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 Next »
In order for Sarah Palin to win the nomination for 2012 she will need to appeal to the independents who up for grabs. And I think some here on Hot Air are not going to like that.
terryannonline on October 4, 2009 at 11:00 PM
I really don’t understand this meme that the intelligent conservatives are men like Brooks, and that the unintelligent ones are the people that actually have a following.
Brooks, etc, stabbed conservatism in the back by supporting Obama, and continue to compound their sin by trying to find *any* justification for what they did. Frankly, if you followed politics somewhat closely and believed Obama was anything other then a hardcore leftist you just were not, and are not, very bright.
And give me the “intellectualism” of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh over Kos or Olbermann any day. The leaders on the left generally have no idea where their ideology comes from, and no interest in learning it either – hardly the mark of a true brain trust.
18-1 on October 4, 2009 at 11:02 PM
ZOMG! Is that a real quote?!!
Hey anyways – I think Conservatives need to sit back and chillax a bit. David Brooks is a nobody now. One of my favorite lines from Star Trek was once uttered by McCoy …
“What the Klingon says is unimportant – and I do not hear his words”
Literally – David Brooks is unimportant – working for an unimportant newspaper going on unimportant networks (haven’t seen him on Fox lately has ya?).
Look at where the intensity in the GOP is now folks – and look at where David Brooks is standing … A LONG WAY AWAY FROM IT.
He’s not important. Don’t even know why Allah linked him here – seriously.
HondaV65 on October 4, 2009 at 11:02 PM
That I’m aware of Brooks never supported Obama.
terryannonline on October 4, 2009 at 11:03 PM
It’s more than just David Brooks. But he has lost his mind. He said prior to the election that BHO was smart, thoughtful and reasonable and would not do anything rash or to jeopardize the peace and safety of the US; talk about projection!
flicker on October 4, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Sorry, MrScribbler, Obama will never grow a pair. Ain’t gonna happen. Besides, he’s not “interested in victory.” That speaks volumes to our future. Scary!
Gang-of-One on October 4, 2009 at 11:04 PM
As much as I like Srash Palin, she hasn’t shown tome yet that she can articulate conservatism to the masses the way Limbaugh or other modern conservative personalities can. Her heart is in the right place, her values are sound and she knows how to tear apart a liberal when challenged but I’m still ont he fence about her being the voice of the conservative movement. She can be the face, but we’ll see about the voice.
Daemonocracy on October 4, 2009 at 11:04 PM
True, unfortunately the mushy middle are largely made up of “anti-libertarians”. Socially conservative and economically liberal, these are the people Bush reached via his “compassionate conservatism”. Of course the answer, as leftist politicians have shown us repeatedly, is *talk* a big game of going to the middle during the election, and then do an about face afterwords.
18-1 on October 4, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Yes. But what they didn’t do, with the exception of Thomas Paine, is wake the masses up. America needs more Thomas Paine right now.
Pablo on October 4, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Nite Hot Air,sweet dreams!
Hawkdriver,prayers for your Dads recovery,
enjoy your short stay state side!!:)
canopfor on October 4, 2009 at 11:06 PM
True. But look at it this way:
Liebercrud – boring and whiney.
Edwards – A profuse liar with two different voice tones. Like Warren ‘Shaggy’ Shagowski in Scooby-doo.
Sarah is light-years more engaging than even HillaryRottenClinton, Her Thighness.
Lanceman on October 4, 2009 at 11:07 PM
word for word…
Robert KKK Byrd
CC
CapedConservative on October 4, 2009 at 11:07 PM
I read Hayek throughout the week, and on the weekends, and he would have never been had by a leader due to a nice crease in the pants.
In point of fact, Hayek wrote about marginal thinkers in a minority being confronted with the daunting task of convincing the majority that their ideas (the minority) were supreme. Contrast that with Brooks/Frum/ and Murphy’s nonsense about moderation. Also, their labeling of Limbaugh and Beck as outsiders or not representative of the party proves Hayek’s point further.
Hayek also believed that “intellectuals” were most prone to believe and advocate some of the most destructive policies. This from Road to Serfdom.
Hayek expanded on this notion later…
And then there is Murphy who advocates a tax on sugar. It was Hayek who said…
Some people need to brush up on their Hayek.
Palin ftw.
V15J on October 4, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Have you checked the bestseller list at Amazon? People are waiting to hear her in droves. And our President is reading her Facebook page.
Pablo on October 4, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Good post +1
Sadly, Conservatives (not Conservatism) have hurt sat back and let the Left define “intellectualism,” “elitism,” and our education policies…
MeatHeadinCA on October 4, 2009 at 11:07 PM
After Obama’s inept handling of the Presidency I dont think the American people will find Sarah so unappealing. In fact it will be Obama’s extremism that will be the focus of the 2012 election IF the Gop can get its act together.
William Amos on October 4, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Every politician has to do it. They take one issue that they disagree with the party’s base in order to be more appealing to the moderates. They all do it. If Palin is going to have a prayer in 2012 she will have to do it too. I don’t know what issue it will be.
terryannonline on October 4, 2009 at 11:09 PM
The nomination? No, not unless you’re talking about open primaries and crossovers who would be expressly voting against her. But in order for Romney to win anything at all he’ll have to appeal to conservative voters, many of whom sat out for McCain. And choosing some other scapegoat VP candidate won’t cut it.
ddrintn on October 4, 2009 at 11:10 PM
and then there’s that dude Rachel Maddow likening Sarah Palin to a white supremacist? are you kidding me? Her choice of words was “guilt by choice”? I suppose Obama surrounding himself with communists, black nationalists, truthers and supporters of eugenics is quite alright then.
Daemonocracy on October 4, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Okay. I was a being a little over-broad, and you’re correct for a good number of cases, but I do think that people like Brooks actually think that they have brains. They have all sorts of defense mechanisms (conscious and subconscious) to shield their fragile egos when they meet face-to-face with their own stupidity, but they generally are full of themselves. They like to stare at their Ivy League certifications and diplomas to help shore up their egos after particularly bad experiences (such as having Joe The Plumber think up a simple question that got the idiot messiah into a mistaken rant reverting to his marxist roots and exposing his intentions better than any of them). Joe nailed the fool not only on his socialist tendencies, but took all of two seconds to figure out that a vote for BHO was a vote for the end of Israel, which made Brooks and the rest of the Vichy Right panty brigade spend hours staring at their Harvard plaques and diplomas to get their confidence back and convince themselves that, “Yeah, I am smart, dammit.”
progressoverpeace on October 4, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Why do you ‘appeal to the middle’ fakers continue to insist that the only way to win over the ‘independent’ is sell out conservatives?
Is it not possible in your world view that explaining again, as Regan did so effectively, that conservative policies bring prosperity to all? Do you just not get it? Or do you refuse to get it?
Do you believe that persuasion of the undecided is impossible? Why do you believe that politicians have to lie to get votes?
Skandia Recluse on October 4, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Yes the Republican primaries mostly consist of conservatives and some are open primaries. The Republican candidates will sound more conservative during the primary and become more moderate during the general election. However, I don’t think Republicans will vote for someone unless they see him/her as a viable candidate. And the only way one can be a viable candidate is appeal the Independents.
terryannonline on October 4, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Hayek on “saintly figures”…
V15J on October 4, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Sorry, late to the thread. Hawkdriver, I am glad your dad is improving, I know he appreciates having his family’s support. And you in turn have my prayers for all of you, for a his smooth complete recovery with a minimal amount of discomfort.
Cindy Munford on October 4, 2009 at 11:18 PM
I do–if she’s smart.
Horatius on October 4, 2009 at 11:18 PM
True, I believe that he did not explicitly say so. However, he wrote any number of laudatory articles about Obama while calling Palin a cancer on the party. As far as I can tell, to the extent he praised McCain it was to wish he was back to “compromise with the left” mode during the campaign.
18-1 on October 4, 2009 at 11:18 PM
He was practically orgasmic over Obama during the campaign, especially after that chillbilly came on the scene.
ddrintn on October 4, 2009 at 11:19 PM
What issue?
terryannonline on October 4, 2009 at 11:19 PM
She hasn’t even friggin said she’s gonna run. Why the vitriol about her. Gosh if they talked like this about Obama it would’ve been racism. Perhaps they’re sexists? The spellcheck joke was just ridiculous. Hey, Joe Biden anyone???
I’m just sick of hearing how stupid and unelectable she is, sick of the republican party, sick of Obama, sick of it all.
thevastlane on October 4, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Praising Obama is not the same thing as supporting him. He never said “I support Barack Obama.”
terryannonline on October 4, 2009 at 11:21 PM
Guess who said this?
I love Brooks QOTDs…
MeatHeadinCA on October 4, 2009 at 11:21 PM
That worked out beautifully last time, didn’t it? McCain should’ve been those “independents’” dream. Those “independents” aren’t really monolithic, just sitting there waiting for the suitable Dem Lite Republican that they can feel comfortable with. I’m an “independent”, for crying out loud.
ddrintn on October 4, 2009 at 11:23 PM
One the things about elitists is that they tend to rely on stereotypes (which is not very intellectual). When Brooks writes about Limbaugh, are his arguments informed by listening to Limbaugh for a few weeks? Or is he relying on sound bites and gossip from his NYT friends that feed into his stereotypes? My money says it is the latter.
pearson on October 4, 2009 at 11:24 PM
You mean Brooks…yeah, I agree.
Laura in Maryland on October 4, 2009 at 11:24 PM
Praising the idiot is worse than merely supporting him. Far, far worse.
progressoverpeace on October 4, 2009 at 11:24 PM
So full of themselves…so disconnected…so miserble…they are gonna get so rolled in 2012! They are on NBC for s reason…so one gives a damn what those elitist and the frustrated woman think…
CCRWM on October 4, 2009 at 11:24 PM
But which book do you want to read by your militia campfire before the call the goes out for the night crossing over the Ohio?
Levin’s
It is a manifesto, meaning it is at home in your pack like your rifle on your shoulder.
It is the Kalyshnikov of the Tea Party Movement.
In case you have not figured it out yet, we are in a war with the statists.
In a war, you need a WORKING book that is open to the masses and hits home.
“Liberty & Tyranny” does that.
Sapwolf on October 4, 2009 at 11:24 PM
It’s not possible to comment on a discussion like that without commenting on the people having the discussion. First of all, I don’t agree with AP that linking Lori Roman’s column to this idiotic group of liberals makes sense in the first place.
Here’s why: David Gregory: effeminate liberal who has destroyed the formerly dominant Sunday morning political talk show Meet the Press. It is now meaningless.
E.J. Dionne: laughable, lisping, liberal commentator with zero following outside of the editorial board of the Post.
David Brooks: effeminate liberal NY Times columnist and Obama admirer, marketed as a “conservative”. None of you have ever met a less conservative “conservative”. Audience: Allahpundit and maybe half of the editorial board of the NY Times.
Rachel Madcow: butch lesbian, leftist, with a political talk show ranked in the bottom quarter of cable talk shows. Audience: Olbermann’s viewers, but without the straight male junior high teachers.
Mike Murphy: never heard of him. Worst haircut I have ever seen.
What on earth does this have to do with conservatism?
Jaibones on October 4, 2009 at 11:24 PM
I watched that clip and I’m trying to figure out what the hell these so-called political pundits are talking about.
“The harshness of the debate”? What harshness are they referring to? When members of the media and the Democrat Party(I know, I’m being redundant) refer to conservative protesters as “teabaggers”? When Nancy Pelosi referred to Obamacare opponents as Nazis and Un-American? When Carter called them racists? When Obama himself told us to stop talking? Or how about the physical violence inflicted on conservatives by SEIU thugs and finger-biting leftist radicals?
I think one of the unfortunate outcomes of living in an insulated environment like these people do is that they start to believe their own narratives, no matter how absurd. They repeat the mantra that Bush is an idiot and war criminal long enough, that they buy into it. Same with Palin, at least with the idiot part. On the flip side, they kept telling themselves how brilliant and pragmatic Obama is, and they still to this day accept that premise despite all the evidence to the contrary.
And with the tea party protesters and opposition to Obama in general, they’d never sink as low as to actually speak with these people or try to gauge where they’re coming from ideologically. So they naturally assume they’re either racist, dumb, and/or mindless drones following the orders of Rush, Hannity, and Beck.
I don’t even think the “harshness” of the Dems losing the House next year or Obama being booted from the White House in 2012(even by Palin herself) will be enough to wake them from this stupor they’re in. So I believe it’s best to just ignore them and let them continue to think that middle America actually gives a crap what they think. And given the circulation of the NY Times and the ratings of MSDNC, we’ve got a pretty good head start.
Doughboy on October 4, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Sorry terryAnninCA, he doesn’t have to state his support for Obama when he does the Dem’s dirty work of tearing down any conservative that dares to speak up.
Laura in Maryland on October 4, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Guess what Americans is all over the map politically. They agree with conservatives on some issue and liberals on some issues. There is no way to be viable nation candidate and not be moderate in a couple of issues. Democrat candidates have to throw their liberal supporters under the bus sometimes….just ask Obama supporters!
terryannonline on October 4, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Is that some kind of liturgical formulation required to differentiate being an Obama whore from being an Obama “supporter”? Brooks has been pimping Obama for quite a while. That’s “support” enough in my book.
ddrintn on October 4, 2009 at 11:27 PM
In the words of the great philosophette Maddow, he is guilty of supporting Obama by the ideas he surrounds himself with.
MeatHeadinCA on October 4, 2009 at 11:28 PM
I bet you are a Glenn Beck type of independent, who would have preferred Hillary Clinton to John McCain.
terryannonline on October 4, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Brooks is the kind of guy who would if in 1930′s Germany would have easily reconciled his lightly held beliefs to make excuses to support the Fuhrer whether for his own fear of not being liked or he really believed it was all good for the German people.
The kind of a-hole who after the million bodies piles up looks for any excuse to rationalize his behavior.
That is the ‘type’ he is.
Sapwolf on October 4, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Mike Murphy is a jackass. This is why I no longer watch Meet the Press.
ramrants on October 4, 2009 at 11:29 PM
This group of clucking hens has as much influence as Obama did with the IOC. I can’t tell if their distemper is more loathing of Rush et al, or jealousy. Too close to call.
EMD on October 4, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Does anyone have a response to this?
Bueller?
crr6 on October 4, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Look let’s stop fighting over who is worse, Beck or Hillary.
Can’t we agree they both suck?
Unite of Die!
Sapwolf on October 4, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Actually it infuriates me. Time and again when I talk with liberals, they know nothing of history or civics – and this is specifically what they build their world views on.
I’ve come to believe that one of the most important things that we need to do is look to invigorate this field of teaching in the public schools. Heinlein’s idea of having combat veterans teach these sort of courses seems very appealing too.
18-1 on October 4, 2009 at 11:30 PM
At least you say you bet, instead of outright stating the above… Good thing you avoided that hyperbole.
MeatHeadinCA on October 4, 2009 at 11:30 PM
So, HA readers, from comments above:
- A plug for Hayek’s Road to Serfdom
- Two passes on Levin’s Tyranny and Liberty
Personally, just finishing up Paine’s Common Sense.
What other books are on your suggested reading list for self-educated, non-elitist, non-pseudo-intellectual, common sense conservatives?
publiuspen on October 4, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Not so sure, as all the rules are changing. Four years of liberalism mean that Obama can’t tack to the center. Thus, we could have a situation where a center-right country has to choose between four more years of liberalism or conservative change. If the GOP runs to the center, then the win will have no conservative mandate, which will be needed to repair the damage Obama has done.
pearson on October 4, 2009 at 11:31 PM
The idea of “appealing to the independents up for grabs” is a perfectly fine aim, in itself. The problem comes from the fact that this idea is always the first half of the a predictable thought. The rest of the thought goes something like, “and that’s why the GOP nominee will have to moderate his/her conservatism so the independents won’t be scared off.” At that point, the equation collapses into MSM “common wisdom.”
Folks, it’s been tried. Bush 41 tried it with “compassionate conservatism” and got a single mediocre term for his troubles. Dole tried it and became a national punchline. McCain tried it and – oh please, don’t get me started. We all know how well that went.
The record of Republicans who water down their views to appeal to the mushy middle is a record of unalloyed failure. If the independents want a Democrat, they’ll vote for a real one — the GOP’s Democrat-lite isn’t going to appeal to anyone.
What Reagan realized is that electoral victory isn’t achieved by leavening conservative principles with a big helping of populist welfare statism. Victory comes from communicating conservatism in a way that makes it understandable and attractive to moderates. “Reagan Democrats” were Democrats who were attracted to Reagan because he made a case for conservatism that was much more compelling than anything the Democrats had to sell.
The GOP needs to disabuse itself of the idea that victory can be had on a platform of “socialism, but slower.” Given the clusterfark authored by the current Adolescent-in-Chief, we may have a historic opportunity to bring in voters who are disgusted with the recklessness, corruption and moral obliviousness of the Left.
This will take a conservative to sell it, not a moderate. I don’t know if Sarah Palin is the one, but I am dead certain that an apologetic, equivocating centrist who’s embarrassed about being called a conservative will bring another electoral disaster down onto the heads of Republicans.
Deservedly.
Cicero43 on October 4, 2009 at 11:31 PM
…and what you stand against is just as critical as what you stand for. Brooks stands for his own ego and against anything that gives Obama the vapors.
He vacillates between useless and dangerous.
Laura in Maryland on October 4, 2009 at 11:31 PM
What issues do conservatives have to give up to get independent votes? Abortion? Religion?
Does a conservative really have to give up those issues, or can we just lie about them like the liberals do? You’ll vote for someone who lies to you, if you like their lies?
Skandia Recluse on October 4, 2009 at 11:31 PM
This segment should be subtitled, Turds at a Table. Rachel Maddow is an embarrassment, reaching to the bottom of the barrel that Palin is a racist, sickening.
tessa on October 4, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Sure, if we must have public schools ;)
MeatHeadinCA on October 4, 2009 at 11:32 PM
A truly intellectual person would not consider himself above his fellow citizens, everyone brings something to the game. To discount that, is a sign of conceit thereby making the label intellectual false. I am not sure how the adjective elitists is a complement outside of a specific talent. As it applies to political punditry I can’t think of a bigger insult on either side of the aisle.
Cindy Munford on October 4, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Aw jeez, just look at what you’ve gone and done there, Meathead!
+10
Laura in Maryland on October 4, 2009 at 11:34 PM
I liked Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, but that’s been out for some time now…
MeatHeadinCA on October 4, 2009 at 11:34 PM
F*ck no. Are you a Brooks sort of “conservative”, who prefers Obama to Palin?
ddrintn on October 4, 2009 at 11:34 PM
And what is the specific import of this? Can we no longer judge a man on his actions? I’ve argued politics for a long time, and I don’t think I have ever mouthed or written the specific incantation “I support candidate X”. And for clarity’s sake, this is not a Clintonian construction. :)
18-1 on October 4, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Anything for me ladies ;)
MeatHeadinCA on October 4, 2009 at 11:35 PM
I would say the odds of getting rid of public schools unless we first reform them are almost null. :)
18-1 on October 4, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Your lack of awareness is sort of legendary. No thinking person could read the combined columns of Brooks-on-Obama before the election and come away with any sense that Brooks either supported McCain or would vote for him. Even you.
I defy you to refute that. In English.
Jaibones on October 4, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Yes, but I would hope that some of that reform would include abolishing the dept of ed. Give more of the “authority” to the local communities and let them choose what’s best for them.
MeatHeadinCA on October 4, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Goldberg has written the most important book of this millennium and I’m sure he is as shocked about that fact as anyone else.
18-1 on October 4, 2009 at 11:37 PM
…Obama will get his second term.
ddrintn on October 4, 2009 at 11:38 PM
You are making the big point. S0-called intellectuals dismiss those not like themselves as irrelevant. Sarah Palin didn’t go to Harvard so she must be a loon.
highhopes on October 4, 2009 at 11:39 PM
As it stands today, I doubt it. Obama is clearly becoming Jimmy Carter II.
pearson on October 4, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Brooks needs to be reading WFB’s phone book, the elitist twit.
Laura in Maryland on October 4, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Even at that, it will seem dated by 2012. The book’s focus is 2008 and not the broader progressive movement it seems.
jhffmn on October 4, 2009 at 11:42 PM
The interesting thing is that it is people like Brooks and Frum that are trying to take the mantle of conservatism and reform the movement in their image.
Goldberg doesn’t put near the effort in that the above mentioned do, yet he has given some great guidance for the movement (and he hasn’t tried to reform anything).
MeatHeadinCA on October 4, 2009 at 11:42 PM
That would be more of an Ann Coulter type, actually. Don’t you remember the primaries? I agreed with Ann. Shrillary would have been ineffective. Imagine ‘reset’ style fiascos constantly, without the race-card to hold the media at bay. The media savaged Shrillary in the primary. They would not have been in the bag as they are with the idiot messiah. The media coverage constitutes a good 30% of his power, if not more. Not to mention the affirmative action credits he gets from everyone else.
Shrillary would have been nothing more than a failed Presidency. McCain would have done more damage than Shrillary. He was better at it.
Between McCain and the idiot messiah, though, there was no question. None at all. That’s where most conservatives disagree with what Beck said. But Beck still gets most things right, and he’s done more to stop the agenda from unfolding than anyone. That’s not to say that others aren’t as skilled, but Beck has been the only one on TV with the guts to describe what’s really going on, to a good extent. That’s why his McCain comment was so odd. Because he knows beeter. He was just trying to be provocative, and it was an inconsequential hypothetical, … and I know why he was saying it, so I didn’t mind it.
progressoverpeace on October 4, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Yeah, it is for dudes like Rachel Maddow, and those skank sluts Mses. Mathews, Olberman, and Shultz.
Gang-of-One on October 4, 2009 at 11:42 PM
+5
Laura in Maryland on October 4, 2009 at 11:42 PM
I will mirror the vote for Liberal Fascism
also:
The Black Book of Communism
Parliament of Whores
1776
Screwtape Letters
18-1 on October 4, 2009 at 11:43 PM
And while it’s not provable, I’d say Carter would’ve beaten George H. W. Bush in 1980.
ddrintn on October 4, 2009 at 11:44 PM
No I prefer to Palin to Obama.
terryannonline on October 4, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Free to Choose by Milton Friedman is a good place to start.
Ted Torgerson on October 4, 2009 at 11:45 PM
I think that’s well said.
Jaibones on October 4, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Brooks doesn’t. You need to frame your repeated defense of his idiotic comments in that knowledge. How does a conservative reject Palin in favor of Obama? He doesn’t, of course.
Jaibones on October 4, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Progressoverpeace is still upset his local community college turned him down.
He shouldn’t have been surprised considering he failed highschool history after repeatedly spelling “President”, “Precedent” in his essay.
crr6 on October 4, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Oooooh, I disagree. I think she would’ve already had a lot of the Dem agenda in place by now. Obama is more of a mere teleprompter reader.
ddrintn on October 4, 2009 at 11:47 PM
I second Screwtape Letters, and nominate anything Mark Steyn (especially America Alone).
Laura in Maryland on October 4, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Do not imagine, unwashed peasants, that being your intellectual superior is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Steven F. Hayward and David Brooks that all animals are equal. They would be only too happy to let you make your decisions, including whom to listen to, for yourselves, but sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, and listen to the wrong people, unwashed peasants, and then where would we be?
Cheshire Cat on October 4, 2009 at 11:48 PM
You don’t have to compromise to win an election. You have to tell people what you stand for and define your opponent.
You must do this in plain, straightforward language so the pseudo-intellectuals and terryannonline type of voters can’t be misled by the media.
Really, Terry Ann, you would vote for someone who lies to you?
Vince on October 4, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Yeah, but I mean come on….it’s Palin.
crr6 on October 4, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Well, yeah, it does depend on who the GOP picks. If they nominate another Ford/Dole/McCain, who is afraid to take the fight to the One, then the One could slip in again.
pearson on October 4, 2009 at 11:48 PM
WATCH THE CONSERVATIVE FIRING SQUAD AS THEY ASSEMBLE IN A CIRCLE
The far left won an election with a virtually unknown candidate who vacuously promised hope and change and whose presidency is a disaster and Steven Hayward asks whether conservatism ( I think he means conservatives) is brain dead.
The people who are brain dead are those who fell for this vacuous hope and change nonsense.
Conservatives are not brain dead but they don’t know how to play politics. The author of the linked article, Lori Roman, says she marched with a million people in Washington. Bill O’Reilly, a putative conservative says the marchers numbered 75,000. So what was it? And if it was even several hundred thousand why are conservative not trumpeting this.
I don’t think conservatives are brain dead but they certainly are clueless about how to fight politically. And I include Hayward in this description. Given Obama’s clearly radical agenda any conservative who thinks this is an appropriate time to attack other conservatives rather than Obama, Pelosi and Reid isn’t very bight no matter how many letters he has after his name.
Hayward’s premise is nonsense. What brilliant liberal intellectuals created the environment for the emergence of anyone as intellectually light and ignorant of history as Obama?
The answer is none. He was created by the rabidly anti-conservative MSM. And there is nothing more prosaic, more ordinary, and less introspective than our thoroughly leftist MSM. We didn’t see any Democrats criticizing the party’s public supporters when they were out of power. They were too busy focusing on the enemy.
Basilsbest on October 4, 2009 at 11:48 PM
LOL. You’re not too swift, are you?
ROFLMAO.
progressoverpeace on October 4, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Just curious what color the sky is in your world?
Ted Torgerson on October 4, 2009 at 11:51 PM
crr6, you are learning less and less about more and more and soon you will know nothing about everything.
Tav on October 4, 2009 at 11:51 PM
crrvx is the only commenter here who fails to get the joke. (I’m not going to explain it to her.)
Jaibones on October 4, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Update it with a new edition going into the 2012 race then.
It’s not like that is unprecedented.
Sapwolf on October 4, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Call me cynical but all politicians lie. Nothing new.
terryannonline on October 4, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Trust me. Her Presidency would have been just like her tenure at State. Stupid and ineffective. She blew the easiest primary in history. She had to side with Spitzer over licenses for illegals, and she was toast from there. No one liked her. Congress would have hated her. Pelosi and Shrillary would have been locked in mortal combat.
That’s how I see it. Like Bill’s Presidency, but a little worse.
progressoverpeace on October 4, 2009 at 11:52 PM
One of the saddest parts of election 2008, was knowing how well election 1996 worked out.
18-1 on October 4, 2009 at 11:53 PM
That explains why it takes so many of you. /
Cindy Munford on October 4, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »