Will: The party that produced four Bush nominations in 20 years is hardly “extreme”

posted at 11:21 am on June 18, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Let’s play a game that we used to play in school, and lay out a series of data points to see if anyone can guess what they have in common.  Ready?  Here we go:

  • Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain, Romney

What’s the answer?  As George Will insisted yesterday on ABC’s This Week, it sure isn’t extremism, despite what Jeb Bush thinks:

“Well, let’s look at the facts,” Will said. “Since Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party has given its presidential nomination four times to the Bush family. Other times, to Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney — where’s the extremist in that lot? Now, Jeb Bush’s father is celebrated today for a statesman ship that consisted of breaking the promise to the American people of not raising taxes. He had a budget deal in 1990, Austan [Goolsbee] because this goes back to something you said earlier. In the budget deal it was said for every $2 of — every dollar of tax increase, would be $2 of spending cuts. The tax increases went into effect and spending increased.”

Will added that it is popular for observers to romanticize politicians like Reagan, along with conservative commentator William Buckley and 1964 presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, after the fact.

“We’re going through this — we go through this all the time,” he continued. “About 20 years after a conservative leaves the scene or dies, he becomes acceptable. They said, ‘If only people were more like Ronald Reagan, that wonderful libertarian curmudgeon Barry Goldwater and that fine fellow Bill Buckley.’ I worked for Bill Buckley, voted for Barry Goldwater, knew Ronald Reagan and no one talked about him on the left that way at the time.”

For that matter, take a look at the main contenders in the Republican primary this year, once the voting started.  The race came down to Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum.  All of these men had good qualities and shortcomings, but none of them are known for their extremist bent, no matter what the hyperventilating media might have said at the time. All four represented the same mainstreams in Republican politics that existed when Reagan was President, and have ever since.

It seems especially churlish to hear this kind of complaint coming from former Governor Jeb Bush after watching his father and brother rack up more than half of the GOP’s presidential nominations in the last 30 years.  Will does a nice job with Bush’s hanging curve and knocks it out of the park.

On the same show, Tim Pawlenty argues that the real problem is the “arsonist” of bipartisanship in the White House at the moment. Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama.  And Jeb’s griping about extremism in the GOP?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

Way to stay on message, Jeb.

aquaviva on June 18, 2012 at 11:25 AM

The American Conservative Union gave various other Senate Democrats scores from 10% to near 50%, but it gave Obama an 8% during his Senate years.
There’s your extremist.

itsnotaboutme on June 18, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Spot on, George. Spot on.

Now go put on a pair of jeans and relax.

MadisonConservative on June 18, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Everyone knows there is no such thing as an extremist liberal.
While 18% of the population, outnumbered 2 to 1 by conservatives, we are the extremists and they are the mainstream. Math sure is hard now isn’t it?

baseballguy on June 18, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Jeb is just disappointed that there won’t be a 5th Bush nomination anytime soon…

If his Dad hadn’t raised our taxes (“Read my lips…”), and his brother had CUT SPENDING instead of running up the deficit, he would have been a “shoe-in”…

Khun Joe on June 18, 2012 at 11:27 AM

The race came down to Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum.

No mention of Ron Paul? I would suggest the radical meter jumps more than a bit to the left when one includes the champion of potheads.

Happy Nomad on June 18, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain, Romney

According to Noam Chomsky they are all Fascists?

NotCoach on June 18, 2012 at 11:31 AM

One day i will understand people’s fascination with Jeb. It is not today and likely not tomorrow. Having lived in the state when he was governor, i can attest he lacks anything close to a second rate mind.

I remember that after Christ was elected (Christ mind you!), i was listening to the news and a solid well thought out change had been made…. i sat in shock for a minute thinking “Did Jeb finally grow a brain….” Then i realized Jeb was not longer governor… and that explained it completely.

aniptofar on June 18, 2012 at 11:31 AM

“Why can’t we all just get along”. Famous words from a reckless driver, not a good thing in politics where principles are supposed to matter. Obama and the Dems are doing their best to damage the country & Jeb wants us to be moderate. This way we’ll go downhill slower, a policy to die for.

arand on June 18, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Everyone knows there is no such thing as an extremist liberal.
While 18% of the population, outnumbered 2 to 1 by conservatives, we are the extremists and they are the mainstream. Math sure is hard now isn’t it?

baseballguy on June 18, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Reminds me of gay marriage and how a majority of voters in every single state to ever have the issue on their ballots are apparently extremists.

NotCoach on June 18, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Every now and then George Will sounds like the guy who used to always carry the conservative banner. This is a good example I suppose.

Too often however, he acts like he’s spent way too much time drinking the ABC koolaid. Wish he spent more time condemning Obama and less time going after Jeb Bush.

fogw on June 18, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I still say he’s smarter than Billy Carter.:)

a capella on June 18, 2012 at 11:34 AM

No mention of Ron Paul? I would suggest the radical meter jumps more than a bit to the left when one includes the champion of potheads.

Happy Nomad on June 18, 2012 at 11:29 AM

No, because Ron Paul was never a serious contender in the race.

Shump on June 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM

fogw on June 18, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I’ve always liked him. Agree with him about 75% of the time. Close enough!

a capella on June 18, 2012 at 11:36 AM

According to Noam Chomsky they are all Fascists?

NotCoach on June 18, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Noam Chomsky is funny (ok Noam really isn’t funny, he’s a disgusting intellectual pervert), he loves him some Karl Marx and Joesph Stalin but calls everyone who fails to appreciate Marx and Stalin fascists.

SWalker on June 18, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Hey Grandma Bush, tell Jeb to sit down and shut up, and go back to Alaska Florida.

idesign on June 18, 2012 at 11:36 AM

No, because Ron Paul was never a serious contender in the race.

Shump on June 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Tell that to the Paulbots. They still think that he’s going to be the nominee after a brokered convention.

Happy Nomad on June 18, 2012 at 11:38 AM

It’s the same old liberal cliche. They hold themselves up as the paragons of mainstream political thought, so therefore anyone to the right of them is an extremist. These are the same morons who still try to sell us on the idea that Obama is some sort of pragmatic centrist whose biggest shortcoming is that he’s too darn accommodating to those evil Republicans.

Doughboy on June 18, 2012 at 11:38 AM

True conservatism isn’t extreme either. That term is nothing more than rabid rhetoric from the socialists. They fail.

Todays republicans are more like liberal lite. The socialists, like Mr. Obama are the extreme ones. He and they want to fundamentally change America. They say our country is broken and never worked. That’s what socialists do.

And they fail. Over and over and over and over.

dogsoldier on June 18, 2012 at 11:39 AM

No, because Ron Paul was never a serious contender in the race.

Shump on June 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Tell that to the Paulbots. They still think that he’s going to be the nominee after a brokered convention.

Happy Nomad on June 18, 2012 at 11:38 AM

If the Ronulans are representative of the detachment from reality of pot smokers in general, then they are the best example of why pot should not be legalized.

SWalker on June 18, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Noam Chomsky is funny (ok Noam really isn’t funny, he’s a disgusting intellectual pervert), he loves him some Karl Marx and Joesph Stalin but calls everyone who fails to appreciate Marx and Stalin fascists.

SWalker on June 18, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Fascism is extreme conservatism because of corporations! Or something.

NotCoach on June 18, 2012 at 11:42 AM

For comparison, here’s what the DemocRATS put up in that time-frame:

Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama (and until the 1994 elections moderated him, Clinton wasn’t all that much different from the others)

Steve Eggleston on June 18, 2012 at 11:42 AM

How can the Republican party be extreme when Mitch and John bends over and take it from Barack every time they can.

John and Mitch allows massive spending increase and for FAR LEFT judges to pass the Senate, how is that extreme?

BroncosRock on June 18, 2012 at 11:42 AM

The race came down to Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum. All of these men had good qualities and shortcomings, but none of them are known for their extremist bent, no matter what the hyperventilating media might have said at the time.

Rick Santorum had good qualities and wasn’t extremest? Need I remind you that this is the man who said this?:

If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Johnson, Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama

Enough said.

steebo77 on June 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Spot on, George. Spot on.

Now go put on a pair of jeans and relax.

MadisonConservative on June 18, 2012 at 11:27 AM

I’m surprised nobody else remembers Will’s lack of fashion sense.

Steve Eggleston on June 18, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Niall Ferguson: If young Americans knew what was good for them, they would all be in the Tea Party

“Governments should be more honest about the size of their debts and young voters would be wise to get politicians to pay them off as soon as possible, says economic historian Niall Ferguson.”

That’s it, a key!
If the young turn on O, it’s curtains for O. I always thought that it was counter-logical that the young should push for massive increases in spending on entitlements, when it is ultimately the young that will pay the biggest price for this recklessness.
The young were bowled over by Mr. Coool in 2008, but are they now starting to understand what his policies really mean for them? Will they now switch en masse to Romney’s sober assessment of what it will take to end this stagnation, to get this country back on its feet?

anotherJoe on June 18, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Johnson, Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama

Enough said.

steebo77 on June 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Glad somebody went back to 1964.

This post will never be brought to you by the DemocRAT Party – Redefining “radicalism” since 1964.

Steve Eggleston on June 18, 2012 at 11:47 AM

No, because Ron Paul was never a serious contender in the race.

Shump on June 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Tell that to the Iowa delegation at the RNC.

Or the Louisiana delegation.

Or the Maine delegation.

Or the Minnesota delegation.

JohnGalt23 on June 18, 2012 at 11:47 AM

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Santorum was correct. The so called right to privacy never existed in our constitution. It was invented with the Griswold v. Connecticut case. That is the foundational case that will someday be cited as a reason for SCOTUS declaring laws against gay marriage unconstitutional, just as it was cited in Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas. And once gay marriage is constitutionally protected, why shouldn’t other types of relationships also be constitutionally protected?

NotCoach on June 18, 2012 at 11:47 AM

JohnGalt23 on June 18, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Throw a Howard Dean scream in there and I am sure you will convince us all of the inevitability of a Ron Paul nomination.

NotCoach on June 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama. And Jeb’s griping about extremism in the GOP?

boggles the mind

maybe he hates the tea party?

cmsinaz on June 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM

When I first saw Bush’s comments I knew I disagreed with them and stated so on a few blogs. I thought I might be sticking my neck out. Apparently not, which is good, because it means I’m still a conservative.

bflat879 on June 18, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Throw a Howard Dean scream in there and I am sure you will convince us all of the inevitability of a Ron Paul nomination.

NotCoach on June 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Not at all. I always said Mitt Romney was the favorite, and Ron Paul a long shot.

Unlike the moon men who were sure it was Gingrich’s time, or the backers of Senator Church Lady, who just got their arse handed to them in Iowa.

JohnGalt23 on June 18, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Jeb, shut up.

search4truth on June 18, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Santorum was correct. The so called right to privacy never existed in our constitution. It was invented with the Griswold v. Connecticut case. That is the foundational case that will someday be cited as a reason for SCOTUS declaring laws against gay marriage unconstitutional, just as it was cited in Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas. And once gay marriage is constitutionally protected, why shouldn’t other types of relationships also be constitutionally protected?

NotCoach on June 18, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Let me say this once and only once: if you believe that the government, federal or state, should have the power to break into your home, put you in handcuffs, arrest you, and send you to jail because you were having consensual sex with someone over the age of consent, then you have no right calling yourself an advocate for small government. Period.

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Unlike the moon men who were sure it was Gingrich’s time, or the backers of Senator Church Lady, who just got their arse handed to them in Iowa.

JohnGalt23 on June 18, 2012 at 11:52 AM

I voted for Senator Church Lady, but I never thought he was a slam dunk just because he ended being the person I supported.

NotCoach on June 18, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Add that the second Bush may be the most conservative nominee during the twenty year span, which isn’t saying much.

midgeorgian on June 18, 2012 at 11:57 AM

I voted for Senator Church Lady, but I never thought he was a slam dunk just because he ended being the person I supported.

NotCoach on June 18, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Good to know a closet-dwelling, right-to-work-opposing, debt-expanding, statist was never a slam-dunk for the GOP nomination. Although I’m sure the AFL-CIO is willing to show the Church Lady their appreciation, for all his hard work on their behalf…

JohnGalt23 on June 18, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Let me say this once and only once: if you believe that the government, federal or state, should have the power to break into your home, put you in handcuffs, arrest you, and send you to jail because you were having consensual sex with someone over the age of consent, then you have no right calling yourself an advocate for small government. Period.

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 11:53 AM

This is a strawman based on mountains of ignorance.

First, while there is no explicit right to privacy, there is an implied right to privacy. No governmental agency can break your door down without cause. Even in the Lawrence case the defendants had to invent cause (neighbor called police claiming that a violent act was occurring at the residence) in order to get the police to show up at their home.

Second, many issues are political issues to be decided at the state level. Most people have no use for sodomy laws (myself included), but that does not make them unconstitutional.

Third, you sidestep entirely my point about inventing a right to privacy in the Constitution. I’m going to ask you the question again: Once gay marriage is constitutionally protected, why shouldn’t other types of relationships also be constitutionally protected?

NotCoach on June 18, 2012 at 11:58 AM

No mention of Ron Paul? I would suggest the radical meter jumps more than a bit to the left when one includes the champion of potheads.

Happy Nomad on June 18, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Let’s stick to serious candidates, otherwise we have to throw in Howard Huntsman as well.

slickwillie2001 on June 18, 2012 at 11:59 AM

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM

The point he was making is that if the right to gay marriage is discovered within the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, then it can logically be held that the Constitution protects polygamy, etc., pretty much anything you want to plug in there.

The obvious point is – the U.S. Constitution contains nothing about marriage – PERIOD. Marriage has always been a state-by-state issue.

TarheelBen on June 18, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Four Bush, Dole, McCain, Romney… and the one who ran on spending cuts and delivered them was…?

ajacksonian on June 18, 2012 at 12:00 PM

I always thought that it was counter-logical that the young should push for massive increases in spending on entitlements, when it is ultimately the young that will pay the biggest price for this recklessness.

anotherJoe on June 18, 2012 at 11:45 AM

What does logical have to do with the young? the young do not, in general, have good logical decision making skills. This is not a slam on the young, but an empirical fact.

It’s why we place legal limits on those decision making abilities. It’s why they are restricted from obtaining a drivers or license or getting married until they are 16 or 17, why they are restricted from voting or owning a firearm until they are 18, why they are restricted from drinking alcohol until they are 21.

The simple basic fact is, that the human brain isn’t even fully developed until until the individual is 25. While some young people display amazing degree’s of rational logical abilities while still young, it is not a monolithic or uniform pattern of behavior for the young to display such characteristics.

Those individuals are in fact the exception rather than the rule. The young tend to be the easiest as a group to manipulate and take advantage of because they simply don’t have enough experience with the concept of the long term relationship between cause and affect in the decision making process.

SWalker on June 18, 2012 at 12:01 PM

The republican party is being diluted more and more – trying to blur the differences between the parties hasn’t worked and probably won’t work this time around, either. We have to hope that the voters tune into what a disaster Obama is, but what are the chances of that happening? I agree with the bright, bold colors as opposed to pale pastels analogy when it comes to ideas and philosophies, but some people never learn. And to make it even more depressing, there are a whole brood of Romneys waiting in the wing to continue that dynasty. Politics as usual.

mozalf on June 18, 2012 at 12:01 PM

The thing I found funny during yesterday’s This Week was watching Katrina from The Nation. As I recall, every time George Will spoke–and a time or two after Dowd spoke–she looked as vexed as the dad in A Christmas Story after the mom broke the leg lamp and had used up all the glue.

Seriously, why does ABC News include such a left-wing nutjob? If the political spectrum were a football field, she and Bernie Sanders would be holding hands in the Left’s endzone–she’s not even in the playing field.

BuckeyeSam on June 18, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Not only is he wrong, the single bright spot in Obama’s month has come from Jeb Bush. Wait to go, idiot.

Fish on June 18, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Another great comparison would be to see the ACU/ADA ratings for Boehner, Hastert, Gingrich, and Bob Michel vs. Pelosi, Gephardt, and O’Neill. Which are the real “extremists?”

I sure would like to know who these extremists are who are leading the Republican Party.

rockmom on June 18, 2012 at 12:04 PM

I’m sorry. Completely OT, but every time I see George Will, I see my mentoring teacher when I was in college, student teaching. K. Hardy – G. Will… same momma?! Just sayin’. And Mr. Hardy was pretty non-extremist to boot… if not riding the fence between Republican and Independent.

But, back on topic, yes, Mr. Will is spot on.

I think Jeb’s just in a snit because he thinks he should’ve jumped in or get some of the action… like he’s owed.

Logus on June 18, 2012 at 12:08 PM

…just talk baseball George!

KOOLAID2 on June 18, 2012 at 12:09 PM

This is a strawman based on mountains of ignorance.

First, while there is no explicit right to privacy, there is an implied right to privacy. No governmental agency can break your door down without cause. Even in the Lawrence case the defendants had to invent cause (neighbor called police claiming that a violent act was occurring at the residence) in order to get the police to show up at their home.

Second, many issues are political issues to be decided at the state level. Most people have no use for sodomy laws (myself included), but that does not make them unconstitutional.

Third, you sidestep entirely my point about inventing a right to privacy in the Constitution. I’m going to ask you the question again: Once gay marriage is constitutionally protected, why shouldn’t other types of relationships also be constitutionally protected?

NotCoach on June 18, 2012 at 11:58 AM

I believe, much like SCOTUS has, that yes, there is a right to privacy in the constitution. I also believe that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, as are laws that would fine or put people in prison for adultery.

To answer your final question, if SCOTUS ever does come to the conclusion that anti-gay marriage laws are unconstitutional, then they won’t use the right to privacy as justification. They will more than likely use the Equal Protection Clause as justification.

I believe that anyone over the age of consent should have the right to be married. Either that or get government out of marriage altogether.

But, my point still stands. If you are a person who, as you stated, has a use for sodomy laws, you aren’t a conservative.

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Sorry Jeb, it’s not all about you.

Ward Cleaver on June 18, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Everyone knows there is no such thing as an extremist liberal.
While 18% of the population, outnumbered 2 to 1 by conservatives, we are the extremists and they are the mainstream. Math sure is hard now isn’t it?

baseballguy on June 18, 2012 at 11:27 AM

So Jeb is the Barbie of the Bush family. I remember when Jeb was called the “smart brother.” Every one of these political dynasties, Bushies, Kennedies, and Clintons produce candidates for POTUS who are worse with each new candidate. I’m tired of all of them.

Gladtobehere on June 18, 2012 at 12:12 PM

When I was in school learning history when I was growing up I learned that corporatists like Romney are the far-right of politics, and I don’t think the USA has ever had a candidate as far right as Romney.

I realize that in recent decades the corporatists, whom own and operate the MSM, have tried to reinvent themselves as “moderates”, but in fact that is just their own deceitful propaganda, the corporatists are not only far-right, still, but the American far-right has never been as far right as Romney before.

The far right and far left are the statist authoritarians, of whatever stripe. The center, the vaunted “moderates”, are regular people who just want to live their lives without having undue burdens forced on them by the far right and left. The center of American politics, in theory, would be anarchists, real ones, not the Marxists thug type that aren’t anarchists at all, but real anarchists of which there are few if any. Most moderates and centrists, again, real ones, not the MSM counterfeits from the far-right and far-left, most moderates fall to the left or right of center and don’t truly occupy the center.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM

The thing I found funny during yesterday’s This Week was watching Katrina from The Nation. As I recall, every time George Will spoke–and a time or two after Dowd spoke–she looked as vexed as the dad in A Christmas Story after the mom broke the leg lamp and had used up all the glue.

Seriously, why does ABC News include such a left-wing nutjob? If the political spectrum were a football field, she and Bernie Sanders would be holding hands in the Left’s endzone–she’s not even in the playing field.

BuckeyeSam on June 18, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Vanden Hoover has always been a nutcase, yet because the Left will not admit that the left has an extreme, she can’t be labeled.

slickwillie2001 on June 18, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Every now and then George Will sounds like the guy who used to always carry the conservative banner. This is a good example I suppose.

fogw on June 18, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Like all “house conservatives” employed by the liberal media, George Will knows exactly how long his leash is; choke chains can be painful.

bw222 on June 18, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Bush was extreme in a number of ways. He abandoned the free market “in order to save it”. Bush invaded Iraq after 9/11 even though Iraq didn’t have anything to do with it. The countries that were most responsible for 9/11 were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, but instead we went into Afghanistan and, for apparently personal vendetta in the Bush family, Iraq. Bush bankrupted American fighting stupid wars using ridiculous Rules of Engagement, had no overarching strategic vision, got a lot of people killed, and in the end Iraq is basically in Iran’s hands now. Bush spent a lot of money on big-gov domestic projects too, selling out young Americans, who did all of his fighting and dying for him and also are getting stuck with the tab.

Bush was an extremist, and there is ever reason to believe that Romney will be a lot worse.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 12:20 PM

But, my point still stands. If you are a person who, as you stated, has a use for sodomy laws, you aren’t a conservative.

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 12:09 PM

I would contend that if you actually believe the Constitution has a right to privacy written into it you are light years away from being a conservative.

NotCoach on June 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Bush bailed out all of his corrupt cronies in the banking industry! He may not be as corporatist as Romney, but he still served his crony masters well.

As much as small-gov conservatives like to think of themselves as the “right wing”, they are wrong, they are on “the right”, but they are much closer to the center than they believe.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 12:23 PM

When I was in school learning history when I was growing up I learned that corporatists like Romney are the far-right of politics, and I don’t think the USA has ever had a candidate as far right as Romney.

Huh? In what way is Romney a “corporatist”? His record in Massachusetts is quite Liberal. I’m not aware that he ran Massachusetts for the benefit of any companies. Proof?

Gladtobehere on June 18, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Mark Levin writes:

A couple of quick things: 1. As I demonstrated last week, remarkably George Will missed the Reagan Revolution not only in 1976 but as late as 1980. In the 1979 Republican Presidential Primary, his first choice was Howard Baker, his second choice was George H. W. Bush, and his third choice was Reagan. Not until days before the 1980 general election did he write on November 3, 1980 that Reagan deserved election. For all his wonderful columns, the Republican electorate better understood the needs of the nation and the excellence of a potential Reagan presidency than Will. It is hard to believe he was so wrong about a matter of such great import, despite Reagan’s presence on the national scene for many years. 2. Charles Krauthammer was not only wrong about Reagan, as late as 1980 he was a speech-writer for Vice President Walter Mondale. Krauthammer, like Will, not only missed the significance of the Reagan candidacy, but was putting words in the mouth of a terribly flawed politician from a philosophical perspective. I certainly do not begrudge, but in fact encourage, liberals becoming conservatives or Democrats becoming Republicans. Reagan was a Democrat who famously changed parties. But I do not believe that individuals touted by a left-wing “news” site as two of the leading conservative intellectuals, who stunningly opposed Reagan’s candidacy while both were of mature age and mind, are necessarily reliable barometers in this regard. The “non-intellectual” voters knew better.

unseen on June 18, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Vanden Hoover has always been a nutcase, yet because the Left will not admit that the left has an extreme, she can’t be labeled.

slickwillie2001 on June 18, 2012 at 12:14 PM

I agree. She and other kooks are revered all over the network and cable dials. I don’t get it. But it was priceless to watch her puff when Dowd (the ABC reporter) spoke up on the subject of spending cuts after she and Goolsbee lauded Obama for his “balanced approach” of tax increases and spending cuts. Dowd flatly said that the spending cuts never come. In fact, he then said, “My sons tell me that they’re going to cut the lawn, but I never believe them until they actually do.”

It was hilarious to watch Katrina huff and the mere suggestion that the Dems would lie about spending cuts. All the same, Dowd’s line just crushed them.

BuckeyeSam on June 18, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Hey Grandma Bush, tell Jeb to sit down and shut up, and go back to Alaska Florida.

idesign on June 18, 2012 at 11:36 AM

The 85 year old biddy with the 125 year old face needs to shut up too.

bw222 on June 18, 2012 at 12:26 PM

When I was in school learning history when I was growing up I learned that corporatists like Romney are the far-right of politics, and I don’t think the USA has ever had a candidate as far right as Romney.

I realize that in recent decades the corporatists, whom own and operate the MSM, have tried to reinvent themselves as “moderates”, but in fact that is just their own deceitful propaganda, the corporatists are not only far-right, still, but the American far-right has never been as far right as Romney before.

The far right and far left are the statist authoritarians, of whatever stripe. The center, the vaunted “moderates”, are regular people who just want to live their lives without having undue burdens forced on them by the far right and left. The center of American politics, in theory, would be anarchists, real ones, not the Marxists thug type that aren’t anarchists at all, but real anarchists of which there are few if any. Most moderates and centrists, again, real ones, not the MSM counterfeits from the far-right and far-left, most moderates fall to the left or right of center and don’t truly occupy the center.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM

While I disagree with your contention that Romney falls on the far right, I do agree with your assertion that the vast majority of American’s are right or left centrists.

The Fifth Column Treasonous Media has pushed the leftist rhetorical boundary so far to the left that genuine center/center moderates like Charles Krauthammer have the appearance of being center right leaning conservatives.

When you have gone off the road, off the shoulder, through the ditch and are parked way out in the middle of the left field, everything in the middle of the road seem like it is far right.

Your contention that the majority of America’s just want to be left alone, isn’t true only of Americans today, but is a historically accurate depiction of the average American’s philosophical and ideological position.

It’s why we still celebrate cowboys as icons of American culture. The American as a rugged individualist isn’t a pulp novel concept, it is American historical reality.

Throughout American history more American’s have leaned center right than have leaned center left, but the smallest minority have always been those whose leanings were to the extreme of either direction.

SWalker on June 18, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Huh? In what way is Romney a “corporatist”? His record in Massachusetts is quite Liberal. I’m not aware that he ran Massachusetts for the benefit of any companies. Proof?

Gladtobehere on June 18, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Proof? Ever heard of Romneycare? Romney forced the young residence of Mass to buy extremely expensive insurance and healthcare products from Romney’s cronies that donated to his campaign! He was the first far-right corporatist in the nation to do so, not Obama.

And Obamacare is not Marxist or socialist, it’s corporatist like Romneycare.

Romney supported bailing out his cronies on Wall Street, too.

There isn’t a politician in America as far-right as Romney.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Proof? Ever heard of Romneycare? Romney forced the young residence of Mass to buy extremely expensive insurance and healthcare products from Romney’s cronies that donated to his campaign! He was the first far-right corporatist in the nation to do so, not Obama.

Where is your proof that the healthcare companies are making big money over Romneycare?

Gladtobehere on June 18, 2012 at 12:36 PM

While I disagree with your contention that Romney falls on the far right, I do agree with your assertion that the vast majority of American’s are right or left centrists.

SWalker on June 18, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Well Romney certainly isn’t one of us in the middle of politics being bombarded with statism from the far-left and right of American politics, he’s on of the people who have been pushing the boundary, being the first to institute a crony-capitalist solution to the bottom line of his cronies balance sheet, and all for a nanny-state cause.

Romney is in fact the farthest-right politician in America.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Or maybe Bloomberg is the leading edge of the far-right, but I think the Romneycare mandate that costs young Americans hundreds of dollars a month for something few of them actually need is a lot worse than making them buy a couple of smaller soda’s instead of one big one.

I think Romney is significantly to the right of Bloomberg.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Where is your proof that the healthcare companies are making big money over Romneycare?

Gladtobehere on June 18, 2012 at 12:36 PM

/rolls eyes

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Proof? Ever heard of Romneycare? Romney forced the young residence of Mass to buy extremely expensive insurance and healthcare products from Romney’s cronies that donated to his campaign! He was the first far-right corporatist in the nation to do so, not Obama.

And Obamacare is not Marxist or socialist, it’s corporatist like Romneycare.

Romney supported bailing out his cronies on Wall Street, too.

There isn’t a politician in America as far-right as Romney.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 12:30 PM

The world is never as straight forward black and white as we would like it to be. Earlier you ranted about Bush destroying the free market in order to save it. Find out what happened on Sept 18th, 2008 between 10:00am and 1:00pm if you want to know what Bush was talking about. I’ll even help you out here.

SWalker on June 18, 2012 at 12:42 PM

God bless Will for putting up with that snake nest every week.

paul1149 on June 18, 2012 at 12:43 PM

I’ve always liked him. Agree with him about 75% of the time. Close enough!

a capella on June 18, 2012 at 11:36 AM

I think I’m down to about 50%. The true “unwavering” conservatives are becoming a vanishing breed.

The thing I found funny during yesterday’s This Week was watching Katrina from The Nation. As I recall, every time George Will spoke–and a time or two after Dowd spoke–she looked as vexed as the dad in A Christmas Story after the mom broke the leg lamp and had used up all the glue.

BuckeyeSam on June 18, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Two observations. Katrina just couldn’t help herself from interrupting anyone on the panel who disagreed with her. And as you so correctly pointed out, the faces she made while the others spoke were hilarious, eye-rolls included. She also had the appearance of experiencing some Joan Rivers-like plastic surgery.

fogw on June 18, 2012 at 12:43 PM

The mandate makes young people send hundreds of dollars of their own money to Romney’s campaign contributors every month. Maybe Romney is even an investor, but I don’t know. If they don’t willingly give up their private property to Romney’s cronies, Romney will bring the force of government down on them.

Romney is faaaaaar to the right of Bloomberg, and a lot of these NE Republicans are too.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Or maybe Bloomberg is the leading edge of the far-right, but I think the Romneycare mandate that costs young Americans hundreds of dollars a month for something few of them actually need is a lot worse than making them buy a couple of smaller soda’s instead of one big one.

I think Romney is significantly to the right of Bloomberg.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 12:41 PM

As I said in my

SWalker on June 18, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Things are never as simple or straight forwards as we want them to be or even as they seem.

Unfortunately we do live in a world where Machiavellian intentions abound and where the seemingly obvious is usually in reality a enigma wrapped in a riddle shrouded in mystery.

SWalker on June 18, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Romney is in fact the farthest-right politician in America.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Something is floating, anyway…

MNHawk on June 18, 2012 at 12:49 PM

/rolls eyes

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Hysterical ranting is not proof. Public companies have to report their profits. Show me some links that prove these healthcare companies are making big money over Romneycare. They take in more money, but they also have to spend more in mandated healthcare. Show me that the balance is favorable and large to the healthcare companies.

Gladtobehere on June 18, 2012 at 12:51 PM

SWalker on June 18, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Your link doesn’t seem to work but I can get to ZeroHedge’s front page. At any rate, I am aware of curcumstances, and I am also aware that the far-left and far-right caused those very curcumstances with their profligate spending, and now we are headed down the road to fascism or Marxism being the only solution, they want people to believe.

But it’s not true. We don’t have to choose between Marxists on the left and fascists on the right, we can chose the American path that we already know works. We don’t have to let fascists turn us into debt-slaves to their corrupt banks that crashed our economy and ran away with all the doe. And we don’t have to accept Marxism, either, as the only solution to the problems that the profligate policies of these very same political parties themselves caused.

The problem is not the solution, and the ruling class, the same one now as that tanked our economy in ’08, continues to dilly dally while the debt skyrockets and inflation increases.

The solution to the problems caused by the status quo is to change the ruling class, but instead the ruling class is using the fear caused by their own failures in the past to scare people into embracing the far-left or far-right.

These are dangerous times, and the ’12 election is a fork in the destiny of our nation, and the ruling class is trying to deny America the option of going back to the way things were and are trying to make people choose between Marxism and fascism with a smile.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 12:55 PM

The conventional wisdom of the MSM, the D’s (I know, redundancy), & the GOPe is that the Tea Party, and more specifically, Sarah Palin, represents an extremist right-wing ideology. I have asked two questions of many who like to label Palin as an extremist, but I never do get a straight answer. My questions are simple and unambiguous. On what major issues does Palin disagree with the majority of Americans? What makes Palin a right-wing extremist?

Can anyone here answer my questions?

NoNails on June 18, 2012 at 12:55 PM

…So the only place for people to learn about the third path, the American path, is online. So if anybody wants to pick an American president instead of a European one, encourage everybody you know to get more of their news from the Internet, and not from corporate media outlets in NY.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Can we form a viable third conservative party in the next few years? Please, Please???? The Dems certainly don’t speak for me but then neither do most Repubs these days. Jeb, you don’t speak for me.

neyney on June 18, 2012 at 12:59 PM

NoNails on June 18, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Exactly, Palin isn’t far right, she didn’t invent Obama/Romneycare. She’s right of center somewhere but not a wing nut like Romney. But in NY, the corporations that own and operate the media would rather you believe that Palin is a far-right extremist while Romney is the pleasant “moderate”, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Regarding Palin, common sense solutions are not right-wing, but using government force to make people send a lot of their money to a politicians cronies is right-wing.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Can we form a viable third conservative party in the next few years? Please, Please???? The Dems certainly don’t speak for me but then neither do most Repubs these days. Jeb, you don’t speak for me.

neyney on June 18, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Yes, we can, and Palin will be leading the effort. If you listen carefully to her past comments in regard to electing true conservatives to city & county offices, school boards, statehouses, and to the House & Senate, her message is clear- Clean out the swamp by starting at the bottom of the food change. Those who fail to get the message will be swept away.

NoNails on June 18, 2012 at 1:04 PM

The reason our economy crashed in ’08 is because our government and the banks got in bed together in a corrupt relationship that was very lucrative for both sides of the arrangement. They crashed the economy and ran away with all the lute, the taxpayers footed the bill instead of them. Nobody has ever gone to jail for that. Bush and Romney, both right-wingers, (as well as the left because they were in on the lucre, too), supported the taxpayer bailouts of those crooks. And their cronies in the government, while the tea party exacted a price of many of them, nobody has really been punished for the corruption, at all. In the meantime we learned that a lot of them have been engaged in insider trading as well, and they’re still there running the show. Nobody has resigned. Nobody is in jail.

And these corrupt POS are still in control and doing just fine, nothing has changed, spending, debt and inflation continue to explode without any action or proposals from either party. The tea party doesn’t have anything to say about it anymore and don’t seem to care. They have given into fear and are willing to make the choice between the far-left and far-right, and have chosen the far-right.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Gladtobehere on June 18, 2012 at 12:51 PM

I don’t know what you’re talking about, everybody knows about the Romneycare mandate, I don’t need to prove it to anyone.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 1:10 PM

They crashed the economy and ran away with all the lute, the taxpayers footed the bill instead of them.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 1:09 PM

I don’t know if they stole a musical instrument or not, but they did steal a lot of money. ;-) Since a lute is not normally bolted down, they probably stole that too.

NoNails on June 18, 2012 at 1:13 PM

The problem is not the solution, and the ruling class, the same one now as that tanked our economy in ’08, continues to dilly dally while the debt skyrockets and inflation increases.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 12:55 PM

What really tanked the economy in 2008 was what I was trying to give you a link to. On Sept 18th 2008 at 11:00am China withdrew $550 BILLION dollars from the federal banking system, They were attempting to pull 5.5 TRILLION dollars out of the Federal Reserve in a period of 4 hours.

On Thursday (Sept 18), at 11am the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the U.S., to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic out there.

If they had not done that, their estimation is that by 2pm that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the U.S., would have collapsed the entire economy of the U.S., and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.

This is what Really happened to the US economy. China engaged the United States in an act of economic warfare. The US government hushed it up as best they could. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is reality.

SWalker on June 18, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Two observations. Katrina just couldn’t help herself from interrupting anyone on the panel who disagreed with her. And as you so correctly pointed out, the faces she made while the others spoke were hilarious, eye-rolls included. She also had the appearance of experiencing some Joan Rivers-like plastic surgery.

fogw on June 18, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Yep, used to be a nice-loooking lady, but now she is looking kind of alien. The eyes are odd.

slickwillie2001 on June 18, 2012 at 1:14 PM

I don’t know what you’re talking about, everybody knows about the Romneycare mandate, I don’t need to prove it to anyone.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 1:10 PM

What you haven’t done is prove your main point, which is that Romneycare is making more money for the healthcare companies. If what you said is true, then someone, somewhere must have an analysis that shows that the extra money taken in outweighs the extra costs from mandated healthcare.

What you did was go on an hour long hysterical rant. Feeling better now?

Gladtobehere on June 18, 2012 at 1:20 PM

FloatingRock:

Explain to me how corporatism is a far-rightist orientation. As traditionally understood corporatism is government ownership of the economy de facto utilizing favored corporations to implement government policy.

In that sense Barack Obama is corporatist, as he issues waivers to favored companies yet blames them for his political failures. Philosophically he’s a Marxist, but corporatism is his preferred front for implementation.

Romneycare is also corporatist, whatever Romney’s reasons for trying to implement anything reasonable with an 85% Dem legislature is beyond me, and I don’t like the mandate at all, but I don’t believe Romney intended it to end up as corporatist as it did.

Libertarianism is much closer to a rightist-oriented philosophy, meaning Ron Paul probably was the far-rightist candidate.

BKennedy on June 18, 2012 at 1:22 PM

This is not a conspiracy theory, it is reality.

SWalker on June 18, 2012 at 1:13 PM

The ALuminum COrporation of America thanks you.

JohnGalt23 on June 18, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I would contend that if you actually believe the Constitution has a right to privacy written into it you are light years away from being a conservative.

[NotCoach on June 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM]

What about the Ninth Amendment?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Isn’t this an acknowledgement that there are other rights that “exist” whether enumerated therein or not?

It seems to me that your defense hangs on that which many in the Founders’ day argued was the problem with the proposal to add a Bill of Rights, i.e., that enumerating them would give short shrift to others not enumerated, thus tending to limit rights to only those that are in the Constitution.

I’d also note your arguments on the subject have a decidedly government granted rights tone to it, with your adamance in referring to explicit Constitutional enumeration, as though it is some kind of requirement, and your characterization that the court “invent” the right to privacy, rather than acknowledging it exists, at least, in some contexts and conditions.

Dusty on June 18, 2012 at 1:27 PM

This is not a conspiracy theory, it is reality.

SWalker on June 18, 2012 at 1:13 PM

The ALuminum COrporation of America thanks you.

JohnGalt23 on June 18, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Put the crack pipe down john, this is document historical fact, not speculation or conjecture.

SWalker on June 18, 2012 at 1:29 PM

NoNails on June 18, 2012 at 1:13 PM

They wanted musical accompaniment to make the experience of looting more pleasurable. : )

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM

This is not a conspiracy theory, it is reality.

SWalker on June 18, 2012 at 1:13 PM

The ALuminum COrporation of America thanks you.

JohnGalt23 on June 18, 2012 at 1:25 PM

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/17657/Rep__Kanjorski___550_Billion_Electronic_Bank_Run/

At 2 minutes, 20 seconds into this C-Span video clip, Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania explains how the Federal Reserve told Congress members about a “tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the United States, to the tune of $550 billion dollars.” According to Kanjorski, this electronic transfer occured over the period of an hour or two.

SWalker on June 18, 2012 at 1:35 PM

This is what Really happened to the US economy. China engaged the United States in an act of economic warfare. The US government hushed it up as best they could. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is reality.

SWalker on June 18, 2012 at 1:13 PM

China didn’t create the housing/debt bubble and subsequent crash, our crooked politicians and their cronies did. China was wise to withdraw their money from our house of financial cards.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 1:36 PM

I note that it is often the far-right and far-left that like to blame foreigners for all of their problems, but China was making a prudent decision withdrawing money from the crony ponzy-scheme our government and financial institutions have become.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Don’t blame China, blame Wall Street and DC.

FloatingRock on June 18, 2012 at 1:40 PM

I believe, much like SCOTUS has, that yes, there is a right to privacy in the constitution. I also believe that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, as are laws that would fine or put people in prison for adultery.

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 12:09 PM

1) If the sodomy laws had been Federal, you would be correct. However, since sodomy is not mentioned in the US Constitution, the 10th Amendment kicks in and this becomes a state issue. The sodomy laws were laws implemented at the STATE level, and thus were Constitutional as far as restricting the act (which is also the case you agreed with as far as “consent” laws… which are also state laws covering the act of sex).

2) The “burst in and arrest you” is prevented under the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. The actions which led to the repeal of the state sodomy laws did indeed include a violation of the 4th Amendment. Thus, the cops should have been reprimanded/charged/fired and the “consenting adults” left uncharged. But the law itself was Constitutional, and should have been left to stand.

And I agree with the earlier comment. Santorium was correct. If “rights” can be construed out of nothing, then everything can be legislated and we have NO rights.

If you feel different, please state where the “right” to sodomy comes from. It isn’t in the US Constitution, so you must be getting it from somewhere. … thin air perhaps?

dominigan on June 18, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Jeb is just bitter that his brother stole his thunder. He can never be president now.

Schadenfreude on June 18, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2