Quotes of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on October 4, 2009 by Allahpundit
“By behaving in this manner and, frankly, by writing editorials insulting average Americans not fond of reading Hayek on weekends, the elitists in the conservative ranks may entertain themselves splendidly at cocktail parties, but they are doing little to bring liberty to people thirsty for it.
There is a difference between being an elitist and being an intellectual. Of course, the movement can always use more intellectuals. We need fewer elitists. Milton Friedman is a perfect example of an intellectual who was not an elitist…
Conservative elitists will be clutching their chests when I dare list these names together, but Milton Friedman (Free to Choose), Henry Hazlitt (Economics in One Lesson), Friedrich Hayek (Road to Serfdom), and Thomas Paine (Common Sense) have a lot in common with Limbaugh and Beck.
They made complex issues easy to understand in order to promote the concepts of liberty to the greatest number of people.”
***
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
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
His entire to-do list is devoid of check marks.
jhffmn on October 5, 2009 at 1:29 AM
What a truly bizarre round table. You have all of these intellectuals opining on the type of candidate that the GOP needs to run in 2012 to have a chance at winning, and the qualities they praise are exactly those qualities they praised in John McCain. But never was there a WORSE candidate than John McCain who inspired no one because he was too afraid of drawing strong contrasts between himself and the Democrats. If it wasn’t for Sarah Palin, McCain could’ve fit his election night rally into a phone booth and still have room for the pizza delivery man.
As to Sarah Palin’s 2012 election chances, no one knows anything right now. I’ll tell you one thing for certain: she’s the only prospective candidate right now that would fill an auditorium for a speech, while Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, etc. would be lucky to fill a 3rd grade classroom. So she brings the strongest personal appeal of anyone in the primaries.
But she’s going to be the GOP nominee she’ll have to win the primaries, and that means she’ll have to shine in the debates against her more-seasoned opponents. So that means that if she DOES win the primaries, she will have earned it, and thus all of this talk about Sarah’s image now, is hardly relevant to the Sarah that would emerge going into, and out of, a 2012 GOP convention. In politics, 3 months is a life time and 3 years is an eon.
Imagine a Palin/Obama face-off in 2012 with Obama trying to defend a faultering economy, a stimulus bill full of pork that accomplished nothing, and a foreign policy set adrift. In that environment, claiming to be the smartest guy in the room with the Harvard Law Degree might not be the winning credential – especially when your real world experience shows you to be a monumental screw-up. In that situation, the country might be very happy to move away from the Self-Proclaimed Best & Brightest to someone with a more common-sense appeal.
The fact that Brooks & Co. can’t/won’t see this is indicative of their massive blind spot and the isolation they have from living in the DC bubble.
PackerBronco on October 5, 2009 at 1:29 AM
i haven’t read all 3 pgs of comments, but this is very correct.
men (women) who ignore the danger that we’re in while aggradizing (and enriching) themselves by targeting their “friends” are low indeed.
r keller on October 5, 2009 at 1:30 AM
that should be aggrandizing
r keller on October 5, 2009 at 1:31 AM
concede on the previous comment. I still like the quoted comment.
disillusioned on October 5, 2009 at 1:31 AM
I guess you haven’t got the memo yet. Why ask questions?
disillusioned on October 5, 2009 at 1:38 AM
Great game. Excellent play on words–unlike the lame McBushitler thing. The only difference between progress and the McBushitler morons is that the McBushitler morons really are morons.
Gang-of-One on October 5, 2009 at 1:38 AM
What we suffer from is a moral failure, not an intellectual failure. The notions that working American parents do not have first claim to their wages; that government ought and must not only tax from its needs, but to shape the society through starvation of liberty that government distrusts; and mandate purchases of for-profit services as to spare the government the full burden of its guarantees–are all so alien to our Constitution as to be a breach of trust. The precepts “You shall not steal” and “you shall not enslave” are moral truths, and can only become “intellectual” debates by destroying the moral foundation of the Republic: that each citizen has an absolute value that the State may not choose to disregard.
But when anybody points this out–that the “reasonable” agenda of this majority is theft, tyranny and destruction of constitutional rule– we are condemned for the low tone of our discourse. Surely we can debate the notion that we shall be slaves, without namecalling! Meet our Tsars on the field of “ideas”–nothing so coarse as yelling “my life is mine, my wages are mine!” Use big words and quote some Germans, or shut up.
Chris_Balsz on October 5, 2009 at 1:39 AM
These same folks were saying just 20 months ago that Obama was the “Magic negro” who had no chance of becoming President.
J_Crater on October 5, 2009 at 1:46 AM
morallity and integence tends to be a two way street when referenced to the GOP
disillusioned on October 5, 2009 at 1:57 AM
In his article, Steven F. Hayward also said:
‘Yet Beck’s distinctiveness and his potential contribution to conservatism can be summed up with one name: R.J. Pestritto.
Pestritto is a young political scientist at Hillsdale College in Michigan whom Beck has had on his TV show several times, once for the entire hour discussing Woodrow Wilson and progressivism. He is among a handful of young conservative scholars, several of whom Beck has also featured, engaged in serious academic work critiquing the intellectual pedigree of modern liberalism. Their writing is often dense and difficult, but Beck not only reads it, he assigns it to his staff. « Beck asks me questions about Hegel, based on what he’s read in my books, » Pestritto told me. Pestritto is the kind of guest Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity would never think of booking.
Okay, so Beck may lack Buckley’s urbanity, but he’s on to something with his interest in serious analysis of liberalism’s patrimony. The left is enraged with Beck’s scandal-mongering over Van Jones and ACORN, but they have no idea that he poses a much bigger threat than that. If more conservative talkers took up the theme of challenging liberalism’s bedrock assumptions the way Beck does from time to time, liberals would have to defend their problematic premises more often.
Beck, for one, is revealing that despite the demands of filling hours of airtime every day, it is possible to engage in some real thought. He just might be helping restore the equilibrium between the elite and populist sides of conservatism.’
Antagonist on October 5, 2009 at 2:00 AM
sorry about that one, shows my lack of “integence” with giving a quick post
disillusioned on October 5, 2009 at 2:03 AM
The issue will be abortion/life issues. She will say that the Roe vs. Wade decision is in effect. If overturned it simply goes to the states to decide and certain states like CA and NY will greatly liberalize it while Alabama and Georgia will restrict it.
Also, she will not volunteer this view, but it will come up in a campaign.
Where Sarah will excel is the Independents who are fiscal conservatives or libertarian. She will do well with them as long as she does not alienate the Paulists.
They will vote for Ron Paul in the primary, and after she wins the primary, I suspect they will vote for her because she is the next best thing to Paul when compared to Obama.
What Sarah needs to do is become popular enough with the conservatives in the party that she is not challenged in the Primary by another conservative.
I do not believe Huckabee will run because in two years, her popularity will be the writing on the wall as she clearly is the conservative frontrunner.
T-Paw and Mitt will split the mods and Sarah should win.
Sapwolf on October 5, 2009 at 2:03 AM
Oops. My mistake. I meant McCain and Hillary.
Beck is cool, because he brings in the lefty scalps.
Go get’em Glenn.
Sapwolf on October 5, 2009 at 2:09 AM
Knock off the condescension shit. Sweetie.
ddrintn on October 5, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Listen to her, she has condescension she can spin you
Condescension that will linger within you
She’ll sing you stories of condescension that will sting thee
And make you come to dread the condescension that will be
PercyB on October 5, 2009 at 12:17 AM
Thank you for the imaginative and may I say, intellectual, rejoinder to the above nastiness.
ddrintn is crass, but PercyB is class.
tigerlily on October 5, 2009 at 2:22 AM
How come the racist fascist Precedent and his junta haven’t imposed martial law on America?
crr6 on October 5, 2009 at 12:44 AM
His entire to-do list is devoid of check marks.
jhffmn on October 5, 2009 at 1:29 AM
Heh. Seems you have come over to Progress’s way of spellin’; make the jump to reality, and come over to his way of thinkin’.
tigerlily on October 5, 2009 at 2:29 AM
Hummm?
Cuz Their incompetent!
jezz
DSchoen on October 5, 2009 at 2:54 AM
He’s waiting for the proper crisis in order to “temporarily” suspend the constitution. He’ll do it too, Old George set it up, zero will use it. FEMA rules don’tcha know, never waste a good crisis.
THAT is why zero wanted the olympics in Chicago. So he can usher in a PROPER and THOROUGH terrorist attack so big and in your face that nobody dare question his suspending the constitution and instituting martial law “for our own safety”.
He’ll get other opportunities I’m sure, but he’s probably plenty mad that he didn’t get this one because of those damned racist olympic committee members.
Spiritk9 on October 5, 2009 at 3:13 AM
Madow said the person who ghost wrote Palin’s book ALSO ghost wrote a book for some alleged RACIST. Therefore Palin is a RACIST!
WOW! This woman has the intellectual capacity of a Nat!
Writing down what someone else said is not the same as saying those things your self!
Think how interesting this concept would be for the daily news!
DSchoen on October 5, 2009 at 3:25 AM
The notion that Palin will need to take a non-conservative stance on some issue to “win over” independents is false. Indies don’t vote based on social issues. Palin’s message of smaller gov’t, energy independence and strong nat’l security will resonate and provide a stark contrast to Obama. Moderate Republicans lose to liberals because they don’t provide that contrast.
Palin will set herself apart not by breaking from the base, but by breaking from the old, unpopular GOP establishment.
Mr. Wednesday Night on October 5, 2009 at 3:55 AM
PackerBronco on October 5, 2009 at 1:29 AM
Ahmen, Ahmen and Ahmen,
you are spot on, now he has a track record to defend…can’t blame Bush. It will come down to common sense pragmatism vs Harvard education being the solution to everything and we know which one works most of the time. I find it funny how they were all in agreemnt that she would not be the nominee and the woman has just resigned from her governorship…writing a book adn said I aint doing jack. It’s almost as if subconsciously they think she is perfect for it and fear it.
cayman on October 5, 2009 at 4:06 AM
“Of course it’s the same old story. Truth usually is the same old story.”
Margaret Thatcher
the_nile on October 5, 2009 at 4:08 AM
Typical. Yet another “know it all” neocon who thinks he’s a “true” conservative. Isn’t it strange this man doesn’t care for the folks who are calling for going back to the Reagan roots of conservatism yet loves those who called for McCain in 2008? Medved? You’re kiddin right? He was one of the worst, insisting that ONLY McCain could win against Obama or Clinton. What BS!
This party does, however, need to wake up and get control of this situation in hand. Huckabee is being touted as “THE” candidate for 2012 and the same bunch that shoved McCain down our throats is already yakkin’ about how great Huckabee is. Unless we want another four years of the BS that this president is dumping on the country, we’d best find someone with enough stones to stand up and call things like they are, not someone who is supposedly good in a “debate.” Beating Obama in a debate is all well and good (Yes, we need someone who can articulate their position well.) but if our candidate is on the same page as Obama and falling all over himself (or herself) to reach across the aisle for “bipartisanship” we’re going to lose again.
The American people have had it with candidates that say one thing, then get in office and do something else. That’s what they got with Obama and that’s what they didn’t like about McCain.
Strength. Honesty. Straight talk, no BS. Yes, they do exist in a leader somewhere. We’ve just got to find him or her and we’ve got to do it NOW.
Mad Mad Monica on October 5, 2009 at 4:17 AM
If you think of yourself as an intellectual;
If mainstream media people consider you to be an intellectual….
You probably aren’t.
LegendHasIt on October 5, 2009 at 4:53 AM
The issue is not intellectualism, it is elitism. These are elitists who believe they shoulf be controlling the masses. Everytime these idiot “intellectual” republicans, and get over the idea that you have to be brilliant to attend the ivy league, start talking about intellectualism they need to be told to put up or shut up. Where are the ideas from these losers? They do nothing but attack conservatism and criticize the republicans. Who told brooks he was brilliant? His mommy probably told him he was brilliant everytime she gave him a sponge bath on his weekends home from college.
peacenprosperity on October 5, 2009 at 6:24 AM
I’m late to the party but here goes: This Meet the Press video makes “pooling their ignorance” come to mind (incidentally, David Gregory is no Tim Russert). Here’s the thing: If Sarah Palin is so unelectable, stupid and on the fringe, why are they devoting so much time to her? These are exactly, not almost, but exactly the same sort of things they were saying about Reagan.
ncborn on October 5, 2009 at 6:34 AM
So this chick is proposing Sarah Palin’s guilt by association because someone she knows also knows a white supremacist and the “Republican Strategist” sitting next to her doesn’t mention Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers. Good job. Also, they say that Palin as nominee would be disastrous for the party because she is such a right-winger, yet the centrist we nominated last year turned out to be a disaster too. Hmmmm.
Kafir on October 5, 2009 at 6:50 AM
You can smell the fear…
jerrytbg on October 5, 2009 at 6:57 AM
It’s a contradiction in behavior. They doth protest to much, me thinks.
the_nile on October 5, 2009 at 6:58 AM
Glad to see someone gets it. Now if some of the pols on our side only would. But it will take a bloody primary season before most of them do.
The money quote:
conservnut on October 5, 2009 at 7:00 AM
Just look at Brooks. He is the guy who gets busted in the men’s room at the mall.
I am giving money and raising money for Palin. She speaks for my family and I.
jarhead0311 on October 5, 2009 at 7:02 AM
I would not call Beck a conservative intellectual, or a conservative anything. He is a libertarian media personality. However, I think Limbaugh is a conservative intellectual in a way…a sort of everyman’s version of William Buckley.
Terrye on October 5, 2009 at 7:03 AM
Completely agree, but there’s also a difference between being desirous of liberty and being a populist motivated by class envy. Rush does not do that (quite the contrary), but Huckabee actively encourages class-warfare battles. I don’t see Sarah doing that herself, but many of her supporters are trending that way.
Recognizing the idiocy of the sniveling elites in academia and government does not automatically make one a populist. However to dismiss all Ivy Leaguers as too highfalutin’ to represent Americans is equally idiotic.
Buy Danish on October 5, 2009 at 7:25 AM
Tim Russert is no Tim Russert. The reality is that Russert was a fairly decent host but he was hardly the unbiased objective interviewer that has become legend. Many a week he was out there blatantly beating the drum for a liberal ideology. And why his son has a gig at MSNBC is beyond my comprehension.
As to Sarah Palin, she’s no Ronald Reagan. Reagan wrote (not ghost wrote) and talked about conservatism for decades before taking office. Palin is more of a populist. The thing is that she really hasn’t said what she believes. I think the left is attacking her because they see how popular she is and are making a preemptive strike. It could also be premature because I suspect that she won’t be running for any office in 2012.
highhopes on October 5, 2009 at 7:32 AM
Wow. That was like the Sunday morning beltway edition of The View.
BigD on October 5, 2009 at 7:43 AM
How do you know?
The news that Todd Palin has resigned his oil job and the Palins may be looking for a house in the lower 48 suggest something else.
We probably won’t know until 2011 anyway.
Crux Australis on October 5, 2009 at 7:51 AM
True enough, so, to coin a phrase, let me be clear: Russert was a lib but he was willing to put libs on the hotseat. Gregory is a lib and isn’t. He’s a cheerleader and a lightweight one at that. As for Reagan and Palin, the point is, they said he was dumb, meanspirited, unelectable, etc. and they’re saying the same thing about her. It’s what they say about everybody they fear and, contrary to what they’ll acknowledge, take seriously.
ncborn on October 5, 2009 at 7:51 AM
All of the elites will be washed out to sea on a wave of “common sense conservatism”,and America’s best hope is for them to stay there.
tim c on October 5, 2009 at 7:55 AM
PackerBronco on October 5, 2009 at 1:29 AM makes several really good points including, inter alia, the following:
… John McCain who inspired no one because he was too afraid of drawing strong contrasts between himself and the Democrats. If it wasn’t for Sarah Palin, McCain could’ve fit his election night rally into a phone booth and still have room for the pizza delivery man. …
As to Sarah Palin’s 2012 election chances, no one knows anything right now. …
But she’s going to be the GOP nominee she’ll have to win the primaries, and that means she’ll have to shine in the debates against her more-seasoned opponents. So that means that if she DOES win the primaries, she will have earned it, and thus all of this talk about Sarah’s image now, is hardly relevant to the Sarah that would emerge going into, and out of, a 2012 GOP convention. …
In politics, 3 months is a life time and 3 years is an eon.
And the comment under Packer’s comment is truly excellent.
Basilsbest on October 5, 2009 at 8:06 AM
Sarah Palin has more intellectual depth and intelligence than most politicians and pundits out there. Having once trod the nether reaches of linguistics in academia I am compelled to point out that Ms. Palin communicates fundamental ideas often using her own unconventional but extremely effective syntax.
You can see this by comparing the transcripts of her speeches to how they sound. In either case, there is no mistaking what she means, how she feels about it, and why she thinks it is important. Just compare her substance with John Kerry’s, for example.
Do you really want to tell me that Kerry is smarter or more intellectual? Same goes for most of the chattering class from Noonan to Brooks to Rich, whose craft it is to obfuscate simple truths with overdeveloped diction. In this way they attempt to place themselves above the unwashed multitude of middlebrow Americans. Where is Robespierre when you need him?
horatio on October 5, 2009 at 8:17 AM
Quote of the Day
Lori Roman, great distinction made between elitist (pompous, out of touch in practical matters) and intellectual (wise and efficient). Roman’s point regards domestic politicos attempting to “own” the GOP for all the influential reasons.
But the same argument applies regarding those attempting to usurp Afghanistan as political fodder vs. fighting our nation’s enemies effectively in Afghanistan. There are the Obama elitists (his owner Soros, Cabinet, czars and media) who would “own” the military in order to prevent the military (McChrystal and Petraeus) assigned to destroy our enemies from achieving their assignment.
Obama told McChrystal what Obama’s objectives were in Afghanistan when he appointed McChrystal to lead our forces there, and told McChrystal to research the status of American involvement in Afghanistan, and then make his recommendations. McChrystal follows orders with integrity. Meanwhile, Obama didn’t mean what he said in any sense of constancy or integrity. So Obama refuses to read the report, and tells McChrystal to be quiet and get in no man’s land line. I said Obama used his 20minute chat time with McChrystal to brow beat McChrystal for being intellectually wise and effective in attempting to achieve his original assignment that he accepted in his appointment by Obama to lead our forces in Afghanistan.
We heard Hillary Clinton’s aspersion that it would require a willing suspension of disbelief to accept Patraeus’ report. That was then. This is now. In that same manner, McChrystal will be maligned by Obama. That was likely Obama’s reason for giving McChrystal the appointment, to set him up for the career assassination that would in turn ruin morale in Afghanistan, making evident Obama’s do-nothing but sabotage leadership and corrupt whatever is good. We have the best military imaginable with the worst Commander in Chief imaginable. And the only thing Obama wants is to look good while doing nothing more than posing for the camera, getting stroked.
maverick muse on October 5, 2009 at 8:36 AM
horatio on October 5, 2009 at 8:17 AM
Bravo
maverick muse on October 5, 2009 at 8:39 AM
Wow. That was like the Sunday morning beltway edition of The View.
BigD on October 5, 2009 at 7:43 AM
bwahahahaha excellent!
maverick muse on October 5, 2009 at 8:41 AM
Buy Danish on October 5, 2009 at 8:45 AM
Hmmm. Is that right David?
The less popular the MSM gets, the higher her star rises.
Thanks for doing your part, Mr. Brooks. And, BTW who was that other no name GOP “strategist”, that was playing the stooge for Maddow? GOP strategist my ass.
The phrase “modernize the GOP” is empty rhetoric that is designed to sound like it means something. All it means, is that these guys view the base as the enemy, and the Left as their “market”. Their collusion with the Left to demonize the common sense American is the same old song and dance as the hatred that the communists and fascists had for the bourgeoisie. It’s so “outdated”..and it is a proven loser for the GOP.
It’s time for you to sit down and close your pie holes. You sound like a broken mp3.
Saltysam on October 5, 2009 at 8:46 AM
Very interesting statement.
I’ve no idea what you’re talking about because I admire her a great deal specifically because of her beliefs.
How did I get to know what she believes? Am I, along with millions of others, projecting our own beliefs onto an otherwise empty slate of a woman?
Or are you saying she’s a hypocrite? Or that she’s shallow and ambiguous? She’s vague? To reserved and quiet, never speaking her mind?
Or perhaps you’re referring to a specific topic/issue/stance referenced earlier in this thread that I’ve missed. If so, what is it that she’s yet to give her position on?
Rod on October 5, 2009 at 8:47 AM
Reagan was just starting his association with General Electric (back when GE wasn’t run by greedy, amoral liberals) and delivering his first speeches on conservatism when he was the same age as Palin is right now. His equivalent experience to what Palin has gone through over the past 13 months was the battles with the left while president of the Screen Actor’s Guild.
That doesn’t mean Palin has to have another 25 years of experience as Reagan did before she becomes president. But at the same time those on the left or pundits like Brooks and Frum (sounds like the country music duo) who are writing her completely out of ever becoming president based on her life history are as wrong as they were in thinking that Obama would make a great president because of his life history at all the proper places, like Harvard, despite his lack of experience running anything as more than a figurehead.
jon1979 on October 5, 2009 at 8:50 AM
I’ll take a John Adams, if you please. Or a Hamilton, Lee, Paine, Jefferson … anyone but Robespierre.
Dusty on October 5, 2009 at 8:52 AM
Martial law, no. Workings towards every human being in the USA dependent on DC for their daily needs, yes.
DavidM on October 5, 2009 at 8:55 AM
You can smell the fear…
jerrytbg on October 5, 2009
It stinks of death…liberal, elitist death.
SKYFOX on October 5, 2009 at 8:57 AM
Actually Gov. Palin has but evidently you have not been paying attention.
Clyde5445 on October 5, 2009 at 8:57 AM
what about roads, food inspections, federally insured banks, street lights, government funding for cures for cancer?
Grow Fins on October 5, 2009 at 9:14 AM
What about ‘em?
Gang-of-One on October 5, 2009 at 9:32 AM
They aren’t quite there yet. But didn’t you notice the exasperation with yahoos actually criticizing Obama based on the Constitution? The number of liberals who thought that “Where’s the Auth for the Air Force?” was a real zinger? The answer to anybody who wonders where the agenda finds authority in the Constitution is, the Constitution doesn’t govern anymore.
Chris_Balsz on October 5, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Why is it that only Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck come up in these discussions? How have we allowed the state-run media to define those two and only those two as the voices of conservatism? This is very deliberate, you know – because Rush said “I hope he fails” and Beck said “Obama is a racist” the media elite can forever more paint the entire conservative movement as racists so long as we play on their field of only talking about and defending Limbaugh and Beck.
I listen to Laura Ingraham and Dennis Prager, and I would classify both of them as intellectuals. I listen to Mark Levin, and read his book, which is certainly more intellectual than Al Franken’s “Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idio,” the favorite book of progressives. I read Jonah Goldberg’s book “Liberal Fascism” – which to this day has never been effectively refuted by any so-called intellectuals on the Left.
rockmom on October 5, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Oh, jeez, not this sh*t again.
Roads and food inspection – not equal to – government ownership of banks and automobile companies.
Street lights – not equal to – government takeover of college lending.
Government cures for cancer? Can you name a cancer that is being cured thanks to government?
rockmom on October 5, 2009 at 9:39 AM
I hate it when I mix up my late 18th century revolutions…Actually, I thought the guillotine metaphor would have been clearer (off with their intellectual heads)…
horatio on October 5, 2009 at 9:44 AM
That’s right GrowFins. I’m with you: complete government control over everything!
I’m sick of having to be self-reliant and responsible for my own actions. I no longer what to think for myself, do for myself, or even be myself!
If the government can
ruinrun the roads why not my health too! If they can turn on the lights, they should be able to turn mine off!Chant with me growfins: More Government! Less Freedom! More Government! Less Freedom!
Rod on October 5, 2009 at 9:48 AM
There is a simple litmus test for Ive Leaguers to test how highfalutin’ they are. Actually there are several.
Here I’ll list a few.
1) Do you support government run health care?
2) Do you feel wind energy is a viable alternative to coal?
3) Do you feel Obama’s stimulus package will ultimately benefit the economy?
The list goes on, but you get the idea.
There are a great deal of “intellectuals” that can and should be completely dismissed.
jhffmn on October 5, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Count to 10 on October 5, 2009 at 9:50 AM
If the argument is that I’ve compromised myself, that I can never again object to a federal takeover if I support those things…then scrap them.
Chris_Balsz on October 5, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Which conservatives fail your litmus test?
Buy Danish on October 5, 2009 at 9:57 AM
LOL
Sheesh. It just goes to show how liberal this country has become when Sarah Palin is regarded as “far right.”
Also, Rachel Maddow is a scumbag. But I’m sure I’m not breaking any new ground there…
2Brave2Bscared on October 5, 2009 at 9:59 AM
I am a Conservative Elitist and proud of it. Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and their ilk are doing a major disservice to Conservatism. Once you Dittoheads understand that and unite the movement will grow strong.
Decider on October 5, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Says the person who thinks George “open borders” Will is a conservative.
I don’t mind criticism of Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. from the true conservative right. But it annoys me when I hear it from phonies such as yourself.
2Brave2Bscared on October 5, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Here’s HA reader book recommendations from last night and this morning, alphabetical by author:
Bloom: The Closing of the American Mind
Conquest: Harvest of Sorrows
Ellis: Founding Brothers
Friedman: Money Mischief
Hayek: Road to Serfdom
Levin: Liberty and Tyranny
Paine: Common Sense
Goldberg: Liberal Facism
Courois: The Black Book of Communism
O’Rourke: Parliament of Whores
McCullough: 1776
Lewis: Screwtape Letters
Friedman: Free to Choose
Steyn: American Alone
Wood: Radicalism of the American Revolution
Hayek: The Constitution of Liberty
Huxley: Brave New World
Muravchik: Heaven Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism
Page Smith: The Constitution: A documentary and Narrative History
Rand: Capitalism the Unknown Ideal
Shales: The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression
Shuffleton: The Letters of John and Abigail Adams
Skousen: The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World
Solzhenitsyn: Gulag Archipelago
And the original blueprints:
Declaration of Independence
Federalist Papers
U.S. Constitution
Interesting list for the family bookcase, nightable reading or potential Christmas shopping list…
publiuspen on October 5, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Its a good thing Rachael was on the panel, I started to panic there for a second at the end there thinking that the racism charge wasnt going to get made in that segment.
On another note, I found it hilarious to see these talking heads opine about how the Republicans need to “Modernize” the party and what type canidate they need to run. Of course the icing was not realizing that McCain lost NOT because of Sarah as a running mate but because of McCain on the ticket.
Koa on October 5, 2009 at 10:25 AM
I realize the cat has long since been let out of the bag on this but the federal government’s powers are constitutionally limited with all other powers left to the states or to the people. Also, government at any level should only do for us what we can’t do for ourselves (i.e. pave roads, inspect food, defend the borders, deliver the mail, etc.). Contrary to your implication, conservatives aren’t anarchists. We believe in government–limited government but government.
ncborn on October 5, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Buy Danish on October 5, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Well…almost alpha order. Sorry, merged two lists.
publiuspen on October 5, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Thank you, highhopes! Many a time I would be yelling at the tube when Russert was showing his bias. Yet he gets a pass from most conservatives. It’s an example that we’ve gone so far left we don’t even recognize bias when we see it.
Christian Conservative on October 5, 2009 at 10:38 AM
So David Gregory sits around on Sunday morning and says to four of his favorite squishies (except for Rachel Maddow, the manliest one of the entire bunch) and asks “whether the harshness of the debate becomes what controls the politics.”
Maddow, like a trained bitch hearing Pavlov’s bell, responds to the bait and immediately begins to attempt to annihilate Palin’s co-author, Lynn Vincent, who co-authored a book with Robert Stacy McCain (The Other McCain, I think) called Donkey Cons, which exposed asserted criminal association as a part of Democrat political life. She then alluded to accusations that R. S. McCain is a White Supremacist, that is, a racial hater.
So here we have David “Cecil” Gregory throwing out red meat for squishies and Rachel to disparage (Maddow and Dionne showing notable lisps in their delivery) and for Rachel Maddow to begin the PDS interlude by tainting the “association of an association.”
Get it? “Harshness” is against the rules for Republicans and other conservatives but totally acceptable for RINO and liberals to spew without constraint among the political “elite.”
Here Rachel: I long to see the day when you interview Sarah Palin and, after she leaves, you are caught on video sniffing her vacated seat in longing and desire, you Tea Party hating elitist!
You STARTED it!
ExpressoBold on October 5, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Doesn’t work that way, never has.
REAL conservatives, like Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan never, EVER stray from their core values. They have ONE message for everyone. Period.
THAT’S what people want. People want a LEADER. People want someone who stands for something. Someone who BELIEVES in what they are saying, and won’t bend one inch.
The independents will vote for Sarah in droves because they will see that she is real. They will see that she says what she means, and means what she says. They won’t agree with 100 percent of her agenda, but they will agree with 70-80 percent of it.
And BTW, I’m talking about the general election, against Teh Won. Indies don’t vote in the primaries, and the base will nominate Palin in a heartbeat. It won’t even be close. There IS no one else.
And since you have obviously have never seen this gal debate an opponent, on her terms, you simply cannot appreciate the ass whippin’ she will give Obama on the debate stage. It won’t be pretty at all.
The bottom line is this, if she runs in 2012, and there is absolutely no reason to think that she won’t, she will be the next President.
You can take that to Vegas!
gary4205 on October 5, 2009 at 11:30 AM
No your not. Your a troll who thinks that George Bush took away a whole list of freedoms….which I’m still waiting for you to present.
STFU
PappaMac on October 5, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Liberal elitists sitting around a table tut-tutting about angst conservatives give them…sometimes the jokes just write themselves.
Wyznowski on October 5, 2009 at 11:41 AM
loved the reagan quote at the end of that article. simple, but gave me goosebumps.
anna on October 5, 2009 at 1:23 PM
This may be a shock to your sensitive, squishy system but if you agree with the likes of brooks you are not a conservative.
peacenprosperity on October 5, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Huh?
You realize Sarah WROTE her own book too, right? Yeah, she had help, so do most non authors. they are called collaborators.
Barack Obama had ghostwriters. “Dreams of the Kenyan Guy I Never Met” was written by murdering terrorist Billy Ayers, and the “Audacity of Hype” was written by Jon Favreau.
And WTF? She “hasn’t said what she believes?” Are you kidding me? She says it every time she opens her mouth!
Sarah has been giving some pretty red meat speeches for quite some time.
Do you hear speech back in June in Anchorage when she introduced Michael Reagan?
Her speech to her troops in Kosovo?
Her last speech as Governor?
Her speech in China?
Hell, her speech at the 2008 RNC?
If you haven’t figured out what Sarah Palin believes, what she stands for, and what her vision for America is, then you are either not paying attention, or incredibly dense.
gary4205 on October 5, 2009 at 5:20 PM
The irony of watching Meet the Press is they never have a real Conservative on there and yet they always have true liberals on there. E.J. Dionne is one of those with his picture on the dictionary page next to liberals. I have never seen E.J. write anything close to a middle of the road thought, let alone conservative thought. Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, sort of says it all, doesn’t it?
What the press still refuses to admit is that, were Sarah Palin able to get Obama’s press, she’d be elected in a landslide. Obama could never have won had the press not carried his water for 9 months. I’m not sure McCain could have defeated Obama but I do know that, with all the baggage he had, he wouldn’t have gotten as many cross-over Republicans and Independents as he got.
bflat879 on October 5, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4