Quotes of the day
posted at 10:35 pm on October 26, 2009 by Allahpundit
“HH: You know what? I can’t swear, David. I can’t swear. But I have really had it with this stuff. Your drive-by treatment of fellow conservatives is outrageous. And then not to be able to back it up and defend it by citing line and verse, is outrageous. It’s slanderous. It’s the worst kind of yellow journalism practiced by drive-by leftists who you ought not to have anything to do with. And I am P.O’d about it now.
“DF: I’m sorry, are you, you are now saying that, the way, the things you just said, that’s responsible talk?
“HH: Yes, I am, because I’ve got you on the air talking to me, and I’ll let you tee off on me. But when you drive-by me in Newsweek, when you put on your blog that in essence accuses me of hypocrisy, you don’t recognize it, and you won’t own it, and you can’t cite anything, David Frum. You are an outrageous example of the worst kind of yellow journalism out there. And the way you treat Limbaugh and Levin and Hannity, who do 50 times the work of keeping conservative principles alive in this country, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.”
***
“A senior GOP strategist, granted anonymity in order to speak candidly, lamented that in endorsing Hoffman, the contenders had delivered to the White House an early victory in their efforts to brand the Republican Party as dominated by its conservative wing.
“‘The Obama White House has made a lot of mistakes, but they’ve certainly gotten the Republican Party’s number,’ said the strategist.
“The rush to back Hoffman, this strategist said, is ‘proof that the Obama political strategy is working.’”
***
“‘Both parties seem to be more for big government,’ said Johnson, a probation clerk in Fulton, N.Y. ‘The Republicans need to learn that the people they are running [for office] do not represent the views of the people.’”
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 »
When was the last successful national coalition around a moderate GOP candidate?
ddrintn on October 26, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Here’s a Hoffman ad, with Fred! doing the honors.
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/10/ny23-video-new-doug-hoffman-ad-features.html
cs89 on October 26, 2009 at 11:34 PM
National (and especially presidential) GOP success? Where the hell are we?
LibTired on October 26, 2009 at 11:35 PM
I remember a couple of Townhall straw polls in early 2007. Newt was doing well because people like me were supporting him. McCain’s negatives were very high (each candidate was give a positive or negative value on a 10-point scale).
The famed GOP strategists SWORE we had to go centrist and McCain started to make a comeback late in the year and scared Republicans ran to the center and rescued his campaign.
So when I reject Newt here, it is with a heavy heart… but he’s buying the line that gave the Democrats the House for 40 years before 92 and which gave us a new prescription drug entitlement and the can’t lose John McCain candidacy. Sad, but true.
mankai on October 26, 2009 at 11:35 PM
McCain, and Newt, as individuals, are irrelevant. The point is there’s a moderate wing and a conservative wing of the republican party. I just used the names as placeholders. don’t get all hung up on that
The moderate wing used to be the ones that padded GOP majorities with northern seats. Now they’re wiped out. Do you then try pushing a republican brand they’ve never voted for, insisting that anything less is failure?
Was there nothing to the ideological makeup of those republicans? Was it all just a fluke? Or do those districts prefer moderate representation? I think, at the very least, that has to matter to the GOP. If it doesn’t, how do you build a national coalition that can set an agenda and take the white house?
ernesto on October 26, 2009 at 11:36 PM
This “civil war” is going to be played up by those who want to promote division within the Republican Party. That includes not only liberals, but some conservatives, unfortunately.
There’s no need to attack the RNC, which is obligated to support the Republican nominee, or prominent Republicans who are either remaining silent about this race or supporting the Republican nominee. There are good reasons for doing so.
The best approach, in my opinion, is to promote Doug Hoffman, attack the Democrat, and then simply list Scozzafava views and show her Margaret Sanger Award to the voters of the District. I hope the plurality vote for Hoffman.
If conservatives want to reach out to voters, an open hand is more attractive than a fist. And holding hands in victory is so much sweeter than holding grudges.
Loxodonta on October 26, 2009 at 11:36 PM
When has a reasonable argument ever worked inside the political
spherebubblehouse of mirrorsinsane asylumchuckle hut?
Geochelone on October 26, 2009 at 11:36 PM
A GOP without the resources those moderates in those districts brought with them would’ve had a much harder time of things in 2000. But again, its more than a president, its a solid majority in congress that can set an agenda. You need volume for that.
ernesto on October 26, 2009 at 11:38 PM
I get tired of countering frumian logic with real time examples but here goes again …
The Democrats RIGHT NOW – enjoy a huge majority in the Congress. They own the Executive. They enjoy overwhelmingly friendly press which is all too willing to act as their propaganda wing. They own most of the judiciary. They have HUGE networks in Unions and Community organizing and their internet coordination is second to none.
Yet they can do … NOTHING.
Look at Obama – he can’t get his agenda passed.
Why?
Because in order to reach a majority – he had to compromise on his electoral “coalition”. He’s now saddled with a hodgepodge of special interests – many of which clash with each other. Republicans are irrelevant – yet he cannot get his own party to back him.
You can throw this same recipe on the GOP and you will have the same result – with a GOP President looking like an impotent fool instead of Obama. In many ways we’re lucky this happened to the Dems because it may end up to be the death of them.
There is no need to impose this recipe for disaster on the GOP.
The GOP needs CONSERVATIVES who vote on principle. A big tent doesn’t work – look at the Dems.
HondaV65 on October 26, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Good. The Charmer in DC has made a big mess to clean up.
Loxodonta on October 26, 2009 at 11:39 PM
here’s something from the 2006 senate race for connecticut
Brass Knuckles on October 26, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Thanks for the tip. I was in time to hear most of it.
FloatingRock on October 26, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Would you call Scozzafava a “moderate”? If so, I don’t see any benefit to having such “moderates” just because they have an R after their names. They’d just be reliable Dem votes; they would probably be better off caucusing with the Dems.
ddrintn on October 26, 2009 at 11:40 PM
F’ed
LibTired on October 26, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Scozzafava is every bit the moderate Obama is.
LibTired on October 26, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Elections are all about turning out the base and moving 5% of independents… who are more likely to move for a fired up and principled candidate than a squishy one. The GOP strategists think that you have to get liberals to like you to win… they never will… and they certainly won’t vote for a Republican no matter how squishy he/she is.
McCain could not turn out the conservative base. Obama turned out traditional Democratic voting blocs in huge numbers… and still only polled 52.5%.
A principled conservative who marks a CLEAR distinction between himself/herself (and has the track record to prove it) can and would win the Presidency.
mankai on October 26, 2009 at 11:41 PM
David Frum is a particularly odious patch of pond scum and I’m glad that Hugh Hewitt stood up and ripped him, directly, in a conversation with him.
Django on October 26, 2009 at 11:41 PM
O well, he will never be a game show host. On the other hand barry has some promising career options on day time television.
Geochelone on October 26, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Can’t get his agenda passed? He’s just started, 4 (or 8) years is a loooooong time.
And if the big tent doesnt work, where do you find the seats for a solid majority? Not one of these midterm loss gimmes, a solid majority? Remember all those northern districts that used to get represented by moderate republicans? You ever wonder why those republicans were moderate? Could it possibly be that some people in those districts actually appreciate moderate representation? If not, how’d those GOPers get that way?
ernesto on October 26, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Thanks. I approve this ad. More please. And in more districts throughout the country in 2010, please.
Loxodonta on October 26, 2009 at 11:43 PM
The money flows to exciting principled candidates (on either side). Obama crushed McCain’s campaign and Hoffman is crushing Dede’s.
I didn’t give McCain a penny. Every time I thought about it, he’d come out and compliment Obama. Sorry, pal.
mankai on October 26, 2009 at 11:44 PM
There are certainly moderates that we need to court to win national elections. Conservatives remain a plurality, but not a majority, of the electorate.
The thing is that moderates don’t follow politics very closely – it is arguably why they are moderates – and could care less about Newt, or NY-23 (excepting the ones in NY-23). They almost invariably vote for the more charismatic candidate, though to the extent that they do have general political principles they are socially conservative and economically liberal.
So, if this particular election was not in a conservative district, and it was a presidential election, and Dede was a Pat Buchanan clone, not a Hillary Clinton clone, your argument might be valid, but since this is not the case there is no reason not to try and get the conservative candidate elected.
And additionally, even for those only to the slightest right of center it is critical to elect a conservative from these sort of districts. Hoffman will be one of hundreds of Reps in a legislative body that is currently solidly left wing. To the extent that he will influence the process it will be to ever so slightly return it to the middle. Dede would at best be a non factor and could arguably tilt it further left.
18-1 on October 26, 2009 at 11:44 PM
There it is folks!
Now we know without a doubt, where the party “leadership” stands as for as conservative values and issues are concerned – “Get out of our party, unless we need you.”
I have had it, I’m done with the Republican leadership if this what we have running the campaigns. We will never, and I mean NEVER, defeat the Socialists, the Marxists, and the Communists that seek to overthrow the conservative, free-market, God-inspired values that are at the very heart of this country.
MOR strategy means more McCains, more Bushes, and more Crists; please tell me what is the difference between a Charile Crist and a Dianne Feinstein, or a Michael Bloomberg? That’s right, NOTHING!
Joe Pyne on October 26, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Exactly. I really liked Newt. I was very ticked at his ad with Pelosi, especially to do that during an election, but I even got past that, temporarily, because it ended up being inconsequential (though stupid and truly disappointing). But this Hoffman thing is just too much. I could let Newt go if he just had his endorsement and left it there, but to hear him give these insane 10th amendment, outsiders stay out (when the national GOP is screwing things up there), it’s just too much.
I do hope that Newt takes some time off and thinks about his positions. I would like to see him come back to reality. He doesn’t seem to realize the threat that this nation actually faces. Newt thinks that everything is just going to move on as usual, no matter what the Washington junta does. He should look more at history and realize that this is a very real point of inflection for this nation, if not an extremum (and not in a good way).
Newt also doesn’t seem to understand the monetary issues that are lurking in the background. Either that or he massively underestimates the consequences that will flow from them.
progressoverpeace on October 26, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Iowahawk endorses Hoffman
zmdavid on October 26, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Then by all means, do everything you can to spread that view. I still wanna know how districts who never voted for a hardline conservative are all of a sudden gonna run to the ubercons Palin and co. will be trumpeting over the next few years.
So long as you all keep insisting that the ideological makeup of that bloc of GOPers was simply a fluke, or a deep character flaw that somehow gets tacitly approved term in and term out, you’ll run into races like this.
ernesto on October 26, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Given the advantages Obama had — commanding majorities in both houses of Congress — all of his agenda should have been passed by July. It hasn’t been, because those libs in their desire to have members of Congress with D’s after their names ran “moderate” to “conservative” candidates in conservative districts — who are now fearful of being thrown out of office next year.
ddrintn on October 26, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Ted Kennedy didn’t collect cars. He let the police do it.
Geochelone on October 26, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Was the previous Republican office holder in NY-23 a moderate or a conservative? If the latter – how does your argument apply here?
18-1 on October 26, 2009 at 11:49 PM
And I am sure you can document this fairly easily, am I right? Hello? Documentation? Evidence?
No? I thought so, more blather from a no-nothing liberal.
Joe Pyne on October 26, 2009 at 11:50 PM
I still wanna know what the difference is between a Democrat and your “squishy winners in squishy districts”. We’ve got two Maine senators who fit that bill, and we’re always wondering if they’re going to be the votes Obama needs.
ddrintn on October 26, 2009 at 11:50 PM
All I am saying is don’t be blind. Enthusiasm can make the wise into the biggest fools on the planet, seeing only what you want to see. Victory in one thing can blind you to folly in its over-application.
Liberals are watching this race as much as we are. They would love to see if they can spoil 2010/2012 for us by digging up
stalking horses“true conservative” challengers in close races to split the vote on the Right. If New Jersey isn’t a test case for this, I’ll buy a hat and eat it.Part of the 0bama Administration’s assurances to Blue Dogs even as we speak is their hope that the conservative base will demand candidates and political stances that are unelectable in the Blue Dogs’ purple districts. Newt is right when he says in 2010 we may have to support Republican candidates who are less than perfect conservatives in less-than-perfectly-conservative districts.
My husband never liked Jesse Helms, but never failed to vote for him every time he was up for election back when my husband was in NC. The Democrats always ran some gun-grabbing, tobacco-hating, military-dissing liberal douchebag against him–and on the whole, Helms was far preferable to that, so Helms got my husband’s vote. There may be conservative issues as near and dear to your heart as hating guns, tobacco, and the military was to the North Carolina Democrats. But in Ohio or Pennsylvania, forcefully articulating your stand on that issue will cause voters to hold their noses and vote for the Democrat every time.
Sekhmet on October 26, 2009 at 11:51 PM
OK conservatives, let’s make this thing work. We have this tiny window to try to save our country from both statists (Dems) and semi-statists (RINO’s). Contribute to Hoffman at hoffmanforcongress.com. Let’s roll!
Christian Conservative on October 26, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Any NY republican is moderate by national standards, but he was moderate enough to get picked up for secretary of the army by Obama…creating this whole mess in the first place I might ad. Low 70′s rating by the ACU. Pataki republican.
Now you’ve given up being serious. We’ll see, when push comes to shove, where the votes come down. Either way, 4 years is a long time.
ernesto on October 26, 2009 at 11:53 PM
i hope dede wins. seems so sweet, and has a wonderful name.
sesquipedalian on October 26, 2009 at 11:54 PM
I didn’t think the assertion that a) moderate GOPers exist(ed) and that b) those moderates came from moderate districts required a works cited page. The former NY-23 incumbent is currently Obama’s secretary of the army. Good Pataki republican.
ernesto on October 26, 2009 at 11:55 PM
One of the problems we conservatives have, is that our politically active moderates are very different from the left’s.
Specifically, Parker, Frum, etc are perfectly willing to stick a knife in a conservative’s back for no real gain. When we look at the Left though, these moderates are generally willing to fall on their swords for their left wing party members (no enemies to the left!).
Consider, for a moment, that Palin is politically in the middle of the Republican party and Obama is on the extreme edge of the Democrat party. Yet it is the Republican moderates at war with their party’s most notable spokesperson, not the Democrats.
If this election can serve as a warning to the likes of Frum to knock it off, and we can win, well, that is a certain win for us.
18-1 on October 26, 2009 at 11:55 PM
No, I’m serious. Why do you think they’re handling the health care bill as if it’s a bag of dog poo?
ddrintn on October 26, 2009 at 11:56 PM
The $64,000 question:
If 0bama’s approval didn’t tank in late June-July, and had stayed in the upper 50′s or lower 60′s until now, would Hoffmann have had a chance in Hell?
Sekhmet on October 26, 2009 at 11:56 PM
^ Other than the fact that it IS a bag of dog poo, of course.
ddrintn on October 26, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Oh, come on! The only places conservative issues cannot win are the major urban areas of the country, and they certainly do not make up the majority of voters in this country.
Outside of those aforementioned areas, every state in the Union is center-right on most issues, but are far-right on the issues of freedom and liberty. That’s why Jesse Helms won, not because the Democrats ran a liberal, but because Helms was the kind of strong conservative that would win in any state, and any county not named New York, San Francisco, or Los Angeles!
Joe Pyne on October 26, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Wha?
ernesto on October 26, 2009 at 11:57 PM
That’s a counterfactual that would require no health care bill, no cloying constant Obama appearances, no cap-and-trade bill, and no stimulus bill.
ddrintn on October 26, 2009 at 11:58 PM
We’ll see where the votes line up. The question of whether blue dogs have bite remains unanswered.
ernesto on October 26, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Frum ought to be ashamed of himself.
But whatever passes for dignity to him got left by the wayside looooooooong ago.
Vyce on October 27, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Tell me a few specific issues that put Palin in some sort of weird fringe ideology; and tell me which person is more in tune with the country on the issues, Palin or Obama.
Sorry, but Palin politically is mainstream.
ddrintn on October 27, 2009 at 12:00 AM
That’s because you are ignorant. Try doing a little research, pal. American Enterprise magazine did an entire issue on this, and they came up with the most amazing statistics you will never see in the main stream media, i.e., there are no “moderate” districts! There are center-right, center-left, and hard-right, and hard-left districts, but there are none that are a little bit of both, or what you would designate “moderate.”
Joe Pyne on October 27, 2009 at 12:01 AM
+1
I’m a lifelong (small “i”) independent who held her nose and voted for McCain. That was the last straw, and I will never vote for Republican-lite again.
The GOP should run a true conservative candidate and let the RINOS hold their noses for a change.
jix on October 27, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Yes, McHugh was a 74 – middle of the road Republican. Care to guess what Scozzafava got last year? 15. As a federal rep this would put her around the middle of the other NY Democrats. By the way Schumer got a 28.
So again, a solidly conservative district. And you are suggesting we elect a leftwing Democrat with an R by her name.
18-1 on October 27, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Moderate Republicans gave us essentially a permanent majority of Democrats in the Legislative branch. Reagan gave us three terms in the White House and led to the conservative revolution in 1994. Had Bush 41 governed from the right instead of drifting towards the center, he would have detroyed Clinton in 92.
America wants strong, principled, conservative leadership. The Bob Dole lightweights enjoy being the “minority leaders” because it’s easier than governing.
mankai on October 27, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Shes on the far right end on immigration and energy policy, and lest we forget she coined the term ‘death panels’. These aren’t middle of the road GOP characteristics. Palin’s a hardline conservative. And if Palin’s more in tune with the country on the issues than Obama…run her.
ernesto on October 27, 2009 at 12:06 AM
These “ubercons” aren’t ubercons. They just appear to be when compared to liberals who call themselves Republicans.
LibTired on October 27, 2009 at 12:06 AM
And is the difference between a center-right district and a hard-right one significant?
ernesto on October 27, 2009 at 12:07 AM
What is all this nonsense about a big tent?
.
The Democrats don’t have a big tent at all. They won’t allow any strongly religious people in. They cater to dyed in the wool leftists and fringe groups.
.
There seems to be a fiction rampant that the Democrats won with a broad coalition. They didn’t. The Conservatives lost because they were driven out of the Republican party by its leaders and Bush’s liberal policies at the end of his presidency.
FactsofLife on October 27, 2009 at 12:08 AM
I don’t think she’s on the “far right” on immigration policy; in fact, a lot of staunch conservatives would probably oppose her on that issue. As for “death panels”, it resonated with far more people than “public option” has. On energy, if Palin’s far right, then the country that rejects trying to power our cars on cow farts and frog burps is also far right.
It may come to that, who knows. But glancing at a number of polls on where the country stands in regards to Obama’s agenda will tell you that Obama is pretty much fringe.
ddrintn on October 27, 2009 at 12:09 AM
Back in April/May when the last guy in NY-23 got selected for the Secretary of the Army, and the GOP in NY-23 had to start thinking of a replacement, this was a realistic scenario (0bama leveling off in the high 50′s-low 60′s).
Sekhmet on October 27, 2009 at 12:10 AM
This is one of those areas that always amuses me. Yes, Palin’s views are completely in the mainstream of the Republican party (and arguably America as a whole). The State Media did demonize her as a far right winger…but then again that was their job. Certainly if Palin’s stated political principles ran as mere ideas with no personality attached to them they would not garner significantly less then 50%.
Had Obama, on the other hand, ran on a platform of nationalizing the banks, the auto companies, and the insurance companies and raising taxes on everyone, he would have gotten about 30% of the vote.
18-1 on October 27, 2009 at 12:12 AM
So you think Jesse Helms would have won anywhere in this country that wasn’t a big city? Uhhh, yeaahh, suuuure.
Sekhmet on October 27, 2009 at 12:13 AM
GOP moderate used to mean socially liberal, fiscally conservative. We agree to disagree on social issues, but we’re all for lower taxes and smaller government. When did we start labeling socially liberal, fiscally liberal politicians as GOP moderates? Is it because people like Collins and Snowe have abandoned all sense of fiscal responsibility?
If you run a big government Republican in the era of the angry tea party electorate, the Democrats deserve to win. Don’t blame it on the voters who won’t hold their nose and vote against their principles.
I don’t care about abortion, or gay marriage, or flag burning, but we absolutely positively must have a small government litmus test. If in facing a financial tsunami that is going to destroy our economy the GOP still can’t run a fiscal conservative, then the party needs to die a quick death. Without a commitment to fiscal responsibility, the GOP has lost all reason for existing.
John9400 on October 27, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Absolutely, positively correct!
And let me go a step further, most of the country is center-right, I think that can be safely placed in the factual box. The center-left candidates the Republicans are putting out there are liberals, Democrat – lite liberals! The reason Republicans are not winning, is because their strategy is directed at the wrong voters! Center-left, and hard-left voters (which make up about 35% of the country’s electorate) are never going to vote Republican, thus the Democrat wins every time. The ones who do end up voting for those liberal Republicans are generally politically neutral voters who don’t know who they want, they just don’t like Democrats. Conservatives, and most center-right voters stay home, or vote third party.
The Republicans have no chance if they continue to listen to the Michael Steeles and the Newt Gingrichs of the world. Reagan was not a conservative because it was a winning issue, but because he BELIEVED in conservative principles and delivered those principles in an easy to understand, committed way. When that kind of Republican emerges, we will win.
Joe Pyne on October 27, 2009 at 12:14 AM
The electorate of the country opposes amnesty, energy taxes, and socialized medicine, and the Republican party by an overwhelming margin.
18-1 on October 27, 2009 at 12:15 AM
Probably not, but he would probably have traveled better than Ted Kennedy, for example.
ddrintn on October 27, 2009 at 12:17 AM
Based on the evidence, and the voting patterns of most of the country, ABSOLUTELY!!!!
And the reason you don’t is ignorance of the research that has already been done, not only by the American Enterprise Institute, but The Heritage Foundation, National Review, Cato Institute, and the majority of the thinktanks in this country.
Joe Pyne on October 27, 2009 at 12:18 AM
I listen to Hugh every day and agree with him almost always. Today he was being the kind of person I despise the most, a thin skinned victim pussy.
azkenreid on October 27, 2009 at 12:20 AM
What the liberals have on their side when it comes to “coalition politics” is what I would deem an essentially religious movement, where liberal political stances are widely regarded as being public proof of ones piety and goodness.
Because liberalism doesn’t call itself a religion, but tries to scratch all of its itches, its adherents are as unaware of its religious nature as a fish is of the water in which it lives. They literally don’t see their naturally-dyed organic cotton muumuus as being kin to the dull black clothing of the Puritans, or their Western self-hatred as being kin to the Flagellants during the Plague.
To publicly dispute on the tiniest points is liable to invite charges of heresy, with its accompanying burning at the stake, so leftists don’t fight each other publicly. They get passive-aggressive.
Sekhmet on October 27, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Notice, this vacuum head calls a conservative who actually believes in conservatism a “hardline conservative.” Would he consider Obama a “hardline liberal”? Of course not! Want to know why? Because for all liberals and leftists like ernesto, anyone to the right of Lindsay Graham is a “hardline conservative” in their minds, when in reality they are mainstream conservatives.
Joe Pyne on October 27, 2009 at 12:25 AM
Drill baby drill was the sole issue the GOP held over the democrats in the fall of 2008. Also, explain how she is on the far right end of immigration?
jhffmn on October 27, 2009 at 12:29 AM
This is where we differ. This is not enthusiasm-based. It is quite the opposite. The difference between you and me, on this issue, seems to lie in how we assess the threat to our nation, both existential and to our very character. It wouldn’t be a big deal if there were other countries like America. I’d just go to one of them. That’s how it is for people in most other countries. They are all party-oriented, collectivist, government-run states. But America is unique. We are individualists who cherish the freedom of private property rights. We have nowhere else to go. These liberals who love socialism could find 100 countries that are just the way the libs claim they think countries should be governed. But they won’t leave. They want to take America and make it like everyone else, instead.
My view is that they are dangerously close to actually effecting that change, in a functionally irreversible way. On top of that, they are driving us to total monetary ruin, which will leave very little in its wake. In this respect, too, the US is different from all other nations that have hyper-inflated their currencies at one time or another. No one can bail us out. No one. The US doesn’t have the solutions with our currency that Zimbabwe had. When we go into a hyper-inflationary spiral, there will be no escape. And I’m not taling about minor inflation, like 20%, but real hyper-inflation. On top of that, there are other dangerous monetary crises bubbling, very dangerous problems, and the insane left’s policies are making them all worse, as the left seems bent on sucking every ounce of wealth from this nation to waste on one thing or another.
So …. that’s how I view our situation. I can’t speak for others, but I see many viewing the situation as if none of these threats exist, or if they do, they will all just pass by as Sept/Oct 2008 did. That is immensely naive. They talk about hyper-inflation, but don’t seem to really understand what it entails for us. Quantitative easing just rolls off their tongue as if the amazing danger of this strategy were nothing. We are not Iceland. If we happen onto those same sorts of circumstances (not hyperinflation, but an immediate depletion of value from the whole of the monetary system), there is no rescue for us, as we did for them. This is very real stuff.
Anyway, that’s where you and I seem to take separate paths on the correct politics and representatives. That is why I will not stand for RINO’s who cannot be trusted on the most important topics. Snowe, and people like her, are death. She is wholly responsible for this health care suicide bomb moving along in the process. Graham was solely responsible for Sotomayor getting out of committee without any fight. McCain was almost wholly responsible for tearing the right in pieces with his insane Shamnesty, that was the minor league legislative prelim to what the left is trying to do, now. These are deadly serious mistakes that this nation cannot afford, and I will not accept these sorts of politicians anymore. They can run, but they will never get my support, no matter who backs them.
progressoverpeace on October 27, 2009 at 12:29 AM
lol.
MB4 on October 27, 2009 at 12:33 AM
The Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.
— Ronald Reagan (1911-2004), while campaigning for Governor of California in 1966.
In the 1960′s, liberal Republicans were trying to drive conservatives out of the party. Reagan first adopted this line to protect Goldwater, himself and other conservatives from such attacks, but went on to apply it to moderate and liberal Republicans when the conservatives became a majority.
Since Reagan, the Republican Party has been dominated by conservatives, but there are differences among us. We have fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, national security conservatives, small government conservatives, etc. However, some conservatives were greedy and got corrupt with power. Others were incompetent. Others were hypocrites. And others were intolerant of any disagreement with or any compromise on their views of what should be done. These people either walked away from the Party or were rejected at the polls.
And voters tend not to like greedy or corrupt people. Nor hypocrites. Nor incompetent, angry, screaming, vulgar mouthed, or intolerant people.
Conservatives are not victims of some vast left-wing conspiracy. Instead, we are victims of our own human weaknesses. Let’s stop acting like spoiled children. Let’s stop acting like Barry and Hillary. Let’s stop blaming our problems on others. Let’s be adults and take responsibility for our errors and learn from them.
Loxodonta on October 27, 2009 at 12:37 AM
Does anyone know who this “senior GOP strategist, granted anonymity” is?
Meagan Meagan? Bill Mahr? Joe Biden?
MB4 on October 27, 2009 at 12:37 AM
MAN! I wish I could’ve heard Hugh stick to that POS Frum!
Anyone have the audio?
thebronze on October 27, 2009 at 12:40 AM
GW, 2004.
The murderous rage & assassination chic of the democrats nowithstanding, he was as squishy as his dad. Their mischaracterization of GW as “right-wing” let alone conservative was a profound triumph & continues to be the hinge on which the whole smear of the “right” revolves.
fronclynne on October 27, 2009 at 12:41 AM
Back in 1992. Bill Clinton was the moderate GOP candidate and he won.
MB4 on October 27, 2009 at 12:41 AM
Allahpundit.
Either that, or Ernesto. I can’t quite decide.
Wait! I know! AnninCA!
Loxodonta on October 27, 2009 at 12:42 AM
And, I should add that too many are vastly underestimating the threat of a feral government. The US has never known anything of the sort, but that is what we have, now. It is totally savage, constrained by nothing. This is a government that is proud to boast about how they shoved through the largest xtraordinary spending bill in history without letting anyone read it, saying that it had to be passed Friday, only to have The Precedent take a vacation and not sign it until Tuesday! And it is an awful bill, for nothing but paying off interest groups that are aligned against the very nature of America.
Take a minute and think about what such a government is really capable of, having no real constraints. It should send a chill down your spine.
progressoverpeace on October 27, 2009 at 12:42 AM
Perhaps it was a collaboration among them all.
MB4 on October 27, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Hopefully, this means Hoffman will soon be “cruising” to victory.
cs89 on October 27, 2009 at 12:45 AM
So, when I called Hugh Hewitt and think skinned, victim and a “pu$$y” that was censored? I presume this is so because I correctly spelled the word Pu$$Y. Maybe if I put the word into your head while disguising the spelling, that will be more acceptable? You and Hugh seem to have a lot in common.
He was wrong today. I listened to the show twice and he came across as a whining think skinned little boy who can’t stand the heat. Frankly, he reminded me of BO.
azkenreid on October 27, 2009 at 12:46 AM
I certainly wish that you would choose another word as a feral government would be a bare-bones one and certainly not be a nanny state intrusive one.
FeralCat on October 27, 2009 at 12:49 AM
Your cover is slipping. Only someone in on those negotiations would know that. So, how much time with the toe licking cats did AP give you? Confess! I want details!!
Loxodonta on October 27, 2009 at 12:51 AM
I can respect that. Where I am coming from is the understanding that many are willing to make the perfect the enemy of the good. And some good may be all that is needed right now.
A big part of what is driving politics in general right now is a major generational turnover. When the Papacy next changes hands, one may not be sure if it will be an Italian, a German, a Pole, or even an African. But he will most assuredly be a Catholic. As the Boomers reach retirement, can they say the same thing? Does this not explain much of the frenetic fever to force down as much of the Left’s agenda in a short time as possible?
And now, like in the Carter years, the uninvolved see the Left in all their statist control-freak glory, and they have begun to choke. The leftist pieties drilled into their heads for so many years are now impacting square with reality, without the buffer of a credible scapegoat keeping their agenda down. The panniers are now wider than the woman is tall. The well-shaped fashions of the ’80s have morphed into Milli-Vanilli. The fashion has reached its apotheosis of ridiculousness. After which it ceases to be the fashion.
We are so close. Just one more battle to hold the line, and maybe soon we can live our lives in peace on the other side.
Sekhmet on October 27, 2009 at 12:53 AM
Who said anything about negotiations? Were there negotiations? Maybe you were the “senior GOP strategist, granted anonymity”.
MB4 on October 27, 2009 at 12:55 AM
And the media is so very anxious to give anonymity to GOP “strategists” who dump on conservatives. What is a GOP strategist, anyway? Couldn’t it be a democrat strategizing or analyzing the GOP? I consider myself a GOP strategist, too. And “senior”? Maybe it’s John McCain.
chris999 on October 27, 2009 at 12:55 AM
Folks, Newts big claim to fame, and what brought power to the GOP, was the Contract with America…
Go READ IT!
Its all about small government… less taxes… term limits… and reigning in the power of the Federal Government.
The key was that he got MODERATES to sign onto that contract… which was a FISCAL CON contract…
Now however, we don’t hold them accountable… the Moderates go play with the dems…
Romeo13 on October 27, 2009 at 12:58 AM
I’m very sorry about that, but it is an apt name. The Constitution gives the constraints that domesticated the federal government. Without those limits, the federal government has returned to a savage state of nature, no longer limited by any rules of civilization. It has turned, indeed, into a feral government, and will not be again domesticated. This was the risk and we have come to its realization.
No offense to your name. Feral cats are kind of cool. Feral governments are certainly not.
progressoverpeace on October 27, 2009 at 1:00 AM
I looked it up at Wikipedia. They say it’s an oxymoron. Whatever that is. I’m not really sure. But I think it’s sort of like a cat shepherd.
Loxodonta on October 27, 2009 at 1:01 AM
If AnninCA, Ernesto and Allahpundit were in a room together, there would have to be long negotiations about everything.
Seriously.
haha*
I may be senior and anonymous, but I’m not stupid you know.
Loxodonta on October 27, 2009 at 1:04 AM
I hope electing fiscally sane Republicans (unlike Dede, in other words) in 2010 is going to be easier than herding cats.
chris999 on October 27, 2009 at 1:07 AM
Oh, it wasn’t so long ago that the Dems had a civil war of their own. The 2008 Dem primary was a very bitter campaign: Chock full of snipes from and to former president clinton, voters from FL & MI threatning to walk, PUMA’s, pre-emptive Super-Delegates public endorcements, and 18 million voters for Hillary hoping she would start her own party! Even after they elected obama, Sen Feinstine had to play the stealth hostess of urgency to get Hillary & Obama to kiss and make up….
TN Mom on October 27, 2009 at 1:08 AM
You forgot the:
Heck, good gravy, frankly, I am really not that conservative
Geochelone on October 27, 2009 at 1:08 AM
Keeping with the kitty cat meme, I think rounding up GOP donors lost after the NY-23 fiasco is going to be like herding cats.
chris999 on October 27, 2009 at 1:11 AM
You got to admit, things are going great for Obama
MB4 on October 27, 2009 at 1:14 AM
His last tee shot was a far left hook into the quagmire.
Geochelone on October 27, 2009 at 1:16 AM
+1000
The principled independents are indeed capable of winning.
Of course, Lamont won a primary, while all DeDe had to do was a few cigars in the back rooms of the RNC; no rank and file needed to apply.
unclesmrgol on October 27, 2009 at 1:16 AM
The problem isn’t that the county GOP nominated a moderate Republican.
It’s that they nominated Nancy Pelosi.
JEM on October 27, 2009 at 1:17 AM
Put that way, we’ve analyzed their attack and there is a danger.
unclesmrgol on October 27, 2009 at 1:21 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »