Quote of the day
posted at 10:20 pm on September 18, 2008 by Allahpundit
“At the same time, and perhaps with even more consequence, the center of political conservatism was moving ever west. Through such figures as Goldwater and Reagan, the American West was transformed into the vital center of the conservative impulse. Though the primacy of the East Coast conservatives remained, the status quo could not last. As conservatism absorbed heartland influences, it began changing to a more individualistic, more libertarian, more religious, and more American form. Almost unacknowledged, the division between American western conservatism and the European-influenced northeastern variety became deeper and wider with every year.
And at last (as was inevitable) a candidate appeared who embodied that division, a candidate with no connection to coterie conservatism, a candidate wholly of heartland America, a candidate who was as much a challenge to traditional conservatives as she was to the left.
And so isolated had the Northeast Corridor conservatives become, so deeply embedded in their Jamesian parallel universe (which can best be pictured as kind of a conservative version of the old Steinberg New Yorker cover, with E.35th St. and Allen Jay Lerner’s townhouse looming as the center of the earth while, off on the horizon, we see a dot labeled, ‘Nascar races’), that they couldn’t recognize her clear conservative stance, couldn’t recognize her personal courage, couldn’t, in the end, be bothered to stand with her when she and her family were victimized by the most repellent political attack of our epoch…
The Northeastern urban conservatives must find some way to connect with the rest of the country. If not, they’ll end up much like the ‘conservatism’ expressed by Andrew Sullivan (whose main outlet, it should be noted, is a European paper) – obsessive, strange, and isolated, existing in dream world with no connection or influence to anything else.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Thank God for that, we keep running out of barbed wire, would have had to start digging a moat next.
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 1:11 AM
A closing thought for the night, from Bill Buckley.
flenser on September 19, 2008 at 1:12 AM
In other words, Ted Kennedy. So get going and run.
MadisonConservative on September 19, 2008 at 1:12 AM
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 1:10 AM
What’s the problem?
Cindy Munford on September 19, 2008 at 1:12 AM
Goldwater had the same nose. I personally don’t see why the height and width should disqualify you.
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 1:13 AM
Nice article. AP, thanks for sifting through the sludge to find these gems for us.
jaime on September 19, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Are there people that actually consider what someone did in a war when they are voting for them? I just don’t get that.
I’m all for honoring their service (with the possible exception of that back-stabbing POS SOB Kerry), but their view of government is more important than what they did in a war.
rockhead on September 19, 2008 at 1:19 AM
I don’t know how being against the Iraq war makes someone “weak-kneed”. Kerry was actually pretty gung-ho for the Iraq war II, this one, I have the quotes, for quite a while. Was he a big hero before he was “weak-kneed”? No one was going to send a 60 year old over to Iraq anyway.
Hello?
Was Dwight D. Eisenhower “weak-kneed”? Barry Goldwater turned against the Vietnam war, was he “weak-kneed”?
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing. When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 5 star General and 34th President of the United States of America.
Eisenhower also said – May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
Is Rush Limbaugh brave because he supports staying in Iraq 5 1/2 years and counting?
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 1:20 AM
Are there people that actually consider what someone did in
It is a large part of character. Policy is the key, but having someone who understands the military, defense, and strategy (McCain studied at the war college) and values service to country, is an important part of the decision.
Laura in Maryland on September 19, 2008 at 1:23 AM
So you are religious and I am an atheist and yet didn’t master detective FiveWays uncover that we are the same person a just few days ago?
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 1:24 AM
I sure hope that you didn’t rupture anything with your laughing as cousin Daisy Mae would be most disappointed if you couldn’t chase her around the barn again tonight.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 1:28 AM
It’s not an either/or argument, any more than W’s ‘with us or against us’ bs. Bravery is not starting a war, bravery is staying in a fight long enough to win it when winning is the only viable solution to the crisis, whether or not its genesis was correct.
I have absolutely no problems with anyone who dissented from the rush to war, but I have excruciating heartburn from those who insist on giving up because it was unjust initially or there is no clear end in sight. Bill Clinton did a cut and run out of Somalia that further emboldened AQ.
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 1:32 AM
Yes, how does it feel to be me?
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 1:33 AM
Yes, “character counts” and there are a lot of pols that have had their character exposed (Chappaquiddick comes to mind). But I just don’t trust these “man of character” profiles. Color me a cynic on that.
I don’t know jack about anybody’s character that I haven’t met and spent time with. I don’t let that enter into the equation when it comes to voting.
rockhead on September 19, 2008 at 1:37 AM
I thought they were both pretty funny myself although I would have preferred if the censor trap hadn’t caught the first 2 and delayed them as I didn’t intend for three copies to go.
In case you had not noticed I am not trying to make friends with the crowd here. I am not one to shout with the crowd. It is not in my nature.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 1:38 AM
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 1:32 AM
I agree. I think you almost have to have people who are against war on general principle, it allows for other options to considered. The only problem is that most people who are against all war think that those who consider the option to be warmongers. No middle ground.
Cindy Munford on September 19, 2008 at 1:40 AM
Isn’t Daisy Mae one of those places Barack Obama’s advisors came from?
unclesmrgol on September 19, 2008 at 1:40 AM
It’s all the damned crab grass in my lawn. I just don’t seem to be able to get rid of it.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 1:40 AM
I gather that, and respect it. I tend to dismiss many of these tomes and personal angst journals that get posted once in a while, and treated your double dose the same.
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 1:43 AM
God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him.
Tav on September 19, 2008 at 1:45 AM
But then so is John McCain.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 1:48 AM
That is an unfortunate product of politicizing an external conflict for internal political gain. The ‘voices of reason’ get drowned out in the flood of demagoguery, and we as a nation are weakened when we most need strength.
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 1:48 AM
Basing that opinion on MSM coverage makes someone weak-kneed. Have you noticed the lack of coverage of the Iraq War for the last several months? Well, that’s due to, since you apparently haven’t heard, the fact that the mainstream media doesn’t like the war and will report only the worst stories about it.
And John Kerry was never a hero. He was and is a political opportunist. Always has been. He didn’t vote in favor of the Iraq War because he believed in the cause, or else he wouldn’t have turned the way he did one year after the incursion. He voted because it was popular at the time.
Your failure to take these things into account is troubling.
MadisonConservative on September 19, 2008 at 1:52 AM
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 1:48 AM
But we disagree about everything. Obviously the big difference in war is that people die. Goodnight!
Cindy Munford on September 19, 2008 at 1:52 AM
Sounds like you guys hurt MB4′s feewings. You should say sowwy.
Jim Treacher on September 19, 2008 at 1:52 AM
Yes but I lived in Utah for a while and grew a tail. Kind of hard to hide. Huckabee would be all over me.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 1:52 AM
Faith.
MadisonConservative on September 19, 2008 at 1:52 AM
You didn’t give us a tune to sing that to.
GoodBoy on September 19, 2008 at 1:53 AM
No, John McCain is a ‘sui generis’ not of either side. He circulates in both spheres, taking on characteristics of liberal when needed, and conservative when forced. I think he is less ‘maverick,’ and more just ‘WTF?’
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 1:56 AM
Win what? An opportunity to kiss more Korans?
Maliki, the sovereign head of state of Iraq, Bush said so, wants us out almost as fast as Obama does.
Again, win what? An Islamic Shiite controlled Iran that is much more a natural ally to Islamic Shiite Iran that to us infidels?
Brilliant!
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 1:58 AM
I’m afraid I am starting to like you more all the time. You devil!
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 1:58 AM
Wow I read the article and that was some manifesto!
I wonder if Palin is really all that or if there isn’t some projection and wishful thinking going on.
But it made me feel good to have only lived in the Northeast Corredor long enough to understand the impulse toward elitism and quickly return to the West.
Where apparently conservatism is pure and organically American. The beauty and desolation of the West–the last strong hold of the Constitution and the founding father’s dream for their posterity.
petunia on September 19, 2008 at 1:59 AM
BTW, the vast majority of Americans are not fighting in Iraq (basically the same guys going back over and over again) but rather are back here safe and sound out shopping of blowing smoke on the internet.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 2:01 AM
I had no problem at all with the initial invasion and overthrow of Saddam, as I too along with just about everyone else, thought that he had WMD. It’s the seemingly never ending staying to Islamic Nation Build that I have the problem with. The Koran kissing part doesn’t exactly thrill me much either. I liked the old George W. Bush much better.
George W. Bush on October 11 2000 -
“Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military’s meant to fight and win war. That’s what it’s meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. But I’m going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.”
And no 9/11 did not override that. It should have reinforced it.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 2:08 AM
I assume you mean Iraq and Iran, not Iran and Iran. Yes win. Win three key victories:
1. A stablized Iraq that is able to assert sovereignty in the face of Iranian influence, as Maliki has done in Basra and Baghdad. Yes they are and will be natural allies, but that doesn’t mean we leave Iraq a corpse to be devoured by the wolves on its eastern and western borders.
2. A defeated AQI. An early withdrawal would breath new life into the so called ‘jihad.’ Having beaten both superpowers, the USSR in Afghanistan in the 80′s and then the USA in the 2000′s would cement it’s claim in the muslim world to being ordained of Allah.
3. Maintaining US pride and belief in itself as a nation. I grew up in the aftermath of Vietnam, and don’t care to return to that defeated malaise, and with the enemy continuing to attack us.
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 2:13 AM
Well Ronald Reagan did a “cut and run” as you call it in Lebanon and I happen to think that he did the smart pro-American thing. AQ was not even in Iraq in substantial numbers until after the invasion and staying part. Mostly AQI there anyway, not the real AQ, although the are sometimes allies and sometimes on the out-and-out. There probably aren’t more than several hundred AQI or AQ there now anyway and Bush wants to take clear till early next year to pull even a measly brigade out, which will even then, I believe, leave us with more troops in Iraq than we had before The Surge, hallowed be it’s name, started.
It’s still a Charlie Foxtrot.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 2:14 AM
I feel pretty bad. You probably do too. We both should probably get drunk.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 2:17 AM
I did have powerful misgivings with the invasion. When Bush starting talking about ‘preventive war,’ chills ran down my spine. I figured early on that George had had a vision, and that he was now on a mission. His use of the word ‘crusade’ was actually quite apropos.
I don’t miss Saddam one iota, but never supported the invasion.
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 2:21 AM
You must have missed my very long comment, that got posted 3 times,much to my chagrin, about John Kerry.
Your failure to take these things into account is troubling.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 2:22 AM
Okay, I surfed a bit and the spell of that article is past. I don’t care what kind of Conservative you are. Straight, Gay, East Coast, Idaho, or Alabama…. Just save this country from Joe Biden and Joe Klein….
Paying more taxes is NOT Patriot. It is idiotic.
Thank you fellow Republicans whereever and whoever you are.
petunia on September 19, 2008 at 2:23 AM
Amen. Of the highest order.
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 2:25 AM
Sorry MB4, but this doesn’t make much sense. Overthrow him, then what? Just leave? If we weren’t gonna try to establish some kind of government that would continue to support us in the region, then we would have been better off to not do it at all. Just keep the no-fly zones and let the libs piss and moan about how its “hurting the children”.
rockhead on September 19, 2008 at 2:26 AM
My feewings have been hurt a couple of times throughout life, but certainly not here. Sowwy to disappoint you.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 2:29 AM
Frankly, your attitude about the supposed extra value of your comments over those of others has led me to skim them. I understand some others are quite adversarial towards you, but you’re reacting in kind.
MadisonConservative on September 19, 2008 at 2:30 AM
I really did live in Utah for a while, at Dugway Proving Ground. Google it sometime.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 2:32 AM
Damn straight. It started with Carter and continued until October of 2001. I don’t know if the going into Iraq was the best strategy, but how would doing the same thing in Iraq (when the bastards declared it the front line of the conflict) help? Once we went in there we had to try to “win”.
rockhead on September 19, 2008 at 2:34 AM
I have several attitudes. If you don’t like the one I have display, well, then, I have others.
Counter Battery fire.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 2:35 AM
Don’t need to. I’ve been there. I’ve hunted jackrabbits on the perimeter.
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 2:35 AM
Win what? Some kind of trophy? No one seems to be able to give a satisfactory answer that would justify the blood and treasure.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 2:38 AM
I hope that you don’t glow in the dark like I do.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 2:39 AM
No, I stayed out of range. I think. ‘Course that third eye does seem to be getting bigger.
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 2:41 AM
No question you aren’t one to shout in the crowd. You’re more the ‘slip a turd into the punchbowl’ type.
rokemronnie on September 19, 2008 at 2:41 AM
The one I’d like to see is one that doesn’t willfully ignore certain facts about political stances.
When one changes a stance because of personal experience or learning, that’s one thing.
When one changes a stance because it’s politically unpopular or because of MSM saturation of negative coverage, it’s being weak-kneed. Don’t care what party you are, or what the issue is. Either you stick to your guns or you don’t. It was why Kerry lost the election: people don’t like flip-floppers, they like leaders with conviction.
MadisonConservative on September 19, 2008 at 2:43 AM
My third eye is in the back of my head. Comes in rather handy once in a while.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 2:45 AM
Hey MB4 I think we’re actually pretty much on the same page. That’s why I put win in quotes. Because at this point it’s pretty much a no win situation.
Once the strategic error was made, the only “win” we could have in it is to not do what we had done for the previous 25 years. I don’t even know if this matters though.
In hind-sight maybe the no-fly zones was better.
rockhead on September 19, 2008 at 2:46 AM
You should really try to upgrade that part that have have kindly put in bold for you to something more sophisticated or at least something more adult anyway.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 2:48 AM
I imagine you keep it peeled when visiting HA.
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 2:49 AM
If you spend more time over at Robert Spenser’s JihadWatch, particularly checking out Hugh Fitzgerald’s writings, we will probably be on the same page. Check out Diana West at Jewishworldreview and it will be even more likely.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 2:52 AM
Not needed here. I have other means.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 2:54 AM
Kerry lost the election because he is ugly.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 2:56 AM
I now need to stick an ice pick in my ear and go to sleep. ‘Night!
MadisonConservative on September 19, 2008 at 2:57 AM
The no-fly zones/almost embargo bs was not sustainable. Saddam had to be dealt with sometime, but I don’t think the invasion was the best route. On the other hand, in the atmosphere of fear and the ‘unknown unknowns’ that prevailed at the time, it was an easy out. Take back control of world events, make the Arab world fear us again, make us feel less vulnerable.
Those are powerful motivations, and not susceptible to clear-headed thinking.
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 2:58 AM
There are known knowns: there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns: we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know that we don’t know
- Donald Rumsfeld
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 3:02 AM
What a vision of leadership that man wasn’t.
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 3:04 AM
That I will do when I’m less bleary eyed.
Good point and kind of what I thinking about with my “let the libs piss and moan” comment.
Unfortunately there are way to many people that don’t know that these crazy bastards just are not gonna go away or be appeased. Their appeasment = conversion or submission.
rockhead on September 19, 2008 at 3:12 AM
In his autobiography, American Soldier, Franks describes a conversation with his subordinates who were upset with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith; Franks tells them, ‘Here’s the deal, guys. I know OSD – Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith – are demanding a lot. But they are not the enemy. Don’t start thinking good guys-bad guys. We’re all on the same side.’ They could see I was serious. ‘I’ll worry about OSD, all of them – including Doug Feith, who’s getting a reputation around here as the dumbest @ucking guy on the planet,’ I continued. ‘Your job is to make me feel warm and fuzzy. Look, we’re all professionals. Let’s earn our pay.’
Franks shows a military man’s ability to get to the heart of the matter. But Feith isn’t dumb. His defenders, in fact, frequently stand up for him by citing his brilliance. But Franks’ lament is a blunter, less eloquent version of what Fallows wrote in the Atlantic of the office of the secretary of Defense, particularly Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith: ‘What David Halberstam said of Robert McNamara in The Best and the Brightest is true of those at OSD as well: they were brilliant, and they were fools.’”
- Source
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 3:12 AM
Brains and balls do not necessarily = wisdom. Rummy and Co. had plenty of the first two and little of the last. I have come to both respect and trust SecDef Gates, even outside of the relief from Rumsfeld he brought. He seems to have the necessary mix of all three characteristics. I hope he stays on for a while.
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 3:21 AM
I’m not sure even conversion would appease their bloodlust.
Military, political, and moral defeat is our the ultimate goal, and it will take a lot longer than seven years. We are in for a long, long journey.
trailboss on September 19, 2008 at 3:24 AM
Atheists are hostile, generally. I think because they feel like they are oppressed and need to lash out.
Being godless spawns of satan has got to be rough on ya, ya know? ;)
lorien1973 on September 19, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Not really, if you are a true atheist, you hold to no supream being. If you are a satinist, your just your plain old every day run of the mill agnostic :}
N4646W on September 19, 2008 at 3:36 AM
MB4:
The whole planet thought Saddam had WMD, and in fact to this day we do not really know what happened to them.
The larger point was that if we had not gone in there, Saddam would still be out there. The no flyzones would be gone. The Food for Oil program would have made him richer, not poorer. He would have reactivated his wmd programs {why else hide them?} and he could do pretty much as he pleased. That cease fire he violated? Never mind.
I realize that you hate all Muslims, as if they were a race. I have read Robert Spencer too and while I respect the man, I think his views of Islam are very much like Hitchen’s view of Christianity: hostile and narrow.
As for AlQaida, we all know that Baghdad had been a mecca for international terrorists for years. Saddam had a lot of money and he liked to throw it around.He was a menace. And Iraq would have been Somalia with oil if we had not stayed there.
I remember your anger with Bush because he did not do more for Georgia when Russia invaded. Why? After all it is the Balkans is it not? Has it ever been peaceful? What does it have to do with us? In other words, you are a contradiction. You say you are conservative when it comes to illegal immigration and Russia…and yet you sound like John Kerry or Barack Obama when it comes to Iraq.
And btw, not all Muslims are your enemy.
Terrye on September 19, 2008 at 7:23 AM
American WEST contrast to EAST
Note well the NY rally approach at hand. And this is where the damned Islamic terrorists struck America, and “rally” organizers prove to the world that within 7 years time, anything goes.
Were the rally being organized in America’s Heartland, it sure as hell wouldn’t dissolve for ANY politician’s absence or presence.
The Anti-Ahmadinejad Rally became by their own efforts Pro-Ahmadinejad.
By dissolving in the face of Hillary’s decision, the organization behind the defunct “Rally” proved how LAME serious Americans are. Hell, if we can’t even show up to protest Ahmadinejad, how the hell can we be expected to stop him? This rally organizer is a contagious pathetic loser.
maverick muse on September 19, 2008 at 7:51 AM
Lorien. I agree with you 100%. As a lifelong NY’er, I have had the very same thoughts about the city for almost two decades. It is an elaborate Epcot, depicting a late 19th, early 20th C. great American city.
As for Ernesto’s earlier comments, I agree with him to a certain extent. The term “elites” has become so discredited today, because it often describes those who share no values with the bulk of the population, and who have forgotten from whence they sprung. That’s where the derision aimed at E. Coasters derives. But, we also can’t survive as a country, and have a healthy society, without great institutions like universities, museums, scientific institutes, libraries, etc. and the very highly educated people that inhabit them. We no longer respect and trust our formerly best institutions. Harvard is now a dirty word, and with very good reason.
But we need to revive these kinds of pillars to our civilization. We can’t have them remain as enemies to the state and our common culture. We still need to turn out the best and brightest minds, so we can’t accept that we can simply do without them.
But to say that we just simply have to look towards average people, untainted by radicalism and elitism, regular everyday folks for our future leaders, is to suggest an overly simplified solution to a pressing problem. Just like we need our military academies to turn out future military leaders, we need our intellectual academies to turn out our future social and political leaders. We can’t do without them and prosper, and we haven’t had them in our court for the past 50 years. My $.02.
JiangxiDad on September 19, 2008 at 8:26 AM
A traditional, classical liberal education has been replaced with radical, liberal political philosophy.
Saltysam on September 19, 2008 at 8:49 AM
You sound worse than the most extreme “liberal” that I have ever heard. At least they don’t normal accuse someone of hating a race unless there is actually a race involved. At least I have to give them that. I can’t even give you that.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 10:48 AM
I just seem to be a contradiction to someone with dull perceptions.
MB4 on September 19, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Which ones. That is the problem
We have them. They just haven’t been allowed to control intellectual academies, the media or arts. The hard part is convincing them to try again
I heard Michael Medved describe the movies of the earlier era. They were shown over the world and they celebrated America. They lionized average Americans who showed courage and sacrifice and initiative. Today’s medium despises America and presents Americans as someone I don’t recognize, wimps who cry and tremble when faced with danger or corrupt bullies hurting the multicultural others.
If we took a cruelty free trap and baited it with lots of arugula and put it down in the northeast corridor, would we catch liberals or rockefeller republicans? My guess is both and they would graze peacefully together in a spirit of gentle harmony as long as the lettuce kept coming
entagor on September 19, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Hey folks,
Those of you arguing each side about a “war” need to be reminded of something. Something that amazingly neither political side seems able to remember. Something the media would NEVER admit.
We aren’t AT WAR. We invaded Iraq, kicked a murderous tyrant to the curb, and helped the locals whom we prefer to attempt to start over. All that took less than 6 months. The condition we have been in since that time is NOT WAR. We remain an occupying body providing a forced modicum of stability while the locals get their act together. We are killing enemies of the revised Iraqi governmental structure, whether they be foreign or domestic enemies. In effect, we are the substitute Homeland Defense force until they have an effective one of their own.
Whether it is “RIGHT” or “WRONG” for us to be doing so, it is not a state of WAR, and it angers me everytime I hear a conservative use the term. The “war in Iraq” ended in a blink, the occupation has lasted the intervening time. And as a reminder, how long did we remain in Japan after our invasion succeeded? How long in Germany? How long in Korea?
Answer: We have maintained a military presence in each of those nations continuously since. Can anyone say that we are still “at war in Germany”, “at war in Korea”, “at war in Japan”? No, so speak honestly about events in Iraq, and refuse to allow others, even pols from our side of the aisle, to do otherwise.
/rant
Freelancer on September 20, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3