Charles Johnson, editor of the Little Green Footballs site, has written a post declaring his personal breach with the American right.
He offers 10 reasons, but they all boil down to the same one: His outrage at the bad characters found in right-wing media and blogosphere.
And yes, there’s no shortage of bad characters. No shortage on the left-hand side either. Or the middle, for that matter. But why surrender to them? Why let them get away with their claim to define your movement? Why not stand up to them? That was Rudyard Kipling’s advice to those who felt as Johnson now feels:
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools;
These are days for stooping and building.
So here’s my own hastily jotted counter-list of the reasons to keep right.
It’s the American right that will sustain the war in Afghanistan, the right that will fight the administration’s overspending, the right that will resist paying for the spending in ways that cramp the future growth of the American economy.
It’s the right that champions competition in education, and it is the right that will prevent the undoing of welfare reform. It’s the right that pushes for color-blind laws, and against the abuse of the legal system for attorney gain.
It’s the right that resists, sometimes blindly but still rightly, overbearing attempts by government to direct the economy. It’s the right that sounds the alarm when government neglects public security.
It’s the right that anchors American society against fads and social experiments, the right that favors immigration policies in the national interest, the right that better respects the freedom of ordinary people to live their own lives and make their own choices.
Yes, the right is the home of a lot of junk thought and huckstering exploitation. It’s also the home of Milton Friedman and James Q. Wilson, Charles Murray and George Borjas, Richard Pipes and Robert Conquest, Tom Wolfe and Philip Larkin, Friedrich Hayek and George Stigler, Leszek Kolakowski and John Lukacs, Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami. I’ll offset Sarah Palin with Margaret Thatcher, Glenn Beck with Melvin Lasky, Pat Robertson with Richard John Neuhaus.
Is Charles Johnson too proud for that company? Come on back LGF – it’s when your team is doing worst that you are needed most.
107 responses so far
1 cheves222 // Dec 1, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I agree.
I would only add this. If you’re not willing to do battle with people who have instinctive agreements with you (even most Palinistas I know aren’t fools; they’re just in a kind of foolish haze), then why should you expect people who don’t to come along side your point of view? If we can’t engage with the nuttier (but not the nuttiest) conservatives, we’re sunk as a movement. Yielding to THEIR purism for OUR purism is just stupid. Stupid and cowardly. Man up, take your hits, and swing back.
Even though none of us see eye-to-eye, I think David is doing a very good job at this. Keep it up, sir.
2 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 3:40 pm
……Are you sure quoting the Laureate of Empire is wise…….Kipling was a great writer…..I still regularly read his books but politically he couldn’t have been more wrong…….I looked at Johnson’s list and it’s not dissimilar from mine although he could have added an 11th detailing the right’s denial of economic reality (you’ve alluded to this several times yourself Mr Frum)……the problem with your notion David is that once the party has jumped over the cliff, to use Johnson’s metaphor, there’s not much you can do about it until it hits the deck……..the village must destroyed before it can be saved(sorry mixing metaphors)…….there isn’t the remotest chance of making all the idiots he describes see sense by logic, facts, empirical evidence because they are simply impervious to reason so paradise can only be regained by electoral disaster
3 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Let me see if I got this right. Charles Johnson is leaving the Right because of the bigoted element and is joining the Left. You know, the very Left that told us that Obama sitting in a bigoted, anti-semitic, hateful church for 20 years was just a “distraction”. Hmmmm…. interesting. So Charles castigates people for being in the same room as BNP but has not problem embracing people who actively defended Rev. Wright.
4 balconesfault // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:02 pm
So Charles castigates people for being in the same room as BNP but has not problem embracing people who actively defended Rev. Wright.
It seems that the last election showed that Reverend Wright was not the trump card that he was supposed to be. I certainly never hear him being quoted by anyone these days except for those on the right. Everyone realizes that Reverend Wright blew any chance he had to have influence following Obama’s election disappeared completely when he not only refused to repudiate or apologize for the few inflammatory quotes that the Hillary and McCain campaigns threw out there (which were incidentally rhetorically consistent with many things that have been said by a Pat Robertson, or John Hagee, or Jerry Falwell, but I digress) but then Wright doubled down on the stupid when asked about them. He no longer has a position with the church, so at this stage bringing him up is akin to kicking a dead dog around the floor.
So I suspect that when Charles Johnson talks with Democrats, he realizes that theres nobody over there calling for a purity test based on the rantings of Reverend Wright.
5 rbottoms // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:10 pm
And lest not forget the fact that there NEVER was. it was the Jerry Falwell faction of so-called Christian conservatives that inferred that it was America’s own immorality that brought the destruction. Everything from Hurricanes to earthquakes are divine smiting of America for gay marriage and pornography.
Reverend Wright gets no traction because no one in the Democratic Party has views that like his. This is 2009, not 1969 . Rants about dangerous hippies and scary black guys in leather blowing up the Pentagon are a waste of time.
We on the other hand can point to Tim McVeigh and the abortion doctor assassins as much more recent and verifiability dangerous threats.
6 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:11 pm
balcon
As usual you are missing the point, much of the Charles rantings these days are because racists are attending Tea Parties or because a couple of people happen to be at the same conference or in the same vicinity of the BNP. He doesn’t get to have it both ways. You can’t say that they whole Tea Party movement is racists because of a few racist signs and somehow claim that Obama sitting in a racist church for 20 years is not reflective of his character. You can’t paint everyone on the Right as racists because to the actions of a few while at the same time excuse 20 years of belonging to a racist church. We all know that if McCain or any Republican has been associated with a white’s only club, it would have been treated as an automatic disqualifier for higher office. Obama got a pass. Can you say “double standard”?
In any case, Charles needs to start working on his post apologizing to all for pushing “bad science” in the form of anthropogenic global warming. Too bad. I like the guy. He is very bright.
7 ZigZag // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Mr. Frum, surely you’re over-simplifying in your rush to commit your own list. Within your points, you include the idea that “the right that better respects the freedom of ordinary people to live their own lives and make their own choices.”
While I appreciate the efforts to protect personal liberty, you can’t possibly argue that the right respects peoples’ rights to live their own lives after the passing of Proposition 8 in California, and the overall lobbying against gay marriage in this country.
I’m sure you’re not suggesting that gays and lesbians are not “ordinary people” like many on the right do with passion. Let’s strive for a little intellectual consistency. Neither side of the spectrum stays out of peoples’ lives. They just do it differently.
8 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:15 pm
rbottoms
If McCain has belonged to a white’s only club for 20 years he would have been disqualified for higher office. Obama got a pass. Why? Oh, I remember. We were told that even though he was a member, his values very different than Wright. Would the same excuse worked for McCain? I doubt it.
9 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:17 pm
While I appreciate the efforts to protect personal liberty, you can’t possibly argue that the right respects peoples’ rights to live their own lives after the passing of Proposition 8 in California, and the overall lobbying against gay marriage in this country.
This makes no sense. What does Prop 8 have to do with personal freedom? Has Prop 8 prevented same sex couples from living together? I can see where sodomy laws are an interference on personal freedom. But Prop 8?
10 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:17 pm
…….another red herring?………thousands of people sit in Catholic churches ever Sunday although they don’t believe follow every item of Catholic dogma to the letter……it’s the usual thing isn’t it……when conservatives haven’t got a sensible argument to advance against Johnson’s ten points…..ten…. not one as you suggest…..the only recourse is the red herring…..in this case Obama’s attendance at a church with a firebrand pastor who occasionally spilled over into craziness…..now such a thing could never happen in a Dobson or Roberts church could it?……standby for the Clinton Lewinsky references……..this the best you can do Chek….it’s very thin gruel
11 mymy // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:43 pm
The only problem with Charles Johnson leaving the Republican party is I don’t think he ever was a member.Before 9/11 he called Pres.Bush shrub.9/11 changed him ,but he has just changed back.He did do some great work during Rather-gate.
12 LFC // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Chekote said… If McCain has belonged to a white’s only club for 20 years he would have been disqualified for higher office. Obama got a pass. Why?
You’ve just compared an ice cube (Rev. Wright) to an iceberg (a club that’s very founding principals exclude anybody but whites). First, Wright’s church wasn’t exclusively black, and did not preach black superiority. Now if Obama belonged to a club for 20 years that was founded and run by Leonard Jeffries, I’d agree that he was unfit to be a President to all people in this country, but that wasn’t the case.
A better comparison is McCain’s praise of Pastor Hagee, and the fact that he actively sought out his endorsement. There is a long trail of outrageous comments by Hagee. He called the Catholic religion the “Great Whore” and an apostate religion. He said Hurricane Katrina was punishment for New Orleans allowing a gay parade. A quick Google search turned up the following list of Hagee’s quotes. Here’s a link to some of his anti-Catholic comments, including a link to a video.
Be honest, Chekote. Who took more crap for the religious leader they attached themselves to? Obama or McCain?
13 garlic // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:50 pm
That seems to be a strawman, Chekote.
14 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:51 pm
mymy // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:43 pm
” he called Pres.Bush shrub”
……Definitely not a Republican….after all Republicans are united in their respect and admiration for the former president aren’t they?
15 rbottoms // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:57 pm
The American public (the sane ones) didn’t give a hoot about Reverend Wright in 2008, they would give crap in 2012, provided they have a job or prospects for one.
No one is afraid Black Panthers will kidnap their daughter or burn down the Pentagon anymore, not since some real bad guys flew a plane into it. It may not be in that election or the one after, but eventually it will sink in that the 60’s are over, hell even the 80’s are over. The same old boogeymen won’t work anymore.
16 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:59 pm
#12
I love watching the way people have to twist themselves into pretzels to excuse Wright who as recently said that “them Jews” were keeping Obama away from him. Look, racism is wrong. Period. No excuses. No double standards. Charles Johnson is painting all Tea Parties attenders as racists just because a bigoted element is present. People who attend a rally on a public square have no control over what signs others bring to the event. But an individual does control what church he attends.
17 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:01 pm
The American public (the sane ones) didn’t give a hoot about Reverend Wright in 2008, they would give crap in 2012, provided they have a job or prospects for one.
So sane Americans don’t care about the virulent anti-semitism spouted by Rev. Wright. Will you say that sane Americans also shouldn’t care about the virulent racism spounted at a KKK rally? Racism is wrong. Period. No excuses. No double standards.
18 freeta goodholm // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Hey Frum
why should Johnson heed your list while you ignore it?
The last time I saw a mouth like that it had a hook in it.
19 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:02 pm
rbottoms
You are talking election strategy. I am talking right and wrong.
20 BarryS // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:02 pm
If you think all the nutty right wingers are way “over there” this is a post by a regular contributer to this site.
Sean Linnane // Nov 30, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Hey There OttoBVDs-whatever-yer-name-is !
I was wondering how long it’d take you to crawl out from under your bridge . . . FYI it’s not a “complex” . . . my motivation? Unlike you I don’t have an agenda, I just don’t care for liberals – and the current occupier of the Whitehouse is the WORST kind of liberal: a Black African Nationalist Marxist.
Real nice!
21 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:59 pm
“I love watching the way people have to twist themselves into pretzels to excuse Wright ”
…..no one is twisting themselves into a pretzel…..wright’s a fruitcake but then so are a lot of these rabble rousing pastors of left and right…..he’s just not very important and the fact you are having recourse to him to deal with a far wider issue of why a conservative blogger is jumping ship just shows your scraping the bottom of the barrel big time
22 rbottoms // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I stipulate Reverend Wright is a gigantic a**hole. But then so was Jerry Falwell, so is Glenn Beck.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama is still president and if you’d like to redo the 2008 election over again using the same tactics and boogeymen against a sitting president in 2012, I enthusiastically encourage you to do so.
I expect the same results though.
23 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:10 pm
BarryS // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:02 pm
If you think all the nutty right wingers are way “over there” this is a post by a regular contributer to this site.
Sean Linnane // Nov 30, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Hey There OttoBVDs-whatever-yer-name-is !
I was wondering how long it’d take you to crawl out from under your bridge . . . FYI it’s not a “complex” . . . my motivation? Unlike you I don’t have an agenda, I just don’t care for liberals – and the current occupier of the Whitehouse is the WORST kind of liberal: a Black African Nationalist Marxist.
Real nice!”
……..haaa…..I never saw this…..Linnane is a total freak who spend most of his time nursing his assault rifle as far as I can see…..he’s totally consumed with anger just as some others are
24 stuiec // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Good God. Even Charles Johnson said on numerous occasions that he was not on the Right, nor even conservative. The Conservative movement (not to mention reasoned political discourse of any stripe) needs Charles Johnson like a fish needs a bicycle — even less, because at least a sunken bicycle will eventually become a useful habitat for the fish, whereas LGF is an overflowing cesspit of irrationality and cult of personality.
25 PracticalGirl // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:22 pm
MyMy-
Johnson didn’t say he was leaving the Republicans, he said he is breaking with the American right. His list of 10 is sound. Those things/people have become synonymous (and interchangeable) with both the GOP and conservatism at this point and has turned many away in disgust, not of the basic principles of conservatism but with how it manifests iself today.
He’s not leaving a party, he’s breaking with a philosophy- a far bigger issue. Easy to rein somebody back into the party, come voting time, as long as he basically agrees with your principles and tactics. Much harder to bring somebody back to a philosophy, once they see it for a sham.
26 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:22 pm
he’s just not very important and the fact you are having recourse to him to deal with a far wider issue of why a conservative blogger is jumping ship just shows your scraping the bottom of the barrel big time
So a 20 year association with a nutcake bigot is scraping the barrel? Why is that so many on the Left brought up Hagee as a weapon against McCain? I mean McCain just got his endorsement and yet people tried to pin every crazy Hagee view on McCain. And then the very same people said that pinning on Obama the views of Wright was out of bound? Why is that? Come on Otto. You know the answer.
As far as Charles Johnson is concerned, he is trying to have it both ways. He paints everyone who attends Tea Parties as racists because a bigoted element is present. And yet, he doesn’t say that Obama is an anti-semite even though he attended a very anti-semitic church for 20 years. If he wants to part with the Right, fine. But he needs to get off his high moral horse.
27 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:26 pm
rbottoms
I honestly don’t believe that you bring anything to the debate here. You are the MI-Goper of the Left. Your posts are filled with stereotypes. All conservatives are racists. All Republicans are racists. Really. Get out of the stereotype box man. And at this point, the GOP just needs to stand by and let Obama and the Dems blow up their own chances at the ballot box. I would rather for the GOP to reform but they way things are going Obama is their best friend.
28 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:26 pm
“And at this point, the GOP just needs to stand by and let Obama and the Dems blow up their own chances at the ballot box.”
…….you have just summarised exactly what their strategy is…..hope for Obama to fail and in the meantime just say no to everything……you may believe this Micawberism has a political future but I rather doubt it when it gets down to the short strokes of real elections and not parsing the latest poll………you should look around at the Republican party and its leadership and policies and remember Charles II’s admonition to his brother …………”No one is going to kill me to make you king Jamie.”
29 rbottoms // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:35 pm
You are certainly entitled to it, though of course you are completely wrong. However, as long as you don’t call me names you’re within the standards of the website in presenting those incorreect opinions.
I on the other hand will take the approach of ignoring you, so all will be right with the world.
30 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:26 pm
rbottoms
“I honestly don’t believe that you bring anything to the debate here. You are the MI-Goper of the Left.”
………Don’t be ridiculous…..rbottoms is entirely rational, he’s just getting the better of the argument with you……which somewhat uncharacteristically on your side is very weak
31 PracticalGirl // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Chekote:
As silly as it seems to argue about things past, this one was a bit much:
“Why is that so many on the Left brought up Hagee as a weapon against McCain? I mean McCain just got his endorsement and yet people tried to pin every crazy Hagee view on McCain.”
McCain did more than just “get” Hagee’s endorserment. He actively sought it. If one politician is to be ripped for his associations, then why is it not fair game for all?
“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Some on the right have become very fond of throwing the “Alinsky” tag at Obama and those on the left. But they might want to listen to the dude, as well.
32 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:38 pm
rbottoms
I was just trying to give you a little indirect advice. It is really tedious when people just engage in stereotypes. Clearly there is a bigoted element in the opposition to Obama. I would say there is an anti-semite streak in the black community as represented by Farrakhan and Wright. But I would not say that all blacks are anti-semites. But you come here and infer that all conservatives are racists bigots. You are beyond tedious.
33 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:39 pm
McCain did more than just “get” Hagee’s endorserment. He actively sought it. If one politician is to be ripped for his associations, then why is it not fair game for all?
You are missing my point. The very people who made a stink about Mac turned around and said that Obama’s 20 year association was irrelevant. Sorry. You don’t get to have it both ways.
34 rbottoms // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:43 pm
To give advice one has to first actually read what the other person wrote.
That’s your opinion, now to make it a fact please quote the post where I said that.
35 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Don’t be ridiculous…..rbottoms is entirely rational, he’s just getting the better of the argument with you……which somewhat uncharacteristically on your side is very weak
No he is not. Is the same old. Same old. Wright went to the White House under Clinton as many times as Falwell did while Reagan was there. Yet. Falwell is this all powerful preacher that has the GOP by the short and curlies and Wright is insignificant. I am sure that Wright is a pretty powerful force in Dem circles in Chicago. And that’s why Obama “attended” that church. There is a double standard. I think it goes back to this idea that minorities can’t be racists because they have no institutional power. Although now that Obama is POTUS, you can’t say that anymore.
36 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:38 pm
” I would say there is an anti-semite streak in the black community as represented by Farrakhan and Wright. But I would not say that all blacks are anti-semites. ”
……..the fact there is a anti semitic strain in the black community is as much news as that there is a racist streak in the south……of course all conservatives are not racial bigots but I know from personal experience that racism is fairly endemic in Republican southerners…….or was the LBJ wrong when he recognized passing civil rights legislation would destroy the Democratic party in the south and the southern strategy was all a figment of Nixon’s imagination?…….Denying these realities has it’s own tedium
37 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:48 pm
That’s your opinion, now to make it a fact please quote the post where I said that
It drips from every post you write. You couldn’t even bring yourself to acknowledge that Nixon was the one who started affirmative action programs. All you could do is repeat “Southern Strategy”, “Southern Strategy”.
38 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:48 pm
“That’s your opinion, now to make it a fact please quote the post where I said that.”
……We’re waiting Chek
39 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Otto
I like you. You can be objective and someday you will return to the conservative fold. Rbottoms is tedious.
40 MR FACE // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I think the Obama/Wright and McCain/Hagee comparisons are completely different.
McCain was not good friends with Hagee and did not attend Hagee’s church for 20 years. The two were hardly connected if at all.
Obama was very friendly with Wright for many years, even called him a spiritual mentor if I remember correctly. They discussed things all the time.
Having said that, I don’t believe for one second that Obama believes in the hate that Wright spews or has even remotely the same views as Wright.
41 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:50 pm
37 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:48 pm
” It drips from every post you write. ”
……”Drips” doesn’t actually qualify as saying it
42 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Otto
I have acknowledge that there is a bigoted element that opposes Obama just because of his race. But they are a minority. They can be very loud. But they are a minority. Let’s also acknowledge that there are people on the Left who see racism everytime that someone opposes Obama. That’s tedious.
43 rbottoms // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Tis true unfortunately. What is also true is Farrakhan is a sick old man whose influence, however large it was peaked in 1995, or nearly 15 years ago. Care to point out which elected member of the Democratic party has taken up his cause? Quotes please, not opinions.
As for Reverend Wright. He, like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are from a generation where a decision had to be made about whether we would be men or live under Jim Crow. Not everyone chose a wise path to get to where we are today, but the point is still the same, that they are old men who have neither party influence nor sponsors.
If it was Senator Sharpton or Congressman Farrakhan I’d give a damn what they think and it would matter to the Democratic party what they did. But they aren’t.
There is no equivalent to the birthers on the left. Not a single sitting member of the Democratic caucuses have anything to do with these men or advance their agenda. If you have proof to the contrary, please let’s see it.
The teabaggers on the other hand have support from the highest levels of the Republican party so their pronouncements of military coup and watering the tree of liberty with bllod are a problem you have to deal with or there will be tragedy.
44 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:54 pm
I don’t believe that Obama shares Wright’s views. With respect to Israel, Obama has bought into the old Lefty habit of championing the “underdog” even if the “underdog” is not deserving of the support. Sometimes the militarily superior in the conflict also happens to be the “good guy”.
45 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Otto
“I like you. You can be objective and someday you will return to the conservative fold. Rbottoms is tedious.”
……Chek believe it or not the feeling is reciprocated…..but you’re acting a bit out of character on this one……of course Wright is racist but so are bunch of southerners I know and have shared many a drink with in their houses or on sailboats…….I didn’t stamp (or swim) out of their houses because it would have been impolite (or dangerous) but it didn’t mean I agreed with them…..come to that I’ve known a few WASP’s who had nothing on Goering when it came to the Jews.
46 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:57 pm
#44
I meant anti-semitic views.
47 rbottoms // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:57 pm
No wonder my internet is slow today, it’s clogged up by a bunch of drips.
Anyway, I take it you won’t be backing up your opinions with any facts today. Or tomorrow.
But then, that’s hardly a surprise.
48 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:54 pm
“Sometimes the militarily superior in the conflict also happens to be the “good guy”.
…….militarily superior?……certainly at the moment……but I really think the strategic balance has swung against Israel for the first time since 1948…….the Wehrmacht was militarily superior to the Red army in June 1941 but who won?……military superiority is not the be all and and end all
49 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:05 pm
rbottoms
Didn’t Democrats attend the Million Man March? Didn’t Obama attend? I wonder if Charles Johnson back then was painting all people attending the Million Man March as anti-semites. In any case, I don’t remember anyone making the case that all Dems were anti-semites for attending that March? Yet you are here all the times basically saying that all Republicans reflect Hagee’s views.
50 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Otto
I was referring to the Left’s obsession with the “underdog”. Let’s see. They strap bonds on themselves or throw rocks. The other side has Blackhawks and missiles. Well, the side with the rocks and bombs must be right and morally superior. After all, they are the underdog.
51 sleviton // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Hi Checkote, If I may politely ask a question, where did Mr Johnson say he was joining the left? Does leaving one imply the other?
52 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:07 pm
……..The Israelis have overplayed their hand……and that’s not just my opinion but also the opinion of a few of my contacts in Israel…..mark my words the strategic balance has shifted against them…..they are in a more perilous position than they have ever been
53 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Just read this gem from RBottoms
No one is afraid Black Panthers will kidnap their daughter or burn down the Pentagon anymore, not since some real bad guys flew a plane into it. It may not be in that election or the one after, but eventually it will sink in that the 60’s are over, hell even the 80’s are over. The same old boogeymen won’t work anymore.
I mean who in the hell is talking about the Black Panthers? We were talking about double standards. The fact the same people who were okay with Obama’s association with Wright were the same people who tried to pin Hagee’s views on McCain and the man goes back to the future 1960s. He has done this before. Rbottoms whether you want to admit it or not America has made a lot of progress since the 60s on the issue of race.
54 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:19 pm
sleviton
I don’t know what Charles Johnson is doing. I doubt he knows what he is doing. The Left will NEVER forgive him for supporting Bush.
55 rbottoms // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Um, if I was then you’d be able to quote me actually saying, right?
Tell you what, how about I ignore you until you start a conversation with some factiness.
56 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Another Rbottoms gem:
The American public (the sane ones) didn’t give a hoot about Reverend Wright in 2008,
So basically anyone who was concerned about a 20 year association with a racist is insane. I would bet anything that Rbottom would make the same statement is the race of the people involved is Caucasian. Pure stereotypes.
57 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:26 pm
#56
Sorry would not make the same statement if the race was different.
58 rbottoms // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:27 pm
I stipulate, America has made a lot of progress since the 60’s on race.
And??? It’s sure hard to have a conversation with someone who already knows what I am going to say because he can prove it’s what I already think on the basis of words he can’t quote.
Actually it’s frakking impossible.
Nope this time, for real.
/ignore on
59 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:35 pm
rbottoms
Go back to your posts and see how many times you bring up the 60s. You come across as thinking that all Republicans are racists bigots in the 60s afraid that a black man would take their daughters. Sorry. But that’s how you come across. Are they some people who don’t like the idea that a black family occupies the White House? Yes. Nothing to do with Black Panthers or taking their daughters. Move on.
60 sleviton // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Hi Chekote, Is your post #54 meant as a retraction of your post #3?
In #54 you wrote “I don’t know what Charles Johnson is doing”
and in #3 you wrote “Let me see if I got this right. Charles Johnson is leaving the right … and is joining the left”. My question was just to see your evidence for drawing your conclusion.
61 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:48 pm
#60
I stand corrected. I don’t know that he is joining the Left. I am speculating.
62 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:49 pm
The Israelis have overplayed their hand
How?
63 LauraNo // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:54 pm
It’s the American right that will sustain the war in Afghanistan, the right that will fight the administration’s overspending, the right that will resist paying for the spending in ways that cramp the future growth of the American economy.
It was the American right that did not deal with Afghanistan for 7 years. The right that over-spent the last 8 years. The right that resisted paying for both wars AT ALL. The right that gave huge tax cuts to the wealthy and has virtually no economic growth to show for it.
It’s the right that champions competition in education, and it is the right that will prevent the undoing of welfare reform. It’s the right that pushes for color-blind laws, and against the abuse of the legal system for attorney gain.
I think all political persuasions are for educational competition, I think no one wants to ‘undo welfare reform’ (esp. considering it was Clinton who did it), I think color-blind laws are an excuse to practice even more discrimination than already exists and I have no idea what you refer to when you say ‘abuse of legal system for attorney gain’. Is that something like ‘abuse of our military for defense contractors profit’? Or perhaps it’s like ‘abuse of American people by forcing them to pay more for pharmaceuticals that all the rest of the world’? Is it like that?
It’s the right that sounds the alarm when government neglects public security.
Funny but I had the feeling it was the right that didn’t want to spend money on infrastructure until after bridges fell down, it was the right who pooh-poohed Clinton’s many warnings about terror, it was the right who blamed people in NO for their predicament. The right has had 7 years since 9/11 to address our open ports and they did nothing. You are making claims based on ….well, I don’t know what.
the right that better respects the freedom of ordinary people to live their own lives and make their own choices.
You just threw this one in there to see if anyone was paying attention, right? LOL
Tort reform! Tax cuts! Gut programs! That’s all you seem to have these days…Charles Johnson makes good points. There is nothing conservative about the party anymore. Time to start a new one, methinks. Or go over to the dems…
64 anniemargret // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:55 pm
chekote: I never would have voted for Obama if I thought he was a racist, anti-Semite, or anti-anyculture/religion, etc… I voted for him, like the other 60 million who did, because he was clearly the better choice. I also voted for him because I trusted him.
No that is probably something you cannot understand, given your distaste of his association with Rev Wright. I see that association as nothing more than those priests I knew and went to back in high school who were pedophiles. Sometimes people are more like hues on the color wheel, mostly gray. I would venture to say that Obama probably took the best advice and good things that Wright preached and threw away the rest.
Again, should he have disassociated himself completely with Wright? Probably. But for an up and coming half black man rising up politically I would say like most folks he looked the other way.
If I heard one word out of Obama that remotely smacked of racism or superiority or anything like that I would not have voted for him. Likewise, I did hear borderline racism from the likes of Palin and McCain. It took McCain a long time to stop the ‘Muslim terrorist’ smear against Obama that Palin raised up. When he finally did, he seemed to sputter. Because he knew in his heart of hearts that Obama was basically a good man, and because at his heart of hearts, McCain is basically a good man.
And we vote for the package, Chekote don’t we? Palin’s supporters love her because of her identity, because of her ‘narrative’ not because they particularly are interested in her policy views. McCain’s supporters like his very pro-military stance, not particularly his economic views, which were weak at best. I was disappointed with McCain when he pandered to the religious right extremists, but I didn’t for a moment think he was like them.
There *is* a difference.
65 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:24 pm
“Another Rbottoms gem:”
…..He’s right…… they didn’t give a rat’s bottom about Wright anymore than they give a rats bottom about the interventions of Dobson and co…..these only resonate with a minority and usually the loopy minority
66 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:59 pm
annie
I am specifically talking about people who said that the Wright association was not indicative of Obama’s view and then turned around and tried to pin Hagees’ views on McCain. Can you see the double standard?
67 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:03 pm
#65
So basically anyone who was concerned about a 20 year association with a bigot, quite a deep association is insane? Look rbottoms is stuck in the 60s. His posts always infer that anyone who opposes Obama is some kind of bigot afraid that a Black Pather will take their white daughter. He needs to move on. For his sake. Not mine.
68 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:04 pm
It took McCain a long time to stop the ‘Muslim terrorist’ smear against Obama that Palin raised up.
As much as it pains me to defend Palin, she didn’t say that Obama was a muslim terrorist. She talked about Obama’s association with Ayer a domestic, non-muslim, white terrorist.
69 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:49 pm
The Israelis have overplayed their hand
“How?”
……Settlement building……turning the west bank and gaza into ghettoes……excessive use of force against provocations by the Palestinians…..Consequences:
Israel is more diplomatically isolated than I can ever remember(outside of the US and one or two other minor places does she have ANY supporters let alone allies)
Iran is going to get nuclear weapons and they are not going to use them to attack Israel….they don’t need to because their mere possession effectively neutralizes the Israeli nuclear advantage….it’s checkmate
the arabs (hamas, hezbollah) have learned how use assymetric warfare to neutralize the Israeli military advantage…..Israel effectively lost against Hezbollah in Lebanon and even against Hamas it was no more than a draw…..the higher the Palestinian body count the more it operates against Israel
Israel is a net negative for the US as an ally and has been for at least 20 years….at the moment it has a structural advantage politically because of aipac etc but it’s not necessarily going to last particularly when you have groups springing up espousing a different perspective……..the blind adherence to Israel is ultimately fatal to any real attempt at achieving a rapprochement with the arab world
……these opinions are actually fairly widespread in Israel amongst even staunch Zionists you might be surprised to learn…….Jewish folks of my acquaintance are nothing if not realists
70 anniemargret // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:14 pm
chekote#68. I stand corrected.
Yes, Palin used the Ayers assocation to insinuate that Obama was a terrorist. She stayed just this side of it, but everyone knew (including her most ardent fans) that is what she was saying. And then a women at one of McCain’s rallies called Obama an ‘Arab’ to which McCain corrected her.
But my main point stands, Chekote. In both these instances the penchant for racism and outrageous attacks against an American citizen running for the Presidency was made during the Republicans’ candidacies. People don’t think of other Americans as ‘terrorists’ or ‘Arabs’ unless the insinuations are already there. It was shameful, and I think a blot for the party.
71 anniemargret // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Or…I should say the intertwining of ‘Arab’ and ‘terrorist’….well, you know what I’m trying to say here.
72 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:03 pm
……Chek dear boy you’re exaggerating about rb…..he merely used that a sort of urban myth that exists
73 anniemargret // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:19 pm
chekote: In one way you are correct, that they both had the devil on their shoulders.
However – McCain took a lot of heat for his pandering to Hagee, and Obama also took a lot of heat for Wright.
Neither one of them are racists or radicals. Both Obama and McCain are decent men with differing political views. Politics is a nasty business, isn’t it?
74 anniemargret // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:20 pm
But McCain went off the rails with his Palin choice. Sorry, but s’truth!
75 Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:26 pm
annie
The Democrats have been running around for years peddling the lie that all Republicans are a bunch of heartless capitalists that want to starve children. Both parties go hyperbole. Look, I wish that we had Republicans leaders who would have stood up from the outset of the ridiculous birth certificate nonsense and called out the people spreading that stuff. If I had been in charge of the RNC, I would have done it. Tonight, I am going to have a little confrontation with a political acquaintence because she tagged her email with “Pray for Obama” Psalm 109.08. Look it up. Especially 109.09. It is disgusting. Later.
76 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:26 pm
annie
“The Democrats have been running around for years peddling the lie that all Republicans are a bunch of heartless capitalists that want to starve children.”
…..Now whose engaged in stereotyping?…….the Dems have their share of plutocrats….Pelosi’s husband for one ……however there’s no getting around the fact the Republicans rountinely block socially ameliorative measures…eg schip or equal pay for women
77 ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:26 pm
….no disagreement with my take on Israel’s increasing strategic disadvantage?…..btw I forgot to add one other thing…..time…..it isn’t on Israel’s side…..seriously i’d be interested in your take
78 anniemargret // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Well, Chekote…all I can say is that’s truly horrible. Christianity is now being used as a sword of hate. I do want to hear and know that there are decent Republicans out there speaking out against this type of rhetoric. They *must.*
And one other thing I’ve learned along the way – not to bring up politics in families where there are Republicans and Democrats. Lordy,Lordy!
PS: I have friends that are Republicans. We all smile at each other and never bring up Obama or Palin. HA!
79 rbottoms // Dec 1, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Psalm 109:08:
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
Gee, now why would anyone think Republicans of the Sara Palin stripe are anything but cute and cuddly teddy bears. I’d say the type of person who would push such sentiments are quite representative of a very large part of the modern GOP.
Fixed
You mean there are some of you who don’t know about this?
80 rbottoms // Dec 1, 2009 at 8:18 pm
A note from the company that was selling the t-shirts with the verse.
81 sleviton // Dec 1, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Way cool Chekote. I don’t know who you are but you are a bigger person than I will probably ever be. My respect to you.
82 anniemargret // Dec 1, 2009 at 9:30 pm
sleviton: Chekote is on the of good guys/gals. There is hope.
rbottoms: I fear for Obama the way you do. The death threats against this president is up 400%, as reported on network news. There is a reason for that; it is no coincidental.
And as I said before on this blog, if anything violent happens it will have a direct and undeniable link from the hate and prejudicial rhetoric that comes out of right-wing America.
83 balconesfault // Dec 1, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Chekote: I am specifically talking about people who said that the Wright association was not indicative of Obama’s view and then turned around and tried to pin Hagees’ views on McCain. Can you see the double standard?
Personally, I think both associations say more things about Americans as a society, than about either candidate. We have this weird obsession with seeing our political leaders pay fealty to religion – to convince a fairly sizable portion of the American public that someone is fit to lead us, they have to have a “spiritual advisor”.
We’re in an era of superchurches with religious leaders, starting in some ways with the canonization of Billy Graham, being rock stars. And the fact is that with almost every religious leader out there, you don’t have to scratch too deep to find some distilled crazy.
84 palomino70 // Dec 1, 2009 at 11:39 pm
chekote: “Let me see if I got this right. Charles Johnson is leaving the Right because of the bigoted element and is joining the Left.”
================================
No, you don’t have this right. Johnson isn’t “joining” the Left or anyone else. He’s simply leaving the Right, at least for the time being.
He’s troubled, as are a lot of people, by the likes of birthers, Bachmann, Beck, Alex Jones, et al.
I guess it really shouldn’t be that surprising that the GOP is going through some internal turmoil. You have to go all the way back to 1932-1934 to find two consecutive Republican losses as bad as 2006-2008. It’s been awhile.
85 rbottoms // Dec 2, 2009 at 12:13 am
I sincerely hope the GOP in general and conservatives in particular want to make 2012 a rematch over Wright and ACORN. They will rapidly fins no one gives a damn about affiliations that were decided irrelevant in the 2008 match up.
They just can’t believe voters simply picked the better man. It had to be a trick, a massive 60 million vote fraud with the mafia-like ACORN at the center of it. Or maybe it was Irena Derevko and Arvin Sloan. Who knows what those two are capable of.
86 biasedbulldog // Dec 2, 2009 at 5:23 am
I confess myself to be a conservative of sorts who is highly agitated by current trends in rightist politics.
It’s interesting that you singled John Lukacs out, a man who was in many ways expelled from the right because of his distrust of Reagan and neo-conservatives–the two forces that have largely defined the Republican Party since 1980. Lukacs is not a Republican and refuses to be called a conservative–of course, his self-denomination is “reactionary.”
So while he is no leftist and an anti-progressive, I’m not sure he would be comfortable with the company even of the eminent men you’ve placed him with. The problems he has–far more than any of those mentioned by Charles Johnson (though some overlap, certainly)–are nationalism and populism.
87 frjohnwhiteford // Dec 2, 2009 at 6:33 am
One has to wonder to what extent someone was ever a conservative, if in the face of a socialist president who is far closer to Hugo Chavez then he is to the most liberal of previous presidents, you feel the need to distance yourself from the Republican party because it is too conservative. You have to wonder to what extent someone is a sentient being if one of their big issues is the opposition to the notion of man-cause global warming, right on the heels of climategate exposing the whole thing for hoax that it is. We are facing serious problems in America today… and Sarah Palin, and Evangelical Christians are not one of them.
88 Carney // Dec 2, 2009 at 9:03 am
What about even the teeniest whiff of criticism of Johnson for his shrill, hysterical calumny and slander of people, movements, and groups? Unless you endorse everything he said, Frum, you need to distance yourself from it.
89 Carney // Dec 2, 2009 at 9:04 am
Frum’s non-condemnation of Johnson reminds me of Jack Kemp’s infamous uncritical acceptance of Al Gore’s backhanded compliment for not being a bigot, like all those other Republicans.
90 sinz54 // Dec 2, 2009 at 9:39 am
Milton Friedman passed away in 2006.
James Q. Wilson is 78.
Robert Conquest is 92.
Friedrich Hayek passed away in 1992.
Bernard Lewis is 91.
John Lukacs is 85.
Leszek Kolakowski passed away last July.
And I’ll add one you left out: David Brudnoy, the best talk-show host ever, a true intellectual. Passed away in 2004.
The problem is that most of the men you cite are either very old or have already passed away. In a way, you’re confirming what Johnson said: The older generation of patrician conservative intellectuals is dying out. The new conservatives actively disdain erudition and intellectualism. They thrive on the adrenal glands rather than the brain.
91 sinz54 // Dec 2, 2009 at 9:54 am
David Frum:
Charles Johnson HAS stood up to them.
He has worked tirelessly to expose actual neo-fascist elements, particularly in Europe. He has warned conservatives NOT to be misled by those who want to turn the War on Terror into a Judeo-Christian War on Islam.
For this he has been strongly attacked by those on the Right who have no problem with making alliances with nativists and bigots against the common enemy of Islamist terrorism.
And I’ve learned a lot about the seriousness of anthropogenic global warming from Little Green Footballs.
It’s the same reason I’m a registered Independent. I prefer to wait until the GOP cleans up its act before I rejoin it.
92 ottovbvs // Dec 2, 2009 at 10:05 am
Carney // Dec 2, 2009 at 9:04 am
“Frum’s non-condemnation of Johnson reminds me of Jack Kemp’s infamous uncritical acceptance of Al Gore’s backhanded compliment for not being a bigot, like all those other Republicans.”
……..Well Kemp wasn’t a bigot…….the number of Republican bigots is indeterminate but no one really disputes their existence in reasonably large numbers
93 WillyP // Dec 2, 2009 at 10:34 am
says sinz:
“The new conservatives actively disdain erudition and intellectualism. They thrive on the adrenal glands rather than the brain.”
And the liberals are all erudite sophisticates?
I’m the first in line agreeing that genuinely ignorant people are told how wonderfully smart they are, and that we too frequently laud specious “achievement,” but I certainly wouldn’t classify the societal decline in the ability to reason as a conservative problem. It’s the culture of self-gratification and gaudiness, resultant (in part, I’m sure) from the decline in religious adherence and attitudes.
94 It Ain’t Easy Being Green « Around The Sphere // Dec 2, 2009 at 12:36 pm
[...] David Frum at FrumForum Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)It Ain’t Easy Being Green, But [...]
95 SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 2, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Sinz wrote: “The new conservatives actively disdain erudition and intellectualism. ”
But wouldn’t true intellectualism compel them to admit that most of their ideology has produced policy failures that have broken the country? And, once they admit that, don’t they then have to question why they are “conservatives” at all?
And please don’t say George W. Bush wasn’t a conservative and, therefore, his failures are not the failures of conservatism. Reagan and Bush II were both embraced and defended aggressively by conservatives. Yet, both ran up huge deficits, failed to invest in infrastructure, failed to cut the size of government and, in the case of Bush, left us entangled in a needless foreign war.
Maybe conservatives ought to embrace Clinton, who lowered the debt, enacted policies that produced real growth in personal incomes and kept the country out of foreign entanglements.
96 anniemargret // Dec 2, 2009 at 3:28 pm
sinz#91: hats off to you. This was beautifully said.
willyp: “And the liberals are all erudite sophisticates?”
No, of course not. Neither party has it all together. However, the GOP has openly been endorsing anti-intellectualism at a far greater ratio at this juncture in contemporary history.
And I actually agree with you about the general decline in mores and attitudes. This is, sadly although I hate to admit it, also due to a swing too far to the left in morals – a leftover from the radical 60s where ‘free love’ contributed to an all-out permissive attitude that invaded our culture. Obscenities, coarsened language, hate-fill rhetoric now fill the airwaves. They have coarsened public discourse and to my mind, the worst of it…has hurt our children and teenagers.
Who’s to blame? All of us.
97 ottovbvs // Dec 2, 2009 at 3:43 pm
anniemargret // Dec 2, 2009 at 3:28 pm
“No, of course not. Neither party has it all together. However, the GOP has openly been endorsing anti-intellectualism at a far greater ratio at this juncture in contemporary history.”
…….Annie…..there’s nothing new about Republican disdain for intellect, learning and professional competence….just read Hofstadter’s Anti Intellectualism in American Life published in 1964 I think……it’s uncanny how little has changed 45 years later
98 sinz54 // Dec 2, 2009 at 5:55 pm
WillyP:
Liberals dominate the faculties of all Ivy League universities. Even at M.I.T., the political science department leans sharply left, under the stewardship of John Tirman, who was a New Left student radical in the 1960s and who hasn’t mellowed much since then.
And there is a palpable leftward political bias among scientists. It’s been that way since at least 1945 when the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists began publication.
When William F. Buckley Jr. wrote “God and Man at Yale,” he was only 26 years old. He founded National Review at age 30.
Carter’s failures and Reagan’s successes made conservatism popular among young people of the 1980s. But these young conservatives didn’t go into the humanities. Most of them went into business.
What conservatives have failed to do, is grow a new generation of young intellectuals, intellectuals who are schooled in the classics and in history and in rhetoric. Young conservatives who uphold science rather than rail against “pointy-headed intellectuals.” Young conservatives who can take on their left-wing counterparts at our major universities in an open debate and actually win. Victor Davis Hanson carries on the tradition nearly alone, as far as I can tell. And he’s not getting any younger either.
As a result, the philosophical basis of conservatism is decaying. Christian fundamentalism is becoming the philosophical basis almost by default. And that’s a shame.
99 sinz54 // Dec 2, 2009 at 6:00 pm
SpartacusIsNotDead: As David Frum pointed out,
conservatives can take genuine pride in their steadfast refusal to go along with the liberal lament that “America is in inevitable decline” hand-wringing in the 1970s following Vietnam. You don’t really want to get into a debate with me about how liberals felt so comfortable about allegedly “inevitable” American decline. I will point out again and again that this declinism was nothing but a rationalization for their own neurotic guilt complexes about the country they were born into. And I have numerous examples.
Liberals will never give Reagan any credit for bringing the Cold War to a peaceful conclusion with America dominant. That’s because they really don’t like the way it turned out.
The question is this: Is genuine pride in America and her accomplishments incompatible with intellectual thought? Left-wing intellectuals say so, all the time. They have this “one-world” complex that believes that patriotic pride is either the last refuge of scoundrels or genuinely dangerous.
We on the Right disagree.
Leave one-worldism for Star Trek.
100 sinz54 // Dec 2, 2009 at 6:21 pm
ottovbs:
Hofstadter was not referring to the mainstream Republican Party of his day. In 1964, the Republican Party had such powerful mainstream men as Javits, Rockefeller, etc. Hofstadter wasn’t even referring to Goldwater or Nixon.
Hofstadter traced the anti-intellectualism through American life to before there even was a Republican Party. In Hofstadter’s time, he probably meant the radical right–the John Birch Society and the racialist right like the KKK.
What has happened is that the two major parties have become polarized, with a peacenik and libertine post-vietnam Left having heavy influence in the Dem Party, and a Religious Right having heavy influence in the GOP.
It’s become harder and harder to be a hawk or pro-life in the Dem Party. Just ask Casey or Lieberman.
It’s become harder and harder to uphold secularism in the GOP. Just ask Charles Johnson.
101 ottovbvs // Dec 2, 2009 at 6:30 pm
sinz54 // Dec 2, 2009 at 6:21 pm
…..Sinz I re read the book when I was on holiday in Italy this summer…..his conclusion was that anti intellectualism was endemic in the GOP base……clearly he didn’t mean Nelson Rockefeller but we’re not talking about Lindsey Graham
102 SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 2, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Sinz,
You did not address my central point, which is that when conservative presidents translated their conservative ideology into actual governmental policy, it failed miserably.
The issue is not whether some liberal college professors somewhere are highly critical of America’s shortcomings. Nor is the issue whether Reagan has received sufficient credit for his part in the Cold War.
103 Marxeocon Correct’s Frum’s Propaganda But Goofs on Kipling | Conservative Heritage Times // Dec 2, 2009 at 11:42 pm
[...] caught Frum goofing on propaganda 101: Frum quotes a real conservative! Kipling, along with the rest of the right, is supposed to fall down the memory [...]
104 Boogliodemus_2009 // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:00 am
Too poor Charles:
WAAAAAHHHH. Quit being a jackoff and start being a man. We cut you a little slack for the feminizing affect of your prostate treatments, but dude, RELAX, you have a big site, don’t blow it with your vanity. Stop trying to be a photographer, get back to your roots. Quit acting like a foreigner. Ya had a good start, “go back to where you once belonged”. You’ll be OK and happy again. I promise ya!
BUT FIRST: YOU NEED TO MAKE THE APOLOGIA. Don’t worry, we all know it’s coming, just make it snappy, would ya?
105 grimbleGrumble // Dec 3, 2009 at 10:40 am
Charles Johnson has a lot of haters and detractors, as evidenced here. But his fanaticism in 2001-2004 brought on loonies and now he is trying to shed them. His immoderate speech regarding Islam cannot be whitewashed by his high-minded puritanical approach to blogging today. Charles, admit you trucked in hate speech almost as bad as Robert Stacy McCain or any of the others, and we will take you more seriously.
106 WillyP // Dec 3, 2009 at 12:14 pm
It is worth noting that “intellectuals” are often the most wrong, for they are clever enough to justify their bad/immoral assumptions. That being said, I do appreciate people who are able to explain their political beliefs back to the axiomatic assumptions. I do not find the left’s assumptions correct, although I could not deny the ability of clever people to form an intelligent (albeit, ultimately wrong) argument.
If it is true that there are more left intellectuals than right intellectuals, I believe it can be said to be equally true that the right intellectuals are far more respectful of traditional morality.
VDH is surely one of the best out there.
107 Syrah // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:25 am
Let Charles go.
Let him find his own path.
We do not have to travel on it with him.
You must log in to post a comment.