Quote of the day
posted at 10:30 pm on March 4, 2009 by Allahpundit
“‘We’ve tried, Mr. President,’ I explained. ‘But there are unsavory elements within the party who keep bringing them back in.’
My reference, obviously, was to the self-styled luminaries of ‘populism’ who hang like a millstone around the Republican neck — the Sarah Palins, the Plumbing Joes, the Bobby Jindals, the Rush Limbaughs, the motley middlebrow state college pretenders to the conservative throne. A shared contempt for these arriviste oafs unites the Nassau summitteers perhaps even more than our shared fondness for a snifter of well-behaved armagnac VSOP. I have made no secret of my feelings about la Palin and her grim brood of ill-mannered snowbillies, as well that horrid toilet tinkerer from from Toledo whose fifteen minutes have somehow refused to expire. The recent emergence of Bobby Jindal and Rush Limbaugh in the intraparty maelstrom yet affords fresh opportunities for conservative dismality.”
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 Next »
pretender: claimant of an abolished throne or one occupied by someone else.
It’s unclear whether the claimed throne has been abolished or is still in existance.
unclesmrgol on March 5, 2009 at 1:17 AM
I’ve only seen a few of your posts, but you really sound like an Axelrod-bot. You give faint praise to some unnamed general theme and then go on to bash every practitioner. Very odd. And it has a very unnatural … contrived feel to it.
progressoverpeace on March 5, 2009 at 1:19 AM
Levin has kids on his show all the time and is always kind to them. That’s just his nature.
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 1:19 AM
katy on March 5, 2009 at 1:15 AM
LOL. But I can’t do that in the middle of the day or on the drive home.
TexasJew
Yes, I think a lot of young people voted against McCain and fell for the hopey changey speak. That should be obvious now that we are here with the Democrats running Congress and the White House.
mph on March 5, 2009 at 1:20 AM
katy on March 5, 2009 at 1:15 AM
Wow. I was thinking the same thing.
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 1:21 AM
Well you may think I’m not very bright and maybe I’m not. But I vote. And I know a lot of young people who vote. And I (a 50 ish woman) and they (30 ish voters) are turned off by Rush. And either you are trying to win elections or you are lying. Limbaugh speaks to the true base but apparently that wasn’t enough to win the elections. So maybe we should be more open minded and try to appeal to a broader audience? Not saying you have to compromise your principles.. but he is not a good marketing tool as is. I think he is very smart and has a lot to offer but I would prefer it if he offered it in a more palatable way.
mph on March 5, 2009 at 1:05 AM
So rush impacted your vote in Nov? or maybe you got suckered into the hope and change? Ask 10 people and 9 will tell you there is not a dimes worth of difference between Rep in power and dems in power in DC. Ask those same people if there is a difference between Rush and Obama and 9 out of 10 will tell you yes.
We are not in a battle of policy we are in a battle of ideas. If we lose that battle people will vote for those that tell them they will give them the most. The rep will lose that vote 100% of the time for the simple reason that rep by and large are the producers in this country. The capitalists if you will. The only way reps will win is if we show the people that the destruction of wealth hurts them just as much as the rich. To do that we do not broaden our appeal to bribe more people. We promote freedom and Rush does that 100% of the time.
unseen on March 5, 2009 at 1:22 AM
I think young people tended toward liberalism even before our school system devolved into indoctrination centers. An articulate conservative leader could bolster our youth support but the youth vote is not a valid indicator of conservatisms value.
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 1:25 AM
progressoverpeace on March 5, 2009 at 1:19 AM
I am not contriving anything. I’m afraid that we are going to lose again in 10 and 12 and then what? We can spend the next two, four years bashing the Frums and praising Rush but i think it won’t get us anywhere. Sorry, I really don’t mean to be umm unnatural. I just think that there has to be someone out there who can be conservative and get elected. We can bash Frum all night (and we have) but we need someone electable. Apparently a lot of people like Rush but they either didn’t vote or there are not enough of them.
mph on March 5, 2009 at 1:27 AM
Does that mean I’m as nutty as you?…
katy on March 5, 2009 at 1:28 AM
VAn Voorhees IV? Didn’t he go to cow college with Keith Olbermann?
andycanuck on March 5, 2009 at 1:31 AM
unseen on March 5, 2009 at 1:22 AM
well you may think it a battle of ideas but those ideas are rapidly becoming policy in Washington. Its a battle of policies – taxation, abortion, carbon credits, etc.
mph on March 5, 2009 at 1:34 AM
You have the dossier?
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 1:36 AM
mph on March 5, 2009 at 1:27 AM
I don’t understand how Rush played any part with McCain’s appeal to the voter profile you’re talking about.
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 1:38 AM
The Frum-Levin cage match deserved its own thread, looks like. Thanks, FloatingRock, for linking it.
I despise Frum, but I do think he means well – I think he sees himself as heroically struggling to save the conservative movement, the country, the world, etc. He’s a visionary in his own way. What he manifestly lacks is the ability to see how damned offensive his behavior is. You can’t get very far with your crusade for some supposedly more civilized or thoughtful or refined or in any event higher form of politics if you constantly insult and trash the other side. Instead of treating Limbaugh and criticizing his ideas and what he represents, he resorts to cheap and easy, merely symbolic and therefore shallow and therefore deeply hypocritical treatment of Limbaugh’s appearance, personal history, etc. He did the exact same thing, over and over, seemingly compulsively, with Sarah Palin, and to make matters worse, he doesn’t in such a way as to insult and condescend to everyone who responds positively to Limbaugh or Palin.
Same thing with Brooks, same thing with Douthat, same thing with Noonan, same thing with Parker: It’s not just that they’re pushing something the rest of us disagree with, they’re obviously too dense and self-involved to realize how clumsy and offensive their laughable smart act is.
CK MacLeod on March 5, 2009 at 1:40 AM
No! I thought you had it?
katy on March 5, 2009 at 1:42 AM
I still don’t get what you’re trying to say – aside from the fact that you are definitely against bashing Frum, against praising Rush, and you think that there’s not a worthy conservative out there, electable, at least. I have no idea where you’re going with this, which is why I said that it sounds contrived, to me. I cannot see what is animating your argument.
progressoverpeace on March 5, 2009 at 1:44 AM
Oh, rim shot, Salty. No fear of testosterone here. Don’t watch friends. No idea who Terry Gross is. The BP is from Levin constantly going off on a rant. Its more about Levin than the topic or the guest. After a while you mature and realize that you have to show some control and make your point intelligently. Like a grown up. If you want to be effective. And for conservative Republicans that is going to take more than talk radio.
mph on March 5, 2009 at 1:46 AM
It’s their way of appealing to the left.
They have no idea how their sycophantic ramblings are doing zilch to expand the party.
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 1:50 AM
katy on March 5, 2009 at 1:42 AM
Have you been drinking?
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 1:51 AM
I don’t despise Frum … I don’t even dislike him, though he annoys me to no end, but I agree with the rest of your assessment.
He has poor social skills, really.
I think that they are lashing out because they realize that they’re not as smart as they thought they were and, even worse, they realize that others know it, too. They don’t really mean to be as nasty as they have been, but that’s a function of their intellectual limitations and their emotional reactions to the shock of their voices fading quickly in the conservative world.
progressoverpeace on March 5, 2009 at 1:51 AM
progressoverpeace on March 5, 2009 at 1:44 AM
Who is electable in 10 and 12? That’s the point. Maybe I’m off topic on this post. But it seems that we are so busy defending Rush that we can’t admit that maybe, just maybe Frum has a legitimate point this one time. If we want to win elections and get control of Congress and the White House back we can’t put all of our eggs in Rush’s basket. Great, a lot of people like him. But a lot don’t and we may need someone else to represent the party who can bring in votes from other demographics.
mph on March 5, 2009 at 1:54 AM
Rush is anchored in conservative absolutes and Frum, Brooks et al are floating around in modern progressive think garbage.
-We need to find a way to appeal to younger voters.
-We need to find ways to deal with all the social issues of the day.
-We need to do something about the environmental challenges.
Bullhocky!
Build the party (from the foundational principles of our founding fathers) and they will come. Use every opportunity to teach those principles, what they are, what they look like in action, live them, and ,most important… teach how they contrast to the crap that is being taught now. See it’s easy!
katy on March 5, 2009 at 1:55 AM
Please make your point.
Cause all I hear is the same old lackluster criticisms of Rush (or Levin), the man, and not conservatism, the ideology.
McCain lost the election. Not Rush or Levin.
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 1:56 AM
Holy friggin crap. I almost soiled myself when I read that!
There is so much great stuff Iowahawk has written over the last couple of years, like the Idiossy: Adventures of Obamacles, and all of the mortgage and housing market expertise of David Burge party animal. One of my absolute favorites was from the primary season when he really skewered Hugh Hewitt for his blatant man-love crush on Romney. A sample? I thought you would never ask!
That is sooo classic! Beautiful electric cobra-panther. That phrase is seared, seared into my memory.
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 2:01 AM
I don’t think anybody was suggesting we should put all of our eggs in Rush’s basket, at least not unless it was a reaction to the vitriol of people like Frum. That being the case, what would you have us do, stop listening to Rush? Support the fairness doctrine? Embrace liberalism like Frum?
No conservative, whether they want Rush leading the party or not, is going to go along with that, and if the likes of Frum insist on a fight, Rush is going to win. Frum is only harming his cause to liberalize conservatism.
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 2:01 AM
This use of the moniker “progressives” when refering to the Leftist dogmas has got to stop. They stole it form the rightful owners.
The principles laid out in the DOI is progressive thought, and we should take it back from them and wear that label proudly.
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 2:02 AM
Looks like Rush will make another new cycle again tomorrow. The Politico article just went up on the headline at Drudge.
Seems the war room is burning the midnight oil again.
katy on March 5, 2009 at 2:06 AM
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 1:56 AM
Make YOUR point. What do you recommend the Republican party do to gain back Congress in 2010? You think Rush is gonna do that for ya? Levin? The only ones listening to them are their already committed bases. And that was not enough. That is the point. They are not going to deliver the votes. They are committed conservatives who hold our principles. Great. Now who can add to the base? Because Rush just turned a whole bunch of people away with the “fail” speech that he (and others) then had to spend weeks explaining to the masses who didn’t GET it. Sure they may be idiots. But they may hold the same principles (ideas, policies, whaterver) as you and we want them to vote on OUR side next time.
mph on March 5, 2009 at 2:09 AM
True, but where do we even begin to take back anything from the left. They have spent 50 years or so redefining TRUTH!
katy on March 5, 2009 at 2:10 AM
Uh oh, somebody tell Rush he is losing the 50ish year old woman and 30ish liberal demographics! The hit to his ratings are sure to force him to change his personality and viewpoints!
Johnson on March 5, 2009 at 2:11 AM
Such a well crafted bit of writing. Thanks for drawing it to our attention Allah.
lexhamfox on March 5, 2009 at 2:12 AM
Rush can just keep on doing what he has been doing and everything will be juuust fine. ;o)
katy on March 5, 2009 at 2:14 AM
This is a question for mph:
Do you not understand that your perception of arrogance or pompousness in Rush’s delivery is part of his very subtle and textured humor? The people that do get it enjoy this angle of his presentation. “Talent on loan from God”. That phrase gets a lot of criticism from people who would agree with you, but it is true. He is a very talented communicator, and that talent he believes is on loan from God, because he will give it back when he leaves this earth. The whole bit about “first address to the nation” was this humorous angle also. I got it instantly and laughed out loud. Why do you not? Do you think that Rush should do his show like a conservative NPR? He would have no audience. Hell, he would probably fall asleep himself on the air. He gets the conservative principles we (most of us) support on the air 3 hours a day, and presents them in a very entertaining way that makes you think. What’s wrong with that? The way he torques and tweaks the libs in the “drive by media” is always so fun to me. Operation Chaos was brilliant. That intimidation letter from Harry Reid to his syndication company CEO was turned into a great episode of embarrassment for the Dingy One, and he managed to get $4.2 million donated to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. I loved every minute of it.
In short, Rush is not running for office, so he is liberated from the usual PC nonsense that permeates our political culture, preventing the issues from being confronted honestly.
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 2:19 AM
No conservative, whether they want Rush leading the party or not, is going to go along with that, and if the likes of Frum insist on a fight, Rush is going to win. Frum is only harming his cause to liberalize conservatism.
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 2:01 AM
Uh oh, somebody tell Rush he is losing the 50ish year old woman and 30ish liberal demographics! The hit to his ratings are sure to force him to change his personality and viewpoints!
Johnson on March 5, 2009 at 2:11 AM
Funny, Call me when we lose the next election and you realize it isn’t about Rush and Frum. Its about getting votes. That’s how Obama did it. We need someone who appeals to the 50ish conservative women and the 30ish conservative crowd or we will lose again. It isn’t about Rush’s audience and he doesn’t need to change. We just can’t make him the head of the RNC. We need someone who appeals to others as well. Being so flippant about those demographics is what lost the last election.
mph on March 5, 2009 at 2:20 AM
Last I checked, you were a Democrat that voted Libertarian this time, because you couldn’t get yourself to vote for McCain.
Is this the first time you’re concerned that the GOP control the government?
Why?
Just in case you didn’t notice, the GOP has lost the last two elections, and McCain was no favorite of the talk radio crowd.
Those so-called “moderates” got their McCain, and then they went and voted for Obama anyway.
Oh, I know…McCain wasn’t “moderate” enough.
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 2:20 AM
The problem with rush and such populists conservatives isn’t isn’t in themselves. The problem is that the blue blooded republicans all seem to be RINOs intent on winning elections by out socialisting the socialists. If there are blue blooded committed conservatives out there,Stop waiting for followers to gather at your feet, and get out there and lead, and you will find that you gain followers.
darktood on March 5, 2009 at 2:21 AM
I think this is the crux of your misunderstanding. The reason some people don’t “get” it is because they didn’t listen to it and have instead been basing their opinions on the deliberate deceptions perpetrated by the White House. Rush didn’t say anything wrong, not at all, there’s nothing to defend, the only reason he does is because he’s under direct attack by Obama and his leftist goon squad—and you’re taking their side and piling on. If I were in your shoes I’d be saying, “I can’t stand Rush, but the vile and deceitful tactics being employed against him by the WHITE HOUSE are un-American.”
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 2:22 AM
Another thing, being a leading figure in the conservative movement is not the same as being a leader in the Republican Party. He gave that speech at CPAC, not the RNC. As we have learned to our collective shagrin, those two entities are seperate. Too seperate for my taste.
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 2:23 AM
mph on March 5, 2009 at 1:05 AM
I’m in my mid-20s & I listen regularly to Rush; I also know of many people my age who do.
youngTXcon on March 5, 2009 at 2:25 AM
Why would he even want to do that? It’s not going to happen.
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 2:26 AM
Call you? we haven’t been properly introduced! The best thing Rush said in his speech is that conservatives don’t segment. We look at Americans and see potential in everyone.
We tried the “sacrifice some of our core values so we can be more electable” idea, that candidate was named John McCain. I think he even lost while carrying the 50ish woman demographic. Inconceivable, I know.
Johnson on March 5, 2009 at 2:27 AM
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 2:23 AM
About time someone pointed that simple fact out.
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 2:27 AM
mph on March 5, 2009 at 2:20 AM
I thought a majority of the middle-aged female crowd vote based on how attractive the male candidate is.
/Many of them admitted as much to me.
youngTXcon on March 5, 2009 at 2:28 AM
He shoots, he scores! +1
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 2:29 AM
Huh?
Who’s talking about that?
Since when has he even shown any interest?
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 2:30 AM
Johnson on March 5, 2009 at 2:11 AM
I’m not a liberal. And I know a lot of 30 somethings who are not liberals. And I and they don’t want to be represented solely by Rush. He has a huge audience and he earned it. But let’s not make him the party standard. If we do, we lose a lot of potential voters.
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 2:19 AM
yes, yes, yes, “one hand tied behind my back”. Its a riot. Obama is in the White House. Pelosi is Speaker of the House (I’m Gumbi dammit). Hysterical isn’t it? Unbelievable isn’t it?
Rush has his place. But the whole Rush thing is way too much. The left has had a heyday with it. Of course no one is voting “for” Rush. But he turns off a lot of conservative people who share your views and who would vote for your candidates. He’s getting too much attention at our expense.
mph on March 5, 2009 at 2:32 AM
No it’s not. Having a squishy Frum-like Democrat-lite candidate with little or no charisma against a charismatic demigog led to our defeat. This on the heals of 8 years of squishy Frum-like Republicans in the White House and legislature. If Reagan had been president for the past eight years, other events being the same, he wouldn’t have made so many mistakes, would have articulated conservatism, and his VP would probably be president right now.
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 2:32 AM
mph on March 5, 2009 at 1:54 AM
So which part of the conservative ideaolgy of rush’s do you not agree with? Do you want the party to go pro choice? big gov? more taxes? daddy state? Maybe its Rush’s ideas about the consitution? How he thinks the founding documents are something to be respected and followed not changed on a whim for political points of the day? what part of Rush’s thought process do you not agree with?
which of the above should we chuck overboard to “expand” the party?
For those of us that study history this war of ideas have been going on in the rep party for along time. Reagan and Bush 1 did not like each other. Bush 1 did it in his first term. Bush 2 did it in his second and McCain never tried.
that is all three lost the Reagan democrat. The silent majority. these are the people that believe in a honest day’s work for an honest pay. Bush 1 and Bush 2 and McCain were country club republiicans. their policies and ideas appealed to the rich. If not for the WOT Bush would have lost to Kerry in 2004. Even with 2 wars going on bush’s policies turned the majority against him in 2006. And McCain’s policies never connected with the majority in 2008 because their policies are not rooted in a ideaolgy. They think in policy not in ideas. McAin was at a loss when the market went south because he only had his policy of tax cuts etc to stand up to the fear of the population. Palin connected because of her ideas not her policy. individual freedom, self made women.
It is the ideas that shape policy. The RINOs just want to concentrate on policies and vote counting to win an election. they do not lead. they divide. They say this to get those votes and they they do that to get that polictical payoff etc. They go where the wind and the tides of public mood take them and then they wonder why they lost?
So I ask again wheich part of the conservative platform must we sacrifice this time to win an election? Because I don’t remember Reagan caving on his priciples when the mood of the country was against him. He led and we followed. Bush’s first term was about getting re-elected. After he won relection he had no ideaolgy to point his way for the last 4 years. He continued to defend the nation and fight the wars but he had no vision, he did not defend conservative principles because he had none. He spent his way to relection, he continue to spend until the country grew tired of it.
For 20 years Rush has said the same thing. He has not sacrificed his ideas. He still believes in limited gov, small gov, less regulation, more freedom. The ideas Reagan used for a 49 state landslide.
Every person that exposes those ideas on the national stage gets torn down from the elites because it would hurt their wealth. Palin Jindal, Fred the Rinos do not want less gov, they do not want less tax rev, less spending. They just want to control it. they have no reason to be power because they have no ideas. No contract with the Americian people. The dems are fast moving in that direction.
unseen on March 5, 2009 at 2:35 AM
Well, the head of the RNC, hello? had to apologize to Rush this week. He gets more attention than the head of the RNC. We’re all tripping over ourselves to defend him.
We don’t have to sacrifice your core ideals. We just need to get someone who can speak intelligently without all that pompousness and controversy.
mph on March 5, 2009 at 2:37 AM
In regards to Levin, your reluctance for him is more understandable to me. He is more of an acquired taste, with his eruptions and that nasally voice. Let me tell you though, that man is nobody to trifle with when it comes to brainpower. I am accustomed to his delivery, and I like the way he relentlessly mocks the liberals. He says what I’m thinking already, or he enlightens me with some Constitutional or philosophical angle I had not considered. You are aware that Mr. Levin served in the Reagan Administration as U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese’s Chief of Staff. You don’t do that just yelling. Mark has a new book coming out this month, you should read it.
It’s called Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. I bet it’s very good.
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 2:37 AM
Not articulating conservatism and running a candidate that played the Democrat game of pandering to segments (such as your largely influential 50ish women) is what lost the last election.
It’s amazing how important people think they are. Tell you what, organize a 50ish woman “stay at home” day. The economy will shut down! That will show ‘em!
Johnson on March 5, 2009 at 2:39 AM
mph on March 5, 2009 at 2:37 AM
Steele said he mispoke, there was not an actual apology.
Personally, I believe Steele.
Do you?
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 2:40 AM
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 2:32 AM
David Frum & President Bush are not in the same camp. In fact, Frum thought Bush was too conservative on many issues.
The last point is a bit confusing, because Cheney wasn’t a presidential candidate. McCain also ran as the anti-Bush, & he lost; put simply, he lost b/c he was a lousy candidate. [McCain is also more like Frum than Bush is.]
youngTXcon on March 5, 2009 at 2:40 AM
What? You want a list of people?
What point? That Rush is somehow bad for conservativism or bad for the GOP? I happen to disagree strongly with that. I’ve read some of your earlier posts talking about how most people hate Rush and young people hate him … and I think you’re dead wrong. I feel very comfortable having Rush be the one who many come to, to hear what conservativism is all about and how it applies. He does that spectacularly. Rush describes an America that is preferable to anything the left offers. A dynamic, growing society that builds and moves and flourishes, with the individual choosing his paths – taking risks – moving, in all ways, as freely as his own talents and determination will allow him. It is a world of confident individuals given the liberty to pursue their own goals. The left offers insane dreamscapes or dreary, collectivist parades. Growth is not a natural part of their theories. In fact growth and dynamism in society are what kill their systems. You can see this reflected in the Precedent’s recent reactions. The stock market (ours and the rest around the world – as Japan has been unable to come off of a very bad bottom that goes some 30 years back for an equal) has hit the idiot messiah for a loop. He’s shocked silly by it. Why? Because he’s a rabid leftist and he never imagined that nations actually have moving parts that react to government action. He, like all idiot leftists, form their theories about static worlds where nothing affects anything else, unless they think it should. The stock market reacting very badly to the Precedent’s ineptness is not something he expected.
Anyway, Rush does these explanations very well, from what I’ve heard him say. He’s on for hours everyday, and people can start listening to him to hear about this. I think he will leave a good impression with a majority of those who start listening to him.
The eggs are all in the Oval Office. I don’t know what you think Rush is, or is becoming. I don’t know what this “all of our eggs” thing is. Is Rush being annointed in some Kingship I haven’t heard about? People have had to step back on disagreeing with Rush, not because it was Rush, but because Rush had the correct side of the argument. If Rush says something incorrect, no one is going to force anyone to agree with it or defend it. The reason they had to defend the “Fail” comment is not because Rush said it, but because it states how serious of a threat the Precedent, and his plans, are to our nation. That is a very sad fact. The guy is dangerous, even if one assumes he’s just a mild-mannered socialist looking to actually change us into France. Just that, at this precarious monetary moment, would be deadly – truely deadly – for our Republic. That’s what the “fail” comment states, and it is true. But lots of folks still don’t want to point out the Precedent is screwing things up almost beyond repair, and doing it quickly! They want to keep praising him, as he badmouths them everytime he gets infront of a camera.
This is where you lose me. I don’t think anyone “represents” the party. There are leaders in the party, but no single King. And Rush isn’t being made into anything of the sort, either. He’s just getting a bigger voice, and given the cr#p from the GOP that I’ve had to eat for years, I’m glad. I’ve had enough amnesty nuts and idiots talking about global warming coming out of the GOP. Those fools are the ones who have been killing this party. The amnesty people are the worst. It’s about time that the party returned to a sensible region of the political spectrum.
progressoverpeace on March 5, 2009 at 2:41 AM
Are you saying that this should be an important consideration in spite of the fact that the left’s heyday is fabricated out of lies? Should conservatives give the left that power over us; the power to alter our core principles the more deceitful their tactics become? Such a strategy would ensure Alinsky’s victory.
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 2:42 AM
We don’t have to sacrifice your core ideals. We just need to get someone who can speak intelligently without all that pompousness and controversy.
mph on March 5, 2009 at 2:37 AM
So you want a go along to get along type of republician to be our head. I person that will not attack the dems, a person that will meekly sit in the corner until the MSM and the dems call on him/her for their views and then tell them to shut up and go sit back in the corner.
You want style over substance. I will take substance over style any day.
unseen on March 5, 2009 at 2:45 AM
I agree, FloatingRock, that we’ve suffered for our sins, and perhaps as much for our sins of omission, our collective failure to advance the unfinished business of the Reagan Revolution, as for anything else.
After 8 years of struggling to remain united behind W against a constant drumbeat of character assassination and worse, it’s hard to recall that in 1999, he was the “uniter not a divider,” the soft-spoken, humble, inoffensive, “compassionate conservative” – and there were a lot of us who were less than overjoyed about his candidacy.
Yet I don’t believe that these things happen by coincidence. I think we’ve had relatively weak candidates and all of the problems associated with that because the movement has been running out of steam. The conservative movement has been too much “good enough for government work” ever since Clinton overcame the Gingrich Revolution – you could probably date it to the failed government shutdown.
We may have needed a crisis, maybe even the catastrophe that Obama is shaping up to be, to get whipped into shape. If the times start moving in the conservative direction, then the Frummian demographic slicing and dicing will be an afterthought. If they don’t, then it won’t hardly make a difference.
CK MacLeod on March 5, 2009 at 2:47 AM
Well, in a campaign, it is the candidate who broadens the appeal to the middle by selling the same ideas that Rush and Levin always talk about but in a more politically sensitive way. It’s not Rush’s job to do the vote-getting, it’s his job to get a conversation going about why these principles are important to the country. If the Republican Party distances itself from the conservative base that Rush is a part of, they will lose just like McCain did every time. The idea is to bring the middle to us, not go to them ideologically. Reagan did that. By the way, one of Rush’s most prized items is a letter from Reagan himself telling Rush he’s been invaluable to the cause, and thanking him for all he has done for conservatism. If he’s good enough to get that kind of praise from that source, he’s got something special going in my book.
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 2:49 AM
You know what movie I really liked? Gran Torino. That was great! Eastwood is fantastic. After 10 minutes I walked out.
Jim Treacher on March 5, 2009 at 2:50 AM
Why wouldn’t he? Rush’s base is around 20 million strong. The RNC’s base is practically nonexistent these days, and it’s their own damn fault.
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 2:50 AM
Jim Treacher on March 5, 2009 at 2:50 AM
ROFLMAO!!
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 2:52 AM
You know what movie I really liked? Gran Torino. That was great! Eastwood is fantastic. After 10 minutes I walked out.
Jim Treacher on March 5, 2009 at 2:50 AM
I understand you point but as a side note I thought the movie sucked.
Archie bunker is my hero.
unseen on March 5, 2009 at 2:53 AM
unseen on March 5, 2009 at 2:35 AM
Bush actually *decreased* spending from 2005-07. GatewayPundit has the chart.
I am always surprised that everyone thought Bush was a more libertarian conservative. Watching him in TX, he has always been a *principled moderate conservative*; he ran as one, & he acted accordingly. You could see in the ’04 campaign that he didn’t really want to win, however. A majority of the second term also got eaten up with the surge.
youngTXcon on March 5, 2009 at 2:53 AM
I get the feeling mph is a pretender.
What do you internet experts call them?
MOBY’s?
Or is that a term incorrectly applied?
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 2:53 AM
Look out Treacher, don’t be too pompous or controversial or you may get scolded by the concerned conservative conscious we’ve been wrestling with here!
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 2:55 AM
unseen on March 5, 2009 at 2:35 AM
My but you are verbose. You don’t have to give up any of your ideologies. Reagan didn’t and he said it all like a gentleman. Right down to “tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev”.
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 2:37 AM
In my case, he’s an acquired dislike. I listened to him for months, learned a lot and then couldn’t take it anymore. I’ve read Levin’s other books. He is brilliant and well educated but you would never know that if you just happened to tune in to he radio show. You would turn him off as soon as he started ranting.
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 2:40 AM
No. I think he isn’t quick enough on his feet. He can’t believe he is head of the RNC. And I think he embarrassed himself and us. And if you can’t believe that you are head of the RNC, I can’t either.
I realize I’m very negative on all this but I just don’t see anyone who is representing us right now who isn’t in some way an embarrassment. And I feel very strongly that we are going to lose this battle and become France if we don’t find someone fast.
I think Rush, Levin and Steele are just providing fodder for the Dem propaganda machine at this point and I would like them all to shut up until they can deliver their message in a professional way and check their egos.
mph on March 5, 2009 at 2:56 AM
mph on March 5, 2009 at 2:56 AM
Okay David…
whatever…
sorry about your ass kicking on Levin’s show tonight.
Good night.
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 2:58 AM
I bet that mph likes to dress up like a 50ish year old woman though, to get into character. And the appealing to emotions instead of reality and facts is spot on for a 50ish year old woman. The ones who never got married and haven’t shaved their legs since the second Clinton term anyway…
Johnson on March 5, 2009 at 2:59 AM
They both fall into the same base category in my opinion, but you’re right that they aren’t identical.
I’m not sure if I correctly understand your second point, but I think this may clear up my earlier comment. I meant that if Reagan had been the president the past eight years but with a younger, healthier VP, his VP would probably be president today, assuming the VP was relatively decent.
As far as McCain having run as the anti-Bush, I think that’s debatable. He may have been in some conflict with Bush over the years, but Bush, McCain and Frum all fall into the same base category, as far as I’m concerned.
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 3:01 AM
Mobys, astroturfers, seminar callers, etc.
Jim Treacher on March 5, 2009 at 3:01 AM
‘fraid so. Mmm-hmmm.
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 3:03 AM
Jim Treacher on March 5, 2009 at 3:01 AM
Moby it is then….
Thanks.
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 3:05 AM
That is where we are. Our movement’s political division in DC has been decapitated, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake. It will take some time for new political leadership to emerge. In the meantime, we have our ideas that new leadership should represent. As far as ego and personality, who would you prefer? Tim Pawlenty? Crist? Sanford? Huckabee? Romney? Certainly not Palin, you’ve made that clear. Appearantly the more milktoast-boring and non-offensive the better. Wouldn’t want to upset anyone.
The Dem propaganda machine will never stop trashing Republicans, unless said Republican is also trashing Republicans. They scorched Bush and Cheney. Bush and Cheney leave and they scorch Sarah Palin and her husband and children. Sarah goes back to governing Alaska, so they turn on Bobby Jindal and scorch him. It. will. never. stop. Do not let those people determine who our leaders are or we’ll get McCain re-dux.
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 3:09 AM
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 3:01 AM
They don’t believe the same things politically, though.
Look, I agree that Bush should have been more of a fiscal conservative–but other parts of his domestic agenda prove that he is a socio-religious conservative. What about the ownership society, privatizing Social Security, tax cuts, stem cells, Supreme Court nominees, pro-life measures, not signing Kyoto & other environmentalist measure, pro-gun rights, domestic drilling, etc?
I’m sure I’ll hear something about amnesty, but Reagan was for it, as well.
I’m not arguing that Bush is greater than Reagan; he isn’t. But I think the man is principled & did many things that are not only conservative but right for the country as well. Just my 2 cents.
youngTXcon on March 5, 2009 at 3:09 AM
Well, not by conservatives at any rate. Such a concept is anathema to conservatism. The left is trying to make it appear that way, but again, it’s a dishonest Alinskyesque tactic being employed by the left. It’s the left who favors elitism and authoritarianism.
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 3:13 AM
mobys, trolls, liberals, oh my. you are so paranoid. Why can’t you just believe that there really are conservatives in this world who think that Rush and Levin may not be appealing? And as for “emotions”, I remind you of the facts – the Republican party lost the last election. And not by that much. A few 50 year old women and a few 30 somethings could have pushed it had we appealed to them. But Obama got those votes with those hopey, changey emotions. And now we are all going to be socialists. Thank you and good night.
mph on March 5, 2009 at 3:15 AM
You are right on there. Rush had that right, too. President Bush isn’t A conservative, but he’s conservative on many issues. He did not lead the movement like Reagan did. He had the support of most of the movement, but he did not personify it like Reagan. I will always be grateful to Bush43 for the way he honored the troops he sent into harm’s way. That man loves our Armed Forces, and they loved him back for it. He took the war to the enemy, and it worked. We have not been attacked since 9-11-01. Thank you President Bush.
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 3:15 AM
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 3:09 AM
Some people do not understand that the Left is serious about completely destroying their enemy, while the GOP leadership treats this like a friendly game of morning croquet and the loser buys brunch.
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 3:18 AM
Up late, been on the road today. Just getting back home.
Seems to be a lot of “who shot John” stuff going on, and a lot of focus, again, ad infinitum it seems, too much focus at this stage on personalities and not on the fundamentals.
From George Will’s snarky, or snappy retort, at CPAC, essentially saying Conservatism is too complex to define, to the ongoing sniping from almost all quarters as to which celebrity or celebrity in the wings should carry the GOP banner to victory, or defeat, in 2012, we are losing sight of what we should be focusing on…the fundamentals of what the Right should be doing, today, 5 March 2009, and every day until we get this Nation back on an even keel again.
To those on the Left…you won in November, but not by that huge majority you hoped to attain. And there are already cracks in the walls, just a few 45 days into the Age of Entitlement. Admit it, you fear a resurgence of Conservatism in this Nation, and you can feel that fear. It shows not only in posts on this blog, but on a raft of other blogs, and in a lot of what passes for commentary on the networks and major news outlets. All those campaign promises of Hope and Change, of a new style of governance, of total transparency, mortgages being paid, and wealth being showered down upon the common man like dew descending from the heavens, all your hopes and dreams spent on electing Barack Obama to be President of the United States, and you got the guy in the White House, and yet, amid all the problems with the economy, with a resurgent Russia, with the European Union about ready to fracture, and the global economy suddenly looking a lot more grim than it looked just a few weeks ago…are you happy, truly happy with your choice? If so, then why all the efforts being expended, from Main Street to the White House, all trying to shut down a single voice on the Right? Is Rush such a clear and present danger to all America that the Office of the President of the United States has to devote time, man-hours and credibility to shut down one single voice on the Right?
If you are not happy, truly happy, with what the Obama Administration and this Congress is doing…why are you still giving them blanket support? Pride? Ego?
It makes no sense. If Obama is everything you believed, and voted for, why then is there this rush to crush Rush? Why the vitriol directed against the Right? You guys won it. You own it. Or are you having second thoughts and need to find a strawman somewhere to direct your anger toward?
Would seem more appropriate to consolidate around Obama, to make sure all of his wonderful new ideas were incorporated into the Law of the Land, with nothing to distract from that goal. Doesn’t seem to be happening.
But not only Blue Dog Dems in Congress are having doubts, so are major pundits and commentators on the Left…and a lot of folks who live out here, way beyond DC, or New York or Los Angeles, ordinary folks, who find that their playing by the rules, their working hard for decades, their financial condition…all of it being sacrificed at the Altar of Entitlement…and they are getting a bit peeved at being taken for granted, even if they voted for Obama, especially if they voted for Obama.
Maybe Obama is not the Obama you thought you knew?
And for those on the Right, Conservatives, Federalists, Libertarians, Republicans, don’t you think a bit more effort should be made to reach a meeting of the minds, and soon, to bring to the table a set of ideals, fundamentals, that define who we are, and what our goals for a stronger, better, America should be?
This squabbling…this Palin is better than Romney, or Jindal tanked the first time out, or Rush is a god, or Rush is not a god, and all the rest….it is all fluff, and largely a product of a concerted effort by officials and pundits on the Left to make sure that the Right gets so busy fighting among ourselves that we have little chance in 2010 and no chance in 2012.
Who are we? What makes us better than the Left? What is it about us that offers the American people a clear advantage overall than what is coming out of Congress and the White House today?
I wasn’t jesting earlier today, on another thread, when I suggested that the GOP members of Congress, the de jure leadership of the Right, and the de facto leadership of the Right, and those strong identifiable voices on the Right who believe in Conservatism, Federalism, Libertarianism, and wish for a defeat of the Democrats not only in 2010 but also 2012 and beyond, head out to the Greenbrier, in West Virginia, and utilize the bunker (designed in the Cold War to allow Congress to survive a nuclear attack on America) and not come out until they hammer out a new, concise, and easily understood definition of who we are, and where we want to go….so we can get past this discord, this American Idol phase, and learn from our recent defeat, and start running a Party, a movement, that speaks plainly to the American people, and will appeal to a far larger majority of Americans than the same old “we aren’t Democrats” has done for the last several general and interim elections.
Is this such an impossibility? Is this such an insurmountable task?
Frankly, unless those voices on the Right, and the leadership on the Right get it right (pun intended) and damn soon…might as well figure out how to be a second-class citizen, essentially a dhimmi to the Left.
No self-respecting American, no self-respecting Conservative, Federalist, or Libertarian would permit that to happen. So, what’s it gonna be? Rally to the cause or spend the next several decades trying to explain to your kids and grand kids, and perhaps great-grand kids what it was that was so much more important in 2009 that you and your generation willingly gave America away?
I’m heading of to bed.
coldwarrior on March 5, 2009 at 3:19 AM
:)
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 3:20 AM
They find you unappealing, too. But I’m quite sure they wouldn’t hold it against you in the voting booth.
Saltysam on March 5, 2009 at 3:22 AM
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 3:15 AM
You said it much better. Thank you.
Personally, I hope our team in 2012 is some combination of Jindal, Palin, & Romney [my guy in the last primary]. I only wish that someone on our side would listen to Rush.
youngTXcon on March 5, 2009 at 3:25 AM
coldwarrior on March 5, 2009 at 3:19 AM
Always profound, sir.
I wish that this all could turn out that way.
youngTXcon on March 5, 2009 at 3:28 AM
That’s true, he just didn’t do them consistently, and the things he did wrong, or not at all, hurt the party. What’s worse is that his “conservative” label, which overall was undeserved, has allowed the media and Dem-lite Republicans the opportunity to tarnish conservatism unfairly.
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 3:32 AM
Exactly. Except that I wouldn’t call the tactic dishonest, though it does leave a slime behind it, even as it’s going to redound to the benefit of conservatives and the GOP. It’s the direct coordination between the White House and the media that I find so disturbing. Aren’t there laws against that?
progressoverpeace on March 5, 2009 at 3:34 AM
You’re new here and there’s been a concerted effort by the left to dishonestly smear Rush and other conservatives, including on blogs. It’s natural for people to suspect you. If you had been here a while and established a reasonably conservative track record people wouldn’t doubt you. But if you’re being honest about yourself, don’t take it personally. People aren’t going to hold this hold this against you.
I don’t know one way or the other about you, but I do know that even if I didn’t like Rush, couldn’t stand the guy, (whom I only started listening to fairly recently, BTW), I would still be defending him against un-American groundless attacks by the White House. Heck, I’d defend Olberman against deceitful tactics by the White House and I hate that guy with a passion—although I probably wouldn’t defend him very strenuously.
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 3:40 AM
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 3:32 AM
I see where you’re coming from on that, though the Republican majority in Congress deserves blame for that as well. My point is that I like President Bush [read 30+ books about the man], I think we should have supported him more vocally when he was right, & I don’t think we should make him a scapegoat for what went wrong [*not that you said that*].
I keep hearing lots of talk about making him a scapegoat, & I don’t think that’s fair. Right now, we need to work on opposing Obama’s dangerous foreign & domestic policies & how they will forever fundamentally change our nation.
youngTXcon on March 5, 2009 at 3:41 AM
It’s becoming clearer that the American people at large are going to have to re-learn the hard way that Carteresque peanut headed liberalism does nothing but punish those who make our country prosper. This lesson has been lost amongst all the phony controversies of the Bush years from the media. It’s intentional on their part. They think Carter was a great President who had some bad luck. Just ask Chris “screwball” Matthews.
Also, it’s becoming clearer that all that “divisiveness” that came from Sarah Palin in the last campaign was the truth. Obama is what she said he is. Remarkable turnaround could be coming when more of the independents realize who she really is, as opposed to what the media stuck to her. The worse things get, the revolt will gather steam and Obama will be left with just hard core liberals and the race hustlers. At that point, a Palin comeback would be so sweet, to watch all those d!cks on TV have to eat their own words and watch a real change I can believe in, because this one’s a damn fraud.
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 3:44 AM
This thread was much more fun when we were discussing Iowahawk’s brilliant parody of Chris Buckley & co. …
youngTXcon on March 5, 2009 at 3:47 AM
That’s a bridge to nowhere too far!
I would make a Constitutional exception to have Olbermann thrown in Club Gitmo. They do allow bathtubs there, so he’ll feel safe and secure. Plus, he will get to see up close the enemy that he should have been worried about instead of the President that saved his sorry ass from another Manhattan terror strike.
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 3:50 AM
Good post!
Good night.
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 3:50 AM
Look at all the semi-serious discussion, debate and joyous name-calling that Iowahawk has sparked here tonight!
Job well done, Mr. Burge. Good luck with that jet-ski repair.
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 3:53 AM
Good night Johnboy!
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 3:54 AM
It’s dishonest because they’re misrepresenting what Rush said. At least what I’ve heard about it has been dishonest, but I don’t watch TV, where most American’s get their information, so can’t be sure.
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 3:55 AM
:) Well, I wouldn’t defend him overall, he’s indefensible, but I’d defend him on the specific point. The truth is that I ignore most of the Olby posts, though, so I would probably never know.
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 4:00 AM
Unseen,
My point, which sadly you missed, was that Jindal is misplaced in the satiric piece. I believe is that he will eventually show himself to not be a conservative – considering his pedigree, I suspect a Bush-type “one world order” guy. In other words, my snide comment was anti-elitist. Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are genuine conservatives whom I trust on the issues. I do not trust Jindal. Why the author decided to include an Oxford Ph.D. and depict him as a hayseed escapes me. Incidentally, my favorite Democrat president of the 20th century, by far, was the only one who did not graduate from college – Harry Truman.
As for the class you exhibited in your last sentence – it speaks for itself.
Phildorex on March 5, 2009 at 4:00 AM
Good night Johnboy!
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 3:54 AM
Be too. Goodnight all.
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 4:01 AM
Um, me?
FloatingRock on March 5, 2009 at 4:05 AM
I believe that it’s time for revenge. The media liberals are loving saying that if you want Obama to fail, you want America to fail. This is because they, and the elected Democrats they are shilling for wanted President Bush to fail, the U.S. military to fail, America to fail in the Battle of Iraq. They blatantly said so constantly. They wanted America to fail in Iraq so Republicans would be discredited on National Security policy for a generation and they could win elections easier.
If you had the temerity to question the patriotism of someone who was rooting for failure in a military mission abroad that they themselves voted in favor of, then you really got it from the media. They just could not let that stand. Now it’s payback time. Look at how gleefully they are all saying this to any Republican they can get on TV.
“We’ll just see who the damn patriots are now, eh conservatives! You want America to fail! How do you like that!” Only they have to distort the truth to get there. The Republicans did not. Just quote them directly, and in context. As a matter of fact, the more context, the more damning it was.
Brian1972 on March 5, 2009 at 4:06 AM
Oh, that part. Yeah, that was a twisted lie. No question about it. But even after the left twisted the whole thing and then asked GOP pols about it, in their own way, it still wasn’t something that anyone should have had any problems addressing.
progressoverpeace on March 5, 2009 at 4:06 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »