THE ANTI-REASON CONSERVATIVES
What is it that possesses certain conservatives to fool themselves so spectacularly into believing that they can create a majority out of a minority?
That kind of alchemy hasn’t been seen since Nostradamus tried to turn lead into gold. In the case of far right conservatives who think that they can turn their meager numbers into a ruling majority all by themselves, the disconnect from reality would normally call for an intervention - except they reject anything from anybody who doesn’t agree with them 100%. Nor can they seem to grasp complex political realities that would complicate their simplistic, ignorant view that their idea of what constitutes a “conservative” reigns supreme all across the land.
The recent Gallup poll showing that 40% of Americans see themselves as “conservative” was leapt upon by these morons as “proof” that their brand of anarcho-conservatism dominates the political landscape. Would that it were true. The fact that there are a dozen different definitions of “conservative” depending on where you live doesn’t seem to penetrate. And the pogrom they wish to carry out against “moderates” who agree with them on 90% of the issues they hold dear but fail their ever more spastic “litmus tests” guarantees Democratic dominance for the foreseeable future.
Why the name calling? Why the harsh, unyielding language? Because I too, believe this country is in enormous trouble. But the way the base is going about trying to overcome the political deficit that George Bush and his cronies placed the Republican party will only lead to permanent minority status for conservatives. In truth, the gloating being done on the far right over the ravaging of Scozzafava has led to a belief that the template used to stick it to the establishment in NY23 can be grafted on to other districts where “RINO’s” are running - GOP incumbents be damned.
The RNC, the NRCC, and other conservatives like Newt Gingrich erred in trying to foist a liberal Republican onto the people of the 23rd congressional district. On this, we can all agree. But when I read bullsh*t like this, a cold chill goes up my spine:
This showed just how bad things have become. The Republican Party has been hijacked. Conservatives have been driven underground by the RINOs and the DIABLOs (Democrats in all but label only). This leftish creep was insidious until we got clubbed over the head when the ultra liberal media picked our presidential candidate — the Gang of 14 tool John McCain.
We all sucked it up. We went along. We embraced the ticket in the spirit of AROO — (any Republican over Obama) — and we held our noses until Sarah Palin came along. Ah, just a spoonful of Sarah helped the medicine go down.
But now it’s time to clean house. Newt and his ilk will be relegated to the dustbin of history, and deservedly so. Enough with the old, in with the true!
A couple of hundred thousand conservatives fill up the mall on September 12 and Geller thinks conservatives have been “driven underground?” What kind of utter nonsense is that? Geller is a full throated member of the Anti-Reason Conservatives - those who reject reality in favor of persecution complexes, wildly exaggerated hyperbole, and a frightening need for vengeance against their imagined “enemies” - despite the fact that those imagined foes agree with them on virtually everything they think they stand for.
The idea that Newt Gingrich should be “relegated to the dustbin of history” - a not uncommon sentiment I’ve read over the past week - demonstrates a determined refusal to objectively analyze the political realities of the unique situation in NY23 and deliberately remain ignorant of the consequences that would have accrued if the Republican party had failed to support the Republican candidate in the district.
A good case can be made that Gingrich especially could have kept his mouth shut about conservatives rightly gravitating to Hoffman. His petulance with national conservatives who sought to replace the liberal Scozzafava with a more palatable choice was uncalled for and further demonstrates his unfitness for the presidency.
But kick him out of the party? Marginalize one of the only public intellectuals on the right who can speak to a broad cross section of America with authority and credibility? Perhaps that’s Newt’s real problem; the anti-intellectualism on the far right that sees any independent thinking deviating from their worldview as suspect. Or perhaps it’s just the idea that Gingrich, through his years of service to the conservative and Republican causes, has become a part of the establishment and hence, a target.
Who do these louts think the party establishment should have supported in NY23? There would have been no real difference if the DC Republicans had supported Hoffman or the Democrat Owens over Scozzafava. The result would have been exactly the same; the national party spitting in the face of local Republican organizations who chose Scozzafava - regardless of her admitted liberalism and regardless of whether her candidacy was rammed through by powerful New York state GOP bigwigs.
The pragmatism demonstrated by the national Republicans in giving Scozzafava the support they felt necessary for her to win is lost on the ideologues who can’t seem to wrap their heads around the idea that majorities are crafted by addition, not subtraction. Scozzafava would have been a beastly congresswoman, as unreliable a Republican vote on the issues as could be imagined. But Congress is governed as much by procedure as it is ideas, and when the whip is cracked by the leadership, she probably would have been with the party most of the time.
In effect, the base is criticizing the Republican establishment for acting like a political party and not a college debating society. The advantage of belonging to the latter is that you can pick and choose members based on whatever subjective criteria you wish. Don’t like the cut of a man’s suit or women with red hair? Fine. But don’t apply your ridiculous litmus tests to a political party trying to fashion a majority.
If you wish to deny membership into your ever shrinking club of “true” conservatives to those who you think don’t live up to your narrow, parochial, rigid definition, that is your problem. But if you care one whit about the United States of America, you would swallow your excessively ideological outlook on politics, take off the blinders, and realize that a party made up of lockstep righties who think like you is not only impossible, but the effort to realize that goal would be monumentally stupid.
The childish view that most of the base has of what it takes to turn politics into a governing majority would be amusing if they weren’t so obstructive in realizing that goal for the GOP. And even if Hoffman goes down to defeat, the wrong lessons - as usual - will be drawn from the effort to elect him. Sending the establishment a message to work harder to find and support good conservative candidates who can win in different regions of the country is one thing. That is an effort worth making, and I applaud activists who are seeking to send that message to the powers that be.
But sending the message to not only seek out conservatives for office but also replace those who fall short of being “true” conservatives in the estimation of the base is loony. It is this kind of gunslinging that guarantees a Democratic majority. It would be a huge waste of resources to attempt such madness. But that is the goal of many in the base who can’t stand the thought of “moderates” calling themselves “Republican.”
I believe in party reform. I believe the GOP should be a friendly place for conservatives - however they define that label. I believe that good conservatives should be running the Republican party and the conservative movement.
But above all of that, I believe in victory. And if that is not paramount in your mind, then you might as well switch parties and vote for the Democrat.
WHAT ANTI-REASON CONSERVATIVES? WHERE?
All you need to do to keep track of the thinking in the credentialist, careerist (yes, that describes Moran to a tee - he’s been trolling for some sort of DC establishment GOP job for, like, ever) nuthouse wing of the faux GOP, is read Rick Moran - or as much of him as you can stand to swallow without retching.
That he is shrieking like an inmate in the locked ward over the horror of conservatives finally asserting themselves in the party that ostensibly claims to represent them should tell you all you need to know about what these jamokes really think.
I wouldn’t drum anybody out of the party over abortion (though it isn’t my issue) or gay rights, (which I’ve supported for ages), but I would like to see these phony Republicans and fake conservatives remove themselves to the party that mirrors their views.
As to the charge that I want a job in DC - been there, done that and have absolutely no desire to go back. Obviously, Mr. Slowwitted believes DC is the destination of choice for people who wish to make a living writing about politics. For a fellow who never tires of telling us (it’s on his blog’s masthead) that he coined the term “blogosphere,” he seems not to have heard of the internet. This marvelous invention makes working from the comfortable confines of my office here in Streator, Illinois (”Smack dab in the middle of Middle America”) for companies located in California a pleasant reality.
No matter. Quick, like most of the excessively ideological, rabid right, didn’t bother to read what I wrote and simply spouted that I was horrified at the prospects of “conservatives finally asserting themselves in the party that ostensibly claims to represent them.” That must have been in the bits I edited out because I don’t see me writing that anywhere in this particular post, nor do I agree with that notion generally. In fact, lo and behold, there is this:
Sending the establishment a message to work harder to find and support good conservative candidates who can win in different regions of the country is one thing. That is an effort worth making, and I applaud activists who are seeking to send that message to the powers that be.
I dunno, Bill. Sounds like I approve of “conservatives asserting themselves,” but what the fu*k do I know? I’m only the writer.
Quick suggests I change the name of my site. Before I do that, perhaps he should change his to “Idiot Child Pundit” since he gibbers like a two year old without making any sense about anything.
It’s not about winning with these people. Duh.
Once you win you have to take responsibility, you have to at least acknowledge the existence of certain facts and realities. This inevitably leads to a dilution of ideological purity — Reagan raising some taxes, increasing the deficit, failing to close a single federal department and fleeing Lebanon, or Bush the Elder raising taxes, or Bush the Lesser and his drug benefit.
Every time Republicans actually win and have actual responsibility they come face-to-face with the fact that their ideology is about half bull–it. That it doesn’t really work. Then the ideologues get cranky and start denouncing their leaders as RINO’s.
Given a choice between ideology and power of course they choose ideology, because their “ideology” is really just an inflated self-importance.
What’s surprising to me is that you’re surprised, Rick. Don’t you recognize the mindset that prefers comforting myths of specialness to difficult reality? It’s called religion. It’s no coincidence that the instinctive non-intellectual conservatism of teabaggers and religiosity walk hand-in-hand. They both involve the deliberate denial of reality.
You keep writing these posts asking why the far right doesn’t recognize reality. It’s obvious: reality is complex and nuanced and fundamentally antithetical to dogma. It’s also problematic for the self-importance of ever less important groups. Given a choice between Jesus, Guns, Liberal-bashing, Gay-bashing and race-baiting — beliefs that elevate the importance and self-esteem of the teabaggers — and a reality in which they are part of an aging, dwindling, increasingly powerless class, it’s not even a choice for these people.
Comment by michael reynolds — 11/2/2009 @ 11:51 am
“But above all of that, I believe in victory. And if that is not paramount in your mind, then you might as well switch parties and vote for the Democrat.”
If you don’t believe in, or stand for, something, why bother voting at all. What is it about people actually standing for a set of principles, that you seem to be having such a hard time grasping? Is it all just a horse race to you? Or is it that with the endorsement of Owens, by Scozzafava; she was shown to be just the kind of turncoat RINO all the conservatives were leery of? Not to mention showing Gingrich - and you - to be wrong. Suppose the entire party had united behind Scozzafava, and she had been elected; do you think she wouldn’t have vote with the Dems on each and every opportunity?
You don’t know what she would have done. And, if you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would have discovered that procedural votes, which usually fall along party lines, are just as important if not moreso than votes on bills. That reasoning seems to escape those who are ignorant of how our government actually works and why it is important that parties allow for a fairly broad spectrum of beliefs in order to craft a majority.
If the choice is between electing someone who agrees with conservatives on 90% of the issues and someone who agrees with them on 10% of the issues, then yes, give me the moderate.
Your “principles” are so narrowly conceived - you confuse positions on issues with what philosophy animates someone’s thinking - that the chances of ever achieving any kind of a majority are as close to absolute zero that you can get. The urge to purge will only guarantee Obama and the Democrats will continue to subvert First Principles while turning the country into a Euro-paradise.
Perhaps you can define for me what a “RINO” is? My guess is that you will describe a Democrat rather than the dwindling number of Republicans who agree with you on a the vast majority of issues, but vary on a few others.
ed.
Comment by Mike Giles — 11/2/2009 @ 12:20 pm
I disagree with you. Yes, there are some who have gone over the edge, but that is true of any event. However, your statement of “But above all of that, I believe in victory” shows, to me, a seriously flawed mindset concerning the GOP.
The GOP does not exist to get whoever happens to look good elected. It exists to support and promote those who will push the core values of the GOP. These values, such as smaller government, etc, are not represented by RINOs and the like. To give up those values for the sake of winning is inane. Why not just ask Obama to put an “R” next to his name? Then we could tell everyone we won the White House. I suppose we would support Obamacare and the government takeover of the nation at that point, simply because to do otherwise would hurt the GOP’s “victory”.
No, my friend. You place victory above all else. I do not. Victory at the cost of giving up the values I hold dear is no victory. It is capitulation and it is why the GOP is in the shape it is in now.
So, using your statement as the basis for mine: But above all of that, I believe in my values.
These values, such as smaller government, etc, are not represented by RINOs and the like.
False. Just one of the many falsehoods advanced by people who don’t do nuance or degree. It’s either your idea of what “smaller government” means or the highway - a ridiculous notion. Some may define “smaller” government much differently than you. But that would make them a “RINO” and worthy of being kicked out of the party.
And I actually laughed out loud at your notion that the “It exists to support and promote those who will push the core values of the GOP.” What planet are you from? Politics is about the application of power - no more, no less. Your pie in the sky, idealized version of what a political party is might be comforting, but it doesn’t do anything to defeat Obama and the Democrats. In fact, it guarantees their continued ascension.
Politics is an either/or proposition; you are either in the majority or the minority. You obviously think it more noble and uplifting to be in the minority - while the country goes to hell.
Maintaining a rough adherence to principle is desirable in a political party. And certainly there are some bridges that cannot be crossed when it comes to issues. But unless you are willing to put defeating the opposition as your paramount goal, I ask again; why not just vote for the Democrat? The result is exactly the same.
ed.
Comment by AYFS — 11/2/2009 @ 12:30 pm
Dear Rick -
As one of those “moderates” that voted for Obama last time around (mainly due to Sarah Palin), I’m puzzled by the seeming ‘death wish’ of the GOP. As I’ve written here before, a “conservative” from NY or California is very different from a “conservative” in Mississippi or Alabama. I voted for Ronald Reagan, twice. I voted for George H.W. Bush, twice.
I’m pro-choice, pro(reasonable gun control, pro-death penalty, pro-gay marriage, against government subsidies to businesses, just to name a few issues. Who the f**k am I supposed to vote for with the current GOP ideological wall in place? Seems to me, Republicans who hold positions like Pete Wilson, Rudy Guiliani, George Pataki, Christie Todd Whitman, Arnold Schwarznegger and Michael Bloomberg will not be able to ever run again as Republicans because they’ll be deemed RINOs or, even worse, radical leftists.
When someone like Hoffman, who signed Beck’s 9/12 pledge, is considered a “mainstream conservative” by party leaders, there is something very, very wrong with today’s GOP.
Heh - have you read that pledge? It is the most innocuous, harmless, statement of patriotic pablum imaginable. Those who think it some kind of covenant with the devil or the far right are completely off base. In fact, it’s laughable that anyone (even the section on God doesn’t offend me, an atheist) would find anything objectionable at all in it.
I do agree with the idea that conservatives define themselves quite differently in different parts of the country. This notion escapes the far right because any deviation from their ideological construct is out of the question.
But I am tired of arguing with brick walls. Like the liberals from 1980-2006, conservatives are condemned to minority status no matter how badly Obama screws up.
ed.
Comment by JerryS — 11/2/2009 @ 12:31 pm
Rick — I don’t think you’re going to get through, however passionately you argue.
And frankly, I agree with the activists that the GOP has gone so badly astray on fiscal conservatism as to require correction.
However, since the litmus test now apparently includes the so-con (social conservative) hot buttons, I really don’t see any future for the GOP.
I’m thinking maybe those of us who feel horribly lost these days, are fiscally conservative and socially liberal (or at least tolerant) might do better to turn our efforts toward the libertarians.
What do you think?
Comment by Polimom — 11/2/2009 @ 1:22 pm
Well, I do have one litmus test for GOP candidates. When things go south on you, you don’t endorse the Democrat.
I agree with you on one thing. It makes absolutely no difference what your principles are if you don’t have any way to get them enacted.
Comment by Allen — 11/2/2009 @ 1:24 pm
Geller is not indicative of Conservatives. and since all political philosophies are minorities, and Conservative is the plurality of those 3 (rather course) political self identifications, how does moving to the left validation the plurality of Conservative thought?
Going with a squishy independent republican in statewide elections in Illinois and NY is one thing. But in a congressional district where the last republican won with 60% of the vote is a bad idea.
You are calling this a purge, how is it a purge, when the conservative was winning already?
Scozzafavva demonstrated a complete lack of grace and loyalty and it should have been obvious from the very beginning.
Comment by Douglas — 11/2/2009 @ 1:55 pm
All this debate over a “litmus test”. Hardly. New New York Democrats don’t really care who wins this seat, it will be redistricted after the 2010 election to a solidly Democratic district. The Dems held back their top contender for that reason. This election means nothing nationally. Unfortunately the so-con nutballs will use this election as proof, ultimately to their detriment, that they have found the magic formula for winning a national election. Good luck selling this to the rest of the country. The strategy may sound brilliant to those of you who reside in echo chambers devoid of that cursed intellectual non-sense, for those of us on the other side of those doors, ah, not so brilliant.
Comment by Terry — 11/2/2009 @ 2:03 pm
Begging to differ with you, sir.
Comment by smitty — 11/2/2009 @ 2:22 pm
Rick,
I bet you are the guy who paints the yellow lines right down the middle of the road. Your essay?? YAWN.
Thank you for proving my point so spectacularly. You simply don’t have the smarts - or perhaps the subtlety - to believe that anyone who disagrees with your own narrow, rigid, excessively ideological definition of conservatism could possibly be anything but a “moderate” or a “liberal.” It simply is beyond your capacity to see that people can share the same principles while having minor disagreements about issues.
ed.
Comment by Richard — 11/2/2009 @ 2:57 pm
Rick -
Thinking more about your post above….
I’ve come to the conclusion that you, you personally, illustrate EXACTLY what is wrong with the current GOP. By that, I mean that you’re a solid conservative. Your positions on issues are probably in agreement with 95% of most Conservative and GOP voters. Yet because of your religious views (or lack thereof), you’d probably never be elected in a GOP primary, given the current environment.
In California, Arnold Schwarznegger couldn’t run for Governor in a normal primary because he’d never get past the GOP primaries - which is why Dems get nominated every year since Pete Wilson left office. Next year, we’re going to get Jerry Brown again, and Boxer and Feinstein have jobs for life - as long as the GOP insists on running hard right social conservatives for statewide office. A Republican in California is, more likely than not, pro-choice, pro-gun control, anti-tax, anti-death penalty.
Comment by JerryS — 11/2/2009 @ 3:14 pm
@JerryS:
No dispute about Schwarznegger, but you’ve got to admit the “Fu@k You” letter was funny. Maybe it was just a long day, but I giggled like a schoolgirl.
Comment by busboy33 — 11/2/2009 @ 3:30 pm
Sir,
Don’t be too dismayed about voting on my side.
Righty’s like me will cool down once we get rid of
politicians that vote with the left in congress way too often. That’s all.
Dont’t pen words as if we close the door to any other ideas and thinkers. It’s a myth that concervatives have closed the door. It’s always been open. That is why so many lefty Republicans got elected. And look at the mess we’re heading in with this radical Democrate President with Republican help. I’m totally baffelled that such a man even made it to the presidency.
I’m backing any politican that shows me the opposite of Obama. After that I’ll worry about who wants to be on my side. My urgency right now is to get every politicain in the there that can help minimize the libral damange that this President is going to leave behind.
Once we accomplish that we can sit at the table and deal with the spoils of war. We’ll agree on several fronts especially in fiscal responsibility. But not until we beat this President back. Right now it’s all about voting voting voting and them some more. Leave the arguments and differences for another day. You’re just fueling the fire of some very disappointed and angey concervatives.
Right wingers like myself are just fed up sir. Many of us are just venting in desperation. That is much of what you are reading out there.
This is one of the 1st times we get to “punch” back
as hard as we can and the most devastating blow is a vote.
In my book, anyone associated with Obamanism is going to get hit.
Righty’s like me are not thinking of who to include and who to exclude, we’re just saying come join me and vote.
I just know what I want in my country beyond a shawdow of a dout: I DONT WANT OBAMANISM.
Now lets go Vote and talk afterward.
And to all my fellow concervatives. Chill out. Look around, WE ARE UNITED. We’re stopping this Liberalish train little by little vote by vote, candiate by candite. Thanks to liberals who finally came all out and showed us thir colors.
Respectfully,
Vic Hernandez
Austin Texas.
Comment by Vic Hernandez — 11/2/2009 @ 3:36 pm
Vic -
Are you for shutting down Medicare? If not, why not, since it’s socialized medicine?
Are you for shutting down the VA Medical Facilities? If not, why not, since it’s single payer health care?
Which departments would you cut, specifically, in order to cut spending?
How would you propose outlawing abortion? Would doctors or patients be responsible when an abortion took place, and what would be the penalties?
How would you cut down on illegal immigration, specifically?
Until the “conservatives” can start answering real questions that have to do with, you know, actual governing, they’ll be left in the void. Currently, other than saying “NO”, like you’re doing, there is no constructive, positive policy positions being put forth by “Conservatives”.
Seriously, assuming you can win, how would you govern? 2000-2006 didn’t show me much, other than two wars, an exploding debt due to runaway spending. And that was when the GOP controlled everything. Why would it be different next time?
Comment by JerryS — 11/2/2009 @ 3:44 pm
Have you really listened to Newt? Have you watched what he supports since leaving Congress? Newt is a liberal. He is for National Health in the form that of good old England. On most other issues, he is closer to the Dems than to the average conservative (I don’t use Republican in that sense any more).
Michael, did you live during the Reagan years? Reagan was kept from implementing his agenda by a hostle congress. He submitted a work of art in the form of his tax cuts, but congress would not cut the spending, thus the deficit. He allowed this due to the economy. Since then we have had the Bush’s and they are far from being conservative or very bright.
Comment by David — 11/2/2009 @ 3:54 pm
if Rick were correct, wouldn’t all of us “anti-reason” ppl be flocking to Dagget over Christie?
i mean Christie isn’t the most conservative guy out there, yet we are supporting him.
Scozzafailure was no moderate, or centerist she is a liberal.
i’m sorry but we don’t support liberals, don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that.
Comment by shoey — 11/2/2009 @ 4:20 pm
David:
Show me where Reagan ever submitted a balanced budget.
Show me where Reagan ever tried to make meaningful cuts in Medicare. Or tried to close a department of government. Did the Democrats have 60 votes to override a veto? No, in fact Reagan had a Republican Senate.
In other words, Democrats facing a GOP Senate and Reagan in the White House had no power to pass final legislation at all.
You prove my point: given the choice between reality and comforting myth people like you prefer the myth.
Comment by michael reynolds — 11/2/2009 @ 4:23 pm
Sorry, that should be 2/3 not 60 votes to beat a veto.
Comment by michael reynolds — 11/2/2009 @ 4:25 pm
David -
Reagan SIGNED an Amnesty Bill.
Reagan RAISED taxes (at the time, the biggest tax increase in history).
Reagan had no problems with homosexuals - given his Hollywood history.
Reagan believed the GOP was a big tent, with a coalition of liberals, moderate, and conservatives making the party of Reagan.
Today’s GOP is way different that the GOP of Ronald Reagan, and those who compare the two do a disservice to Reagan himself.
Comment by JerryS — 11/2/2009 @ 4:45 pm
Rick, you could not be more wrong, coming and going. You, like so many others whose rantings on this same subject I’ve read the past three days, have built your argument on a strawman — that Scozzafava was anything close to the mainstream of the Republican Party. That could not be farther from the truth and, as someone who claiims the mantle of Super Reason Man, I’d expect you to get that one at least half correct.
Once you blew that, the rest of your analysis just doesn’t fly. You imagine barbarians charging the gate, but if you rub your eyes and look again, all you’ll see are fed-up ordinary citizens who are exercising their Constitutional rights to own their own government.
They are not demanding litmus tests any more rigorous than you’d expect from a plain-vanilla Republican: don’t work hand in hand with ACORN, don’t back humongous and intrusive government and tax increases the likes of which we’ve not seen (in the form of the Stimulus Bill), don’t be such an activist for on-demand abortions that you get an award named after Margaret Sanger, don’t fight to take away secret ballots in the workplace, and so on.
These are radical, extreme ideological positions? I can’t believe you honestly think so. I do think you’ve been overtaken with emotion and have decided to be as radical in your moderate ideology as you accuse the grassroots of being with their ideology. You are certainly not applying as much reason to the situation as you claim.
As for Newt, the grassroots have had ought to say about him since he decided to find common cause with Nancy Pelosi and Al Sharpton to push the fiction of AGW. At this point, Gingrich is a party pragmatist and not a conservative leader. How do I know that? Because he’s decided to dig in his heels on positions that have not been conservative but have been in keeping with the message issued by the GOP leadership. We can argue about whether that is a good thing or not, but I doubt seriously that you can make a case that it’s conservative. I’m also not terribly inclined to entertain the notion that conservatives should simply sit down and shut up, as you seem to recommend, because their betters in the GOP have spoken.
I wish you’d reconsider this essay, Rick. I believe it’s deeply harmful and doesn’t do credit to the intelligence and reason I know you possess in spades.
How often do I have to point out that conservatives were right to support Hoffman and ditch the liberal Dede? I couldn’t have made that more clear either in my PJM article or this post. My point is not that conservatives should have accepted Dede but that the post-Dede outcry to go after “moderates” and RINO’s” is idiotic and that the idea that the same tactics used in NY23 could be grafted elsewhere is loony.
Calling her a potentially “beastly Congressman” but pointing out the obvious - that she would have been a reliable vote on procedural, party line matters which make up about 70% of the votes in the House - can hardly be construed as my offering her support. I doubt there will be many, if any, candidates worse than Scozzafava but there will be plenty that the rabid right will call RINO’s simply because they don’t line up 100% with their views.
ed.
Comment by Jimmie — 11/2/2009 @ 4:57 pm
“the idea that the same tactics used in NY23 could be grafted elsewhere is loony.”
Y’know Rick, I think you have more in common with the loonies than you realize. You both mistake right with reality.
Is getting drunk on power and declaring jihad against percieved RINOS a smart idea? Hell no. On that point, you are absolutely right.
Does that mean it’s not going to happen? Of course its going to happen! That’s reality. Your American Thinker quote above shows that. Hell, RedState was crowing when Dede was driven out. As he made clear, he didn’t even care about winning the election . . . the point was that the insurgency won the battle against the GOP, and now they were going to dictate the terms of the relationship. If Hoffman actually wins, that’s just gravy.
Is this an UNBELIEVABLY SUICIDAL course of action? Yep. Again, you’re right that it’s “loony” to even try something that is virtually guaranteed to violently and spactacularly fail, dragging the GOP even deeper into its hole, possibly killing it off entirely.
But they’re doing it.
I’m more convinced than ever this is nothing but “a beautiful death”-wish.
Y’know Rick, I think you have more in common with the loonies than you realize. You both mistake right with reality.
Huh? You go on to say I’m right about everything but you lump me in with the loons because everything that I criticize is going to happen anyway?
You really lost me there.
ed.
Comment by busboy33 — 11/2/2009 @ 5:30 pm
[...] if Frank Rich and people like him freak out over this movement. What will they do come 2010 or even 2012 for that matter? It is to [...]
Pingback by Video: Glenn Beck rants about Purging The Republican Party Of Progressives | Political Byline — 11/2/2009 @ 5:53 pm
[...] any rate, go give him some encouragement in the comments. Someone has to save the GOP, and it damned sure isn’t going to be me. I’ve got wooden [...]
Pingback by Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » One Day He’ll Learn — 11/2/2009 @ 6:24 pm
You cheer lead these fools for years, covered-up Bu$hCo’s crimes, degrade the discourse with lunacy logic, and NOW you feel as though crap is outta hand?
…Lies, lies, and more lies. An entire cable channel spewing 24/7 abomination. Obstruction everywhere on critical issues facing America, and no help or praise what-so-ever for those trying hard to make life better for all of us.
…The chutzpa here is unbelievable.
…May you never have another shot at power in the next two hundred years. Think Whig Party.
Comment by Blue Shark — 11/2/2009 @ 6:44 pm
A column about “anti-reason” devolves into mouth breathing. The irony is too thick to cut. Your mythical right-wing urge to purge in 2010 also is a howler. You almost seem upset the left-wing loons who now run the country have proved so godamned unpopular. I look forward to your November 2010 column about how massive Democratic losses somehow proved your point.
Comment by obamathered — 11/2/2009 @ 6:59 pm
You’re right.
I abandoned the GOP and self-identification as a “conservative” a few years back for precisely these reasons. I didn’t change my beliefs but I realized that these labels now meant something different and were no longer applicable to my beliefs.
You have taken a different road and chosen to try to stay in the camp and talk to them from within. I hope it works. Truthfully, however, I don’t think it will. I don’t think it will end until the anti-reason faction gets it’s chance to run things into the ground. Good luck though. I would love for “conservative” to once more mean what it used to.
Comment by excon — 11/2/2009 @ 6:59 pm
As a disillusioned former northeast Republican (meaning fiscal conservative, strong defense, socially tolerant) I have to admit I believe it’s going to be a log time before I’ll have a home in any party. Currently, I’m mostly a hold-my-nose Democratic voter.
Until the GOP shakes loose of this Bolshevist phase and remembers that it’s a political party (and by definition compromised) that is not the same as the conservative “movement” (which pretty much by definition means NO compromise) then we’re not going to have an effective opposition party.
The key thing the Republicans have to do is explain HOW THEY WILL GOVERN the next time they get the chance and WHY we should believe that they will be different from the last time (which was pretty much a disaster).
Until they do that, they’re not serious.
Comment by Seth Owen — 11/2/2009 @ 7:08 pm
Count me as one who left the GOP in the mid 90’s when it became apparent they had no intention whatsoever of being “fiscally conservative”;
Even now, my complaint with the Tea Party is not that they are “too conservative”- its that they have no coherent thoughts-
They want massive defense spending, but preach fiscal conservativism; they want “limited” government, but cheer on every enlargement of government power, as long as it is done under the name “anti-terror”
There just isn’t any way the Tea Party conservatives could ever govern- they aren’t willing to make serious decisions and choices- its all platitudes and buzzwords, in contradiction to each other.
Comment by Reason60 — 11/2/2009 @ 7:39 pm
Sorry, Rick. You are going to have to leave the Republican Party. They don’t want guys like you anymore. Can’t you see that?
They want Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck. True believers and fanatics only. Just read the comment by David above. He says Newt Gingrich is a liberal and should be run out of the party, and he followed that up with a dose of standard Reagan worship, though he clearly doesn’t have clue as to many things that happened during Reagan’s presidency. That’s your base these days.
That is all.
Comment by Pug — 11/2/2009 @ 7:58 pm
There are all kinds of conservative principles that I could get behind, if I define them as my grandfather’s conservatism. Fiscal restraint, English as national language (slowly adopted), “get the government off people’s backs,” (who said that?), cautious and at least remotely isolationist-lite military foreign policy, etc., etc.
But I can’t get behind bigoted homophobic war-mongering uninformed morons no matter their political leanings.
You dance with them that brought you, Rick, and you were part of the cheerleading crowd at the root of Baggism at one point. Deal with it.
Without the racist, homophobic, Christianist wing of the Party, the GOP would already be Whigs. And they’re slowly but surely dying, demographically.
Sad. I really want a viable opposition party. With, you know, ideas beyond “tax cuts for everyone but the Defense Industry,” and “Get the government off the backs of everyone who isn’t Christian, straight, and poor.”
P.S. Anyone who can’t see that Obama is a pragmatist centrist-slight-leftie has some blinders on that I’m just plain not qualified to treat.
Comment by John O — 11/2/2009 @ 8:03 pm
Oops.
“…Christian, straight, and rich.”
Bygones.
Comment by John O — 11/2/2009 @ 8:07 pm
I left the Republican party over time in college, oddly not due to the usual college-makes-you-liberal stereotype you hear but my exposure to many different governing ideas, and the fact that even in the late 80’s I could see something going very wrong with the party.
The best way I can put the Republican problem is this: inconsistency.
There IS no consistent Republican ideology where the values, actions, and results of those actions line up. You can’t have endless war and save money. You can’t torture and support freedom. You can’t keep cutting taxes as a solution when that doesn’t solve the problem. You can’t expect a functioning society when you cater to religious radicals. Schizmogenesis, to yank out a rather obscure psychosocial term.
All the publicity stunts and campaigns that leveraged anti-intellectualism and soforth are coming home to roost.
This leads to an additional issue - even if the party wins, it looses. Yes it may win some elections, but if it does so by further riling up the Teabagger crowd, it’s further selling it’s soul. Winning consistently means that you can solve problems - the anti-intellectualism you mention CANNOT solve problems.
If you want Republican victory, show that the party can solve problems (and prevent them). The party does not seem to be interested in solving problems, it seems to be interested in publicity stunts and pandering.
What’s needed is a resurgence of intellectualism in the Republican party.
Comment by Fang — 11/2/2009 @ 8:08 pm
Fong is right. There is simply no intellectual consistency in the GOP right now, and for someone who mistrusts power in all forms, that’s a scary thing.
Comment by John O — 11/2/2009 @ 8:13 pm
The (long) road back to Conservative relevance is pretty clear to me: Cut the Defense budget, declare an end to the WOD, claim that is not the government’s business to decide who marries whom, tax the uber-rich if it is necessary to balance the budget, support regulation of the crooks on Wall St., and spend some money on health care and infrastructure and energy independence.
Cut the Defense budget a mere $150B/year and the money is there. Not only that, we’ll still be spending more than anyone on the planet (by a mile) to protect ourselves. Combine that with diplomacy, anathema to conservatives now, and you’ll have fewer people who want to hurt us. Win-win.
Good luck with that.
Comment by John O — 11/2/2009 @ 8:20 pm
Yep.
Palin/Jindal
Moose & Squirrel, 2012
Comment by Richard bottoms — 11/2/2009 @ 8:26 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jimmie and The Week in Blog, Simon Dodd. Simon Dodd said: And while http://bit.ly/34aSbf is not without force, http://bit.ly/4u8uQ4 is a more persuasive take. [...]
Pingback by Tweets that mention Right Wing Nut House » THE ANTI-REASON CONSERVATIVES -- Topsy.com — 11/2/2009 @ 8:38 pm
I’m a Dem, so no one here will care what I think, but…here goes.
Why would I vote for a Republican? What reason would you give me to switch parties? Republicans say they want government out of our lives: except they want to tell us who we can marry, what God we can worship (Christian only), how our life ends…the list goes on and on, and I can’t find anything there to be drawn to and support.
I’ve seen Republicans govern, and all I can say is, please God, never again. Bellicose rhetoric instead of diplomacy, cronyism over competence, tax cuts as the be-all, end-all of policy discussions. No plans for making our world a better place.
Look, I’ll be the first to admit that liberalism and Democrats do many things wrong, but at least I see them TRYING to make people’s lives better. When I hear Rush or Beck speak all I hear is hatred. Hatred toward anyone less fortunate than themselves, and I think they truly believe that anyone who’s in trouble has to have done something wrong or else they wouldn’t be in trouble.
As a Dem, I see government as the way we all pool our resources to make our country better and stronger, and I want a government that works for all its people. We can (and should) disagree on what government should do (that’s why there are conservative/liberals) but reveling in extremist eliminationist talk about how some people aren’t real Americans and how they really just don’t love this country isn’t going to get us there.
Thanks for listening and good luck. I truly do want a functioning Republican party. I just don’t see one these days.
Comment by JoyousMN — 11/2/2009 @ 8:57 pm
“You really lost me there.”
That’s why I explained it in the next 3 paragraphs. I kind of thought that was standard form — that you read the next few sentences for the explanation. My mistake.
Comment by busboy33 — 11/2/2009 @ 9:31 pm
Alright, that was out of form. My apologies, Rick.
What makes you like the crazies is thinking that just because you can see a clear, coherent worldview, you think that your view of the world will magically be mirrored in reality.
Just because attempting to match NY-23 elsewhere is a dumb idea, you think it won’t/shouldn’t happen. Your worldview makes that an ignorant choice, so of course everybody else must recognize it as ignorant as well. Its obvious, isn’t it?
The crazies think being anything other than “I bleed Reagan Red” pure conservative is unacceptable. The GOP must model itself around a Church . . . purging the heretics and preaching ideological purity. This is “right” in their mind. That’s obvious, isn’t it? Everybody else must beleive the same way.
They know they are right, so they assume everybody else agrees with them. To them, NY-23 is proof that the (vast) majority of Americans agree with them, that the GOP needs to focus on purging and purity. What could possibly make more sense (if that were true) than to march forward from this victory, spreading the Pure Red ideology across the land, seizing control of the GOP by mounting glorious challenges to the entrenched bourgeois? Don your berets and start singing “The Barricades”, my brothers! The time of revolution is nigh!
You know you are right, so you assume everybody else agrees with you (don’t mount purity revolutions in other jurisdictions). I agree with you that it would be stupid to do so . . . but you think it WON’T happen because that’s “loony”. The only reason it wouldn’t happen elsewhere is if everybody else agrees with you . . . and they don’t.
Both you and the loonies are “right” inside your minds. Both of you think that what you believe to be true is going to be reflected in reality . . . and it isn’t. That’s why you are similar in that you confuse “right” with reality.
Clearer?
Comment by busboy33 — 11/2/2009 @ 10:04 pm
“But above all of that, I believe in victory. And if that is not paramount in your mind, then you might as well switch parties and vote for the Democrat.”
SO, DeDe would have been your preference over Hoffman?
Obviously, a conservative CANNOT win in NY-23, at least that seems to be the Party line.
Rick, I think you take alot of the rhetoric much more serious than it actually is. I see it as a whole lot of frustration. Particularly, with the Republican elites.
Conservatives are continually told that the party has to run moderates to win, so conservatives just go to the back of the bus. We want your votes, and just vote and shut up.
I have voted in 10 presidential elections. 8 times for the lesser of 2 evils and 2 times out of conviction. I have voted in elections where the conservatives sat it out, I have voted in elections where the moderates sat out OR more likely switched sides (2008). I have voted in elections where the evangelicals sat it out. Obviously the only STUPID one in this process was ME. Dumb as a rock.
So I might be a bit frustrated, particularly when Rick says go to the other side since you have no right to an opinion and are causing division and loss. So be it!
Rick, I hope those moderates get you your majority.
Regards,
Comment by the Dragon — 11/2/2009 @ 10:09 pm
My point is not that conservatives should have accepted Dede but that the post-Dede outcry to go after “moderates” and RINO’s” is idiotic and that the idea that the same tactics used in NY23 could be grafted elsewhere is loony.
Shorter Moran: OK, I’m gonna give you that one.
Comment by Scott — 11/2/2009 @ 10:22 pm
“But if you care one whit about the United States of America… then you might as well switch parties and vote for the Democrat.”
Moran
“Well you can do what you want to us, but we won’t sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!
Gentlemen!”
Otter
Comment by Kurt — 11/2/2009 @ 10:37 pm
“…Sounds like I approve of “conservatives asserting themselves,” but what the fu*k do I know?…”
Apparently, you don’t know very much, at least about what’s actually going on with conservatives vs. what you’re foaming-at-the-blog, mad-dog freaking out about over what you THINK is going on…
Actually, it sounds a whole lot more like you “approve of” conservatives “asserting themselves” as long as they’re willing to keep on toein’ that ol’ Party line, regardless of the increasingly-blatantly apparent crappy sort of RINO candidates the RNC and/or the NRCC keep trying to foist off on “the faithful.”
So long as everybody stays in step, and votes for whoever gets that good ol’ Seal Of GOP Approval, all is okey-dokey, right?
“We want your opinion - just as soon as we finish telling you what it’s going to be.”
I don’t think so - not any more. Wipe some of that mad-dog foam off your blog, and think about it.
But then - WE’RE just the “voting base” - what the f**k do WE know, right?…
Comment by J.S.Bridges — 11/2/2009 @ 10:57 pm
“I don’t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”– when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.”
“Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?”
“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.”
“I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscibe to these principles, then let them go their way.” Ronald Reagan March 3, 1975
For the Republican Party to ask me, a conservative, to support someone with all the beliefs of Dede is a bridge too far. If that makes me an idiot so be it. I believe the above words show that I stand in good company.
Comment by Harry O — 11/2/2009 @ 11:05 pm
Rick,
I really think this process is normal. In 1968 the Democratic party blew up. On one side you had the admittedly disgusting party establishment (Chicago anyone, smile) and then you had the idealistic young leftwing crowd. On one hand the idealistic side was much more sympathetic but in hindsight this extremism (purging) probably lost them the elections all the way to Carter. Interesting also to look at Carters campaign back then, lots of parallels to Sarah Palin. In the end it was ‘moderate’ Clinton who brought the Dems back to power. Just my two cents.
Comment by funny man — 11/2/2009 @ 11:07 pm
“Calling her a potentially “beastly Congressman” but pointing out the obvious - that she would have been a reliable vote on procedural, party line matters which make up about 70% of the votes in the House - can hardly be construed as my offering her support. I doubt there will be many, if any, candidates worse than Scozzafava but there will be plenty that the rabid right will call RINO’s simply because they don’t line up 100% with their views.”
Again, you close with a strawman. No one of any repute — not a blogger, not a talk radio host, not a conservative politician — is asking for (or demanding) complete conservative ideological purity. It is not happening. Give me an example where a RINO is being drummed out for lack of purity as opposed to specific objections to a specific substantial position that runs far afield from basic conservatism.
What they are demanding is that GOP candidates at least fall in the mainstream of the Republican Party on bedrock conservative issues. They are also asking that if there’s a choice, the party back the person who holds more of those positions thank anyone else (like, say in the FL Senate race). That is hardly unreasonable. Indeed it requires a distortion of what they are saying to name it so.
But, to the beginning of your comment, from whence comes your confidence that she’d be a reliable party-line vote? I’m not talking about the routine votes where caucus doesn’t matter. For those votes, it really doesn’t much matter what party she’s with, does it? I’m talking about those votes where there is something real at stake, caucus unity is necessary to win, and every vote matters. Do you have any confidence, given her record, that Scozzafava would have been a reliable Republican vote? I’d say that her immediate defection to the Democrats proves that she wouldn’t have been.
Now if she is acceptable to the Republican Party, who would be considered unacceptable? What the grassroots have done in NY-23 is put a very firm, and long-overdue, line in the sand. We are demanding, not complete ideological purity, but faithfulness to the core tenets of conservatism: limited government, low taxes, capitalism, and personal freedom and responsibility. Is that truly unacceptable to you?
I simply don’t understand that. It looks to me that you are being every bit as extreme and reactionary in your moderate ideology as you accuse the conservative grassroots of being in theirs.
Comment by Jimmie — 11/2/2009 @ 11:08 pm
@Jimmie:
“No one of any repute — not a blogger, not a talk radio host, not a conservative politician — is asking for (or demanding) complete conservative ideological purity. It is not happening. Give me an example where a RINO is being drummed out for lack of purity as opposed to specific objections to a specific substantial position that runs far afield from basic conservatism.”
You’re playing language games (I don’t think intentionally, but its still happening).
No one is demanding ideological “purity” — they’re just demanding adherence to “basic conservatism”. The more you stray from that (only on “specific substantial positions” of course), the more you are marginalized and excluded.
Yeah . . . that’s totally different than “ideological purity”.
Define basic conservatism. Opposition to gun control? Opposition to gay rights? That’s a good one . . . is it a tenet of basic conservatism to oppose gay marriage, or to stay the hell out of it due to respect for individual freedom?
Or is NEITHER a tenet of basic conservatism? Is basic conservatism limited to ecconomic policy?
Given Hoffman’s history of observing “basic conservative principles” in politics (zero), what makes him “more” adherent than a GOP soldier that has worked with the party for years? Because he said he’s a “Reagan Republican”? What does that even mean?
I’m getting off-point, so let me ask the question this way — You agree that demanding ideological purity is bad, but expecting GOP candidates to adhere to basic conservative beliefs is good (I agree, by the way).
What is the difference between the two?
Comment by busboy33 — 11/3/2009 @ 12:22 am
Its not so black and white as most would think. Despite the fact that the MSM describes Dede as a moderate, she is a liberal. I don’t think that the tide would have turned toward Hoffman if she was a moderate (or if she was elected via primary).
While I am not a believer in party purity, I believe that there are some “rinos” that need to go especially the ones that break with the party on key votes(for example Specter if he stayed in the party). I do not agree with those that believe that all “rinos” should thrown out. But then again, that is a punishment that should face the entire congress both parties.
Comment by Sammy Benoit — 11/3/2009 @ 12:35 am
@JoyousMN
Very well said.
Why would I want to vote Republican? First, on a personal level, they apparently have no room for my friends and family who are gay, not Christian, not white, believe in the importance of science and reason, etc.
Secondly, what have they done for me and my country that should make me credit the party AT THIS TIME, as being capable of solving problems. The Democrats at least seem to pay some lip service to improving things and working on solutions.
As far as I can tell, the Republican leadership wants me to vote for them because otherwise they’ll yell at me and call me names. Not appealing at all.
I am very pleased to see discussions like this on the future of the Republican Party. It is my hope, however small, that these kinds of discussions will spread. Because we ALL need to start thinking about solving problems, we got enough of them.
Comment by Fang — 11/3/2009 @ 1:46 am
Rick,
First off. When Eric (Classical Values) comes to Illinois next I’d like to have a meet up. Send me an e-mail (addy on my sidebar) and I’ll contact you the next time he swings by my way (Rockford).
Second,
I address your point in what I think is a more cogent argument (mirroring some of your points and I didn’t even read them before this comment - great minds etc.) that developed out of the comments at RS McCain’s blog.
You can read it here:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/11/national-party.html
Simon
Comment by M. Simon — 11/3/2009 @ 1:57 am
To all my anti-war friends. We have been at war with Islam since the days of Jefferson - read your history. Actually let me rephrase that: Islam has been at war with us since the days of Jefferson. It is currently in one of its hot phases. If you are not going to pay for “Old Ironsides” you are derelict in your duty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/10/massive-muslim-attack-averted-plot-to-kill-two-prominent-us-politicians-and-carry-out-a-holy-war-by-.html
It is unbelievable to me that those here who so decry the influence of religion in Republican politics can deny the role of religion in war. And Islam has been prosecuting a war with the dar-el-harb since its founding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam
I dunno. Maybe cranial rectal inversion is more comfortable than seeing the obvious.
Comment by M. Simon — 11/3/2009 @ 2:31 am
I think support of the Constitution is a basic Conservative principle. Last I looked the 2nd Amendment is still part of the Constitution.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5167
* Only 39% of Americans say the United States needs stricter gun control;
* 50% are opposed to stricter gun control laws and 11% are not sure;
* 69% of adults say city governments do not have the right to prevent citizens from owning handguns;
* 87% of Republicans, 52% of Democrats, and 72% of “unaffiliateds” say cities do not have the right to ban handgun ownership;
* 71% of Americans continue to believe that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun, and;
* 63% of voters agreed with the Supreme Court’s landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision, saying the Second Amendment granted individuals the right to own a gun for self-defense.
Comment by M. Simon — 11/3/2009 @ 2:44 am
Fang 1:46 am,
Government doesn’t solve problems. It either impedes solutions or perpetuates the problem. It is the bureaucratic imperative.
Comment by M. Simon — 11/3/2009 @ 2:47 am
M. Simon -
You do realize, don’t you, that Dede Scozzafava was ENDORSED by the NRA?
Do you even know Doug Hoffman’s position on the 2nd Amendment?
Comment by JerryS — 11/3/2009 @ 3:05 am
@M. Simon:
“I think support of the Constitution is a basic Conservative principle.”
Really? Huh . . . I thought it was an American principle.
Does this mean that you believe support of the Constitution is NOT a Democratic principle? That a tenet of the Democratic party is “subvert and destroy the Constitution”?
You can’t be serious.
“Government doesn’t solve problems. It either impedes solutions or perpetuates the problem. It is the bureaucratic imperative.”
Yeah . . . government sure continued that problem of interstate travel. All our interstate highways would have been built much cheaper and quicker with nothing but private citizens.
Oh! and sewage. Stupid government creating sewage sanitation plants, and mandating that my neighbor doesn’t dump raw sewage in my back yard. Stupid government.
I love how you express reverence for the Constitution one post, then decry government the next. The Constitution CREATES THE GOVERNMENT. If you’re against the government, then you’re against the Constitution. Pick a position and try to at least be consistent.
Comment by busboy33 — 11/3/2009 @ 3:06 am
Hello JerryS, (and other who think like you)
You wrote:
”
…Currently, other than saying “NO”, like you’re doing, there is no constructive, positive policy positions being put forth by “Conservatives”.
Seriously, assuming you can win, how would you govern? 2000-2006 didn’t show me much, other than two wars, an exploding debt due to runaway spending. And that was when the GOP controlled everything. Why would it be different next time?”
Your questions and most all the comments I read here are now so small. We used to have the luxury and all the time in the world to debate and we win a few, then they’d win a few.
Now, all we’re on is a massive ship about to head for disaster. Suddenly all the fine jewelry, cloths means nothing. We’re being steared away from our American core fundations folks. The emnemy is not oursleves anymore. Not this time around. Not today.
If we choose to argue against each other and not vote against these Obamaism followers today, we wont have a home of any kind, or sides to choose, or ideas and idelogoies to argue about tomorrow.
Sure we stink in many ways and for different reasons, but they do too. What we now have in common is joining together to defeat Obamaism type of ideas. It has been the cheer genius that gave birth to the greatness of our freedoms that
folks like us have been able to enjoy the privilege of debating one another for generations.
Let’s stop this train reck folks and agree to meet on the other side, agree to rethink our ideological differences and continue to contribute to the greateness of our country.
For the sake of generations to come.
Will all due respect to all of you. I wish you well.
Vic
Comment by Vic Hernandez — 11/3/2009 @ 6:46 am
Moran say: “And the pogrom they wish to carry out against “moderates” who agree with them on 90% of the issues they hold dear but fail their ever more spastic “litmus tests” guarantees Democratic dominance for the foreseeable future.”
This is reason and light? OK, where does this 90% figure come from? Which individuals have been measured to make up the 100%?
Comment by Fred Beloit — 11/3/2009 @ 7:47 am
Hey Rick,
Standing by your side on this one - as is that sector of the electorate who decide who wins.
These bores will never rise again. It will be centrist cons, as it is happening now in VA. They may get a quirky moment in the sun, as with NY-23 now and then.
But these radicals have used up their credibility. They have no political capitol and are political poison. They can pretend all day long, they will never see a governing majority in their image. Never.
Cheers, AJStrata
Comment by AJStrata — 11/3/2009 @ 8:03 am
Rick,
Thanks for your response. Glad to prove your point.
My point remains the same: the middle ground is for lazy people. Like Mr. Miagi said: “walk down left side of road, ok; walk down right side of road, ok; walk down middle of road….SPLAT!” Keep painting them lines, baby.
Comment by Richard — 11/3/2009 @ 8:17 am
[...] post [...]
Pingback by Never Yet Melted » Reason is Winning in NY’s 23rd District — 11/3/2009 @ 8:37 am
Richard:
My point remains the same: the middle ground is for lazy people.
That could be a direct quote from Osama bin Laden, Lenin, Hitler, Savonarola . . . any of the great ideologically fanatical monsters of history.
Stupid people love simplicity. Stupid people hate shades of gray because they’re complicated and require thought. It is this fact, the fact that stupid people demand and require absolute certainty, that empowers every tyrant.
Comment by michael reynolds — 11/3/2009 @ 9:10 am
1) This is a Republican food fight so make sure that Liberal trolls like MR throw us off track.Don’t respond to his diversionary tactics.
2)Rick your statement
“But above all of that, I believe in victory. And if that is not paramount in your mind, then you might as well switch parties and vote for the Democrat.”
says a lot. Is that really your theory? Do you really have nothing to stand for except wanting power.Wow
Well, that’s the simple minded view of things.
But what’s the point? You will read into whatever I say your narrow, rigid, ideological perceptions anyway. In your mind, you can’t have both - power and principle - because if you had to think more deeply than a marmoset, your head would explode.
ed.
Comment by MooseH — 11/3/2009 @ 9:10 am
[...] at The Other McCain does an excellent job of fisking a whiney Rick Moran who is still pushing the “echo” paradigm. M. Simon presents a balanced view of a [...]
Pingback by The Tenth Amendment Party [Darleen Click] — 11/3/2009 @ 9:13 am
MR, you forgot to mention Reagan.
Yeah us stupid people love simplicity. Ain’t that concept grand? Like for example: Low taxes, strong miltary, no abortion, no gay marriages, holy trinity.
Stick with your Gray Matter, sir. I’ll take simple anyday.
Stupid
As most on the right tend to do, you confuse “issues” with “philosophy.” It’s why I get into trouble with you troglodytes. There is no conservative “principle” that enjoins support for “low taxes.” None. Zero. Zilch.
I happen to favor low taxes for practical, pragmatic reasons. But to make that a litmus test for conservatism only reveals your ignorance.
ed.
Comment by Richard — 11/3/2009 @ 9:21 am
MR,
Nice adhereance to talking points. Gotta give you props for sticking to original thought….NOT
Stupid
Comment by Richard — 11/3/2009 @ 9:45 am
Richard-
Actually, Reagan was NOT a ideologically pure politician; he was a ideological conservative in speech, and a compromising moderate in practice; He preached a balanced budget, as a candidate, but as a President, ditched that when it conflicted with his other goals of winning the Cold War and cutting taxes.
He also had no trouble signing a huge tax increase.
Moderation, in fact, IS conservative; conservative thought is suspicious of extreme manifestos, (like Ayn Rand) and downright scornful of “free lunch” gimmicks like supply side economics.
I know this sounds odd, but since 1980, the conservative movement has drifted further and further away from its common-sense roots to become a mockery of itself.
Comment by Reason60 — 11/3/2009 @ 10:07 am
Shorter Vic Hernandez - “I have no positions on issues, so I’ll just keep repeating that Obama’s visions for America is a disaster and hope that people believe me.”
Comment by JerryS — 11/3/2009 @ 10:33 am
Reason60,
if you have time look up articles from the 80s where people attack Reagan for ’selling out’ the conservative cause. Good points you make.
Comment by funny man — 11/3/2009 @ 10:39 am
Reason:
You put your finger on the problem: many people calling themselves “conservative” are no such thing. But it doesn’t matter to them because it’s just a brand or a team name. It’s identity politics at this point.
When you point out to people like Richard that Ronald Reagan sensibly withdrew (or cut and ran) from Lebanon after terrorists killed 241 Marines they literally cannot process that information. It conflicts with their dogma and must therefore be dismissed.
Just like when one points out that Reagan made arms deals with the Soviets, sent missile parts to Iran, never submitted a balanced budget, avoided taking any action on abortion. They stick their fingers in their ears and yell because reality conflicts with their personal needs — their need to belong to a team, to have an identity beyond their own lives, their need to see themselves as more important than they are, their need for scapegoats to rationalize failure.
It’s not conservatism, it’s narcissism and psychological neediness. These people are closer to Oprah than to Buckley. Which is why Rick is wasting his time talking to them. Rick is an actual conservative as opposed to these lifestyle conservatives. Two entirely different tribes.
Comment by michael reynolds — 11/3/2009 @ 10:41 am
Reason60,
I agree with your point of view. Well said.
Richard
Comment by Richard — 11/3/2009 @ 11:19 am
You don’t know what she would have done. And, if you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would have discovered that procedural votes, which usually fall along party lines, are just as important if not moreso than votes on bills. That reasoning seems to escape those who are ignorant of how our government actually works and why it is important that parties allow for a fairly broad spectrum of beliefs in order to craft a majority. Does that include members who support the opposing party? Who violate the most basic things the party stands for? Who can’t be trusted to support the party on even the procedural votes? It should be obvious to all but the most obvious that supporting Hoffman over Scozzafava was the correct move. Scozzafava was a candidate simply because a friend of her’s was a GOP county Chairman. It was simply careerism on her part. A chance to move to DC and get the big paycheck. She stood for nothing, except herself.
Now instead of saying: Whew! I was wrong, dodged a bullet on that one!, all you do is repeat the Media meme that the GOP needs to turn into “Dem Lite”, invite in everyone - even people who will actively work against and GOP program - and stand for nothing more then winning the next election. And again you seem to believe that Scozzafava was beaten only because of the “evil Soc-Cons” as opposed to the fact that she was on the wrong side of EVERY GOP issue. There has to be some standard. And the idea that Conservatives want to “purge” the party has more to do with the media then reality. In my opinion what they want, is to rid the party of “Republicans” who vote with the Democrats on every issue, until six months before Election Day. The career politicians who are only on the Republican line because the Democratic line was filled up. Who will turn on the party (Scuzzy, Spector, Jeffreys, Gingrich). Exactly how much should be accepted in the name of solidarity. And especially on fiscal issues. It’s not always the social issues. It’s Snowe voting for the Health Care monstrosity, not Guiliani being pro-Gay Marriage. And, IIRC, Guiliani spoke at the Convention, no Casey style censorship on the Republican side.
Comment by Mike Giles — 11/3/2009 @ 11:27 am
Moderation, in fact, IS conservative; conservative thought is suspicious of extreme manifestos, (like Ayn Rand) and downright scornful of “free lunch” gimmicks like supply side economics.
I know this sounds odd, but since 1980, the conservative movement has drifted further and further away from its common-sense roots to become a mockery of itself.
Ah. So after a number of posts accusing some Conservatives of trying to purge the party of “moderates?RINOs/DIABLOs”, mainly because they’re “purists”. We arrive at the conclusion that the “purists aren’t “really” conservative. Which is - oddly enough - the exact same conclusion the “purists” arrived at about the “moderates/RINOs/DIABLOs”. IOW, chasing our collective (pardon the word) tails.
Since neither side has a hope of “purging” the other side, I would hold that this has simply been an ongoing argument about what the party should, and should not, stand for. Also about what tactics should, and should not be used.
Comment by Mike Giles — 11/3/2009 @ 12:03 pm
Mike Giles,
I don’t accuse purist of being purist just being intellectually lazy. If you want a good example of this go to HA. We can and should have different opinions, strategies etc but I’m just tired of this HA bs.
Comment by funny man — 11/3/2009 @ 12:32 pm
A few thoughts from a liberal (whom you’ll all rightly ignore):
I’d enjoy reading - but it seems unlikely I’ll be able to - a conservative’s honest response to @JoyousMN’s question “Why would I vote for a Republican?” Not abstractions, not accusations of evil that the other guys are doing, but real reasons. How would it be different/better than 2001-2008 (and how would it be better than 1992-2000, the last Democratic administration, which to my memory was pretty good economics, pretty good foreign policy, generally pretty good stewardship of the country)? What do Republicans have to offer? W wasn’t encouraging; how would the next one be better? What have you learned from the problems that W caused and didn’t solve?
Comment by eyelessgame — 11/3/2009 @ 1:26 pm
JerryS 3:05 am,
I was speaking to some of the gun control commenters. I should have been clearer.
busboy33 3:06 am,
There are Democrats who consider the Constitution an impediment to their plans. I think even our Dear Leader has alluded to that from time to time but I’m not going to look up a cite.
Richard,
no abortion, no gay marriages, holy trinity
1. First you can not sell no abortion to enough people to make it stick. Second if you could sell it you can’t enforce it. How is the Drug War going for you? In 1 to 3 years pot will be legal in California. In ten years after that the whole country. Switzerland, not noted as a liberal paradise has voted twice in favor of legal heroin. The second time by 60%. You are on fantasy island re: abortion. You want to do something about it? Quit wasting your time with government plans. Small government baby.
2. No gay marriages? What world are you living in. Some states have voted them in. It is just a matter of time (a decade or three) for the rest. You want to do something about it? Quit wasting your time with government plans. Small government baby.
3. The holy trinity. That is laughable. The attempt to force a certain brand of religion on Americans got us the public schools. The Marxists and Unions now control that socialist experiment. They are not called the Socialist School System for nothing. So how did that work out for you? Now you have to fight the system your ancestors created to privatize the schools. You want to do something about it? Quit wasting your time with government plans. Small government baby.
The #1 problem with socons is that they refuse to face up to their failures. Just like the socialists.
Well why not? Both are belief systems with only tenuous connections to reality.
Economic socialism doesn’t work. Neither does moral socialism.
==
I may have more to say as I work my way down the list.
Comment by M. Simon — 11/3/2009 @ 1:51 pm
Oh. Yeah. Water and sewage.
Is your water/sewage bill going up or down?
Now compare that with the telephone monopoly vs what we have now. Local land line calls used to be metered. Now they are covered by a blanket charge. Heck you can buy plans where not even long distance is metered. Or you can pay for long distance minutes what local minutes used to cost.
Why? Competition. Now I admit that at certain stages of technological development monopolies make sense. But that does not make them efficient.
Comment by M. Simon — 11/3/2009 @ 2:02 pm
[...] The Anti-Reason Conservatives, we’re treated to a post that only Bob Dole could love. Let’s review a few [...]
Pingback by Doug Hoffman and the Electorate — 11/3/2009 @ 2:04 pm
Rick said, “In effect, the base is criticizing the Republican establishment for acting like a political party and not a college debating society.”
In my opinion, the reality is that the GOP establishment has been acting like a college debating society…small, private college (NTTAWWT). They considered plans to more power in terms of their personal power and while considering what to do the grassroots considered the plans to power in terms of “We the people’s” power and beat the establishment (whose perspective was ill-fated). If anything, the “base” is communicating it has very little faith the establishment even understands their perspective let alone power. In times of less change, the “base” might wait longer and try and reason with the establishment …but there is no time to wait. The intellectual is not the real target of the base. In my opinion, the establishment, grass roots and base all have their share of intellectuals. My question is, was the establishment taking their base for granted? You are going to have a mess on your hands if you do that as a political party. For the establishment to ask the base to be more than a private party, the establishment needs to stop acting like one toward their base.
We can have a growth in our democracy based on the Constitution powered by freedom and ingenuity of the American people. I agree with a commenter on PJMedia who said “NY-23 is not “magic.” No special circumstances obtain there. It’s just an example of the alterations to political dynamics caused by the new modes of communication available to us….And so NY-23 will happen again…and again…and again, until the power-brokers of the Republican Party learn who’s now subservient to whom in the national political discourse.”
Hey, the comment I liked on PJ Media that I quoted from above was in response to your “Unruly Conservatives” post. Good post too. Commenter #2.
Comment by Public Online Schooling Mom — 11/3/2009 @ 2:11 pm
I’ve never been a member of either party, so what party should I belong to? Here are my positions:
1) I don’t think America should be the world’s policeman. They (the rest of the world) doesn’t pay us enough to clean up their messes. Besides, the only way for a country to be free is for its citizens to demand freedom. You can’t force somebody to be free, if you think about it you will realize how obvious that is.
2) I’m no fan of taxes, but I’m a CPA, you can’t continue to cut taxes forever and expect to have a functioning government. I’m for fiscal sanity. If the government needs X number of dollars to function it needs to impose X amount of taxes. The idea that tax cuts pay for themselves is plain silly. If you believe that then the optimal tax burden would be zero, which means we would have to borrow every cent we spend.
3) Regarding Gay Marriage I really don’t care. I’m not gay nor do I ever plan on being gay. I don’t think the Government should do anything that impedes on our freedom and if we really want to “strengthen” the institution of marriage we would outlaw divorce (as a recently divorced man I think that is a TERRIBLE idea.)
4) The “War on Drugs” is stupid and futile. At the bare minimum marijuana should be legalized because there is literally no reason for it to be illegal. I don’t smoke nor drink, but most medical experts consider smoking weed less dangerous than drinking.
5) I don’t like abortion and would never advise a lady-friend of mine to have an abortion, but I don’t think they should be illegal. Illegalizing abortion will not make abortion go away, it will move abortion into the back alleys where it is, in some cases, easier and cheaper, if much riskier, to get.
6) We spend close to 700 billion A YEAR on defense, that is more than every other country in the world combined. Why? Eisenhower was right.
7) I love guns. I’ve been shooting since I can stand. That said America has a long history of letting its states and cities choose their own gun laws.
Comment by nisl — 11/3/2009 @ 2:11 pm
Mike Giles-
Actually, My complaint is that “ideological purity” is and should be, the province of conformists, “engineers of the human soul” (note I did not say Stalinists!) and authoritarians; moderation and compromise should be the property of conservative thought.
Conservatism is NOT about worshipping the cult of the free market,treating it as a religion, not to be questioned or sullied by compromise; All the greatest onservative minds- Burke, Hayek, Buckley- and the greatest conservative leaders- Eisenhower, Goldwater, Reagan to name a few- accepted that some efforts in society are properly done as government run enterprises; that any society would reach a compromised balance between individual freedom and social responsibility.
Emphasising a purity of thought, a desire to impose a single mode of acceptable thought upon a diverse nation of 300 million is frightening even in its most idealistic concept; ironically, dreaming of a purely conservative party where people in NY-23 have exactly the same viewpoint as CA-10 is the epitome of Ayn Rand’s “common yoke for a common neck”.
Compromise, reasonable accomodation of opposition, and balancing of powers is the conservatism that I can support. The language of Party purges, “enemies who must be vanquished” is insulting to the concept of freedom and liberty.
Comment by Reason60 — 11/3/2009 @ 2:14 pm
As a Democrat, my advice is to ditch the spin for substance, the hysteria for reliable reason. If people are scared about Republicans, it’s mainly because the policies of that party have become starkly separated from what many other people see as reality. Worse, it seems many of the most visible republican glory in this separation, glory in offending and alienating those they disagree with.
The author of this entry gets it right when he says that parties cannot win by subtraction, only addition, and the trouble with the Republicans currently is that they’re trying to purify the party of anything else but a hard-right brand of Conservatism.
When metal gets too hard, too inflexible, it breaks easier. The Republicans, leading up to 2006 and 2008, left themselves few alternatives to the party’s main message, it’s main philosophy. When the mainstream of its party was rejected, there was virtually no-one else to put forward who could appeal to a broad cross-section of Americans. There was no bend, no give in the party. Even a candidate who ostensibly could appeal beyond his party, like Senator McCain, was forced to take hardline positions inconsistent with his record. Tim Pawlenty and others suffer the same fate.
The Tea Partisans now seem to lead the party around by the nose. They’re the only folks who seem to have energy in the party, yet their behavior is scary and their points gravely lacking in substance. They spout absurdities and continually spin and spin and spin everything to declare the current problems a product of liberalism run amok.
Whether you think as I do, that modern conservatism is a dead philosophy in need of replacement, or as the author probably does, that it needs a fresh start, free of craziness and internecine bloodletting, it’s to the modern Republican’s benefit to emphasize substance over style, good government first, and then less government if it can be managed, because no conservative will be able to sell people on small government if it means a replay of the events of the last eight years. And part of what caused the last eight years was a lack of willingness on the right to entertain other points of view, to have people to call BS on lousy ideas, to have people who would stand up, when it’s not popular, and say no to things like a tax cut that doesn’t have spending cuts built in with it, or to decry a massive spending program or failures to look out for the taxpayer when it was a Republican responsible.
Republicans failed to govern wisely, instead choosing to govern in a kneejerk expression of campaign promises and party dogmas. If they had engineered their policy with function more than purism in mind, they might still be in charge.
Comment by Stephen Daugherty — 11/3/2009 @ 2:25 pm
May I point out that you’re probably not helping the situation when you enable their delusions by inflating the numbers of protesters on the Mall on September 12th. The numbers were not estimated at “a couple of hundred thousand” but between 60,000-70,000.
Comment by nitpicker — 11/3/2009 @ 2:30 pm
The entire premise of the teabagging crew is that there is a “silent majority” of ultra-conservative Americans who sit out of the political process, and will become engaged by ultra-conservative candidates, ushering a new golden age of McCarthyism.
Everything they do depends on that premise. Because if that silent majority doesn’t exist…
Comment by David Atkins — 11/3/2009 @ 2:59 pm
Here’s why conservatism fails: conservatism holds that government can’t do anything right. I refuse to elect ANYONE into government who believes that government can’t solve any of our problems besides defense. People who hate government should have no place IN our government, because they merely create the reality they wish to see via their own anti-intellectualism and incompetence. So-called “conservatives” don’t know the first damn thing about what conservatism means, or they wouldn’t have given fiscally irresponsible and socially meddlesome folks like Reagan or George W. their full-throated endorsement. The teabaggers and their ilk had their chance to run the country for eight years and failed pretty spectacularly; now it’s time for them to change their diapers and have a nap while the adults clean up the mess.
Comment by fklehman — 11/3/2009 @ 3:09 pm
@fklehman
The best take on this ever: http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2005/09/remember_good_o.html
“If the Goverment is a car setting out to give every one a ride to work, then for 40 years the Republicans have been puncturing the tires, pouring sand in the gas tank, stealing the distributor cap, and, whenever they can get their hands on the wheel, driving it straight into the nearest ditch and then, pointing to the wreckage as the tow truck backs up to it, saying, ‘See, this proves that people were meant to walk.’
“And they do this so that they don’t have to chip in on gas.”
Comment by nitpicker — 11/3/2009 @ 3:19 pm
Rick:
Fascinating article. I am an ex-Republican. I voted for Reagan twice and once for George Bush (in 2000). Like you, I am fiscally conservative, and — dare I say it here — socially a libertarian. The 2009 “tea party” crowd leading the GOP around by the nose makes me sick. Their strict orthodoxy and bizarre social conservative views have driven millions just like me from the party. Everything I used to despise in the Southern Democrats is now embodied by Sarah Palin and the Southern-fried hyper nationalist, big spending social conservatives taking over the Republicans. In my state (Illinois) a perfectly respectable senatorial candidate (Mark Kirk) is in danger from the carpetbagging right wing crazies, who will only ensure another Democrat is elected Senator. We like our statewide Republicans to be moderate here, and the Illinois party is being ruined by them, one election at a time.
Comment by Demosthenes — 11/3/2009 @ 3:19 pm
Moderate Republicans are those who will, as Malcolm Wallop noted, when confronted with a Democrat bill to burn down the Capitol, counter with one to phase in the conflagration over three years.
Yes, it’s important to win, but it’s also important to get things right. Me-tooism on things like card check (which Scozzafava supported) tend to disqualify candidates in my mind. Dede might have agreed with the mainstream R’s on 90% of the agenda (I’m thinking it was more like 40%, including the issue of not torturing puppies to death), but when that 10% of heterodoxy means bankrupting the nation and having business held hostage by union goons and the Dept. of Labor, that 10% looms large.
Rick, you’re way off base here.
Comment by Jeffersonian — 11/3/2009 @ 4:29 pm
Ah hah hah hah hah. NY23 goes to the Democrats for the first time since dinosaurs walked the earth.
Thank you Sarah Palin. Thank you Rush Limbaugh. And thanks to all of you who commented above and stood up for the right of Republicans to screw themselves in the service of extremist ideology.
Comment by michael reynolds — 11/3/2009 @ 11:39 pm
The far right wing of the GOP has lost. The political ideology put forth by the party defacto leader(Limbaugh), Hannity, Beck, Thompson, and Palin of flushing/purging the party of moderates / rinos illustrates the lack of depth and clarity of thought these individuals have. This is a terrific win for the Dem’s and has to be very demoralizing for good Republicans that don/t consider themselves a part of the religious right that has hijacked the party. McCain stated it right in his run against Bush(his opinion of the far right)but then in the last election he ended up sucking their a–. Until religion and the far rights value system that they want to impose on others is purged the GOP is going the way of the Whigs.
Comment by packeryman — 11/4/2009 @ 12:31 am
1) I don’t think America should be the world’s policeman. They (the rest of the world) doesn’t pay us enough to clean up their messes. Besides, the only way for a country to be free is for its citizens to demand freedom. You can’t force somebody to be free, if you think about it you will realize how obvious that is.
If we abdicate some one will take the job. Who do you propose?
Comment by M. Simon — 11/4/2009 @ 12:57 am
M.Simon, I totally agree, close all foreign bases except for one in the Pacific and one in the Med. Bring all the troops home. Think of the dollars that would be brought back to the US. Set up temporary base camps from Brownsville TX to the pacific and patrol the border. This in effect would close it to illegals and the drug trafic. Put a mandatory 5yr federal prision term for any employer caught working illegals. There are no excuses, we have e-verify. Then the 13 to 30 million illegals would go home , those that didnt would be deported. Cut off all social programs an end the baby born here of illegals becomes a citizen program Then a work program could be set up for workers on an as need basis, being the borders are closed. Lets put America back to work. Put a mortorium on H1-B visas so as to end the cheap labor taking our college graduates jobs. An corporations that have moved off shore tax their imports to the US, equal to the profits made by going abroad for cheap labor. Lets start the concrete, steel and trucks rolling by starting construction on 50 nuke power plants, rebuild our infra-structure(roads and bridges)and start a high speed rail that equals none all over the country.Revisit all free trade treaties and rework them to be fair trade. Re-regulate every thing that was de-regulated and sotp the corporate rape and pilliage of the middle class. Corporate ownership of our representatives has to end.We can only take back our country if lobbyist are irrevelant. This can only be done with political donations being held down to 5- 10 dollars per individual and corporations and labor unions can give nothing. Have 6yr limits on the house and senate. This does away with professional politicans and the senority system. No more fat pensions, they return to their linr of work after serving the peoples work for 6 yrs. Lets take back America and we dam sure can’t do it by listing to talk radio. Look at the race in upstate NY. The religious right that has hijacked the Republican party went down in flames in a hundred year GOP stronghold. As the party moves futher right you loose more independemts. Someone has to take the control away from the far right nuts.
Comment by packeryman — 11/4/2009 @ 9:51 am
I really think you have a good point when pointing out the concepts not equaling whats actually possible. I ‘ve been super deepp into researching the reason for the scare tactics that have been incorporated with the announcement of APF and Concentration camps. Which I’m starting to think is for the certain dark race of the country. Check out my full comments on ajayspot.blogspot.com
Comment by ajay — 11/5/2009 @ 11:21 am
JerryS,
Two questions for you:
1) Will you be supporting candiates who run against President Obama?
2) Will you likewise be supporting candidates who will run against those Senators or Rep’s that support this Radical left President of ours?
A simple Yes or No answer please. _______
By reading your entries, I can see you have your positions well thought out.
Thanks in advance.
Comment by Vic Hernandez — 11/5/2009 @ 3:44 pm
Vic,
even though I’m not Jerry I don’t understand your question. Of course I would support our candidate but hope it is someone reasonable. Not someone like Sarah Palin.
Comment by funny man — 11/5/2009 @ 5:03 pm
[...] That came from Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House. [...]
Pingback by Fair & Balance Meet Your Audience | I Hate These Conservative/Republican Bitches — 11/5/2009 @ 6:22 pm
It all comes down to 20 years of Rush Limbaugh, who can best be defined by his relentless construction of a liberal conspiracy theory and the fallacious reasoning he uses to support it. He is a case study in both.
Comment by veritas8671 — 11/6/2009 @ 2:19 pm