was a joke when I first read about it) is not the way to go. Nor is hounding “apostates” out of the Republican party or the conservative movement simply because they do not fall in line with conservative ideology on each and every issue of the day. For example, if anyone makes an argument in favor of gay marriage (by the way, why shouldn’t gays be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us?), are they hounded out of the movement? (If so, then bye, bye Dick Cheney.) We need a variety of voices in the conservative movement, else we will fail in our quest to develop a message that will resonate with a majority of voters.
In short, what is most vital right now is electoral victory in 2010 and 2012. If we are mindful of conservative principals, as opposed to ideology, the voters will follow.
Comment by tccesq — 12/3/2009 @ 1:40 pm
In my little corner of the world, what I hear from conservatives is a desire not to have a leftist-lite brand of politics under the banner of “Republicanism.” If there are going to be two parties, they simply must look different from one another. The candidacy of Dede Scozzafava in New York was a travesty, not because she didn’t adhere to a purist conservative ideology, but because she differed so little from a purist liberal ideology. She offered conservatives not a single reason to support her candidacy. The Republican Party of the past 10 years or so has been little more than a slightly lower taxing big government democrat party. I think as candidates emerge who seem genuinely different on some big issues — the size of government’s reach, taxes, public vs. private health care, etc., the “purist” movement will fall away and voters will be able to say, “OK, he or she is different from him or her, so I have a choice to make.” The purist tendencies, I believe, are simply an unfocused plea for something else, something other than the status quo that has been operating for so many years now.
I just really think you and others are wrong to assume the Republican Party is on a collision course with itself over ideological purity, and quoting Rush Limbaugh doesn’t help make your case. That’s just silly. Conservative voters know what they want, whether Limbaugh says it or not. Candidates won’t have to be pure; they’ll just have to offer something different than the predictable elite liberalism of the guy who currently holds the seat. When candidates emerge who reject the status quo in Washington, who support free speech and free enterprise, who have the courage to do such things as reject the elites’ scam that is “global warming” and its massive taxation schemes, and who articulate a heartfelt belief in American exceptionalism, conservatives will back such people, despite their “scores” on an ideological purity test. Democrats and the media know this, which is why they are so invested in this “conservative civil war.” It isn’t going to turn out as they hope. Watch and see.
Comment by Anon — 12/3/2009 @ 3:03 pm
Anon:
Candidates won’t have to be pure; they’ll just have to offer something different than the predictable elite liberalism of the guy who currently holds the seat.
So they can favor gun control? Can they be pro-choice? Can they be for gay marriage? Can they favor some higher taxes? Can they support a public option?
Comment by michael reynolds — 12/3/2009 @ 3:39 pm
michael reynolds:
no, yes, yes, no, no.
Comment by Anon — 12/3/2009 @ 4:15 pm
online friends
Is that an oxymoron?
Comment by c3 — 12/3/2009 @ 4:20 pm
On the other hand, you may be wrong.
Comment by obamathered — 12/3/2009 @ 5:30 pm
Anon:
That makes you a libertarian-leaning Republican. One of the very people the new overlords of your party want to purge.
Comment by michael reynolds — 12/3/2009 @ 5:41 pm
michael reynolds:
There are more of us, I think, than you liberals want to admit, and we aren’t feeling particularly purged. Nor do we have “overlords.” That’s what makes us conservative, or libertarian. It’s the independence, you see. The intolerant religious right purist makes a nice, scary caricature, I know, but it’s just that: a cartoon character bogeyman the now-neutered MSM trots out at election time. Many social cons stayed home in 2008 — and of course have come to regret it mightily. They won’t do that again. They can’t wait to vote in 2010 and again in 2012, and the modern democrat party just does not offer even a moderate anything to support. It’s easy for those of us who follow politics on the internet to imagine that some great conflict is afoot in the conservative arena, but in real life, conservatives, libertarians, conservative democrats, independents, and, increasingly, moderate democrats are all moving toward a perfect storm of agreement: the current regime must go. They will come together to purge Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, all of whom are proven — rather than hypothetical, campaign-induced, media-driven — examples of extremism and intolerance.
Comment by Anon — 12/3/2009 @ 6:09 pm
Good article, Rick. However, I’m afraid that you shot yourself in the foot with that title.
Yes - my shameless self promotion will eventually be my undoing.
ed
Comment by Golem — 12/3/2009 @ 6:23 pm
Michael Reynolds writes:
Let’s turn that around Michael: so you think that Democrats are allowed in the party where they are NRA members? They’re pro-life? They are in favor of the traditional definition of marriage? They favor cutting taxes? They see a public option as an additional tax on anybody that already pays taxes?
Everything you propose to convince the weak-minded readers of this blog that Republicans are the “party of exclusion” is true in the converse for the Democrats. Let me answer the questions for you, in the manner of “anon”… no, no, no, no, no.
Democrats are the party of exclusion, and America is waking up to it. Let’s get together for a glass of good port and a Cohiba on November 3rd of next year. Loser buys.
Good luck with your proselytizing… I personally think you’re wasting your time with Rick (not exactly weak-minded). Maybe you should check out Charles Johnson over at LGF.
Comment by lionheart — 12/3/2009 @ 8:41 pm
I have to agree with Rick on his idea of conservatism versus what Limbaugh and Beck have unleashed. I vote Democrat but would venture the country is center-right. The conservatives in my neck of the woods think that Sarah Palin is a serious candidate in 2012,that Obama has a secret plot to destroy the country, and that Saul Alinsky was his mentor.They seem antiscience and anti-intellectual.Most people are somewhat close to moderate and I don’t see a winning coalition for the Palin wing of the gop.I wish Obama was more of a fiscal conservative and would realize what a folly it is propping up the Karzai government and trying to destroy what has turned into a Pashtun Nationalist movement.Rick tells it like it is and the Palinistas despise him for it. This site is interesting as hell, and even though Rick has called me a moron, and that I didn’t know nothing about politics (in my defense I’ve been a political junkie my whole life)I still stop in every day to read a smart,sane conservative. Obama can be beaten in 2012 but by who? Palin won’t, Mittens is a flip flopper who isn’t trusted by his own base. Obama may win by default.
Comment by Joe — 12/3/2009 @ 9:24 pm
Lionheart:
Let’s turn that around Michael: so you think that Democrats are allowed in the party where they are NRA members? They’re pro-life? They are in favor of the traditional definition of marriage? They favor cutting taxes? They see a public option as an additional tax on anybody that already pays taxes?
Harry Reid is pro-life. Any number of Democrats are pro-gun, Tester and Webb come to mind. Obama favors “traditional marriage.” Many voted for Bush’s tax cuts, go back and look up the roll call. And quite obviously a number oppose a public option.
Sorry, we are not you. You’re the Taliban, we’re the big tent.
Comment by michael reynolds — 12/3/2009 @ 9:25 pm
Nice reply Michael, we don’t exclude, we include.And by the way I’m pro-life and pro gay marriage, and my basement wall is adorned with the racks of whitetails I’ve bagged over the years. Venison is better tasting than any other meat.I’m not against all wars but I was against the Iraq War. I was raised hardcore Catholic and even though I quit attending mass I still have a strong faith in God.I’m 54 and consider myself a old JFK Democrat, fiscally conservative,strong national defense, but tolerant of all lifestyles. My wife and kids mean everything to me and Limbaugh types sicken me. Yes we are big tent.
Comment by Joe — 12/3/2009 @ 9:38 pm
Joe:
Thanks. And I am pro-choice, and pro gay marriage, an atheist, sort of indifferent to guns although I grew up with them in the house. My father was a career soldier and I am pro military. Supported both Gulf wars and Afghanistan, though I came to regret the second Gulf war. Cried like a baby when Bush spoke after 911 and would have sold my house and sent the cash to the Treasury if he’d asked. Married once — still am 30 years later — and have two kids, one who was born in China, and both of whom are taught to love their country. I’m a Democrat.
Comment by michael reynolds — 12/3/2009 @ 10:01 pm
Meanwhile back in reality, 45% of Americans now identify themselves as conservative. So let’s water down the message and go RINO.
The “reality” is that most people who identify themselves as “conservative” do not share your idea of what “conservatism” is. I would guess that most northeasterners who consider themselves “conservative,” you would denigrate as a RINO. Ditto midwesterners. Ditto most rational conservatives everywhere.
Until the true believers recognize this singular fact about conservatism, they will continue to drive t he movement to oblivion.
ed.
Comment by Bruceinsocal — 12/3/2009 @ 10:42 pm
Why do you feel the need to call yourself a conservative? Why be ideologically rigid? You’ve still got another foot to shoot; have at it.
Comment by RovingPoet — 12/4/2009 @ 4:57 am
Frankly, I think a Venn diagram of the population’s beliefs and values would heavily overlap. Both sides are a much bigger tent than the other side cares to admin. What is it then that leads someone to register Democrat and someone else to register Republican? Tradition within the family? Peer pressure within the local environment? Would a northeastern Republican register Democrat if they lived in Texas? Perhaps it’s subconsciously determined by which extremists you want to be associated with the least?
Can a single Democrat be a combination of those? How many? Where is the tipping point before they themselves realize they’re no longer a Democrat? How many of those before Democrats realize they’re not one of their own?
Similarly, how many of those can a Republican admit to before realizing they’re no longer a Republican?
Or maybe they never admit it? How often to people’s beliefs change in such a way that the “other” party fits them better but don’t change their political registration?
While the RNC’s purity test was/is ridiculous, both parties have a purity test (unwritten or otherwise). How many questions on the purity test can Democrats get “wrong” before they’re not welcome? Or will you take the vote no matter the beliefs?
The RNC says it’s 80%? What about the Democrats?
Comment by sota — 12/4/2009 @ 6:33 am
Rick,
Excellenet excellent read. The Right Wing Nut House name itself describes all of us in just 4 words. I feel right at home with all of you. I sometimes spit at you folks, at you Rick, I sometimes laugh, sometimes gag, I sometimes get disillusioned, but overall I chose sides long long ago and it’s not the Democrat party. Obama has come along and has proven to me why I can’t throw away the Democrats far away enough.
As a righty I’m with those that see reality for what has hit us (USA) between the eyes with Obamaism, Reid and Pelosi. I have never spent 2 seconds commenting on any blog. But this year Obamaism, Reid, and Pelosi got me so riled up that I can’t wait to vote them and their party out of office.
They must be slowed down as much as possible in these next elections and then booted out in 2012.
So y’all hold your nose next to my righty ideologue and lets walk forward. We can meet to agree and disagree at
The Right Wing Nut House.
Thanks Rick for keeping the door open.
Vic
Austin, Texas
Comment by Vic Hernandez — 12/4/2009 @ 6:55 am
Could you stop that childish practice once and for all. It is the Democratic Party.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 12/4/2009 @ 10:27 am
As long as you’re already in hot water, why not dump in some Calgon and make it a relaxing experience?
Comment by Gayle Miller — 12/4/2009 @ 11:33 am
Rick, get a grip man. Your posts are starting to seem as rabid, frothfilled and filled with ad-hominem attacks as the folks you wish to criticize. Many Republicans see how the left elected a very left of center politician who had extremely dicey relationships with a lot of repugnant people and they wonder why they can’t do the same. You obviously want a tilt to the center, but the tone of your posts will not curry favor with many in the Republican party.
If you don’t like where its going, stop the rants and become a little more coherent. For example, you throw out issues to make your point that have no basis in fact. For example, is conservatism really in disfavor? I think you’re mixing up the Republican brand with conservatism. More people consistently poll as self identified conservatives than they do as liberals or “non-aligned” and those numbers have increased over the last year thanks to Obama and the Congrees. However, even the Republican brand is seeing a resurgence, although mostly because people have now experienced the liberal brand at full force.
So take a valium, catch your breath and take a step back.
Comment by Alex — 12/4/2009 @ 12:03 pm
While I understand your point, I wonder why you’re making it now. There have been litmus tests, conspiracies, and devotion to personalities in both parties for as long as you or I have been watching politics.
Sure, there are conservatives who fit your description but no more than there are liberals who fit it.
Furthermore, for the first time in a long time there is a libertarian/conservative uprising of grassroots activists who seem to be trying hard to deal with exactly what you’re complaining about.
In short, while I understand and sometimes share your frustration, I think you’re 5 (or more) years too late.
Comment by Rossputin — 12/4/2009 @ 1:32 pm
Alex said:
This is one of the most ridiculous sentences I’ve ever read on this site. Ever. It speaks volumes.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 12/4/2009 @ 2:03 pm
Of course Limbaugh is an idiot.
“I’ll tell you, the more you extend unemployment benefits, the less — this is just human nature. The less people are going to look for work.”
And here’s an article from the foreign press that proves it:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209072/Five-million-job-Labour–raising-fears-Shameless-generation-benefit-addicts.html
Britain has more long term unemployment benefits than we do and, according to the article only 1 of 6 adults lives in a household where nobody works.
So there.
Comment by Person of Choler — 12/4/2009 @ 6:36 pm
Contrary to what some on here seem to be saying, not everyone on unemployment WANTS to be on it and are trying desperately to get off of it. I got laid off in January due to a plant closure. My unemployment isn’t even 60% of what I made. I have been trying my @ss off to get a job. I’ve been taking classes in the meantime. I HATE like hell sitting at home. I’ve worked every day since I’ve been 16 (except for a couple of months after I had my child). When I couldn’t find an engineering job right away, I tried placed like Walmart, Target, Walgreens, etc. They won’t even look at me cause I’m overqualified. But I would dang sure rather work 2 minimum wage jobs than sit at home….
Not everyone on unemployment is a dead beat.
Comment by dixierose — 12/5/2009 @ 5:07 pm
[...] Rick Moran discusses his right wing apostasy, and doesn’t give a (deleted) what you think [...]
Pingback by Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove — 12/6/2009 @ 10:20 am