In a fiery debate, Frontpagemagazine.com editor David Horowitz accuses NewMajority’s David Frum of “scorched-earth attacks on Glenn Beck.” Frum replies:
David, your piece above is a real service. It focuses the issues very clearly and tightly in a way that helps everybody understand this discussion better, whatever side they ultimately end up on.
It’s bad luck for you that we are having this discussion in the same week that Glenn Beck a) expressed his enthusiasm for a Hillary Clinton presidency, b) stated that he thought Obama a better president than John McCain would have been, and c) wished that he could travel back in time to vote for Ron Paul. Now do you see what I mean when I call Beck “unscrupulous”? He’s an act, a showman, as indifferent to the future of conservative politics as he is to the facts of Cass Sunstein’s career. I agree he’s a very good showman, a natural TV talent. But he cares nothing, David, about politics in the way you care about it, and you are in for more nasty surprises if you continue to place your hopes in him.
In this, Beck is very different even from Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. I’ve crossed swords with these other broadcasters for other reasons. I believe that their rage and extremism repel more supporters than they attract. But at least these broadcasters do know a lot about politics and hold considered and coherent worldviews. Beck, by contrast, is a random walk, capable of reaching any outcome. And I have to believe that after Beck’s performance over the past couple of days, you probably inwardly agree with me.
However, David, your post deals with more than Glenn Beck personally. You raise other important issues and present some personal challenges – and I take both very seriously.
You write: “[Al] Franken is now a U.S. Senator in part because conservatives of whom you are typical want to conduct politics by the Marquis of Queensberry rules when the other side is in it as war in which destruction of the enemy is the game.”
I am as disgusted as you by the election of Al Franken. Norm Coleman was one of the senators I admired most, and his defeat in the courts was a severe blow to the country and to the Republican party.
But it’s just plain wrong to suggest that Coleman lost because Republicans were not war-like enough in their political tactics. Coleman was the senator from Minnesota! His well-deserved reputation for decency, integrity and civility were huge political assets to him.
No, Al Franken is a senator for three very different reasons, which call for a different political approach than you propose.
Coleman lost (1) because the Democrats learned from the 2000 Bush v. Gore recount experience to organize much more effective close-election responses than the GOP. They worked better with local government officials, they fielded larger legal teams, and they did more effective media messaging. In other words: The Dems come to these kinds of fights better prepared, more sophisticated, and better financed than the Republicans.
Coleman lost (2) because five years of bad economic and foreign news had corroded support for Republicans nationwide – and not even as attractive a candidate as Coleman could survive in a state like Minnesota.
And Coleman lost (3) because beyond these political cycles, there has been since the mid-1990s a deeper and broader national trend away from a Republican party that seems out of touch and out of date to voters under 40 and outside the South.
The kind of “in your face” conservatism that you laud makes all these problems worse.
You challenge me to notice that the “embarrassments to our cause – the shrill, the enraged and the paranoid – who in your mind – seem to be Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and now Glenn Beck” are also our “most powerful and feared and charismatic conservatives.”
I challenge you to notice that all three of these people repel and offend many millions more Americans than they inspire and attract.
Look at the impact of this kind of politics on the three points I itemize above.
(1) If we accept that conservatism will remain a politics that is unacceptable to the young, the urban, and the educated, we will have great difficulty raising the resources and finding the volunteers to fight a recount battle on anything like equal terms. Jon Stewart’s audience will sleep on the floor, five to a room, through an Iowa winter. The Fox audience won’t and can’t.
(2) We lost in 2008 in large part because we had not governed successfully over the previous eight years. More than political tactics, more even than media, what matters in politics is results. If national incomes had grown by 1% a year under George Bush instead of stagnating, Al Franken would have lost in a landslide. Populists like Sarah Palin may excite a TV audience, but they cannot govern. They don’t like it and are not good at it. (That’s why Sarah Palin did not even complete one term in office, let alone run for a second.) Limbaugh and Beck style politics can gain ratings. It will not win re-elections.
(3) See point 1, only with triple exclamation marks.
Let me end by responding to your more personal remarks. You criticize me for being too tough on fellow-conservatives – and for taking some of these criticisms to a more general domain rather than keeping them in-house. And you know what? I too worry about this a lot.
I suppose I could point out in self-defense that nobody ever seems to mind very much when one or another of these conservatives speaks far more stridently about me than I have ever spoken about anyone – that the movement conservative version of Reagan’s 11th commandment seems very much a one-way option only to be exercised in favor of radio and TV hosts, never enforced against them. As self-defenses go, that would not be a very interesting one. Here’s something however that might be more interesting:
I speak out against people like Palin, Limbaugh and Beck because in my estimation they do enormous harm to the causes in which I believe. In my view, the talk-and-Fox complex marginalizes Republicans – and backs us into demagogic and unsustainable political positions. David, do you really want to abolish the Federal Reserve? Do you think the United States should have allowed Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and other banks to follow Lehman into bankruptcy in October 2008? Do you think that any cuts to Medicare amount to a death panel for grandma? Do you think we can sustain an adequate military – never mind finance future tax reductions – if we allow healthcare to continue rising from its current 16% of GDP to a projected 20% of GDP a decade from now if nothing changes?
I can’t believe you do. And if you don’t believe these things, is it not dangerous to have talk-and Fox whipping a couple of million conservatives into frenzy over things that are not true?
On the other hand, maybe I’m entirely wrong. Maybe “end the Fed” and “death panels” are a sustainable future for the conservative movement. Maybe talk-and-Fox are (as their admirers claim) energizing new and previously apolitical people to join the political process. If so, that would be a real achievement.
But is it so? I don’t believe it. I believe that their ratings and advertising imperatives are pushing them in a direction fundamentally antithetical to the electoral and governance imperatives of the GOP and the conservative movement.
Of course I could be wrong in my belief. So let me finish by issuing a proposition to you. Let’s test our diverging intuitions. Let’s sit down together and hire a mutually agreed pollster – Gallup? Whit Ayres? – to design a survey that can test whether the 9/12 protesters, the tea party attendees, the Glenn Beck audience really are new participants in politics.
If Beck is energizing new and previously apolitical people, then I will join you in saluting his achievement.
But if we discover that he is not energizing the previously apolitical – that he is instead inviting the Ron Paul contingent to take over as the new base and face of conservatism and Republicanism – then you’ll have to agree with me that we are witnessing a disaster in the making.
We don’t have to guess. We can know. Will you work with me to find out?
Click here for earlier posts in the debate.
165 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Sep 24, 2009 at 11:40 am
“We lost in 2008 in large part because we had not governed successfully over the previous eight years.”
The warning signs were there very early on – very very early on. Bush ’s view of government was a cash cow for friends, just as it had been in Texas. Cheney’s view of government was a means to projecting American force around the globe. Rove’s view of government was a political tool to use to grow Republican domination.
Nobody with any responsibility in the Bush White House really saw government as a nuts and bolts machine that had to be constantly tended and maintained in order to keep our economy running at peak efficiency in a competitive global environment.
The signs were there early on – and anyone who pointed them out was accused of harboring BDS.
2 mlindroo // Sep 24, 2009 at 11:44 am
Nice post, David. Glenn Beck is a total mess, of course … it seems quite difficult to attribute a coherent political worldview to him.
I doubt very much that David Horowitz will listen to reason, though … to me he seems to be very much in the same league as Mark Levin, i.e. a bomb-throwing man of harsh and uncompromising language.
MARCU$
3 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 11:46 am
John McCain was bad for conservatives.
4 balconesfault // Sep 24, 2009 at 11:47 am
The problem with Horowitz is that he is someone who depends on a deep partisan divide for income. And so, he will continue to support a deep partisan divide.
5 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 12:03 pm
He relies on his knowledge of the New Left for income, and seeing as teh New Left is in control of the Democrat Party and is the majority on the Left these days all across the West, he will continue to prosper. Because the New Left causes a deep partisan divide.
6 sinz54 // Sep 24, 2009 at 12:14 pm
For those who claim that we center-rightists have been waging a “scorched-earth” campaign against the hard Right, I would ask them if they know what the terms “RINO” and “squish” mean.
The moderate and center-right Republicans never tried to throw the hard Right out of the GOP (except the true racists like David Duke). It’s been the other way around: The hard Right has first removed all the moderates from any influence on the Platform, then they withdrew their support for so-called RINO candidates–and now they actively demand that centrist Republicans should be defeated by Democrats, just to teach centrists a lesson that they should be seen and not heard.
The result has been the near-extinction of the GOP in moderate and liberal areas like the Northeast and the Pacific Northwest. And the gradual erosion even of the GOP stronghold of the West, as Hispanics vote Dem in large numbers.
7 sinz54 // Sep 24, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Ron Paul actually commands a loyal following among America’s youth, for his policies of libertarianism and non-intervention overseas.
Ron Paul isn’t anywhere near as scary to America’s young people as is the Religious Right, with its advocacy of sexual repression. Young women aren’t going to like Kathryn Jean Lopez (editor of the National Review) for arguing against birth control and demanding that women stay virgins till they marry. And young women are not going to support the GOP Platform’s call for giving 14th Amendment rights to embryos and fetuses.
The specter of Christian fundamentalists using the power of government to institute sexual repression frightens the young more than anything Ron Paul says.
8 balconesfault // Sep 24, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Sinz: It’s been the other way around: The hard Right has first removed all the moderates from any influence on the Platform, then they withdrew their support for so-called RINO candidates–and now they actively demand that centrist Republicans should be defeated by Democrats, just to teach centrists a lesson that they should be seen and not heard.
Sinz – one of the great points that Tanenhaus makes, I think, is that moderate Dems like Clinton, and yes (though I know you dispute) Obama, successfully incorporate the language of the right, and thus build bridges for independents and even moderate Republicans to support them, if not on everything, at least on portions of their agendas. On the other side, he sees a complete rejection by the current conservative leadership (both political and talking heads) of any language that could be viewed as liberal.
You see that in what you talk about – a Republican who tries to work in the political center is going to be vehemently attacked as a RINO, even branded a leftist. Arlen Spector a liberal? Please – the man is an opportunist, but he’s hardly liberal.
You also see it in the comments above – escapevelocity’s defense of Horowitz, because a Horowitz is necessary in essence to tell proper conservatives what those scurillious liberals are up to, before they are actually exposed to “New Left” ideas. The goal is not only to widen the divide – but to blow up any bridges, and to gun down anyone caught trying to build one.
9 Chekote // Sep 24, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Amen, Sinz. That’s exactly what happened to the GOP. Let’s not forget the automatic veto that SoCons get when it comes to President and VP nominees.
10 Chekote // Sep 24, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Amen again Sinz! K-Lo and is a complete disaster for the GOP. She is a throwback to the Victorian Age.
11 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 12:58 pm
There is a spectre haunting the US and Western Civilization, the spectre of Christianity.
LOL!
The New Lefts ideas of tribalism, radical egalitarianism, the expansion of government power and statism, which is used to redistribute wealth, jobs, etc based on race, sex, ethnicity, religion, class and a neverending list of categories of people is easily seen for the evil that it is.
Horowitz knows the people, the organizations, and the ideology from the inside. So when people show up selling sunshine and magnolias, when what they are really selling is communism, racism, and oppression….David Horowitz can reveal the hisotry of the orgs and the people, misrepresenting themselves.
I know it really bothers New Leftists, who dont think of themselves as radicals, but the New Establishment….of which others are to be judged.
12 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 12:58 pm
2 Words,
Joe Lieberman
13 Frum vs. Horowitz // Sep 24, 2009 at 1:01 pm
[...] The battle is just getting good. [...]
14 SpartacusIsNotDead // Sep 24, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Frum wrote: “If Beck is energizing new and previously apolitical people, then I will join you in saluting his achievement.”
Why would Frum salute Beck’s achievement if Beck is whipping millions of people into a frenzy over things that, in Frum’s own words, are not true? This makes no sense and it raises the suspicion I’ve long held that Frum is no more interested in good governance than Beck, Limbaugh, Palin and the others he criticizes. Frum is opposed to the BLPers because he believes they cannot win – not because he believes they cannot govern.
Why is Frum only now raising issues like unsustainable healthcare costs, rising deficits, the need to pay for tax cuts and the hyperbolic rhetoric of the BLPers? He was fully aware of all these things during the Bush years, but he chose to remain silent so long as Republicans remained in power.
Nevertheless, I will gladly accept his impure motives if they ultimately lead to better governance.
15 Observer // Sep 24, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Aside from agreeing with David F in general on this issue, I also want to say as an aside that I happened to meet more Minnesotans than I usually would have in 2008-2009. By coincidence most of them were self-described libertarians or moderate conservatives.
Exactly one of the dozen or so I talked to about politics voted for Coleman. Most stayed home, and others voted – holding their nose – for Obama & Franken, in each case because they felt they needed to send a message against bad government, pandering to extremism, or both.
It wasn’t that long ago that a guy who could win a swing seat in a moderate state and vote a majority of the time with his party used to be considered a valuable asset. Now, the way most conservatives are talking, he’d be considered an enemy.
16 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Libertarians voted for Obama & FRANKEN to send a message that they dont support bad governance or pandering to EXTREMISM.
LOL!
It doesnt get any crazier than that.
17 MSheridan // Sep 24, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Unsurprisingly, I agree with Frum on this, even though I have many differences with him elsewhere. I too think the GOP has been near-destroyed by its embrace of the politics of fear and resentment. Solid oldstyle conservative pols like Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar are the past of the party; they’re certainly not representative of its present.
America has a history of being positive and upbeat about itself and its destiny. It’s part of our national identity and is a large part of the reason Ronald Reagan was so successful. He tapped into that optimism at a time when American were feeling nervous about the future. The current Republican Party is not upbeat; it is angry and scared. Even were it granted for the sake of argument that the anger and fear were justified, that’s not a longterm strategy for success.
When the Republican Party once again regains its smile and its faith in its own prescription for the future, then it will start attracting voters again. It’s not going to succeed beyond its current hardcore base with a message saying, in effect: We don’t really believe in government at all (aside from regulating people’s bedroom activities) and the party that does believe in government is even worse at it than we are.
That might be a selling theme if the country were on an even keel or if Democrats had been in charge for a long time, but when there are huge and blatant crises facing the nation and Democrats have only recently come back into power, it’s not going to sustain a lasting comeback.
18 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 1:34 pm
The Democrats will chase voters away with their extremism and dissasterous policies and the GOP will be back in power in the next 2 election cycles.
19 grackle // Sep 24, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin – I agree with much of what they say but I also have standards of fairness and truthfulness and yes – loyalty – a principle that they all espouse at the same time they violate it.
Limbaugh contributed to the Republican’s defeat in the last election because he didn’t like McCain.
Coulter is the lady that didn’t like McCain so much that she actually urged Republicans to vote Democrat. Even Limbaugh didn’t go THAT far, confining his tactics against McCain after McCain’s nomination mainly to faint praise and other indirect methods.
Malkin is driving away Latino voters because she is way too rabid on the immigration issue.
Beck goes off the deep end with crackpot theory and/or fringe association and is either incapable of good judgement or is simply in thrall to sensationalism for the sake of ratings.
A party whose Chairman has to apologize to Limbaugh to keep his job is a party that is in trouble, a party that has lost its way, a party that is in danger of becoming irrelevant.
I am a classic liberal with some conservative traits. In foreign policy I am closest to a Neoconservative viewpoint. I am neither Republican nor Democrat – I am an independent who usually votes Republican mainly for reasons having to do with foreign policy.
Up to now it has been a social democrat purging of moderates from the party. The social conservatives have proven that they will not co-exist peacefully with moderates. They have zero toleration for moderate Republicans. Yet only moderate candidates really have a chance in a Presidential election. Republicans, unless you want to become a perennial loser in elections you had better start doing some house cleaning or you are going to lose folks like me.
20 Observer // Sep 24, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Escapevelocity, remember – last year was the year you had Rush Limbaugh telling his fans to show up for Hilary.
Yes, it was a crazy time. The question to ask is, who made it so crazy – the opposition party that kept getting its ass kicked but learned to fix its mistakes and sound centrist? Or the governing party that had all the initiative – and squandered it?
21 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 1:45 pm
David Horowitz is right on the money.
And Ill post up Ronald Reagan’s speech once again from 1975.
Let Them Go There Way
Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA)
Conservative Political Action Conference
Washington, DC
March 1, 1975
http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/reagan/reagan1975.asp
22 grackle // Sep 24, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Hey escape, I read the Reagan speech and didn’t see anything that conflicted with Frum. I’m confused. Maybe you could provide a quote from the Reagan speech to illustrate your point that so far seems non-existent.
23 Moderate // Sep 24, 2009 at 2:06 pm
escapevelocity,
Today’s GOP is considerably to the right of Ronald Reagan, the president who voted multiple times for tax increases and supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. Hard-line, 100% conservative Reagan is a myth created years after he left office.
Ronald Reagan would be labelled a “RINO” were he alive today.
24 SpartacusIsNotDead // Sep 24, 2009 at 2:08 pm
MSheridan wrote: “When the Republican Party once again regains its smile and its faith in its own prescription for the future, then it will start attracting voters again. ”
I think the GOP was rejected in ‘08 precisely because of its prescription for the future, which most of the country considered to be nothing more than what we’ve had for the past 8 years.
The GOP certainly has to become less angry, but it is also in desperate need of new policy ideas. Irrespective of the problem, almost all of GOP policy prescriptions boil down to some version of (1) lower taxes, (2) decrease regulations and (3) allow the free market to solve the issue. That simply will not work for many of the problems the country faces. And, as evidenced during both the Reagan and Bush II administrations, this approach also produces huge deficits.
25 SpartacusIsNotDead // Sep 24, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Moderate wrote: “Hard-line, 100% conservative Reagan is a myth created years after he left office.”
Truer words were never spoken. Reagan’s record as both Governor and President was much more liberal than Republicans will admit. In both executive positions, he implemented the then-largest tax increases in history. And, as President, he dramatically increased spending as well.
26 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Moderates that vote for Al Franken have no business in the GOP, as far as Im concerned.
Reagan is venerated and not the mythical Reagan.
Reagan was villified by the Left when he was president and before and he would be if he were alive today, labeled a far Right extremist….in fact he still is villified by the Left today. The Left has moved further Left (and the Democrat Party especially) with regards to its proposed policies (its agenda has always been the same extremist radicalism from the 60s New Left), especially on cultural issues.
The success of the Left in pushing its cultural agenda, via the education system indoctrination and media domination….does not make the GOP radical. It means that the Left has been successful in promoting its zeitgeist.
In other words, just because the Communists are the zeitgeist does not make Lech Walesa a radical or extremist.
27 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Ill note that George W. Bush increased the size of Government, the biggest since the Great Society.
And yet he is a Far Right Extremist…..by the grumblers here.
Because the Fiscal Extremists “Moderates” dont like the Christian Conservatives.
The real battle is there, the moderates think that Christianity should be abandoned and relegated to the dust bin of history. That isnt working out so well for much of Europe.
28 hopitab // Sep 24, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Hasn’t anyone noticed that Horowitz parted ways with the New Left decades ago? Why is he still regarded as an “insider?” Furthermore, the New Left was a movement of the young. The Baby Boomers who formed it are now close to retiring and are hardly deranged hippies calling for the overthrow of the establishment, anarchy, free sex and drugs.
29 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Anti Christian bigotry is not a winning strategy….the Left has that sewn up.
In fact pro Christian values is what will win the increasing Latino vote.
30 grackle // Sep 24, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Escape:
Moderates that vote for Al Franken … [etc.] … Reagan is venerated … [etc.] … Reagan was vilified by the Left when he was president and before and he would be if he were alive today, labeled a far Right … [etc.] … The Left has moved further Left (and the Democrat Party especially) … [etc.] … especially on cultural issues. The success of the Left … [etc.] ….does not make the GOP radical … [etc., etc.]
Yeah, sure – but I still don’t see your point with the Reagan speech link. Did you have a point?
31 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 2:31 pm
The Baby Boomers who formed it are now close to retiring and are hardly deranged hippies calling for the overthrow of the establishment, anarchy, free sex and drugs. — hop
Yes they are the Establishment now, they marched through the institutions, they control the Democrat Party.
They still have Utopian Visions, thus are pushing Anti Capitalist Big Statist Policies, government enforcement of radical egalitarianism. Basically the platform of the Democrat Party.
They are still the same at heart, but now they have power within the system to use to promote their Utopian Visions, instead of tearing it done, they are going to “radically transform America.” –”Barrack Hussein Obama”
Alinsky Radicals were the 2 top contenders for the Democrat Presidential Primaries.
Figure it out.
32 MSheridan // Sep 24, 2009 at 2:34 pm
spartacusisnotdead, I make no bones about the fact that I am a liberal poster here. However, I am not trolling–I genuinely AM interested in an improved and revived Republican Party, although only in the sense that I don’t want half of the national debate to continue to be dominated by the crazytalk that is generated by the former fringe that now comprises its base.
You are correct that the GOP was rejected because its prescription for the future was unchanged. It has become impossible for most people to believe in it without major cognitive dissonance issues. You are also correct that it won’t be able to come back until such time as that vision is rethought and retooled. Even then, it may well contain fatal flaws waiting to be revealed by the test of time and experience, but at least then voters won’t automatically be scared away by the lingering whiff of past failures.
However, I was not attempting to say anything different–the GOP is currently ignoring the wisdom of one of its greatest heroes and founders, Abraham Lincoln: “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” Currently, it continues to aim the discredited message that continues to fool a minority of the people at ALL of the people, forgetting the words of its LAST standard-bearer: “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.” Misquote aside, that’s true for most of us.
33 grackle // Sep 24, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Escape:
Anti Christian bigotry is not a winning strategy….the Left has that sewn up.
Frum is an anti-Christian bigot? Moderate Republicans are anti-Christian bigots? Is THIS the point you are trying to make?
Escape:
In fact pro Christian values is what will win the increasing Latino vote.
Naw, man – demagoging on the immigration issue is what is driving away the Latino vote.
34 SpartacusIsNotDead // Sep 24, 2009 at 2:51 pm
MSheridan @ #32,
I didn’t mean to suggest you were trolling. I simply did not know you take on the issue of GOP ideas.
I agree with your post and I, too, hope the GOP crazytalk stops soon.
35 sinz54 // Sep 24, 2009 at 2:54 pm
escapevelocity: If your intention by referencing that Reagan speech was to claim that Reagan wanted to drive so-called RINOs out of the Republican Party, you’re mistaken.
In that speech, Reagan called for all Republicans to subscribe to the principles of the free market, hold wrong-doers accountable, and stand up for America’s vital interests abroad.
There was NOTHING in Reagan’s speech about abolishing the Federal Reserve, abolishing NATO or the U.N., giving 14th Amendment rights to embryos and fetuses, or attacking birth control. Evidently Reagan didn’t think those things were among the principles of the Republican Party–and neither do I.
Reagan gave that speech in 1975, after two successive Republican administrations had negotiated arms-control deals with Russia that Reagan believed (correctly) were putting the U.S. at a strategic disadvantage, had devalued the dollar, and had instituted wage-and-price controls. And Reagan was opposed to all of that.
36 sinz54 // Sep 24, 2009 at 3:04 pm
hopitab:
Well, the Baby Boomers were and still are more sexually active than the Christian Right would like. Readily available birth control methods have ended the notion that sex is just for making babies within wedlock.
And the CEOs of many Silicon Valley corporations still smoke marijuana on weekends.
And given their background opposing the Vietnam War in their younger days, they are highly tolerant of antiwar protesters, gays, and lesbians.
So socially, they are definitely more libertine than their parents’ generation.
37 grackle // Sep 24, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Hey escape – we are all still waiting to hear from you what your point was in linking to the Reagan speech. I read the speech and liked it but am still confused to what the point was. Come on, man – don’t keep us in suspense.
38 grackle // Sep 24, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Escape:
Alinsky Radicals were the 2 top contenders for the Democrat Presidential Primaries. Figure it out.
Yeah, and 2 conservatives just exposed ACORN using Alinsky tactics but I STILL can’t “figure it out.” Your point, I mean. Don’t hid your point in vagueness – spell it out for all to see. If there was one.
What’s contenders for “Democrat Presidential Primaries” got to do with “Scorched Earth Conservatives?”
All we’re seeing is standard social conservative boilerplate directed at nothing in particular like a chant against evil spirits.
39 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Read the Horowitz article.
The other offerings were bumbling fool Biden, Even farther Radical Leftist Kucinich, Chrisopher “Bianca Jagger Sandinista” Dodd (who will be exiting the Senate next election BTW), Mike “Ko Kook” Gravel…..and the best of the Bunch Bill Richardson, who couldnt make it past Senate Confirmation.
And Grackle, all we are seeing is standard anti Christian bigotry from the Frummers…..directed at Christians like the evil haters that they are.
You dont like Social Cons.
Who knew?
Keep chanting your hatred towards them. The Leftwingers will laugh all the way to the Socialist promised land because you hate Christians.
Enjoy!
40 Levedi // Sep 24, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I’m a born again Christian myself, but most of the “Christian values” talk I hear from the hard right deeply bothers me. Love is a Christian value – love your neighbor, love God. The Bible also tells us “don’t put your faith in princes.” But that’s exactly what we’re doing when we rely on the government to mandate behavior that should be left to individual freedom and motivated by one’s own moral compass, not legal mandate. Christian conservatives who do this sort of thing aren’t being theologically or logically consistent.
BTW Sinz and Chekote – I agree completely that K Lo is a disaster for National Review. I canceled my subscription after a year of her editorial leadership. I’m pro-life too, but I couldn’t stand to read one more simpering, self-righteous mommy narrative, especially since that was all the women writers were being allowed to talk about. Apparently foreign policy and economics are subjects only boys can write about.
41 MSheridan // Sep 24, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Paranoia in Wikipedia:
Although it ’s a bit dated, this classic is still worth reading as well :
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html
42 aDude // Sep 24, 2009 at 4:20 pm
A couple of things to note. On the national level, Limbaugh became a force in the early 90’s. Prior to that, the Republicans had won five of six presidential elections (getting up to 60% of the vote, and even over 500 electoral votes). After Rush, Democrats got more votes in four of five elections, and when they won the electoral vote it was with over 350 votes. During that time, Republicans never broke the 300 mark.
Obviously, this isn’t a total cause and effect. But as Rush and his fellow political entertainers have dominated the Republican Party, a theme has emerged of a party that is anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-non-Christian, anti-gay, and anti-union. Add that up, and by 2020 you have at least 60% of the population. The demographics that won the White House for Ronald Reagan lost the White House for John McCain.
That’s the problem with the Becks and Limbaughs. They are appealing to a shrinking demographic, and taking the Republican Party down with them.
43 hopitab // Sep 24, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Yes, Sinz54, you’re right about all that. Socially conservative, they’re not. And skeptical of war. But to characterize one’s opposition as crazed drug addled communists is hardly an effective tactic, just more hysterical ranting. And there are a lot of them to alienate with that attitude.
44 Cforchange // Sep 24, 2009 at 4:27 pm
David – maybe you should take to the podium with this beautiful rant. Somebody has got to step forward.
Sinz #6 is right on too. But back to the article, David it’s very powerful. Who in their sane mind couldn’t agree?
Escape, I wish you poverty.
45 pericles // Sep 24, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I think everyone should check out this post analyzing the original central claim that prompted David to write about Beck — whether or not Sunstein advocates giving animals a right to sue:
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/09/frum_vs_smith_on_sunstein.html
I think it is hard after reading this analysis to continue to argue that Beck was wrong in his portrayal of Sunstein’s views.
46 Churl // Sep 24, 2009 at 4:59 pm
balconesfault // Sep 24, 2009 at 11:47 am: “The problem with Horowitz is that he is someone who depends on a deep partisan divide for income.”
One could say the same thing about Frum.
47 grackle // Sep 24, 2009 at 5:05 pm
escape:
Read the Horowitz article.
And that’s a response? Go read an article? Please.
Escape:
The other offerings were bumbling fool Biden, [etc.] Kucinich, Chrisopher “Bianca Jagger Sandinista” Dodd [etc.], Mike “Ko Kook” Gravel…..[etc.] Bill Richardson, [etc., etc.].
Yeah, but is there a point in all this chanting of names?
Escape:
And Grackle, all we are seeing is standard anti Christian bigotry from the Frummers…..directed at Christians like the evil haters that they are.
Really? On this thread? Care to provide some quotes?
You don’t like Social Cons. Who knew? Keep chanting your hatred towards them. The Left-wingers will laugh all the way to the Socialist promised land because you hate Christians.
As a Christian I take offense at the above. Social conservatives don’t own Christianity, dude.
And I don’t hate social conservatives. I even agree with many of the tenets of social conservatism and am tolerant of the rest.
What perturbs me about social conservatives is they want to do all this self-destructive purging of moderates. It strikes me as kind of a totalitarian impulse. Stalin had purges. Mao had purges. The Republican Party doesn’t need purges.
And social conservatives have changed the focus of the Republican Party toward social issues and away from the Reaganite governance-oriented issues of limited government, a strong defense and a free market economy. And we see what has happened.
Hey escape, I read the CPAC Reagan speech you linked to and didn’t see anything that conflicted with Frum. I’m confused. Maybe you could provide a quote from the Reagan speech to illustrate your point. If there was a point.
48 Cforchange // Sep 24, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I would want to know a great deal more about Sunstein and animal rights before I was persauded by a brief synopsis on a website.
In my county, the District Attorney’s office has used every mean available to them to prosecute animal abusers because the profile of this criminal type indicates that the crimes will escalate to humans most likely children. The DA encourages and assists in these investigations because it effectively targets one of the worst predator’s amongst us.
Has this interpetation of the law enabled better prosecution of animal abusers? Is this what is behind Sunstein’s advocation? A full picture is necessary before intelligent judgement is passed. If the goal is to get psychopathic killers behind bars – why would anyone interfere.
49 Jim // Sep 24, 2009 at 5:41 pm
MSheridan writes:
“When the Republican Party once again regains its smile and its faith in its own prescription for the future, then it will start attracting voters again. It’s not going to succeed beyond its current hardcore base with a message saying, in effect: We don’t really believe in government at all (aside from regulating people’s bedroom activities) and the party that does believe in government is even worse at it than we are. ….That might be a selling theme if the country were on an even keel or if Democrats had been in charge for a long time, but when there are huge and blatant crises facing the nation and Democrats have only recently come back into power, it’s not going to sustain a lasting comeback.”
But the question a lot of very smart people have is…. “When will the bills get paid?” The Republicans can become a welfare lite party only at the expense of committed fiscal conservatives.
50 MSheridan // Sep 24, 2009 at 5:50 pm
pericles, I wasn’t really paying attention during the Cass Sunstein flap, but I think anyone who has been a political observer for any length of time knows that it’s easy to paint a public figure in a negative light by cherrypicking individual statements out of context. I could probably make G.W. Bush look like an atheist, or a communist, if I looked hard enough. However, the quotes in the link you provided do seem to provide a window on Sunstein’s personal views.
What strikes me most about the controversy, looking back, is that EVEN IF Sunstein holds all of the beliefs in question to the extent that he feels justified in imposing his personal opinion on the nation, he doesn’t have the power to do so. And that’s actually a big if. A man’s personal beliefs are not guarantees of his official actions.
I myself am a vegetarian (aside from hunted game). I would not outlaw the eating of meat, even had I that power. Or, to take a more real world example, Abraham Lincoln disapproved strongly of slavery. His presidency has probably been more studied than any other. It is well-known that he didn’t sign the Emancipation Proclamation as a moral act, even though he was well aware of its moral implications and likely outcome, because he knew he didn’t have that power under the Constitution. He signed it as an act of war, attempting to deprive the enemy of valuable war matériel, which is why it was so carefully worded to exclude non-seceding slaveowning states and areas. It is seldom pointed out how much this one wartime order hastened the end of that conflict, but that it did is indisputable. Similarly, JFK was forced to make explicit to a multitude of doubters that he would not take his orders from the Vatican, even though he was a Catholic. Many could not believe that a man could swear an oath to follow and uphold the laws and successfully keep that separate from his religious beliefs, where the two conflicted.
Sunstein may have radical and outside-the-mainstream ideas about morality when it comes to the treatment of animals, but OIRA (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/regulatory_affairs/default/) is not only not the best place to enact changes to the law, it is far from certain and by no means proven (by anyone) that he would if he could.
51 balconesfault // Sep 24, 2009 at 5:55 pm
jim wrote: But the question a lot of very smart people have is…. “When will the bills get paid?”
I believe it was 2 term Vice President Dick Cheney – who remains one of the most popular, and perhaps in some ways currently the dominant politician in the Republican Party when he chooses to speak – who proclaimed:
“You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”
52 MSheridan // Sep 24, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Jim, I hope fiscal conservatism does make a comeback in the GOP. “When will the bills be paid?” is an absolutely vital question that should always be asked. One of my favorite Senators, the late great William Proxmire (D-WI), was mostly liberal but was a fiscal hawk (he invented the Golden Fleece Award for government waste). “I have spent my career trying to get Congressmen to spend the people’s money as if it were their own. But I have failed.” Both funny and heartbreaking.
I can respect conservatism like that. What I cannot respect is supply side voodoo economics, to steal a phrase from the elder Bush. Lowering taxes on the richest does not always increase total revenue or raise the average standard of living. We’ve tested that, and now are in a good position to say–although it was never actually in doubt. Arthur Laffer (inventor of the Laffer Curve) himself never said so. Likewise, I cannot respect obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism on health care reform, given that we all well know that the current system is unsustainable and will break our national budget in the not incredibly distant future. Sure, please do rein in the liberals when they get overexcited about the prospect of using public funds for the public good. That’s fine. That’s good. But for the GOP to defend a broken status quo just to deny a political victory to the other side when it’s a matter literally of life and death for millions and the future economic health of the country depends on it, that seems perilously close to treason. That’s not conservative at all.
53 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 6:12 pm
CforChange, that is probably the difference between Leftwingers and Conservatives. Conservatives dont wish anybody poverty, they dont begrudge successful people. They wish everyone economic success and advocate policies that make that a more likely possiblity.
Pretty much sums it up.
Hey, grackle, no one has been purged from the Republican Party…..except for David Duke when he tried to horn in on it. But you are in the right spot for people who want to purge the Republican Party of Social Cons and the Christian Right. Its the purpose of this site. Forming a New Majority without them.
As for me, Ill stick with American Conservative Principles, the ones Reagan enunciated so well. If that makes me part of a minority party for decades on end, then so be it. You can joint the Democrat Party full of racists and sexists, and tribalist wealth, privelege, and preferences based on identity proponents.
You certainly wont be the first. And you can join them in the chorus of racist hatefilled bigots run the Republican Party, the party that advocates equality before the law, equality of opportunity, that a person should be treated with respect to the content of his character and not the color of his skin. The party that doesnt put up with racist comments from its Supreme Court nominees…like Sotomayor.
The hatefilled lies and villification will never stop with regards to the American Conservative, its the same ole same ole.
So as far as Im concerned you can hit the road too. Im not running you out of the Party, you are leaving it. Its a free country and that is your choice. But Im gonna call you out for your bigotry and hatred and racist tribalist politics and comments every time.
Christianophobia is running wild!
54 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 6:19 pm
And social conservatives have changed the focus of the Republican Party toward social issues and away from the Reaganite governance-oriented issues of limited government, a strong defense and a free market economy. And we see what has happened. — grackle
Youve got to be kidding me. When you are operating in fantasyland then good luck to you fella. What do you think the Left has been up in arms about for the last 8 years. We have a new enemy, its Islam….and you can bet your bottom dollar that Reagan would be strongly advocating Western Enlightenment and Christian Metaphysics and Morality as superior to that crappy violent supremacist religion. Reagan would have expanded NATO into the Eastern European theatre, and put down firm roots in those countries. Not this Namby Pamby crap that Obama and the Left are about. He would have spoke out strongly in favor of the Pro Democracy students in Iran, not this waffling yammering bullshit that came out of Obama’s mouth.
I know you would like the Christians to shut up and just support your vision minus any social conservatism. In fact the Christians havent gotten much for their support of the GOP. And you think they should sit down and shut up. Well this is a democracy, and we can yell as loud as anybody.
Tough shit for you.
55 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 6:23 pm
The fact of the matter is that the Blue Dogs seats are where the action is, and those voters are likely to be very disenchanted with the Democrats…..and thus the seats will move back to the GOP. And they will be disenchanted with the GOP, no doubt in the future.
But you cant win elections and control governments without the base. And that means that the choice is Racist coddling New Left Radicals or American Classically Liberal Christian Conservatives.
The choice is yours.
56 mlindroo // Sep 24, 2009 at 7:01 pm
> …dont wish anybody poverty, they dont begrudge successful people.
> They wish everyone economic success and advocate policies that make that
> a more likely possiblity.
Enough of this silliness already, “escapevelocity.”
Democrats do not wish anybody poverty either: they too wish EVERYONE economic success.
They simply disagree with you about the means.
Some people *are* already fabulously rich, will remain that way even with somewhat higher taxes and the mega-billionaires actually favored Obama last fall! Meanwhile, factors such as the soaring cost of obtaining a university degree, ever escalating health insurance costs (plus the risk of losing insurance if you lose your job) etc. make it harder and harder for those unfortunate enough to be born at the bottom of the social ladder to join the middle class. That is why the U.S. — “the land of opportunity” where social class [apart from arugula vs. hamburgers and similar all-important cultural distinctions of course:-)] isn’t supposed to mean anything — currently has LESS social mobility than Scandinavia and even the U.S. and France.
—
Heather MacDonald just wrote that “We are not moving from pure capitalism to pure socialism, we are moving from an already highly regulated, corporate- and individual-welfare-saturated economy to an even more regulated and redistributed economy. (And we didn’t get to our welfare-saturated state without popular support for trying to minimize risk, however unwisely.)” She is right.
MARCU$
57 anniemargret // Sep 24, 2009 at 7:17 pm
adude: That’s the problem with the Becks and Limbaughs. They are appealing to a shrinking demographic, and taking the Republican Party down with them.
Don’t forget the anti-intellectualism which is now status quo for the party. The anti-big-city which casts anyone who was born and raised in large metro city as somehow being not ‘christian’ enough for the party, not ‘American enough’ for the Palinites, not ‘values-voters enough’ for them, the demonization of gays, the demonization of anyone not joining their religious bigotry (just which Bible are they advocating? certainly not the Jesus I was taught about)…. environment concerns? fergettaboutit. Green energy anyone?
There is a word…it’s called progressivism. The GOP isn’t remotely near it.
I can’t imagine the GOP taking the reins back anymore with these issues. It is saturated with anger and fear-mongering…and as someone else mentioned above, you don’t have one single leader who is man, or woman enough, to stop the insanity. Who’s going to do it? Romney? Pawlenty? Rudy?
58 anniemargret // Sep 24, 2009 at 7:20 pm
MSheridan: But for the GOP to defend a broken status quo just to deny a political victory to the other side when it’s a matter literally of life and death for millions and the future economic health of the country depends on it, that seems perilously close to treason. That’s not conservative at all.
Beautifully said. And thank you for it.
59 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Violent Left at it YET AGAIN!
Will these people be ostracized for the Democrat Party? Will Nancy Pelosi tell us of her fears of an aura of violence (with a long history to boot)?
Im all ears….waiting for the onslaught of MSM coverage of the violent Left at it again! The fretting and fear of the radical violent politically charged atmosphere being created by these Leftwingers.
G-20 opponents, police clash on Pittsburgh streets
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090924/ap_on_re_us/g20_summit_protests
60 grackle // Sep 24, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Escape:
Hey, grackle, no one has been purged from the Republican Party … But you are in the right spot for people who want to purge the Republican Party of Social Cons and the Christian Right.
You’ve GOT to be kidding! Ever heard the term, “RINO?” Know what it means? Know who the social conservatives have been applying it to? I’ll give you a hint: NOT David Duke.
Its the purpose of this site. Forming a New Majority without them [, the social conservatives, imposing their dogmatic religious-based morality on the rest of the Republican Party.]
There, now – cleaned that up for you, escape. No, don’t thank me – It’s my pleasure.
As for me, Ill stick with American Conservative Principles, the ones Reagan enunciated so well.
If only they would. It would really be a relief to get back to tried and true issues of limited government, a strong national defense and a free market economy instead of all the religion-based malarkey peddled by the social conservatives.
If that makes me part of a minority party for decades on end, then so be it. You can joint[sic] the Democrat Party … [etc.] … And you can join … [etc., blah, blah, blah] …
I think I’ve just been told to get out of the Republican Party. But the social conservatives NEVER, NEVER purge. Not them – I mean escape just told us that the social conservatives don’t purge – right?
Not that I’m a member, mind you, although I usually vote for the Republican Party candidates for reasons already stated.
The hatefilled lies and vilification will never stop with regards to the American Conservative, its the same ole same ole.
Hey, escape, we all like conservatives, probably most who read this blog are conservatives. We even like social conservatives. We just don’t like it when the social conservatives start purging valuable members of the Republican Party and alienating large blocs of voters with their religion-based dictates.
So as far as Im concerned you can hit the road too. Im not running you out of the Party, you are leaving it. Its a free country and that is your choice. But Im gonna call you out for your bigotry and hatred and racist tribalist politics and comments every time. Christianophobia is running wild!
Oh. I can “hit the road” but escape is not running anyone out of the party, mind you – it’s just his unique, colorful way of conveying affection. And isn’t it always the way with escape – that he makes all these claims about my supposed “bigotry and hatred and racist tribalist politics,” but NEVER offers a quote? NEVER gives an example. And the Christianophobia is all in escape’s imagination, too.
You’ve got to be kidding me. When you are operating in fantasyland … [etc.] … We have a new enemy, its Islam….and you can bet your bottom dollar that Reagan would be strongly advocating Western Enlightenment and Christian Metaphysics and Morality as superior to that crappy violent supremacist religion.
But what’s this got to do with purging moderates? Is escape trying to say that Republican moderates are trying to do away with “Western Enlightenment and Christian Metaphysics and Morality” and promote Islamic terrorism? Escape’s basic problem is that he has all these fevered thoughts but can never think of any concrete examples.
Reagan would have expanded NATO into the Eastern European theatre, and put down firm roots in those countries. Not this Namby Pamby crap that Obama and the Left are about. He would have spoke out strongly in favor of the Pro Democracy students in Iran, not this waffling yammering bullshit that came out of Obama’s mouth.
I have to ask again – What in the devil does Obama’s antics have to do with the Republican Party’s problem of social conservatives purging RINOs and alienating large blocs of voters? It is difficult to figure out escape – if it’s not rambling, near hysteric rants that are off the subject it’s impenetrable vagueness.
I know you would like the Christians to shut up and just support your vision minus any social conservatism. In fact the Christians haven’t gotten much for their support of the GOP. And you think they should sit down and shut up. Well this is a democracy, and we can yell as loud as anybody.
I don’t want Christians to “shut up.” I just don’t want them mistaking a political party for a pulpit. I want the social conservatives to stay in the Republican Party, as long as they are loyal to limited government, a strong national defense, a free market economy and it would help immensely if they would get off this kick of trying to impose their idea of morality on everyone else.
The fact of the matter is that the Blue Dogs seats are where the action is, and those voters are likely to be very disenchanted with the Democrats…..and thus the seats will move back to the GOP.
Maybe, but will the Blue Dogs be welcomed by the social conservatives? Will they be the right kind of Republican? What if they have be purged because they are not religious enough? What if they don’t want to be ordered around by the social conservatives? Uh-oh, I see other purges in the future for the GOP.
61 MSheridan // Sep 24, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Escapevelocity, there is one thing you have absolutely right. David Frum very much wants to dilute the influence that you and people who think like you have in the Republican Party. He wants to do that by adding large numbers of people to the Republican Party who have different ideas. So in one way, you are correct: he’s not talking to you at all.
Social conservatives do not appear to wish to add people to the GOP who have different ideas. You would like, so far as I can tell, to convert people to your worldview and cast out all those you are convinced are laughing at you or looking down at you. Honestly, could you possibly get over yourselves? Most of the rest of us really don’t give much of a damn about you one way or the other.
62 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 8:36 pm
If you look at Europe, that is what the US would look like excepting that their would probably be an African American racist party in there as well.
Christian Democrat – Welfare State Lite, Christian Social Con – think Paternalist Catholicism in Latin America Think George W. Bush or Mike Huckabee
Social Democrat – Think Joe Lieberman
Socialist – Think Nancy Pelosi
Greens – Think Al Gore
Libertarian – Think Bob Barr
Nationalist – Think Tom Tancredo
Black Racist – Think Congressional Black Caucus
That would be the break down. The Christian Democrats would be the largest group in the US with a large percentage of Latinos and Christians.
Libertarians punch above their weight given the 2 party system, and so do Radical Leftwingers.
That is just the facts.
Its reality. You can argue against it all you want, but them there is the facts.
63 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 8:37 pm
The Blue Dogs ARE for the most part Social Cons. They are more pro Union and welfare statish.
64 grackle // Sep 24, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Although it ’s a bit dated, this classic is still worth reading as well:
Sheridan, I read the Hofstadter piece. It’s not bad although, as you said, “a bit dated,” and maybe a bit one-sided, too, in that it ascribes all the paranoia to the Right. Take the quote below:
In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority.
Yet it was Goldwater, along with William F. Buckley, Russell Kirk and other conservatives that got rid of the fringe of their time, the John Birch Society.
I don’t think paranoia is confined to the Right. We have the Birthers, they have the Truthers.
65 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 8:48 pm
if they would get off this kick of trying to impose their idea of morality on everyone else. — grackle
Lets just follow this one line, because it seems to be the sticking point. Social cons should not push morality. That is what a social con is and does.
Now lets take beastiality as a subject of morality.
Would you say that opposing beast sex being taught in public schools is a moral position that people push on other people….namely people that like to have sex with animals.
Is there something inherently wrong with opposing beast sex being taught in public schools to children.
If not, then all you are arguing about is where to draw the line. And you disagree on where the line should be drawn.
The argument that Christians are trying to impose their morality on everyone else is correct. However the bad faith formulation that Christians are trying to impose themesleves in peoples bedrooms is false.
In fact Christians are tolerant people, they created the most tolerant nations on Earth, for Pete’s sake.
Tolerance is different from Material and Legal State Sanctioning of behaviors.
Furthermore, abortion is a human rights issue. The most egregious human rights violations in the US revolve around widespread abortion on demand.
So you villify Christians for pushing human rights. Its been done before. The African American civil rights movement, Slavery. Its a big yawner. The thing is to be on the side of civil and human rights, and not against them. Principles matter.
66 grackle // Sep 24, 2009 at 9:14 pm
If you look at Europe, that is what the US would look like excepting that their would probably be an African American racist party in there as well. Christian Democrat – Welfare State Lite, Christian Social Con – think Paternalist Catholicism in Latin America Think George W. Bush or Mike Huckabee Social Democrat – Think Joe Lieberman Socialist – Think Nancy Pelosi Greens – Think Al Gore Libertarian – Think Bob Barr Nationalist – Think Tom TancredoBlack Racist – Think Congressional Black Caucus That would be the break down. The Christian Democrats would be the largest group in the US with a large percentage of Latinos and Christians. Libertarians punch above their weight given the 2 party system, and so do Radical Leftwingers. That is just the facts. Its reality. You can argue against it all you want, but them there is the facts.
Hey, escape. I think we all want to avoid becoming like Europe but I don’t see how purging moderate Republicans will help us do that.
Let me give you some friendly advice on communicating: Your assumptions are not necessarily our assumptions. So while you can chat amongst your fellow social conservatives in this proprietary code, half-expressed boilerplate and as in the above, lists of various folks attached to your personal labels, and your fellow social conservatives may nod knowingly and give a friendly, “uh-huh,” and an brisk, “You bet!” all we are going to be doing is scratching our heads and wondering what the hell you mean. Try to throw an occasional point into the mix.
The Blue Dogs ARE for the most part Social Cons. They are more pro Union and welfare statish.
Let me see if I got this right: The Blue Dogs are social conservatives yet they are pro-union and pro-welfare state. And that’s OK. Interesting.
67 Jim // Sep 24, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Escape:
The left zeitgeist is laying it on pretty heavy right now, that’s for sure…
68 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Let me give you some advice on communicating. Your assumptions are not necessarily my assumptions.
If what you are trying to communicate to me, is something other than Anti Southern bigotry, or Anti Christian bigotry, Im all ears. Start defining and going over history so we can come to an understanding….and move forward.
Blue Dogs are what they are…..not what I may wish them to be.
69 greg_barton // Sep 24, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Jeez, Frum, if rationality like that catches on in the Republican party you might actually give Democrats a run for their money in 2010.
Luckily, it looks like that’s not in the cards.
70 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Actually Coleman won.
And as usual the Democrats manipulated the courts to include votes that should not have counted to claim victory. As is the Leftwing way….bypassing the Legislatures and Voters will via manipulating the system.
One need look no further than Prop 8 in California.
The difference between Garkle and me, is that I could vote for Rudy Guliani against Barack Obama….he cant vote for Sarah Palin against Barack Obama.
That is essentially Horrowitz position vis a vis Frum.
71 greg_barton // Sep 24, 2009 at 10:38 pm
spartacusisnotdead:
There is the possibility that this “new majority” idea and others like it are just a way to hold on to moderate Republicans long enough to get them to vote in the next two elections.
72 greg_barton // Sep 24, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Yeah, escapevelocity, and Gore won too.
Man, I so hope you are the future of the Republican party.
73 grackle // Sep 24, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Me, earlier: “if they would get off this kick of trying to impose their idea of morality on everyone else.”
Lets just follow this one line, because it seems to be the sticking point. Social cons should not push morality.
Yes. Social conservatives should not be imposing their idea of morality on other members of the Republican Party.
That is what a social con is and does.
Sadly – seems to be true these days. There were social conservatives in the Reagan era and they were valued members of the Republican Party but they did not seek to impose their idea of morality on all the other members. The term, “RINO,” was unknown during Reagan’s era. There were no purges, either.
Now lets take bestiality as a subject of morality. Would you say that opposing beast sex being taught in public schools is a moral position that people push on other people….namely people that like to have sex with animals. Is there something inherently wrong with opposing beast sex being taught in public schools to children.
I would say that promoting bestiality in ANY venue, not just the schools, would be immoral.
If not, then all you are arguing about is where to draw the line. And you disagree on where the line should be drawn.
Nope. That’s a false and ridiculous dichotomy. It’s not a choice between either allowing the promotion of bestiality or condoning the purging by social conservatives of moderates from the Republican Party.
The argument that Christians are trying to impose their morality on everyone else is correct.
It’s not correct for this Christian.
However the bad faith formulation that Christians are trying to impose themselves in peoples bedrooms is false.
Escape is losing me here. First he says it is correct that “Christians are trying to impose their morality on everyone else.” Then he says it’s false.
In fact Christians are tolerant people, they created the most tolerant nations on Earth, for Pete’s sake.
Well, there are tolerant Christians(like me and many others like me) but there are also intolerant Christians. Perhaps that’s why we have the Constitution as our instrument of governance and not the Holy Bible. Oh, those wise founding fathers!
Tolerance is different from Material and Legal State Sanctioning of behaviors.
Up to a certain point, yes. And it would have to be clear whether positive or negative sanctioning was meant.
Furthermore, abortion is a human rights issue. The most egregious human rights violations in the US revolve around widespread abortion on demand.
I’m going to give a very qualified and conditional agreement here.
So you vilify Christians for pushing human rights.
No, I do not vilify Christians for “pushing human rights.” To a certain extent it depends on how you define “human rights,” and also on how “pushing” is defined. For instance, the Pope and other religious leaders are constantly “pushing human rights.” But they do so from the pulpit, not on a political campaign. So I am fine with them pushing human rights in that manner.
Now, if I were an Italian and the Pope campaigned from within a political party while running for the office of President of Italy and started “pushing” Catholicism, imposing his idea of morality on other party members and purging non-Catholics from the ranks of the party – well, then THAT would be an example of a Christian “pushing human rights” that would be disturbing to me.
After all, Islamic terrorists murder Americans in the name of religion and they also claim to be “pushing human rights” in opposition to the Great Devil, America.
Another example is Timothy McVeigh, who murdered in the name of justice and freedom, time-honored and traditional human rights, so he no doubt believed he was “pushing human rights.”
Its been done before.
What’s been “done before”?
The African American civil rights movement, Slavery.
I’m not getting the significance of the reference here.
Its a big yawner.
I have no idea what escape is talking about. WHAT is “a big yawner”?
The thing is to be on the side of civil and human rights, and not against them. Principles matter.
Hooray! Finally something I can wholeheartedly agree with. I’m definitely “on the side of civil and human rights,” and principles definitely DO matter.
74 MSheridan // Sep 24, 2009 at 11:02 pm
grackle, you’ve got a point about the bias in the piece. He does start out saying that it isn’t confined to any one ideology, and does list a few different US examples:
but certainly he does heavily concentrate on the right. Still, I trust the current applicability is obvious.
75 brandon // Sep 24, 2009 at 11:06 pm
“Democrats do not wish anybody poverty either: they too wish EVERYONE economic success.”
If you look at what Democrats have done to the inner city for the last 40 years (think Baltimore, Detroit, Newark, Gary, New Orleans etc.) then it is actually believable that they don’t want people out of poverty but instead want them to be dependent on government.
The “Christian right” as some kind of bogeyman is a myth created by the MSM and the left. I’m surprised so many so called “moderate” Republicans fall such nonsense.
The idea that Christians want to somehow pass federal legislation that tells you what you can or can’t do in your own bedroom is silly. Christians just want to be left alone to raise their families with the values that used to be considered mainstream. Most don’t give a damn what you do in your own personal life. They simply don’t want you imposing your secular values on their families or their tax dollars going to certain NEA or NEH projects that go against traditional values.
76 MSheridan // Sep 24, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Brandon, are you calling EV a myth? I don’t think he takes kindly to that.
77 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 11:17 pm
And still no one has come up with an example of people being purged from the Republican Party.
Yet they keep on claiming that people have been purged from the party.
Please tell me one person that has been purged from the Republican Party. Hell the Maverick that loves to stab republicans in the back was the freakin Presidential nominee.
LOL!
Good Lord, you people are in la la land.
78 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 11:22 pm
OK, so I googled and I came up with some Paul Nuts were purged by the Florida GOP.
Isnt that what the Frummers are for, purging the Ron Paul wingnuts out of the party. And promoting moderate Republicans….like they did in Florida.
LOL!
Surreal
79 balconesfault // Sep 24, 2009 at 11:33 pm
I know this will be a stretch for escapevelocity to deal with – but you can be against bestiality based on purely humanist values.
A humanist believes that sex must be consensual. Animals are unable to consent. Case closed.
Meanwhile, children are below the age of consent, and thus it is impossible for them to consent to sex with an adult (although for some religious denominations, this is irrelevant if their parents grant consent). Secular humanists are virtually unanimous in considering sex between an adult and a child to be immoral. I strongly suspect that if you probed an organization like NAMBLA, you’d find a lot more people clinging to really warped interpretations of Christianity to justify their perversions than approaching it from a secular humanist rationale.
grackle: I have no idea what escape is talking about.
I have that problem often.
**********************
A few years back on Slate, there was an article describing what the author considered a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives.
If a message could come down from God tomorrow, and tell liberals that if they just dumped all affirmative action programs and radically cut income taxes and eliminated property gains taxes and slashed regulations and defunded all welfare and medicaid and medicare and other socialized programs, that it really would bring in an era where corporations would shoulder their social responsibility and make regulations irrelevant, that the boom from newfound efficiency along with reduced taxes would create an economic boom that would create a level of prosperity for all where all those socialized programs would be irrelevant, would speed up the progress of race relations and opportunity to the point where affirmative action would never be needed again …
Liberals would say “bring it on!” and embrace all that God decreed.
On the other hand, if God came down and told conservatives that to return to a functional economy we needed to strengthen regulations to protect the economy and worker health and the environment from bad actors, and to raise taxes on upper brackets and corporations to a level that would sustain a functional social net while ensuring a steady rate of economic growth that would allow great profits while protecting the poor, the indigent, the unfortunate, the old …
Conservatives would tell God “forget it” … because God is trying to take their liberties away.
80 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Im right in line with what Brandon said…..so no myth.
The morality crowd just doesnt want Gay Marriage or homosexual deviant sexual behavior taught in schools. They arent out there clamoring to string gays up in trees, or spying on them in their bedrooms.
81 greg_barton // Sep 25, 2009 at 12:55 am
Go, escapevelocity, go!
82 Jim // Sep 25, 2009 at 1:19 am
Purge isn’t a word we honestly understand here in the US. The country isn’t constrcted for it. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the room. If you can stand stand the heat, stay in. That’s as dire as it gets here in the US…
83 Jim // Sep 25, 2009 at 1:23 am
Balconesfault:
Are you sure that your article applies to a factory manager in Kansas, or just to a banker in NYC?
84 steelyblades // Sep 25, 2009 at 2:18 am
Reading escapevelocity’s comments, I get a warm and fuzzy feeling for the future of the Republican Party.
85 Observer // Sep 25, 2009 at 2:19 am
Er… to an earlier point, the United States WAS in the grip of a slaveholder conspiracy. It’s not like 1/3 of the Union engaged in an armed insurrection for entertainment value.
What that irrefutable historical fact has to do with Mormonism, Freemasonry, or the “international bankers conspiracy,” beats me.
86 Jim // Sep 25, 2009 at 2:21 am
Let’s be honest; a lot of this is hot air until the next round of candidates.
87 greg_barton // Sep 25, 2009 at 2:24 am
Yeah, steelyblades, so do I.
88 Jim // Sep 25, 2009 at 2:36 am
Was this supposed to appeal to the latino vote somehow?
89 grackle // Sep 25, 2009 at 2:45 am
The difference between Garkle and me, is that I could vote for Rudy Guliani against Barack Obama….he cant vote for Sarah Palin against Barack Obama.
Actually, Giuliani was my favorite. Liked him a lot. Still do. And I LOVE Sarah Palin. She needs to bone up on the issues but her instincts are good and I would vote for her over Obama in a SECOND. Single-handed she got rid of the death counseling. That’s power. That’s charisma. I don’t agree with David Frum on every single thing. I’m not in lockstep with David Frum or anyone else. Don’t assume things about me, escape.
The “Christian right” as some kind of bogeyman is a myth created by the MSM and the left. I’m surprised so many so called “moderate” Republicans fall such nonsense.
I’m not exactly a Republican although I could probably be categorized as a moderate. But the MSM doesn’t dictate my opinion. I watch FoxNews. I read blogs. I read magazines like National Review. I read books.
They simply don’t want you imposing your secular values on their families or their tax dollars going to certain NEA or NEH projects that go against traditional values.
Well, I think the Christian Right is a bit more proactive than is indicated here. Any political professional will tell you that Reagan, Bush sr. and jr. profited politically from the approval of the Christian Right.
And still no one has come up with an example of people being purged from the Republican Party. Yet they keep on claiming that people have been purged from the party. Please tell me one person that has been purged from the Republican Party. Hell the Maverick that loves to stab republicans in the back was the freakin Presidential nominee. Good Lord, you people are in la la land.
The social conservatives create a climate of resentment toward others who are not social conservatives. It’s not a matter of purging in the sense that folks are lined up in front of the barracks and stripped of their badges of rank, chevrons and epaulets while the drums roll.
Cuban-Americans in Florida used to be automatic GOP votes. The Republicans used to be able to garner a certain amount of Latino votes in Texas – not a majority but a sizeable minority. The same in most of the border states. The Latinos are the fastest growing voting bloc in the US. We need to at least hold what we’ve had in the past to win but there was a big shift in the Latino vote in the last election.
Young people are leaving the Republicans. Young people are the future of any party. We HAVE to have them if we want to win.
A lot of independent centrists like myself are not liking what the social conservatives say and do. Each party needs those centrist votes and the Democrats are getting them simply by making the centrists feel welcome, simply by creating a cordial, respectful atmosphere. I’m stubborn and have a thick skin. I don’t need approval and being told to go join the Democrats in a blog debate just bounces off this old hide. But many would have a more sensitive reaction.
The morality crowd just doesn’t want Gay Marriage or homosexual deviant sexual behavior taught in schools. They aren’t out there clamoring to string gays up in trees, or spying on them in their bedrooms.
Yeah, but the social democrats certainly don’t make the gays feel welcome in the Republican Party, either. 7 to 8% are gay. We need votes. I’ll take those votes any day. Right now the Democrats are raking them in.
Isn’t it the “morality crowd” that makes sure the Republican Party plank has a Constitutional amendment to make abortion illegal? If it’s against the law won’t women who have abortions be considered criminals, prosecuted and jailed? Aren’t many anti-abortionists calling anyone who has had an abortion a murderer? It’s certainly not the moderates.
A lot of women have had abortions. Most everyone knows someone or has someone in the family who have had abortions. Do you believe that they enjoy having themselves, their friends and their relatives called murderers?
We’ll NEVER have a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion. That’s an expensive fantasy that will never come true. A slightly better chance is the Supreme Court but in my opinion no Supreme Court will EVER overturn Roe vs. Wade. Not even if you packed it with 9 conservative judges. Yet many women will see that in the plank or see some anti-abortion demonstrator on TV yelling at someone at a clinic and think, “Well, I don’t think I want to be part of THEM.”
90 Jim // Sep 25, 2009 at 4:02 am
Anyway, watch this:….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyDie_4dOdU
91 sinz54 // Sep 25, 2009 at 10:23 am
brandon:
Here’s the section of the GOP platform that deals with social issues. Go read it for yourself.
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm
It calls for extending Fourteenth Amendment rights to embryos and fetuses. That is a VERY hard-right idea, from the Christian right wing of the GOP, that would make any woman who has an abortion, guilty of violating the U.S. Constitution.
That is no “myth”. That was the OFFICIAL FACE of the Republican Party presented to the electorate.
Now I don’t believe for a second that would ever get passed. But any moderate women who read that are going to fear the mindset of the politicians who wrote it.
92 Really? « My Point Exactly // Sep 25, 2009 at 10:26 am
[...] 25, 2009 Reasonable conservative David Frum asks neocon David Horowitz, and by extension, all wingnuts, the following pertinent questions: David, do [...]
93 liberallurker // Sep 25, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Newbie here, clearly, but thought I would give a perspective from the enemy camp. David Frum is the worst nightmare of us Progressives, he can make a logical argument that does not require interruption, demonization and screaming. I love the passion of the “Escapevelocity” Republicans but it is clear they see the progressives as cartoon figures. Bush blew up the deficit therefore liberals must love him because that is what liberals do…. Oh please… Republicans are where they are for many complex reasons but if one looks at the remaining “red” states ask what they have in common and if that is going to sell to the majority. Eyes wide shut won’t help.
94 Oneon1isto // Sep 25, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I keep hearing the term “loyalty” in commentsfrom conservatives, loyalty to the Becks and Limbaughs of the conservative movement.
Why would you give your loyalty to these people? They’ve done nothing for you, and don’t necessarily speak for you. They’re not even from “the heartland”, that imaginary place we all believe some “true American” resides in. They do not deserve your loyalty in any way, shape, or form.
Do you know what loyalty is? It’s an important word you trot out for family and friends, not pundits who enjoy raising your blood pressure on weekday evenings over why the government temporarily owning shares of GM constitutes as an inescapable decline into Marxist Socialism.
95 EscapeVelocity // Sep 25, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Well, Oneon1isto,
Im certainly not loyal to GM and for good reason. Im loyal to the car manufacturers that brought jobs to the South, which is not GM, Ford, or Chrysler.
But rather Toyota, Honda, BMW, and Mercedes.
Maybe you Leftwingers should redefine your loyalty to include places outside of the North East and the cities.
96 EscapeVelocity // Sep 25, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Maybe Leftwingers should stop being loyal to Che and Castro.
Now there is a thought!
97 rbottoms // Sep 25, 2009 at 1:23 pm
The legacy of the Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Palin, Beck, Bachman, and Gingrich is right here:
98 EscapeVelocity // Sep 25, 2009 at 1:28 pm
garkle,
I like Guiliani, he was a great Mayor for New York City. He really screwed up in strategy in the primaries sitting out till Florida. That was just plain dumb.
I think he would have made a great president. The face of New York City during at 9/11 now representing the face of the US, would have been a bold statement to Islam and the world.
However, much of the base had big problems with some of his social liberalism and his bad example in his family life.
That being said, McCain ended up being the nominee, because the base was divided among other candidates. So the centrist McCain (who has his own problematic personal life) became the nominee. Thus the base and the Christian wing needed to be solidified with the VP pick to get them behind McCain. Sarah Palin was that pick.
The problem was McCain…not Sarah Palin. McCain the centrist Maverick.
Fred Thompson was my favorite. I also liked Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. However Duncan is more of a not well known fellow, and Tom Tancredo rightly or wrongly is percieved as anti Latino. Fred Thompson was the best candidate, easily. I could have easily found enough to like in Mitt Romney to enthusiastically support him as well. I was rooting for him after Fred dropped out (prematurely I say).
McCain was the problem.
That being said. He was definitely a play for the independents and moderates and middle of the roaders. And that didnt work.
The key is to find a good communicator of conservative ideas, not to pander to moderates and independents, with RINOs.
That is what Reagan’s speech was about. Let them go their way. Radical New Leftwing leadership will be a dissaster and they will soon be back.
99 EscapeVelocity // Sep 25, 2009 at 1:30 pm
The legacy of the New Left and Marxism can be found here…
Terrorists plan to bomb GOP convention thwarted by FBI informant.
Violent protesters clash with police in Pittsburg at the G20 meeting.
100 ottovbvs // Sep 25, 2009 at 1:54 pm
escapevelocity // Sep 25, 2009 at 1:30 pm
…….The Republican base in all its clarity.
101 EscapeVelocity // Sep 25, 2009 at 2:23 pm
In 2006, Steve Cohen (D-TN) won Harold Ford’s 9th Congressional District seat in Memphis in a bitter contested race. Cohen beat Nikki Tinker barely. This year, Nikki Tinker is back for another challenge and she’s using race and anti-Semitism as weapons against Cohen. The election is this Thursday.
Last year, some black ministers caused a stir against Cohen because he supported federal hate crimes legislation that included gay rights. Robert Poindexter, one of the angered ministers, gave away the game saying, “He’s not black and he can’t represent me, that’s just the bottom line.”
In just the past few months, black ministers (started by one who is not even in district) have passed out fliers that say “Steve Cohen and the JEWS HATE Jesus.” Nikki Tinker has refused to denounce the fliers.
Tinker is finding support with black members of Congress who denied Steve Cohen membership in the Congressional Black Caucus after his 2006 victory.
102 EscapeVelocity // Sep 25, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Exposing the Left, doing it right.
103 DFL // Sep 25, 2009 at 2:44 pm
The major reason for the two Republican election debacles was the misguided war in Iraq. In 2008, the Wall Street meltdown was a second major reason. Secondary reasons include conservative disgust with the Bush-Republican overspending, the stagnant wage growth of the middle-class, and the illegal immigration betrayal conducted by Bush, McCain, Graham and company. Tertiary reasons include the Schaivo affair, the Cunningham, Abramaoff and Foley scandals, the Dubai ports dustup and the Miers nomination civil war.
David Frum is self-delusional if he believes that jettisoning cultural conservatives will result in political victory. If cultural conservatives leave politics, you can kiss a conservative resurgence good-bye.
104 Oneon1isto // Sep 25, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Re: escapevelocity: I know you’re just spouting nonsense to try and peeve people on this board. Otherwise you wouldn’t act so loony.
But…I will tell you, I’m a tried and true, born and raised Texan. Last I checked that wasn’t the Northeast.
105 EscapeVelocity // Sep 25, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I still havent seen any condemnation of the violent political protests at the G20 meeting in Pittsburg by the Democrat Party or Leadership.
So no violence at Tea Party protests, no arrests, and sparkling clean demonstration area = Im worried about the spectre of violence in the political atmosphere. Violence and rioting in Pittsburg by Leftists = Silence.
But I did find this…
UK Lib Dems (Major Leftist party in UK) condemn policing of G20 protests
http://www.daylife.com/article/0fFKbFZ6OS6Lf?q=ID
And so it goes…
106 balconesfault // Sep 25, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Terrorists plan to bomb GOP convention thwarted by FBI informant.
If you look into this more – you will find that the FBI informant wasn’t just collecting information – he was actively encouraging some kids who went up there to go militant, and even providing them info on how to get the stuff together to make molitov cocktails. If you like entrapment, you’ll love this case … proving that you can get some college age kids to do stupid things if you harangue them about it long and hard enough is a pretty easy accomplishemt.
Meanwhile, the anarchists aren’t Democrats. If you’ll notice, they’re out there attacking Obama for bailing out corporations. They sound a lot more like you, in that regard.
107 EscapeVelocity // Sep 25, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Well balconesfault, I like the evasion, even if it is wrong. The fact of the matter is that the informant was not an FBI agent and was already a radical Leftwinger inside the group that started talking about violence and planning for it when he got spooked and went to the FBI.
But…
So all those Ward Churchills and his fellow travellers holed up in the Uni’s are indoctrinating young impressionable minds into radical Leftwing ideology and foolishness?
Who knew?
Plus this…
ACORN Founder Wade Rathke Wanted Terrorist Attack on Republican Convention to Succeed
“What does any of this have to do with ACORN? I wondered the same thing on January 31st of 2009 when I was reading an ACORN blog that is run by Wade Rathke (the man who claims credit for founding ACORN). He devoted an entire page to my work with the FBI. How did he describe the FBI’s effort and success in preventing innocent Americans, local police and federal agents from being burned, maimed and/or possibly killed by firebombs? He wrote that it’s “one thing to disagree, but it’s a whole different thing to rat on folks.” That is what ACORN’s founder had to say about my role in stopping a bomb plot.”
108 EscapeVelocity // Sep 25, 2009 at 4:09 pm
ACORN, that lovely non partisan community organizing group.
LOL!
109 el gato libre // Sep 25, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Escape, you do realize that when you constantly post to yourself, you don’t exactly come off as credible?
Go outside. Read a book. Step away from the keyboard for a few minutes. Maybe it’ll mellow you out a bit.
110 EscapeVelocity // Sep 25, 2009 at 5:11 pm
And your silly attack the man instead of dealing with the information and assertions is somehow, credible?
LOL!
With all of the media handwringing about the potential for violence at Congressional town-hall meetings in Augutst — potential only realized when unions and counterprotesters began attacking ObamaCare opponents — one has to marvel at the lack of any such speculation at the G-20 protests in Pittsburgh. Of course, the media didn’t bat an eye at the larger implications of the real violence from the same leftist crowd in Saint Paul, Minnesota, during the Republican convention, either. It seems that conservatives exercising free speech in a passionate but responsible manner freaks out the national media far more than leftists engaged in actual political violence.
Case in point — this report from CNN’s Brian Todd to Wolf Blitzer yesterday (via Doug Powers):
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/25/video-cnn-discovers-what-an-unruly-protest-looks-like/
111 sinz54 // Sep 25, 2009 at 5:13 pm
dfl:
Why do you insist on inventing strawmen all the time?
NO ONE is talking about “jettisoning” cultural conservatives.
The only “jettisoning” is coming FROM the cultural conservatives, who just this past week turned on Dede Scozzafava in NY-23 and decided to support a third-party (Conservative) candidate, which could doom Dede’s chances.
The term “RINO” was not invented by David Frum.
What David Frum keeps advocating is a big tent GOP that recognizes that on issues as painful and difficult as abortion and gay rights, that there should be room for different points of view. That you can be pro-choice and be a proud Republican; that you can be a gay or lesbian Republican who advocates for same-sex marriage and still be a proud Republican.
Unlike, say, the 1976 GOP Platform, the current 2008 GOP Platform doesn’t allow for different points of view on these issues. It reads like Phyllis Schlafly wrote it herself.
112 Oneon1isto // Sep 25, 2009 at 5:58 pm
I think escape needs a job, or a better supervisor. I usually float around NM about once a week and this is the most insane amount of inane trolling I have ever seen.
Is there a policy on banning round here?
113 EscapeVelocity // Sep 25, 2009 at 6:50 pm
What is this damn conservative troll doing on this conservative site, lets ban him!
LOL!
Pretty much sums up the New Majority.
114 EscapeVelocity // Sep 25, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Here ya go sinz…
via Human Events…
Liberal Republicans Try To Kill Conservative Republicans in Kansas Polling
The Kansas Traditional Republican Majority (KTRM) is a Kansas organization tied the liberal Republican Main Street Partnership. KTRM is working hard to tar and feather conservative Republicans in Kansas before today’s primary election there.
As Kansas Progress notes
The group calling itself “Kansas Traditional Republican Majority” is a small but well-funded group of Republicans who support judicial activism, oppose school choice, support tax increases, and are generally liberal on social issues (when not liberal, then indifferent). KTRM has strong ties to elected officials in Johnson County, the county’s business community, the National Education Association, and the current Kansas Senate Republican leadership. . . . [N]ow-Democrat Lt. Governor Mark Parkinson (a previous GOP state party chairman) is a former supporter of KTRM.
The Kansas Traditional Republican Majority (”KTRM”) has gone on the attack against both Kansas District Attorney Phill Kline and former congressman Jim Ryun. Both are on the ballot today in close races against fairly liberal Republicans.
The KTRM attack, which you can find here, attempts to paint Jim Ryun and Phil Kline as racists. You get the idea from the opening:
Traditional Republicans demand that Phill Kline and Jim Ryun explain their association with Family Research Council Action (FRCA) whose executive director Tony Perkins has ties to the Ku Klux Klan and other white-supremacist organizations.
“This disgusts me,” said Kansas Traditional Republican Majority Executive Director Ryan Wright. “Kline and Ryun are cut from the same cloth; they owe it to voters to prove that they do not share these racist beliefs. Ryun and Kline must explain their association with the Family Research Council.”
Perkins, formerly a Louisiana legislator, purchased a mailing list from a company that David Duke was connected to. In Louisiana, at least, it is widely known that no one, Democrat or Republican, knew David Duke was connected to the company until after Perkins left elected office.
What’s even more disturbing is that KTRM has ties to the Kansas Republican establishment in the State Senate. Republican leaders in the State Senate have refused to rule out tax hikes and are funneling money to KTRM to take on Republicans who would fight tax increases. Conservative watchdog group Kansas Liberty reports
According to the latest available campaign finance reports, the Senate Leadership PAC contributed $45,000 to “Kansans for a Traditional Republican Majority,” a group that supports liberal candidates running against conservatives by distributing negative material widely condemned by both moderates and conservatives.
The group has especially targeted conservative candidates for the state senate, as well as Johnson County DA Phill Kline, who is running as an incumbent.
The battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party of Kansas continues today at your local Kansas polling precinct.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27891
115 Cforchange // Sep 25, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Dear Escaper,
I want to clairify that I only wished you poverty because I think you need to be expand your view. When you remove money from perspective, it permits clear thinking. In fact you appear so dim and angry, I wonder if you are a NM plant for purposes of stimulating discussion.
Remember I didn’t wish you kidney failure. But as you post, I think you lack the abilitity to think big picture.
Here you make a remark that you favor these brands: Toyota, Honda, BMW, and Mercedes. Well here in Yankee land I see plenty of these, in fact even own a few. Don’t you think you should be more respectful of your consumer…
Finally dumbass, it’s PITTBURGH.
116 Cforchange // Sep 25, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Dear Escaper,
I want to clairify that I only wished you poverty because I think you need to be expand your view. When you remove money from perspective, it permits clear thinking. In fact you appear so dim and angry, I wonder if you are a NM plant for purposes of stimulating discussion.
Remember I didn’t wish you kidney failure. But as you post, I think you lack the abilitity to think big picture.
Here you make a remark that you favor these brands: Toyota, Honda, BMW, and Mercedes. Well here in Yankee land I see plenty of these, in fact even own a few. Don’t you think you should be more respectful of your consumer…
Finally dumbass, it’s PITTBURGH.
117 Cforchange // Sep 25, 2009 at 8:23 pm
and I wasn’t finished – must be the G20 Feva or the box of Hardy’s but there were no unrulely takeovers of the summit. The unwashed grungers were totally supressed by our awesome law enforcement. In case you’ve never traveled escaper – the blow holes didn’t get within blocks of the convention center. They had to march in a”neighborhood “- not central burgh!
If you call the arrest of a dinor waitress who threw her bike at the law an assault on organized government, well I close my case on declaring you a fool.
Escaper no worries, after the Prez thanked us for being such proficient and gracious hosts – I may just toss the arguement and convert! It’s nice to be appreciated for a change.
118 EscapeVelocity // Sep 25, 2009 at 9:33 pm
I thought there was an S in there. And dont think I didnt get the “untravelled redneck” slur you threw in there.
GM apparently thought that stupid Southern rednecks would keep on buying American, as the UAW kept them from good paying jobs down South.
Well, that game is up. I know people that will never ever buy a GM again, never, because of what has happened.
Screw that. We build fine cars down here in the heartland, the real America. Not those Union Thugocracies up North who despise the South.
Screw them.
Buy real American.
You are welcome to buy the high quality products of Government Motors, citizen. In fact, I bet you will be required to soon.
Firearms and Ammo continue to fly off the shelves.
119 el gato libre // Sep 25, 2009 at 9:57 pm
A question for Mr. escapevelocity…
If the South is “real America” as you say, what does that make the rest of the U.S.A? Fake America? Socialist America? I’m genuinely interested in your reply.
Also, last time I checked, the “heartland” was the midwest, not the deep south. Michigan is a “heartland” state, not a “Yankee” state.
Is the south the only “real” America left?
P.S. — Real classy remark about the “Firearms and Ammo”. Is there a shooting spree in your near future?
120 balconesfault // Sep 25, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Escape – why did you truncate the quote about FBI Informant Brandon Darby (who may well have been working for the FBI long before encouraging the gang headed for Minneapolis):
“One thing to disagree, but it’s a whole different thing to rat on folks, or, even worse, as some now allege, to try and mousetrap people.”
If you can’t differentiate the difference between telling young people about an ideology – and inciting young people to violence …
well, wait. from most of what you’ve written here, I don’t think you can’t differentiate that difference.
Firearms and Ammo continue to fly off the shelves.
I’m expecting there to be some real frustrated people in a year or so once they discover that unless they act like that wingnut in Pittsburgh and create a fake disturbance to lure the police, nobody’s coming for their guns.
As for Perkins and Duke … please – he paid Duke $82K for Duke’s mailing list. There is one reason someone promoting a Conservative Republican candidate in Louisiana would buy a mailing list from David Duke – they wanted access to the people who would be on a David Duke mailing list.
121 EscapeVelocity // Sep 26, 2009 at 12:15 am
Im sorry, the Nation Magazine has no credibility. Zero.
122 EscapeVelocity // Sep 26, 2009 at 12:19 am
But color me unsurprised at YET ANOTHER racism charge.
That trick isnt working any more, you might not have realized it yet.
123 The Glorious Grassroots Conservative Comeback | Right Wing News // Sep 26, 2009 at 3:14 am
[...] conservative commentators. Check out David Frum’s essay yesterday, for example, “Scorched Earth Conservatives.” The post is a response to David Horowitz at FrontPage Magazine, and Frum argues that [...]
124 Cforchange // Sep 26, 2009 at 8:20 am
Escapebrain, you may be driving nothing when the tax abatements expire for your new favorite cars. History lesson, VW plant in PA… Plus if folks of your ilk tarnish the brand as you have our party, I would expect sales to drop like the membership of the GOP.
Just what if BMW and Mercedes became the symbol of whatever you are selling – there could be a world of no Merc’s & Bimmers in places like Boston, NY, Chicago, San Francisco, LA, Philly…. You would think you’ve won but I see job losses.
125 David Frum Is Wrong About Glenn Beck and Apparently Can’t Handle My Side of the Debate « NewsReal Blog // Sep 26, 2009 at 9:08 am
[...] himself, David Frum has decided to suppress my side of the debate on his website. Thus my reply to his latest post (which follows below) doesn’t appear on his [...]
126 sinz54 // Sep 26, 2009 at 10:10 am
escapevelocity:
How ironic.
To you, the “real America” is the only part of America that ever seceded from the Union–and remains proud of that to this day.
127 sinz54 // Sep 26, 2009 at 10:20 am
Cforchange:
Actually, it’s PITTSBURGH.
128 sinz54 // Sep 26, 2009 at 10:39 am
escapevelocity:
True.
Nor was there much liberal condemnation of the infamous “Battle of Seattle” riots by black-masked anarchists. In fact, when I pleaded with liberals to denounce the riots and announce that these ultra-leftists were not welcome in the Dem Party, they replied that they blamed the police for “provoking” the demonstrators!
Both the Dem and Repub parties have trouble with their respective crazies. They will often try to co-opt the crazies, finding them a positive avenue, rather than sloughing them off.
It’s a consequence of our two-party system. If one party can’t get enough votes, the other party wins. So neither party can afford to alienate any voter, no matter how loony.
In a multi-party system, these extremists would undoubtedly have their own party, like the Italian Communist Party or the British National Party (which happily welcomes skinheads).
129 sinz54 // Sep 26, 2009 at 10:42 am
balconesfault:
Can you be against incest based on purely humanist values, even when that incestuous coupling does not result in procreation?
Suppose a brother and sister have consensual sex, but the brother had a vasectomy first. Is there any possible humanist argument against that coupling?
Just curious.
130 sdspringy // Sep 26, 2009 at 11:03 am
David, you may not agree but Beck, Rush, Levin have a purpose. They expose so much of the Left agenda that no other media will touch. Do you David, believe CBS would cover Jones, or ACORN? I don’t. So in that respect they are very important. First they just saved us a boatload of tax money.
Second exposing socialists view present in Obama’s administration is being aired via their shows and no where else.
Will they pick the next Pres. candidate for Pres? NO. Rush does not endorse, even though Rommey seemed to be the closest person to his political view. Beck no idea, I think he distrusts all politicans, which is probably the best view to have.
The Dems can see the writing on the wall already, their fund raising down, apathy in the ranks, bad poll numbers. The Dems are already hoping they only lose 25 seats in 2010.
The conservatives which voted present in 2008, will be back along with the Independents who have already realized what a big mistake Obama is.
131 EscapeVelocity // Sep 26, 2009 at 11:08 am
Humanists pushing their morality on everyone else! Those bastards! Humanists always wanting to poke their noses into peoples bedrooms.
You just dont get it, do you. Completely over your head. All you can see is your anti Christian bigotry.
132 Is New Majority Trying To Say Something With Its Choice of Picture? « NewsReal Blog // Sep 26, 2009 at 12:55 pm
[...] morning David Horowitz highlighted how at David Frum’s New Majority site Frum posted his most recent response in the debate without linking to the [...]
133 balconesfault // Sep 26, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Sinz: Suppose a brother and sister have consensual sex, but the brother had a vasectomy first. Is there any possible humanist argument against that coupling?
Yes. There is a very useful purpose served via the taboo of incest. I think that we all agree that society has an interest in making childhood a refuge, a place of safety, If there is no taboo against incest, this refuge is eroded. In essence, it ameliorates any underlying psychological sexual predilections between children and parents maturing within a household. Thus, aside from the real reason that the taboo came into being (simple protection of the social unit against harmful recessive traits) and was enshrined in virtually every major religion (if you ignore the story of Abraham…)
there is actually a very good secular humanist rationale for a societal ban on even the possibility of incest (the possibility of incest and its potential to poison the child-parent/child-child relationship being the greater problem, in my opinion, than the hypothetical situation of a couple 40-something siblings deciding to shack up together).
Meanwhile, there is no “biological predosition” for someone to have incest as the only sexually satisfying form of relationship, the way there seems certainly to be with homosexuality. In many things, the compassionate aspect of a judgement must be weighed against the punitive aspects – in this case, the compassionate (protecting the family unit, and particularly minors, from sexual tensions and pressures) certainly overrides the punitive (that some mature adult might prefer one another’s company to the other 3.5 billion people on earth of the opposite gender).
134 brandon // Sep 26, 2009 at 1:46 pm
sinz54: “To you, the “real America” is the only part of America that ever seceded from the Union–and remains proud of that to this day.”
Do you have any credible data to support that statement?
I’ve lived in Tennessee all my life and I don’t know anyone who would be proud of the fact that we seceded from the Union. I’ve known some people who were proud of the bravery of the Confederate soldiers or proud of the military skills of Robert E. Lee or Nathan Bedford Forrest.
But the VAST MAJORITY of Southerners are proud Americans who volunteer for military service at a higher rate than other parts of the country. We don’t sit around in the hills talkin’ bout dem damn yankees.
135 balconesfault // Sep 26, 2009 at 1:52 pm
damn – wish this thing had an edit function.
Obviously that was “biological predisposition” that I meant.
136 EscapeVelocity // Sep 26, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Still waiting for the Democrat leadership to denounce political violence on the Left and the radicalization of students in Universities.
I better start preparing for a long long long long wait, methinks.
137 Horowitz vs Frum: He’s Wrong About Glenn Beck and Apparently Can’t Handle My Side of the Debate « Right Sided American Kafir // Sep 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm
[...] himself, David Frum has decided to suppress my side of the debate on his website. Thus my reply to his latest post (which follows below) doesn’t appear on his [...]
138 grackle // Sep 26, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Escape: However, much of the base had big problems with some of his social liberalism and his bad example in his family life.
That being said, McCain ended up being the nominee, because the base was divided among other candidates. So the centrist McCain (who has his own problematic personal life) became the nominee.
Escape keeps talking about McCain’s “bad example in his family life,” McCain’s “problematic personal life.” This kind of malarkey is VERY important to the social conservatives. Of course Reagan was married twice, but they forget that, besides, consistency is not one of the social conservative’s hallmarks.
The problem was McCain…not Sarah Palin. McCain the centrist Maverick.
McCain was the problem.
Yes, McCain was certainly a problem for escape and the rest of the social conservatives, alright. I had no problem voting for the Republican nominee even though I had differences with McCain on some issues. I liked Giuliani but he didn’t get the nomination so I didn’t waste time and energy with whining and moping. For some of us, after the primaries and the nominee has been decided – it’s time to close ranks and quit all the in-fighting. Not Republicans who think like escape, though. If they can’t have their way it’s no go. As Horowitz points out, they stayed home. And now we have Obama.
The key is to find a good communicator of conservative ideas, not to pander to moderates and independents, with RINOs.
I agree, let’s find “a good communicator of conservative ideas,” someone who can articulate the principles of limited government, a strong national defense and a free market economy.
That is what Reagan’s speech was about. Let them go their way. Radical New Leftwing leadership will be a dissaster and they will soon be back.
Escape is NOT correct in his analysis of Reagan’s speech; he misses Reagan’s point by a mile. Escape projects his own thoughts, fears and preferences into what he reads. One major statement deep into Reagan’s speech is this:
Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.
Then he hits them with this:
When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?[My emphasis]
Get it? Reagan was saying, “Come on over to us. Your leadership is out of step. What we have with the Republican Party is 3 wonderful principles from which all else flows: the principles of limited government, a strong national defense and a free market economy. If you embrace these, you are welcome.”
Clearly Reagan’s approach was for inclusion, not exclusion. He would have shook his head at escape and the rest of the social conservatives who wouldn’t know a real conservative idea if it walked up and bit them on their hindquarters.
Here’s what Reagan did NOT mention in the speech:
Abortion, or amendments to ban abortion, immigration, anything to do with gayness, nothing about civil unions or same sex relationships, RINOs, creationism, public morality, family values, religion, Christianity or secularism. No social conservative issue was touched on – not even one – not even briefly.
Here’s what Reagan DID mention:
Tax reform, belief in a free market, the imposition of wage and price controls, fiscal responsibility, the cure to inflation is a balanced budget, over-regulation of business, partisan politics, party labels, the profligate Congress, the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, no “peace at any price,” missile superiority, a strong defense, to stay with our ally and to not abandon Vietnam, the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind, the Socialist ant heap, the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of the nation’s ability to protect itself.
After reciting a long yet inspired rhetoric on the subject of the principles of limited government, a strong national defense and a free market economy, and absolutely nothing whatsoever about any social conservative principles, Reagan finished with this:
And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.
139 p27601 // Sep 26, 2009 at 8:32 pm
It is funny to think that under Bush the Republican party can destroy the economy, start a crap war, torture, and allow bin Laden to hit the USA with the worst terrorist attack in our history. That’s not a disaster I guess to Frum who authored a book praising Bush, but he’ll be damned if he allows Ron Paul followers, a group of Constitutionally following, fiscal responsible people, anywhere near the party that is suppose to represent such values. Score one for the Neo-Cons. Newsflash: Ron Paul and Glenn Beck are not the same and disagree on many items.
140 brandon // Sep 26, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Just as William Buckley was correct in saying the John Birchers should not be part of the conservative movement, David Frum is 100% correct in saying Ron Paul and his ilk should have no place in the future of the Republican Party.
141 EscapeVelocity // Sep 26, 2009 at 10:27 pm
garkle still doesnt get it,
Reagan didnt change the Republican Party Platform to suit RINOs, he invited Everybody to join the Conservative Party.
He didnt say, we will ditch our principles and pander to groups for votes.
Figure it out garkle!
142 grackle // Sep 26, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Escape:
Reagan didn’t change the Republican Party Platform to suit RINOs, he invited Everybody to join the Conservative Party.
Correction time:
Reagan didn’t change the Republican Party Platform to suit RINOs[social conservatives], he invited Everybody to join the Conservative [Republican Party.
The social conservative insistence on issues of morality came AFTER Reagan.
He didn’t say, we will ditch our principles and pander to groups for votes.
Yes, but Reagan’s principles, as is demonstrated by the Reagan speech escape linked to and I will link to again, were totally different than the social conservative agenda.
http://tinyurl.com/ytpnvu
And the GOP had better get some votes from SOMEWHERE. In case escape didn’t notice the GOP was handed its butt in the last election. The business of the GOP now should be to get back to the Reagan era’s tried, true and voter-attracting issues of limited government, a strong national defense and a free market economy.
Reagan’s GOP had principles that were principles of governance, NOT social conservative principles of morality. For Reagan, to be a credible Republican, one only had to give loyalty to limited government, a strong national defense and a free market because THOSE are the true principles of Conservatism – not all this other malarkey.
The social conservatives mistake the GOP for a pulpit. They should promote their ideas of morality in houses of worship, within their families and their friends.
143 grackle // Sep 26, 2009 at 11:33 pm
The Kansas Traditional Republican Majority (KTRM) is a Kansas organization tied the liberal Republican Main Street Partnership. KTRM is working hard to tar and feather conservative Republicans in Kansas before today’s primary election there.
KTRM supports moderate Republicans in a primary and this is portrayed as very, very bad. This is what bothers me about some of the social conservative rhetoric, their hyperbole that so often slips into absurdity. They love to take ordinary events and assign ridiculous significance to them.
One political action group opposes another political action group’s candidate in a primary race, an occurrence as common as leaves falling from a tree in autumn and this is described as “working hard to tar and feather conservative Republicans.” And some, perhaps escape himself, will nod their heads and mutter, “Yes, yes, yes!”
As Kansas Progress notes
The group calling itself “Kansas Traditional Republican Majority” is a small but well-funded group of Republicans who support judicial activism, oppose school choice, support tax increases, and are generally liberal on social issues (when not liberal, then indifferent).
Kansas Progress is a politically oriented blog that is not very good at documentation. For instance the blog describes KTRM this way: a supporter of “judicial activism, oppose school choice, support tax increases, and are generally liberal on social issues (when not liberal, then indifferent),” but no quotes or links are provided as proof of these allegations. There probably is no documentation because they are probably exaggerating and/or throwing in a couple of half-truths – or maybe just plain lying. I’ve found that both the far Right and the far Left are prone to unfounded charges.
Notice that the term “liberal” is used as a substitute for “moderate.” Of course, for many social conservatives if a Republican does not adhere to their strict idea of morality then that alone is enough for the offending Republican to be labeled as a “liberal.” You are either with them on every issue or get out, liberal, and join the Democrats. And of course, some moderates ARE turning to the Democrats, the leadership of which tolerates a conservative wing. They are known as the Blue Dogs and they are happily wagging their tails in the Democrats’ big backyard.
KTRM has strong ties to elected officials in Johnson County, the county’s business community, the National Education Association, and the current Kansas Senate Republican leadership. . . . [N]ow-Democrat Lt. Governor Mark Parkinson (a previous GOP state party chairman) is a former supporter of KTRM.
The Kansas Traditional Republican Majority (”KTRM”) has gone on the attack against both Kansas District Attorney Phill Kline and former congressman Jim Ryun. Both are on the ballot today in close races against fairly liberal Republicans.
The above could be paraphrased thusly:
”Round up the women and children and bar the doors! A political action group has … hold on to your hats! Don’t faint dead away! Clem, get the smelling salts! Those diabolical rascals, you’ll never believe this, … have gone and SUPPORTED SOME POLITICIANS. In a PRIMARY! No, I’m NOT crazy! We’re in for it now!”
And they ALWAYS describe Republicans who are more moderate than themselves as “liberal Republicans.” The MSM has its Template and the social conservatives have theirs.
Yet another example of the commonplace being elevated far beyond its significance.
The KTRM attack, which you can find here, attempts to paint Jim Ryun and Phil Kline as racists. You get the idea from the opening: Traditional Republicans demand that Phill Kline and Jim Ryun explain their association with Family Research Council Action (FRCA) whose executive director Tony Perkins has ties to the Ku Klux Klan and other white-supremacist organizations. “This disgusts me,” said Kansas Traditional Republican Majority Executive Director Ryan Wright. “Kline and Ryun are cut from the same cloth; they owe it to voters to prove that they do not share these racist beliefs. Ryun and Kline must explain their association with the Family Research Council.”
Perkins, formerly a Louisiana legislator, purchased a mailing list from a company that David Duke was connected to. In Louisiana, at least, it is widely known that no one, Democrat or Republican, knew David Duke was connected to the company until after Perkins left elected office.
Well, it may be “widely known” or it may not. What IS widely known is that the Federal Elections Commission fined Perkins for attempting to hide his purchase of the David Dukes phone banking list in 1996 at a price of $82,500.
Note that Perkins was fined, not for the purchase, but for trying to hide the purchase. Obviously, Perkins thought he had something to be ashamed of.
What’s even more disturbing is that KTRM has ties to the Kansas Republican establishment in the State Senate. Republican leaders in the State Senate have refused to rule out tax hikes and are funneling money to KTRM to take on Republicans who would fight tax increases. Conservative watchdog group Kansas Liberty reports According to the latest available campaign finance reports, the Senate Leadership PAC contributed $45,000 to “Kansans for a Traditional Republican Majority,” a group that supports liberal candidates running against conservatives by distributing negative material widely condemned by both moderates and conservatives.
Here the fact that KTRM rubs shoulders with some local Republican politicians in the State Senate and gets contributions from them is treated as an ominous situation, as “disturbing.” And of course, moderate Republicans are labeled as “liberals.” The MSM has its Template and the social conservatives have theirs.
144 EscapeVelocity // Sep 26, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Labor is going to be handed its but as well, and many governments changed hands because of the financial crisis, from Right to Left and Left to Right.
Reagan’s attractiveness was his charisma, that he sold Conservative Principles well, and countered the others arguments effectively…..and Jimmy Carter was a disaster who increased the misery index with his misguided policies. Remember Reagan lost to Ford in 76 primaries….they went for the Moderate Ford….and lost to a Peanut Farmer from Georgia.
Reagan won the Democrats that were tired of the incompetence of their leadership and furthermore were driven out of the party by the New Left Radicals.
Reagan had to govern with a Democrat Congress and had bigger fish to fry, a military buildup and worldwide confrontation with Communism and the Soviets and economic recovery.
Newsflash to Garkle, Communism was defeated and the GOP held the House for 14 years straight, with a split Senate to holding the Senate….with a Republican Governor. To the victors go the spoils.
Now you might not like Social Conservatism….but they are big part of the base of the party and their concerns should be addressed in policy….when the GOP holds the House, Senate, and Presidency.
I know you think that Social Cons should sit down and shut up. But you arent going to have a viable party without them.
So deal with it.
145 EscapeVelocity // Sep 26, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Reagan quotes…
A few months later, Reagan again communicated his affinity for evangelicals by speaking at the National Religious Broadcasters convention within hours of announcing his candidacy for a second presidential term. In that speech, Christianity Today wrote, Reagan aligned “himself more closely than ever before with conservative Christian moral causes.”
“Today I feel like I’m doing more than returning for a speech; I feel like I’m coming home,” he said in his opening remarks. “Under this roof, some 4,000 of us are kindred spirits united by one burning belief: God is our Father; we are His children; together, brothers and sisters, we are one family.” Noting his declaration of 1983 as the Year of the Bible, he said, “Can we make a resolution here today? — That 1984 will be the year we put its great truths into action? … Within the covers of that single Book are all the answers to all the problems that face us today if we’d only read and believe.”
Reagan cautioned against “claiming God is on our side,” adding, “the real question we must answer is, are we on His side?” America’s abortion rate, he said, suggests that we are not. But Christian ministries, he said, “show us that lives are saved, people are reborn and, yes, dreams come true when we heed the voice of the spirit, minister to the needy, and glorify God.”
Here’s how Reagan ended that speech:
Our mission stretches far beyond our borders; God’s family knows no borders. In your life you face daily trials, but millions of believers in other lands face far worse. They are mocked and persecuted for the crime of loving God. To every religious dissident trapped in that cold, cruel existence, we send our love and support. Our message? You are not alone; you are not forgotten; do not lose your faith and hope because someday you, too, will be free.
If the Lord is our light, our strength, and our salvation, whom shall we fear? Of whom shall we be afraid? No matter where we live, we have a promise that can make all the difference, a promise from Jesus to soothe our sorrows, heal our hearts, and drive away our fears. He promised there will never be a dark night that does not end. Our weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning. He promised if our hearts are true, His love will be as sure as sunlight. And, by dying for us, Jesus showed how far our love should be ready to go: all the way.
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” I’m a little self-conscious because I know very well you all could recite that verse to me. [Laughter]
Helping each other, believing in Him, we need never be afraid. We will be part of something far more powerful, enduring, and good than all the forces here on Earth. We will be a part of paradise.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/juneweb-only/6-7-12.0.html
146 EscapeVelocity // Sep 26, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Trying to rewrite history doesnt make it so, garkle, you arent the first to adopt that ploy. Reagan with a GOP Congress most certainly would have driven policy right at Abortion.
Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation
Ronald Reagan’s pro-life tract.
EDITOR’S NOTE: While president, Ronald Reagan penned an this article for The Human Life Review, unsolicited. It ran in the Review’s Spring 1983, issue and is reprinted here with permission.
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp
147 el gato libre // Sep 27, 2009 at 12:30 am
That ‘75 Reagan speech is quite interesting, but the major thrust of it is about as quaint and out of date as the Confederacy that escapevelocity loves so much. The funny thing is that Reagan focuses on balanced budgets as being one of the primary goals of good government. To wit:
“What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress?
Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget.”
“Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say “no.””
“Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.”
If this is the clarion call to true-blue Republicanism, then Reagan was the ultimate RINO.
I would hasten to remind people that while debt as a percentage of GDP WENT DOWN during the Carter years, it EXPLODED under Reagan’s rule, going from about 30% to about 65%.
Reagan violated his own first principles. Want to defend that?
148 EscapeVelocity // Sep 27, 2009 at 12:36 am
President Ronald Reagan – “Evil Empire” Speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do0x-Egc6oA
God vs Socialism
Right vs Wrong
Good vs Evil
149 Jim // Sep 27, 2009 at 1:42 am
As of this moment on, America will have more and more voters who weren’t even ALIVE when Reagan was in office. The relevant question can no longer be, “Who started the national debt?” The only question worth considering has to become, “Who is going to end the national debt?”
150 balconesfault // Sep 27, 2009 at 7:46 am
The only question worth considering has to become, “Who is going to end the national debt?”
Nobody. In 2001, we had momentum. We had 2 successive years of government surpluses. It was actually conceivable that we would continue that path and make a serious attempt as a nation to eliminate much or all of our debt.
Two things happened. First, Republicans started talking about “giving back some of the surplus” to the people who had paid the most in taxes over the past few years. Thus, the Bush tax cuts that kicked off his Presidency. Second, Greenspan – who up to then had acted as a deficit hawk – surprisingly (to some) supported those tax cuts by claiming that it was a serious threat to our economy if we paid off the national debt too quickly.
Then we doubled the debt over the next 8 years … during a time of record low interest rates, thanks to China and the Saudis being willing to buy up our debt to keep us buying their products and oil. Had it not been for China and the Saudis, the debt might have tripled instead, under the weight of ever increasing compounded interest on the debt.
But we blew it. We as a nation decided in 2001 to pat ourselves on the back for all the hard work over the previous 8 years that brought the annual deficit down from record levels, and then turned it into a surplus. We cut taxes and went on a spending binge. Right now, everyone knows that fighting the deficit is just a political loser. As Dick Cheney said – “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter“.
You can’t suddenly expect the Democrats to find religion on deficits when Bush took us to the whorehouse over the last 8 years.
151 Jim // Sep 27, 2009 at 10:28 am
And of course, we couldn’t have expected any fiscal self-restraint under eight years of Clinton.
152 Jim // Sep 27, 2009 at 10:33 am
I take that last comment back; I realize it makes no sense.
153 Jim // Sep 27, 2009 at 10:38 am
Well, balcones, you can’t expect social conservatives to just roll over and spread ‘em to win a few elections either. I think this thread is becoming flaccid.
154 Jim // Sep 27, 2009 at 10:41 am
I assume you’re giving Gingrich and his team 50% of the credit for any fiscal restraint between 1992-2001, of course.
155 balconesfault // Sep 27, 2009 at 11:31 am
I assume you’re giving Gingrich and his team 50% of the credit for any fiscal restraint between 1992-2001, of course.
50%? Nope. Because virtually the same cast of characters leading Congress over the next 6 years, with Bush in office, saw rampant growth in the national debt.
There was a big debate in the Clinton White House in the second term. On one side stood classic liberals like Robert Reich, who believed that more of the new tax revenues needed to be diverted to expanding social programs after the cutbacks of the last 16 years. On the other side stood the Wall Street types like Rubin … who argued that the most important thing for preserving America’s social programs – and perhaps even sometime in the future being able to expand them – was to work to eliminate the debt, so that payment on interest on the debt wouldn’t eat up money that could be used to benefit the American people.
Clinton sided with the Rubin faction – he had actually been there all along, having called for welfare reform as part of his 1992 campaign. The Republicans were useful, and deserve credit – maybe 20-30% – but Clinton deserves the lion’s share.
We’ve seen what Republicans in control of the process does to the debt. And the first 9 months of the Obama Administration are representative of nothing except the actions of an Administration dedicated to trying to save the economy in a crisis after the mismanagement of the last 8 years.
156 balconesfault // Sep 27, 2009 at 11:40 am
grackle: And they ALWAYS describe Republicans who are more moderate than themselves as “liberal Republicans.” The MSM has its Template and the social conservatives have theirs.
You’re having a definitional problem. A fundamentalist who believes that gays have the right to live … and not be stoned for their sins … already considers themself a moderate. A fundamentalist who believes that abortion clinics should be abolished … but not that women who get abortions should be tried for murder … already considers themself a moderate.
Thus, those who believe in more rights for gays, or any freedom of choice for women anywhere in America … are by that definition liberal.
FWIW, a lot of the labelling of the MSM as “liberal” stems purely from the social side. In economic matters, the MSM is extremely pro-corporate and for the most part anti-socialist, except for limited amounts of socialism which are useful at promoting business and corporate culture. In geopolitical matters, the MSM is often quite hawkish – they were front and center in promoting the “need” for invading Iraq, for example, while largely silencing and ignoring voices against war.
Consider the case of Scott Ridder – in 1998 when he was complaining about lack of America access to Iraq’s weapons sites, and was being used as a justification for Clinton’s bombing of Iraq, he was all over the media. In 2003, when he was declaring that our inspectors were being granted full access, and that there was no evidence to support the WMD claims against Iraq at that time, he was persona non grata on the MSM.
157 grackle // Sep 27, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Reagan’s attractiveness was his charisma, that he sold Conservative Principles well, and countered the others arguments effectively…..and Jimmy Carter was a disaster who increased the misery index with his misguided policies. Remember Reagan lost to Ford in 76 primaries….they went for the Moderate Ford….and lost to a Peanut Farmer from Georgia.
Carter won because Ford pardoned Nixon, not because Ford was a moderate. The pardon made it seem that Ford was part of quid pro quo transaction with Nixon. And Jimmy smiled that smile, looked the voters in the eye and said, “I’ll never lie to you.”
Actually, Reagan held his own against Ford during the 1976 primaries, only losing to Ford at the last minute during the Republican National Convention. It was a close primary race and the nomination was still undecided going into the GOP Convention.
Reagan won the Democrats that were tired of the incompetence of their leadership and furthermore were driven out of the party by the New Left Radicals.
I would put it another way: Reagan won many of the moderates that might have voted Democrat. In Presidential elections it is the centrist voters that usually decide the election. Everyone knows how the Rightwing and Leftwing voters will vote, or at least they used to know how the Rightwing would vote, the big question is nearly always how the center of the political spectrum will vote.
Now you might not like Social Conservatism….but they are big part of the base of the party and their concerns should be addressed in policy….when the GOP holds the House, Senate, and Presidency.
I have nothing against the personal viewpoints of social conservatives. I am personally sympathetic to many of those viewpoints. My concern is that the social conservatives want to use a political party to further their personal beliefs to the detriment of issues of governance. Church and home are the proper places to decide religious issues – not campaigns for political office.
Much has been written about government spending that drove up the national debt during the 8 years of Bush’s Presidency and the GOP’s domination of Congress. And why did this happen? One answer may be that the GOP was too much concerned with social issues and too little concerned with fiscal issues.
I know you think that Social Cons should sit down and shut up. But you aren’t going to have a viable party without them.
I don’t want social conservatives to shut up; I want them to start talking about issues of governance. I want them to take more interest in real political issues instead of all the morality malarkey. What I don’t want is for the social conservatives to continue to drag the political debate away from political issues into the inappropriate realm of their personal belief system.
And there’s the question of loyalty. After the GOP nominee is decided in the next Presidential election I am confident about how I will vote and how GOP moderates will vote but I am unsure whether the social conservatives will show up. Social conservatives are always talking about loyalty but they displayed very little loyalty the last time around.
158 balconesfault // Sep 27, 2009 at 11:21 pm
And why did this happen? One answer may be that the GOP was too much concerned with social issues and too little concerned with fiscal issues.
Seriously? There’s a decent case to be made that our national security was weakened by a focus on social issues – Bush famously spend August 2001 on his ranch meeting with experts to form a policy on stem cell research, ignoring a certain “Bin Laden Determined to Strike” memo … but there’s little evidence that the GOP was ever concerned with fiscal issues under Bush past (a) cutting taxes, (b) raising military spending, and (c) spreading money around on things like the Medicare drug bill to increase Bush’s chance of re-election in 2004.
The risk that the Republican Party has, of course, is that if Social Conservatives get the message that the Republicans do not want to use the power of government to impose a “value voters” agenda … that some significant portion of them might not have any reason to vote Republican.
159 Cforchange // Sep 28, 2009 at 10:43 am
“The risk that the Republican Party has, of course, is that if Social Conservatives get the message that the Republicans do not want to use the power of government to impose a “value voters” agenda … that some significant portion of them might not have any reason to vote Republican.”
Hmmm, are you saying they are actually Rhino’s?
Consider the gamble, 1/3 of the GOP(non base) + Independents + some fiscal Dems = a winning majority. Had it been Rudy, 1/3 of GOP + Indpendents + some fiscal Dems + 99% Italian American’s = winner 2008. The party just wasn’t forward thinking, it was hijacked.
160 balconesfault // Sep 28, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Hmmm, are you saying they are actually Rhino’s?
I don’t think so … at least, not until they actually start talking nice about some Dems (a sure sign of Rino-dom). And the social conservatives right now are the most venomous opponents of Dems – the ones sending around chain e-mails talking about Obama the antichrist and Pelosi and Reid as haters of America.
I am saying that many social conservatives would align with the Dems on purely economic and labor issues if they weren’t committed to the Republican Party as an agent of reactionary social change. I think that atheist Karl Rove agrees, which is why he pushes the God buttons so hard in any campaign he’s involved in.
But there are almost certainly independents who would vote Republican more consistently if it wasn’t for the value voters agenda. John Cole who was a staunch defender of Bush for years says he “flipped” over the Terri Schaivo case, for example.
I think the party right now is weighing the two – a fanatical group of social conservatives who are guaranteed to show up and not only vote Republican, but work their asses off for Republican candidates year in and year out … or those independents and some fiscal Dems who may or may not support a Republican candidate in any given election, depending on how he compares to the Dem candidate who’s running.
And the Republican leadership is opting for the “bird in the hand” over the “two in the bush”.
161 grackle // Sep 28, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I think the party right now is weighing the two – a fanatical group of social conservatives who are guaranteed to show up and not only vote Republican, but work their asses off for Republican candidates year in and year out … or those independents and some fiscal Dems who may or may not support a Republican candidate in any given election, depending on how he compares to the Dem candidate who’s running.
If only it were true … then McCain/Palin might have had a better showing. The problem that the Republican Party has now: What if in the next Presidential election a candidate of whom Limbaugh, Coulter and Malkin don’t approve wins the nomination?
162 grackle // Sep 28, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Me, earlier: Much has been written about government spending that drove up the national debt during the 8 years of Bush’s Presidency and the GOP’s domination of Congress. And why did this happen? One answer may be that the GOP was too much concerned with social issues and too little concerned with fiscal issues.
Seriously? There’s a decent case to be made that our national security was weakened by a focus on social issues …
Methinks the commentor misread my comment. My basic thesis: The social conservatives’ focusing of the Republican Party on social issues(“national security” is NOT a social issue) in the post-Reagan era in lieu of issues of governance, namely, limited government, a strong national defense(which would obviously include “national security”) and a free market economy, is not attracting enough voters.
163 Jim // Sep 28, 2009 at 11:43 pm
I’m a little teapot, short and stout. Here is my handle, here is my spout. I’m a little teapot, short and stout. Tip me over and pour me out.
164 EscapeVelocity // Sep 29, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Its unfortunate that we have to focus on “social issues” but alas, Secular Hendonism isnt worth fighting for.
The culture war is a creation of the Left, dont be mad when the Christian Conservatives put up a fight.
If you would like the Culture War to stop, then it behooves you to chastize the group pushing relentlessly the culture war, the Left….dont blame the reactionaries.
Unless you are with the Left on those issues. Then dont be surprised when the base rejects you as RINOs and kicks you to the curb.
Good Luck in the Democrat Party, I hope you can run the Socialists out of the Party. Then we can have 2 parties that advocate sane economic policy and squabble over social and moral issues.
Id be all for that.
Two parties of Secular Hedonists. Ill pass.
165 grackle // Sep 29, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Its unfortunate that we have to focus on “social issues” but alas, Secular Hendonism isnt worth fighting for.
The culture war is a creation of the Left, dont be mad when the Christian Conservatives put up a fight.
If you would like the Culture War to stop, then it behooves you to chastize the group pushing relentlessly the culture war, the Left….dont blame the reactionaries.
Unless you are with the Left on those issues. Then dont be surprised when the base rejects you as RINOs and kicks you to the curb.
Good Luck in the Democrat Party, I hope you can run the Socialists out of the Party. Then we can have 2 parties that advocate sane economic policy and squabble over social and moral issues.
Id be all for that.
Two parties of Secular Hedonists. Ill pass.
But my opinion is that the Republican Party was successful during the Reagan era precisely because under the leadership of Reagan the party offered political principles to the voters instead of cultural issues.
The voters of those days took a look at the 2 parties, one of which offered a cultural-based set of principles and the other which offered a set of principles based on issues of governance and mainly chose the latter.
But after Reagan the social conservatives took the Progressive bait and engaged in a cultural war on Progressive terms under Progressive rules. The social conservatives allowed the enemy to dictate the rules of engagement and wars are never won by those who let the enemy dictate the rules of combat.
It’s especially sad because by abandoning issues of governance and using the Republican Party as a weapon in a cultural war, a use for which political parties are ill-suited, the social conservatives have guaranteed that those who have the most influence on our daily life, our elected politicians, will have the least sympathy for those very issues of morality so dear to the social conservatives.
Escape’s last line illustrates the fallacy: “Two parties of Secular Hedonists. I’ll pass.”
If the phrase was “two parties of big spenders,” or “two parties of a weak national defense,” or “two parties of income redistribution. I’ll pass,” then it would make sense but the word, “secular,” takes it out of the domain of politics into the realm of religion, which our constitution, our history and our cultural consciousness decided long ago to be a matter for each individual to privately decide for themselves.
The social conservatives have fought a war on terms dictated by the enemy for decades now. It is a war that they are losing. We now have a government comprised almost entirely of Progressives. The executive and legislative branches belong to the enemy. The only part of field not dominated by the Progressives is the judicial branch: the Supreme Court. But if Obama wins a second term that last bit of territory is likely to be overrun.
You must log in to post a comment.