But I cannot quite reconcile the notion that he has conservative or libertarian ideals, and still endorses Obama. Those two ideas simply don’t go together. AllahP thinks there’s something not quite right about the break between Chris and National Rev…

TheUnrepentantGeek on October 15, 2008 at 4:23 PM

I was referring to this UnrepentantGeek.

Time and time again he has called the readers here that disagree with him on minor issues “Truthers.” Is that specific enough for you? And that’s without any research.

Capitalist Infidel on October 15, 2008 at 6:04 PM

In a word, no. Also, not evidence that he isn’t a conservative. Try harder.

Name calling, annoying though it may be, is not an indicator of an absence of conservative ideals. If you can show me where he’s embraced leftist ideals – links please – then we’ll talk.

In what way has AP shown himself to be anything other than a conservative? On what issues does he differ from the conservative mainstream? Please use specifics.

Time and time again he has called the readers here that disagree with him on minor issues “Truthers.” Is that specific enough for you? And that’s without any research.

If you only knew how wrong you are. One day you’ll realize though. One day soon.

apacalyps on October 14, 2008 at 11:54 PM

Perhaps OT, but I’d like to note that is usually said by:

A) Someone polishing a Death Ray
B) Someone with a handlebar mustache and/or monocle

Maxx on October 15, 2008 at 2:56 PM

I guess I never really thought of HotAir as a right-wing blog per se apart from the fact that Michelle Malkin is the owner. This is probably because because AP is not conservative and Ed Morrissey is, kind of, but in a very FP (Meyers Briggs lingo) way. Which is to say, he’s a bleeding heart.

Having said that, there is no media outlet or blog I know of that is as conservative as its readers. They all want to be liked by someone close to the MSM.

Rush Limbaugh is an exception, and that is because he is his own man, brand and show.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/kenya-smoking-g.html

Seems that if a candidate for US President had a cousin who was running for the highest office in Kenya and campaigned for him. This would be news. It should be news. It wasn’t for whatever reason, racism, Islamophobia, etc. Of course, if it turned out that the Kenyan candidate was a self-avowed Marxist who wanted to impose Sharia law in Kenya, perhaps then the story is ripe for the MSM? Nope. What if the Kenyan candidate inspired the slaugher of more than 1,000 of his political opponents? Still the U.S. media ignores the story. Why?

Maybe AP knows. We sure don’t blog much about radical Islam anymore. Has the threat gone away? If not then why is the Obama Odinga connection story untouchable?

Far right wing ideologues with religious fundamentalist and/or authoritarian populist tendencies. Guessing you fit right in.

dakine on October 15, 2008 at 2:45 PM

Yep, that’s me, except for the authoritarian populist tendencies, which is just a mantra of the left against conservatives.

But I don’t understand why he thinks Buckley should have been allowed to continue at National Review. Plenty of people get fired or leave when they no longer want or agree to toe the company line. Not that NR’s company line is all that clear sometimes ……

BigD on October 15, 2008 at 2:06 PM

You’ve been here a long time, I’m surprised at your response. Haven’t you found it odd that Allah never seems to miss a Palin hit piece to post for us? Has he missed a single discouraging poll? When there is truly good news for conservatives, does he ever fail to marginalize it by calling it an “obligatory” post? It’s not just me…. BigD, in fact crr6 (one of our trolls) said yesterday that HotAir has become more vitriolic of Palin than the lefty sites. And he’s right, we have, and we have Allah to thank for that.

… this blog has been trending left in its content. Especially with Palin, there’s more vitriol towards her here then at some lefty sites. Sometimes I can come here and the content is indistinguishable from DKos.

crr6 on October 14, 2008 at 7:21 PM

You know, HotAir is suppose to be a rightwing blog, its not the place to constantly deride conservatives.

Maxx on October 15, 2008 at 1:55 PM

AP isn’t a closet liberal; his predilections are pretty clear to people here. He’s kind of a Christopher Hitchens wanna be, which, again, is okay as long as you know understand where he’s coming from.

But I don’t understand why he thinks Buckley should have been allowed to continue at National Review. Plenty of people get fired or leave when they no longer want or agree to toe the company line. Not that NR’s company line is all that clear sometimes ……

[Christopher Buckley's]… opinion was worthy enough to qualify for a weekly column and now suddenly it isn’t because on the binary choice of Obama versus McCain he’s gone the wrong way?

Allahpundit

Here we see Allahpundit full of concern and in a tearful defense of Christopher Buckley who is so far left that he’s actually stated he will vote for Obama. This is what Allah does, he defends lefties and uses his position here at HotAir to constantly demonize real conservatives.

Buckley… who will vote for Obama, is Allah’s kind of conservative. All this while real conservatives like Jerome Corsi are labeled by Allah as a Truther for simply doing an interview on the Alex Jones show.

Allah doesn’t seem to like Ann Coulter either and here is his treatment of Tom Tancredo. I could link lots of examples of Allah defending liberals and mocking conservatives but if you have been reading HotAir for long I don’t need to, you already know it. Allah is a closet liberal, he has nothing but contempt for real conservatives and this includes all readers here at HotAir. He shows us that sneering contempt everyday. Just so you know.

dakine on October 15, 2008 at 12:23 PM

And I suppose you think Obama is an old school democrat like JFK.

However Reagan had one outstanding quality. He never attacked individuals, only systems. That was based upon his innate, biblically based decency.

Reagan denounced the evil empire. He never denounced Gorbachev and thus maintained a relationship with the leader of the evil empire.

It is worth reading Reagan’s writings and speeches. He did not seek to find the good part of liberalism because the definition of liberalism to Reagan meant the antithesis of liberty.

McCain does share to a great degree Reagan’s aversion to attacking people. I wish he had more of Reagan’s willingness to attack the ideas and systems proposed by his opponents as bad, evil, or stupid. That is the missing part of the equation

Palin fills out that part, and she has a lot of the Reagan style, despite the howling of libs to the contrary. In terms of Ayers, he is a terrorist, unrepentant, involved in bombing the Pentagon. Reagan would not have trivialized that connection.

What is the difference between a terrorist who bombs the Pentagon and a KGB agent working to destabilize our system?

KGB agents were employees of the Soviet system, not traitors to their fellow Americans willing to murder living human beings at the Pentagon to alter the politics of a nation

Agreed, sir, and didn’t intend to be condescending.

This whole election bagshoot has me in a surly mood!

SlimyBill on October 15, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Good. Now lets start changing hearts and minds. Lots of work to do.

I’m 42 and old enough to know Reagan. Thanks. I don’t think we disagree. Reagan staked out ideological grounds, (yes I believe the argument in favor of small government is ideological) and brought folks like Moynahan over to the minority Republican side to make a majority. He reached across the aisle to bring liberals over to the conservative side. He often staked out unpopular positions (calling Russia the “evil empire,” SDI, and James Watt “trees pollute” at the EPA), so that he could speak over politicians to communicate directly to the people. He changed peoples minds and hearts. He was not a compromiser, but a game changer.

Angry Dumbo on October 15, 2008 at 11:41 AM

Agreed, sir, and didn’t intend to be condescending.

This whole election bagshoot has me in a surly mood!

But that’s tomorrow. Today let’s all vote for this well spoken fellow who writes such pretty books. So: “Chatterboxes for the Chatterbox in Chief!”

Not to judge a father’s work but no child is serviced by making life easier for their children. He was raised in oppulence and unfortunately absorbed the self-importance of a liberal.

Give me a man who suffers like McCain or a person raised in the normal life of an average American like Palin. I respect their decisions far more than the pampered life of an aristocrat.

WFB was probably raised in greater wealth the Christopher. Though that is what made WFB unusual since most of his fellow Yalies were apologists for big government expansion.

Plain and simple. Reagans “big tent” did not include liberals.

Angry Dumbo on October 15, 2008 at 10:58 AM

Oh yes it did. The difference between Reagan and today’s GOP is that when he reached across the aisle and got bitten, he strode across the aisle and bit back.

“Ouch” was not an acceptable word in his dojo.