Quote of the day
posted at 9:30 pm on January 24, 2009 by Allahpundit
“The Republican Party that is in such disrepute today is not the party of Reagan. It is the party of Rush Limbaugh, of Ann Coulter, of Newt Gingrich, of George W. Bush, of Karl Rove. It is not a conservative party, it is a party built on the blind and narrow pursuit of power.
Not too long ago, conservatives were thought of as the locus of creative thought. Conservative think tanks (full disclosure: I was one of the three founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation) were thought of as cutting-edge, offering conservative solutions to national problems. By the 2008 elections, the very idea of ideas had been rejected. One who listened to Barry Goldwater’s speeches in the mid-’60s, or to Reagan’s in the ’80s, might have been struck by their philosophical tone, their proposed (even if hotly contested) reformulation of the proper relationship between state and citizen. Last year’s presidential campaign, on the other hand, saw the emergence of a Republican Party that was anti-intellectual, nativist, populist (in populism’s worst sense) and prepared to send Joe the Plumber to Washington to manage the nation’s public affairs.”
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 4 Next »
Well,it’s much more than that…Regan was the first President that reminded Americans what the constitution really stood for..them! If you say he was ‘anti-intellectual’ then you’ve got half the story…he was ‘anti-marxist-intellectual’. Big difference. He was one of the most radical, ballsy Presidents in this country’s history…and I loved him for it! Marxism (or intellectualism as the kids call it today) sux ass and he cahunas to say so!
AUINSC on January 25, 2009 at 12:22 AM
ay yi yi…
Noneya on January 25, 2009 at 12:23 AM
well cahunas == cajones…but that would be so intellectual to use the correct, non-phonetic spelling and all…
AUINSC on January 25, 2009 at 12:24 AM
Maybe he’s really upset because he used to be important…?
jgapinoy on January 25, 2009 at 12:25 AM
We have not yet finished construction on the
gulagreeducation camp. Rest assured that when we do your names will be on two of thecellsrooms.DasObamaReich on January 25, 2009 at 12:26 AM
… and the Income Tax, probably the most pernicious contributor to the destruction of the federalist republic. Wilson was one of the first presidents to espouse wealth redistribution and saw the income tax as a means to accomplish that goal. It didn’t get firmly established until the ratification of that horrid amendment and then FDR, but Wilson was an instigator.
AZfederalist on January 25, 2009 at 12:27 AM
When will we learn, Reagan for Americans, represents:
Last Known Good Configuration (your last known settings that worked)
Reagan wasn’t divine and he doesn’t need to be copied we just need real, paleo, Conservative leaders with integrity and a real people connection.
Sometimes I wonder, what the hell do people think of?
Its not one surprise in this world that the Conservative movement is totaly lost in the wilderness if even a Heritage founder and a close Reaganite can’t see a 200 year old road map, plain as the lines in the palm of his hand.
With blindered, confused, broad brush painting friends like this guy, who needs Benito Obama?
Speakup on January 25, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Well, the Soviet Gulags were a much more recent innovation than the United States Constitution….
You want to think the guy’s just intentionally being a jackass, pretending that all he wants are new ideas with absolutely no compunction whatsoever about whether those new ideas happen to be BETTER ideas. I mean, nobody could honestly be THAT dumb, right?
But think about it: how many millions of people voted last November for utterly unelaborated word “change”?
logis on January 25, 2009 at 12:28 AM
DasObamaReich on January 25, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Shiit, I picked the wrong time to open my yap.
Would it matter if I said I have my obligatory Dear Leader lapel pin and my obligatory photo of Dear Leader prominently displayed in the living room?
Bishop on January 25, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Actually at the risk of betraying a professional confidence he has been very upset ever since I told him that his impotence was untreatable except with an organ transplant.
Sigmund on January 25, 2009 at 12:29 AM
I heard nothing, I saw nothing, I know nothing. I was not here. I did not even get up this morning.
OberfeldwebelSchultz on January 25, 2009 at 12:32 AM
Wilson sounds like Obama, come to think of it. He was a former academic with very little political experience (2 years as governor of New Jersey). Speaking of the League of Nations, wasn’t it a predecessor to the United Nations? Probably just as worthless. I can’t stand the way that liberals and even some liberal Republicans act as if the United Nations is the be-all and end-all in foreign policy. The United Nations is impotent, ignorant, and corrupt!
NathanG on January 25, 2009 at 12:33 AM
logis on January 25, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Sure, the same desire for “change” but they can never really say what they want in the way of change, just some ethereal image of everybody being eternally happy without having to worry about the “bad” stuff.
And of course, like the fools who slobber at Ogabe’s name, when the bad stuff doesn’t quite disappear, they screech and whine and complain that we now need newer and better ideas again.
Bishop on January 25, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Most of the important issues of today come down to following the directives of our Constitution. The Founders were pure geniuses (in the real sense of the word, not the silly way people throw it around today) in the way they structured our nation.
The major fight we have today is this:
Democrats – who want the United States to become a Democracy. They worship the Euro-style parliamentary systems. Do you remember how much fun they had holding a couple of “no-confidence” votes against Bush? “No-confidence” votes are parliamentary votes used to bring down a sitting government. We don’t run that way. There is no virtual government to bring down. We have regular elections for permanent positions.
Anyway, Democrats want us to be like that, like the Europeans, with a party-oriented (i.e. collectivist) parliament that has power so ill-separated that it brings them much closer to being a true Democracy.
That’s the one side. The other side is us:
The Republicans. We want the United States to remain a Republic. Not just that, but we want it to remain the Republic as it was defined, and is still defined, in the Constitution. Not a Democracy.
This is the essence of the political chasm. All other ideas will flow from here, with a little logic and good sense applied.
progressoverpeace on January 25, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a motive. Farewell, Mickey.
joewm315 on January 25, 2009 at 12:34 AM
He pay me and Maria 5 dollars a day EACH! to mow his lawn and clean his pool and cook his food and scrub his floors and wash and iron his clothes and lets us and our ninos live in a tent in his back yard for FREE and protects us from the INS!
Similar to the immigrants working at Pelosi’s clutch of vineyards.
Wait…are you union, because her workers are not.
Bishop on January 25, 2009 at 12:36 AM
progressoverpeace on January 25, 2009 at 12:33 AM
I’ve always said, whatever system South Korea and Taiwan have, that’s what we should have.
They argue, swear, insult and then finally the chairs and fists and scissor kicks go flying.
Would you not love to see Mike Pence put the sleeper on Rangel while Cantor flattens Barney Frank with a folding chair to the face?
Bishop on January 25, 2009 at 12:40 AM
Reich,
Will my gulag have broadband? I’m not going without broadband.
Limerick on January 25, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Oh Bishop, if only we could…
with some WWF announcer doing color commentary.
I would PAY to see that.
Skandia Recluse on January 25, 2009 at 12:52 AM
It’s like reading a liberals view on conservatism
Kini on January 25, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Don’t laugh. We’re really going to get to see how strong our governmental structure is, at the very limits. I’ve never seen more positions occupied by talentless retards in my life, not to mention the fact that they’re truly despicable people, too. This descent is going to be pretty swift, and the fighting’s going to be all on the left, I think. Except for a small number, our people are too scared to fight over anything … or “too timid” might be the more appropriate phrase.
progressoverpeace on January 25, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Now THAT would be funny. Add somebody kicking Barbara Boxer and John Conyers’s asses and you have yourself a good rival for Jerry Springer Show.
NathanG on January 25, 2009 at 12:53 AM
I won’t be statisfied until state troopers are putting federal judges in front of the booking cameras. Obstruction of justice, of course.
Limerick on January 25, 2009 at 12:55 AM
And, watching, I suspect Ronald Reagan is smacking himself on the forehead, rolling his eyes and wondering who in the world this Mickey Edwards clown is who wants so desperately to wrap themselves in his cloak.
The Opinionator on January 25, 2009 at 12:56 AM
Er … I kind of messed up that comment.
I meant to say that the Dems are really going to turn our institutions into total jokes, which might even get to fighting, and many of the GOP are going to sit and watch.
progressoverpeace on January 25, 2009 at 12:57 AM
You will have no broadband. Broads of any kind will be strictly verboten for you as that would detract from your much needed reeducation. You will be allowed to wear your very own personal I ♥ Obama tshirt however. We are not without compassion.
DasObamaReich on January 25, 2009 at 12:58 AM
This is the core problem of the article. The Republican party of Reagan’s time was also the party of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Newt Gingrich. George W. Bush and Karl Rove have no relevance to the discussion of the Republican party then, because they were not part of it then.
The writer just names these people that the left loves to hate, but doesn’t tell us what is wrong with them. How have Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or Newt Gingrich departed from the spirit of Reagan? Simply because the left doesn’t like them?
This isn’t analysis: it’s invective. What was anti-intellectual about the Republican campaign? It was the Democratic campaign that concentrated on feel-good, “hope and change” emotional populism, and the writer voted for them! Then he lectures conservatives about being anti-intellectual! He may or may not have a point about being “nativist.” It’s impossible to tell when all you do is throw out the label “nativist” without any details.
Talking about sending “Joe the Plumber” to Washington is just another smear, since no one was proposing that. But it was William Buckley — no anti-intellectual at all! — that said he would rather be ruled by 100 random names from the phonebook than by the faculty of Yale. I’m quite confident that Joe the Plumber would be a better Congressman or Senator than Cynthia McKinney or Robert Byrd.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on January 25, 2009 at 12:58 AM
Hot diggity damn! Survivor-Beltway!
Limerick on January 25, 2009 at 12:58 AM
I would love to see the likes of John Conyers and all of these other “Impeach Bush” jerks have this done to them:
NathanG on January 25, 2009 at 12:58 AM
progressoverpeace on January 25, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Yah, while I can dream of the Congress suddenly having it at Braveheart style, the actual combustion will be less dramatic, though the results on the public will be severe.
Ogabe isn’t going to wait, he knows that every action of his is being scrutinized by a temporarily forgiving public which can turn on him in an instant. His 100 day plan is going to be plenty scary.
Bishop on January 25, 2009 at 12:58 AM
I responded to this piece on the Rush Limbaugh thread, too, and when Limbaugh’s response to Obama’s attack was posted, he hit on some of the things I’d written, as well as others.
But is Barack Obama calling for “better management of government, for wiser decisions,” or is he Carter redux? It seems the latter more than the former. Reagan would most certainly disapprove of American taxpayers funding abortions internationally, including in communist China where they are forced by an oppressive government.
Obama’s tax cuts are the opposite of supply-side economics. He proposes to raise marginal rates for just about every federal tax. He also proposes a raft of tax credits that taxpayers can receive if they engage in various government-specified activities. He is proposing to create or expand a slew of government spending programs that are disguised as tax credits. The spending on these programs is then subtracted from the total tax burden, in order to make the claim that his tax plan is a net tax cut overall.
With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity.
Reagan cut domestic spending drastically as President. But the Obama economic plan is so much like Carter’s, he even has the same Fed chairman Paul Volcker.
Rush, Coulter and Rove oppose Obama strictly on policy, and any conservative should. I just don’t get where this Mickey Edwards guy is coming from. If Obama believed in American exceptionalism, I would support him. Instead he behaved like an ass at his inauguration, apologized for our country to Europeans while he campaigned, and his first words at officially taking office were, “Let’s REMAKE America.” He has made it clear how post-partisan his administration will be, and he has yet to advocate a remotely conservative plan.
He is a blatantly Keynesian economist, a corrupt politician who is extremely liberal, the most pro-abortion President since Woodrow Wilson and weak on national defense. I know I am preaching to the choir, but I felt this needs repeating over and over and especially in defense of Rush Limbaugh.
If the opposition has singled him out, maybe we need to rally around our few voices of patriotic dissent and listen to Rush more. For the record, conservatives have provided alternative solutions to the bailouts since the financial crisis hit. The Republican party should dig in their heels, fight the Democratic party’s dubious plans, grab a mike and explain their opposition like Boehner just did and propose workable alternatives. We should not just lay down. Reagan would certainly never have supported that.
chunderroad on January 24, 2009 at 1:02 PM
chunderroad on January 25, 2009 at 12:59 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Djdy_fhvZuM&feature=related
NathanG on January 25, 2009 at 12:59 AM
Since when is Mickey Edwards an Obamabot? If he thinks anything about The One is conservative, he is past his sell by date
The Opinionator on January 25, 2009 at 1:00 AM
You will be allowed to wear your very own personal I ♥ Obama tshirt however
Better than a plastic bag stretched over the head.
Where is Dith Pran when you need him?
Bishop on January 25, 2009 at 1:00 AM
I’ll take Ann Coulter over Mickey Edwards any day
TheMightyQuinn on January 25, 2009 at 1:01 AM
According to Tavis Smiley everything you just wrote about SS economics is an urban myth (See Tavis Smiley show 1-22-09). A NYTs reporter told him so for thirty minutes.
Gravitas!
Limerick on January 25, 2009 at 1:02 AM
George Bush was a Rockefeller Republican, and so was W. The reason Bush was Reagan’s VP was to unite the famous coalition and bring everyone into the tent. But then Reagan finished his two terms, and the party stayed together out of political comfort. W ruined that, unfortunately.
chunderroad on January 25, 2009 at 1:03 AM
Or Maxine Waters, or John Murtha, or Charlie Rangel…the list is huge. But those are intellectual leading lights, I guess. *yawn*
ddrintn on January 25, 2009 at 1:04 AM
Just remember all of you in the Democrat Party, the President and his friends in
Pravdathe media–no one likes to be buried alive. Laugh now, cry later.smellthecoffee on January 25, 2009 at 1:04 AM
^ I wonder how many in the Republican party were saying pretty much the same things in 1977? I was alive then, but far too young to be politically aware.
ddrintn on January 25, 2009 at 1:05 AM
I wonder how many in the Republican party were saying pretty much the same things in 1977? I was alive then, but far too young to be politically aware.
ddrintn on January 25, 2009 at 1:05
It took a Carter to get a Reagan.
If we got Ogabe, the next GOP President better be larger than life.
Bishop on January 25, 2009 at 1:12 AM
This disaster of a Republican Party is the party of McCain and his coattails, period. I don’t know of any conservatives except for myself who could bring themselves to vote for the clown. I couldn’t convince them to vote so they stayed at home, and they won’t be voting for Crist, Graham, Barney Frank or whomever this LA Times guy wants Republicans to nominate in 2012.
I suggest that the RNC unfreaks their primary system so that Democrats will not be able to saddle us with another loser in 2012 or loser congressional nominees in 2010.
Buddahpundit on January 25, 2009 at 1:13 AM
Plenty scary is right. But the first 100 days are only going to be the prelude. I don’t think people have any inkling of the idiots they voted in and how it’s going to play out.
progressoverpeace on January 25, 2009 at 1:15 AM
I think we can all agree though that the rise of the accommodating “moderate” Republican party these last few years has been an abject failure, no?
There is certainly room for moderates in the Republican party, but letting them lead the party is a recipe for disaster.
18-1 on January 25, 2009 at 1:19 AM
progressoverpeace on January 25, 2009 at 1:15 AM
So will the first 100 days be the enactment of his agenda, and then the house and senate take over with theirs? The dems see the road as straight and wide, with not a stoplight to be seen.
The way Ogabe is moving now, 100 days will see us getting hammered on a regular basis by outrageous decisions; I’m understating things to say I’m worried as hell about what will start on day 101.
Bishop on January 25, 2009 at 1:20 AM
Scary?
Holder won’t be scary. Well except to bloggers and gun owners, 6 year old refugees and old ladies who won’t sell their homes so a casino can be built.
Limerick on January 25, 2009 at 1:20 AM
This is extremely important…
Try to get rid of open primaries and give a solid conservative state the first primary vote.
18-1 on January 25, 2009 at 1:21 AM
I don’t know of any conservatives except for myself who could bring themselves to vote for the clown.
It’s ok, I voted for him too, though afterward I sat in my truck and toyed with a loaded pistol. No doubt that 2008 was a banner year for political freakshows, from Ogabe to McCain to Franken.
It seems like our choices are dwindling to those weirdos who wear stupid slogan shirts on the ‘Price is Right’ and act like spastics when they win a rattan patio set.
Bishop on January 25, 2009 at 1:26 AM
Limerick on January 25, 2009 at 1:02 AM
Even though the Arabs were saying the samde thing in the fourteenth c. But then they gave us the 0, too. LOL.
chunderroad on January 25, 2009 at 1:31 AM
Dear God
Allah YOU ARE WRONG the gate keeper/rallyers are not the problem it is our so called republican represenatives that thought
-RECORD GOVERNMENT EXPANSION
-RECORD GOVERNMENT DEFICITS
-EVER EXPANDING GOVERNMENT REGULATION/CONTROL
-EARMARKS
-PORK
-WASTE
-BRIDGES TO NO WHERE
-OUTRIGHT THEFT/BRIBERY
-HELL LETS THROW IN MAN LOVE/KIDDIE F*CKIN
whooo breath did it end why hell NO its the “war” or its the “X gate keepers comments”….
2008
-F*CKIT GO FOR BROKE AND NATIONALIZE THE ENTIRE UPPER ECHELON OF THE US ECONOMY
a) BIGGEST INSURANCE COMPANY
b) 1ST & 2ND LARGEST MORTGAGE HOLDERS
c) ALL THE REST OF THE MAJOR MTG COMPANIES
d) BIG THREE AUTO COMPANIES
NO ALLAH ITS NOT WHAT IS LEFT OF THE republican party ITS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT THOUGHT OUT SOCIALIZING DEMOCRAT/SOCIALIST WAS A GOOD IDEA.
When the US common folk were given the choice of Dem or wanna-be-d/Repub the dem leaning showed up and the repub/conservative leaning didn’t. SURPRISE SURPRISE
C-Low on January 25, 2009 at 1:41 AM
I think it will just get progressively worse. I’m most worried about amnesty and the environmental stuff (the “bankrupt the coal industry” type). I consider both of those to be real nation-killer issues. I don’t think they will be in the first 100 days, though it’s hard to know what anyone has in mind. It’s tough predicting irrational people and we don’t know how far McCain and his pet, Lindsay, will go on the global warming cr#pola.
The best hope we have, I think, that they get bogged down. I am praying that it goes over like Clinton’s first two years, where they couldn’t get anything done for all the fighting. They say mid-February for this insane “stimulus” (we shouldn’t even allow them to use that word to describe it), but, hopefully they take much more time arguing about it.
But I just see them getting bolder and crazier with every move they make, the same way that the bailout/stimulus/waste bills have just grown without shame or bound.
progressoverpeace on January 25, 2009 at 1:45 AM
From where I’m standing Joe couldn’t have done much worse. I bet he has enough common sense to realize that when you’re broke you don’t spend money on abortions in foreign nations.
DFCtomm on January 25, 2009 at 1:47 AM
This is so true! Here we are in a crisis and the Clowns are aiding foreign Countries! Look at all the money we gave Africa. That steams me about all Pres. is they give all this money to help out Countries that don’t care and the money doesn’t go to what it is suppose to go for.
sheebe on January 25, 2009 at 1:54 AM
You know, I believe in being the party of ideas, but it’s probably most important to be the party of common sense. You don’t raise taxes in a recession, you don’t spend unnecessarily in a recession, you don’t put terrorists who attacked soldiers on trial in regular courts, you negotiate with enemies only when they’re interested in negotiations, and watch out for those who want to tie you up in negotiations while they continue to build nuclear weapons.
All these things really don’t require brilliance. They require someone with common sense.
I’m not interested in putting Joe the Plumber on a pedestal, but he would probably be a better president than some of those we’ve had. If you doubt that, I have just one word for you: Carter.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on January 25, 2009 at 1:55 AM
And I didn’t mention lets get ready for the now “opposition party” to bow and sign off on a Obama Socialist/Democrat MASSIVE MULTI TRILLION SPENDING SPREE even above the already TRILLION + d-repub spending spending spree.
C-Low on January 25, 2009 at 1:57 AM
progressoverpeace on January 25, 2009 at 1:45 AM
I guess we shall see how the old guard and the fabled blue dogs work with one another. The county map of the nation for who voted Ogabe gives me hope that those constituencies will have sway over nervous dems; they voted blue in 2006 for conservative democrats but ran like hell from Ogabe in 2008.
The GOP isn’t the only party enduring an internecine fight, there are those in the DFL who aren’t comfortable with the lurch being promised by a President who says something as potentially damaging as “I won”. Hubris is going to cost him, hopefully very soon into his tenure.
Bishop on January 25, 2009 at 1:58 AM
I sure hope so Bishop. If people cannot realize that The Top Clown is a dangerous man with a Narcissistic child mind. That lied, cheated and stole the election. He also got money from other Countries. He hasn’t produced nothing to prove he went to College, or just prove he is a US citizen. He probably is. But what is his problem? Then they will say we are racist because all Presidents had to turn certain Documents over. And also, he is not a Whole Black man. He is a half breed.
sheebe on January 25, 2009 at 2:05 AM
You know what is truly eating at the GOP elite. It’s the thought, that in this party turmoil we are currently experiencing, the “Average Joe” might actually succeed, for a while, in gaining control of their beloved party. Palin, Joe, and many of us are all guilty of blasphemy, and we must be put in our place, and our place is to be seen, on the first Tuesday in November, and not be heard.
DFCtomm on January 25, 2009 at 2:13 AM
Wait until they find out we are ‘Moonwatcher’.
Have Bone, Will Travel
Limerick on January 25, 2009 at 2:16 AM
the party of Rush Limbaugh, of Ann Coulter, of Newt Gingrich, of George W. Bush, of Karl Rove
Yeah, there’s a single cohesive and clear connection there for a viewpoint… if you’re psychotic.
If you’re a rational human you realize that you’ve just hit a shotgun scatter across the Republican spectrum and are now spending an inordinate amount of time trying to tie these disparate parts together to defend an idiotic proposition… At least I assume that’s what he was doing.
With the benefit of knowing that idiocy was present somewhere in the article I can pretty safely ignore it as useless and pointless drivel.
gekkobear on January 25, 2009 at 2:23 AM
You mean the guy that’s oppossed to redistribution of wealth? Nope, didn’t get him, we got Mr. Spending another trillion dollars we don’t have and if you question him on it you’re a racist.
Thanks, I hadn’t run into a moron all day and I was having withdrawl symptoms…..
Hog Wild on January 25, 2009 at 2:28 AM
that’s right, only the uneducated should be allowed. knowing things is sooo overrated.
Xolom on January 25, 2009 at 2:31 AM
So the “Average Joe’s” of the world are all uneducated and ignorant? Apparently, in your world, the “elites” are the only ones who know anything, and the rest should shut up and let them run things.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on January 25, 2009 at 2:44 AM
You’re missing the point big guy. I don’t look down upon the ivy league educated, it’s the ivy league educated that look down upon me, and mine.
DFCtomm on January 25, 2009 at 2:45 AM
And JFK, Harry Truman, FDR might be horrified at what the Democratic Party has become. I know I am.
Geez, do these people EVER take a good look at themselves?
JimC on January 25, 2009 at 2:50 AM
You have Mr. Edwards here busting Joe’s chops, and he’s not the only one, but I haven’t heard Joe utter a bad word about the well educated. I imagine that if given the chance he would want his son to attend an ivy league school, parents are funny like that.
You make the mistake, and Mr. Edwards as well, of assuming we have something against the educated, and we don’t, it’s the educated that have something against us. We simply want them to stop talking for just a minute, and listen. They are currently dismayed because, thanks to the disaster they have orchestrated, they may actually have to do just that.
DFCtomm on January 25, 2009 at 3:12 AM
No, the means of delivery was rejected, due to the failure of the once “cutting edge” conservative institutions to adapt to mass communication and compete in the changing, sound-bite, Googlized, Twittered American culture against a well-organized, well-funded brigade of leftist institutions created to defeat them. The elitists sat on their accolades, sang to the choir and never bothered to realize their message was not reaching the populace.
Led by first and foremost by John McCain, a fossilized protege of Goldwater, who is apparently incapable of abstract thought, and about as adept at articulating a philosophical or complex idea as my dog.
The parade has passed Mickey Edwards and his cohorts by, and rather than admit they have allowed themselves to sink into irrelevance, they lash out at the only people currently capable of reaching the masses. As imperfect as some of those spokespeople might be, they at least have an audience and are able to keep hope alive, for now.
Unless and until Edwards and his cohorts figure out how to rekindle the flame of conservatism from their ivory towers, they would do well to remember how fond William F. Buckley, one of the greatest minds of his generation, was of Rush Limbaugh.
Nichevo on January 25, 2009 at 5:23 AM
Lot’s of Republicans running around today yelling “We Matter! We Matter!” Well, actually you no longer do! You control NOTHING! The democrats control everything!
You use to matter. We the people sent you to Washington to control the size of government, to protect the sanctity of life and to protect this nation, including our borders. You failed at every turn. You became drunk on power, exploded the size and scope of government. You became RINO’s, you never even brought up Abortion for a vote and our borders are an open door for crime lords of the south. Well now you can sit for awhile until some new and real conservative leaders emerge because you aint it! Any of you that shilled for John McCain are dead to us!
sabbott on January 25, 2009 at 5:30 AM
And as for pointy headed Ivy League conservatives…go join the Democratic Party. That is where you belong anyway. The conservative movement has no room for elitism by effete east cost snobs more interested in their last pedicure and their weekly game of squash with Poindexter at “the club” than in real people working real jobs in real America!
sabbott on January 25, 2009 at 5:38 AM
I don’t know if it’s been mentioned already, but this could explain Mr. Edwards’ politics as well as the LA Times article:
Bilby on January 25, 2009 at 6:04 AM
What an idiot. Bush and rove are not conservatives and Coulter and Limbaugh are ignored by the leaders of the republican party. The main thing that sticks out about this article is not the content it’s the lesson that should be learned from it. All Americans need to understand that success has nothing to do with intelligence, integrity or principle. Just because this guy or algore or john boehner for that matter have had success in politics does not mean they are intelligent. There are successful pimps and thieves in this country who have never been arrested and are rolling in money. Does that mean they are intelligent and can tell the rest of us how to run our lives and who to vote for. paris hilton, lindsy lohan and britney spears are successful. I’ve watched oprah on occassion and not only have never heard a profound word out of her mouth but have heard her say lots of stupid things and she is argueably the most successful person living in this country. The cult of personality has taken over the national consciousness and we may never have reasonable, intelligent leadership in this country again.
peacenprosperity on January 25, 2009 at 7:37 AM
is that, who cares who this once worked for?! He is one individual with one biased opinion.
And that opinion is idiotic.
peacenprosperity on January 25, 2009 at 7:39 AM
Actually AP, here is the quote of the day from that piece.
So in so far as the American people have defaulted on their responsibility to replace members that displease us such as Murtha, Pelosi, Rangel, Dodd, on the Democrat side and folks like Specter, Graham, McCain, Snowe on the Republican side we have gotten exactly the type of government we deserve and have in fact sent the message that that is the people we want making decisions for us.
I will admit when I saw the article was in the LA Times I hadn’t wasted my time reading it, so your inclusion of the paragraph which included the bit about this guy being a former member of the Heritage Foundation made me go read it.
Still the piece rambles and is another one which points fingers in all directions without really making a point.
People are products of their environments, and it would appear he has been in California long enough to now have his thinking tainted by the west coast point of view.
I belong to that group in flyover or ignore country that lives on neither coast, who feels I have nobody with a voice representing me in Washington. It seems the only people values represented are those in NYC and California and the rest of us be damned. Not saying there aren’t people in Washington who represent these views, just saying they don’t have a voice and are ignored.
Just A Grunt on January 25, 2009 at 7:44 AM
peacenprosperity – I second that. The other problem is that people falsely assume that all talented people are also intelligent. I only have to say “Alec Baldwin” to make my point.
Pelayo on January 25, 2009 at 8:02 AM
How does who this guy voted for make his points any less accurate?
Attacking an agenda is not attacking evidence. In other words, play the ball, not the man.
cyclosarin on January 25, 2009 at 8:18 AM
What we have here is the people who mourned the Reagan Revolution and wish to “restore” the Republican Party to the “Glory Days” of Nelson Rockefeller and Alf Landon. Wow that 50 years of being the minority in Congress sure moved the country along, didn’t it?
Looks like with the same ilk running the Party of John McLib the dems will get another 50 years…only this time they want to make it permanent.
Good Plan.
/sarc
olmojoe on January 25, 2009 at 8:32 AM
Pardon my french, but that sonofabitch had better be speaking for himself, ’cause he f’ing sure is not speaking for me. I stand for ideas, and so does everybody I know.
philwynk on January 25, 2009 at 8:35 AM
off topic,
Gran Torino was Awesome! Go see it everyone.
rob verdi on January 25, 2009 at 8:36 AM
I’m trying to figure out why it seems to him that “At the current time, government is the problem” was true when the government was X size, but is not true when the government is 2X size. What’s changed about government, in his mind, that makes it any more functional now than it was when it was demolishing the economy 30 years ago?
Maybe it’s Mr. Edwards who has changed.
philwynk on January 25, 2009 at 8:38 AM
Leave Goldwater out of the bashing if you haven’t even read the guy.
And what about Hannity, Pat Buchanan and Dick Morris? They should be included, too.
IlikedAUH2O on January 25, 2009 at 8:41 AM
After The One put our economy in ‘all systems on the ground’ mode, Republicans will have a great opportunity. They just can’t allow the Dems to blame President Bush forever.
IlikedAUH2O on January 25, 2009 at 8:44 AM
Ok,”puts our economy”. Sorry.
IlikedAUH2O on January 25, 2009 at 8:45 AM
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on January 25, 2009 at 12:58 AM
This is a great thread! Bravo to all… This comment by ThereGoesTheNeighborhood nails reality pretty dang good.
The comments made by Allah Pundit are very revealing. Throwing Coulter & Limbaugh in the same mix with Gingrich is just plain wrong. Limbaugh has a great deal of respect for GW Bush, but has pointed out that Bush is not a Conservative on a regular basis for several years now. I don’t remember Limbaugh ever praising Gingrich in any way for recent accomplishments; maybe for his efforts back in the 90′s. Both Coulter & Limbaugh preach Conservatism, and have been consistent for many years.
I have to wonder why the attacks against those leading the Conservative movement include the likes of AP, and so many former mouths of the Republican Party. History shows us that when a politician runs on a Conservative platform, that politician wins. If that politician governs on a Conservative platform, the people also win. Coulter and Limbaugh are not responsible for the GOP moving away from Conservative principles.
Several blue-dog Democrats won elections recently by running to the right of Republicans; running on solid Conservative principles. What part of that reality are you missing AP?
Keemo on January 25, 2009 at 8:50 AM
The Republican party of Reagan is indeed gone. However, the last vestiges of that party reside in the hearts and minds of Limbaugh and Coulter. Rove, Bush and now even Gingrich have abandoned the conservative principles articulated by Ronaldus Magnus.
This guy is is fool to equate Limbaugh Coulteer and the others. Limited government, free market capitalism, an enduring moral order, prescription, tradition, individual responsibility, prudence, liberty – THESE are the core values of Reagan.
And today I am aware of NO politician who reflects such a world view. Certainly NOT Bush, Rove or even the apostate Gingrich who abandoned all pretense of conservatism with his embrace of the global warming fantasy.
Charles Martel on January 25, 2009 at 8:51 AM
My his own admission, Mickey Edwards is delusional.
maverick muse on January 25, 2009 at 8:58 AM
Whats to stop this “limited boundary government” from controlling the people?
Face it. If it is a large, cumbersome government, they will do what they want. It is the food chain.
If the government is physically small and limited, there is not much they can do.
blatantblue on January 25, 2009 at 9:02 AM
“One prong of the Great Unifier’s plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. . . . Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.”
Plus this: “600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That’s fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will.”
President Obama is willing to talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions. But Rush Limbaugh? “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” America, we have met the enemy and he is some fat guy in Florida.
Why shouldn’t Republicans listen to Rush? Consider the latest WaP/ABC poll with this buried gem:
19. Generally speaking, would you say you favor (smaller government with fewer services), or (larger government with more services)?
The answer, it turns out, is that even in the current environment, post-Katrina and in the midst of the worst economy since the last bad economy (OK, 1982), 53% of the respondents plumped for “smaller government with fewer services”, in contrast with 43% backing expanded government.
Keemo on January 25, 2009 at 9:07 AM
UGH here we go again:
The party is anti ILLEGAL immigration not nativist.
The party is anti-elite twit limousine liberals, not anti-intellectual.
And many would send Joe the Plumber to DC, because he actually understands that when Obama plans on “spreading the wealth around” that’s a bad thing.
angryed on January 25, 2009 at 9:16 AM
FDR hijacked the Democrat Party to absorb the Progressive Party.
Learn from their own corruption how to conserve our own conservatism.
Do not obsess over what others say beyond taking criticism for what it’s worth.
To hell with RINOs.
Eject McCain; elect JR Hayworth.
WTF with Kay Baily Hutchison coming home to roost without making her arrangements with Perry to switch jobs instead of ripping the TX GOP apart.
As per completely renouncing Gingrich for selling out to Gorism, recognize Gingrich’s character flaw as an opportunist whose lust for money/power ruined him. There is nothing pure about politics. A fight is a fight, and it benefits survival to have the advantage of knowledge. Gingrich could tutor many a young conservative newly elected if he cared to share his knowledge of Congressional political manipulation. Conservatives, utilize Gingrich’s sharp edge that slices through opposing arguments like butter.
maverick muse on January 25, 2009 at 9:19 AM
GINGRICH burnt a television “journalist” for attempting to criticize Palin’s experience at the GOP Convention, leaving Obama’s empty resume in ashes.
maverick muse on January 25, 2009 at 9:22 AM
Mickey Edwards is on the ‘Bash Conservatives’ fascist bandwagon along with the rest of the MSM. No surprise.
Grow some thick skin, or buy/apply some nu-skin while you learn to deflect abuse.
For now, concentrate on helping a conservative politician.
maverick muse on January 25, 2009 at 9:31 AM
On big gov Bush:
Medicare: I know many didn’t like the idea of medicare prescriptions that GW signed on too. But I have noticed that since it has been implemented the rate of increase in overall medicare has slowed.
Deficits: GW ran big deficits. Well wars are expensive, and there was no decrease in domestic and/or discretionary spending.
Bailouts: I have a bad feeling about this one, I think Bush was hoodwinked by Paulsen and was
convincedtricked by him to do the $700 billion bailout. As it turns out Paulsen is personal friends with Barney Frank. Need I say more? (ref Fortune mag)Dasher on January 25, 2009 at 9:36 AM
I remember it well. It was classic Gingrich!!
Dasher on January 25, 2009 at 9:37 AM
I have been thinking of these edicts -pronouncements “The One” has been making about Rush, and telling the GOP to stop listening to him. Does that mean that President Obama is now not just the Leader of the Democrat Party but also the Republican Party? I also remember what he said about Don Imus, when asked if he should be fired “He wouldn’t be working for me if he said, something like that” or words to that effect. So “The One” isn’t crazy about The First Amendment, Free Speech, and Freedom of Expression…hmmm imagine someone who has the media humping his every word doesn’t want any outlet for dissenting point of view. There has been a theme running through Obama’s campaign, that is carrying over into his Administration. Obama: I control what can be said and by who…really? Is that how it works in America now?
Dr Evil on January 25, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Mickey E…. using the name Reagan to try to destroy any future hope of Reagan’s conservatism is always amusing.
Would Reagan have voted for Obama?
*spit*
profitsbeard on January 25, 2009 at 9:57 AM
The one thing that is spot on about the article is this: the GOP is definitely anti intellectual and everything that flows from it.
Science? Evil.
Art? Evil.
Competent Economics? Evil.
Civil Rights? Evil
Ronnie was the first President I remember clearly, and he was FOR all those things. Reagan also had an amnesty package and expanded the size of government.
Krydor on January 25, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Being late to this post, I’ll just add that isn’t it a sad state of affairs when Joe makes more common sense with his one question to Obama than most of the other representatives we’ve sent to Washington lately? Where are the Gingrich’s, the Henry Hide’s?
Rovin on January 25, 2009 at 10:12 AM
That’s just poetic license. If he had come out and directly said, “I am now going to exhume Ronald Reagan’s corpse, stick my hand up its butt and use it as a meat puppet to espouse my own retarded opinion…” then even the most flaming moderates would eventually figure out what he’s doing.
As we all know, only conservatives are “stupid” and “evil” enough to say exactly what they mean. Liberals must always lie – because they care about goodness more than normal people do.
logis on January 25, 2009 at 10:17 AM
I found an excellent response to the Edwards op-ed here
Bernadette on January 25, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »