Entries Tagged as 'Liberals'

Ron Paul’s Useful Idiots

December 22nd, 2011 at 11:33 am 64 Comments

We’ve been spending a lot of time on this website critiquing conservatives and libertarians for supporting Ron Paul. However, viagra sale the great thing about Ron Paul is that his appeal also extends to the most gullible members of the liberal left.

Today’s piece of useful idiocy in support of Ron Paul comes from The Nation where John Nichols argues that the real reason the conservative “establishment” doesn’t like Ron Paul is because he speaks truth to power:

Click here to read more

The (Liberal’s) Case for Mitt

David Frum November 15th, 2011 at 12:00 pm 62 Comments

Kevin Drum states it:

A few months ago I was pretty much rooting for a Perry or a Bachmann to win the GOP nomination because I figured (a) they’d lose big in the general election, and (b) their loss might push the Republican Party back toward the center sooner than otherwise. But it’s just too obvious now that Obama is genuinely vulnerable and someone in the Republican field might well be our next president. That’s why I’m now mostly hoping that the GOP base comes to its senses, holds its collective nose, and just nominates the Mittster. On a day-to-day basis, I suspect Romney would govern about as conservatively as any of the others. But in an emergency, he’s the only one who seems pretty certain of responding in a non-catastrophic way.

Canada’s Liberals Are Not THAT Desperate

September 2nd, 2011 at 12:00 am 5 Comments

Will the Liberals merge with the NDP? It ain’t going to happen.

Yes, sick there is speculation and there’ll be debate, medicine but the likelihood of the leaderless NDP and the deflated federal Liberals merging into one cohesive party, seems as unlikely as … well, as unlikely as the NDP winning 59 of 75 federal seats in Quebec.

Still, it won’t happen. Nor should it.

Click here to read more

Are the Birthers the Next Black Panthers?

David Frum September 2nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm 83 Comments

Bruce Bartlett sends this email:

I’ve been thinking lately that conservative elites are reaching a moment similar to that which confronted liberal elites in the late 1960s.  At first they saw the rise of SDS, the Black Panthers and other extreme left groups as cannon fodder that could be used to achieve liberal goals.  (Norman Podhoretz goes into detail on this point in Breaking Ranks and Tom Wolfe made fools of them.)  But one day liberals realized that the extremists couldn’t be controlled and threatened anarchy.  I read somewhere that the seminal event was when student radicals threatened to burn the Harvard library.  This sort of thing led to the rise of neoconservatism (not the foreign policy variety, but the original one).  I think conservative elites today see the teabaggers, birthers and other kooks as cannon fodder for larger conservative goals the same way liberals originally saw student radicals in the 1960s.  I think one day soon something like the Harvard library burning is going to make conservatives realize that these people present more of a threat than a tool for advancing conservative goals.  I hope it doesn’t involve an assassination or Oklahoma City-type event.  But you can’t pour fuel on the fires of peoples’ emotions the way Glenn Beck does on a daily basis without getting an explosion at some point.

Bartlett’s comparison is thought-provoking, but I think fails for the following reasons:

1) The radical left of the 1960s was not “cannon fodder” for liberal elites. On the contrary, liberal elites were the principal target of the radicals. Student radicals hated Clark Kerr and Robert McNamara as much or more than they hated J. Edgar Hoover or Richard Nixon. The Panthers despised the civil rights leadership at least as much as they hated George Wallace. Today’s angry conservative base by contrast directs its rage across the partisan divide.

2) Liberal elites kept a much greater distance from the radicals than conservative elites do. Can you imagine the Sulzberger or Graham family giving a platform to the left-wing equivalent of Glenn Beck, in the way that Rupert Murdoch has done?

3) Both sets of elites feared their militant base. But while liberal elites feared that the student radicals and black radicals would attack them, today’s conservative elites fear that the angry Republican base will withdraw their support from them.

4) Violence was integral to the 1960s left, and especially to the Black Panthers. On the right, so far there’s plenty of paranoia but thankfully nothing remotely like the cult of revolutionary violence that wrecked so many lives in the years 1965-1975.

NATO Urges Canada to Stay Longer in Afghanistan

August 12th, 2009 at 2:59 pm 1 Comment

A sense of horror seems to prevail over NATO’s incoming secretary-general, stuff Anders Rasmussen, wishing out loud that Canada would reverse its decision to pull combat troops out of Afghanistan in 2011.

This has caused some dismay among people who should know better.

For starters, there’s no likelihood that Canada will reverse its 2008 decision to pull back, if not out of Afghanistan.

The Liberals who committed Canadian troops to combat in Kandahar when they formed the government, want them out; the Tories who kept Canadian troops in a fighting (as well as reconstructive) role, also want them out.

So out they are going.

Rasmussen’s plea for Canada to continue its present combat role after 2011, is recognition that Canadian soldiers have done a superb job – not only in thumping the Taliban in every operation, but in helping rebuild the infrastructure wherever they could.

It’s a view echoed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of NATO and U.S. Forces in Afghanistan.

A case can be made that without Canada leading security operations, the Kandahar area would be even more precarious than it is.

Now that the Americans have taken over, Canada’s continued involvement is not so crucial – useful and influential, but not crucial.

In the Globe and Mail, two respected military observers take issue with Secretary-General Rasmussen “strongly regretting” Canada’s decision to pull out of Kandahar in 2011. Rasmussen (correctly) insists a military presence is essential if civilian reconstruction is to succeed.

Rasmussen was Denmark’s PM from 2001 to 2008.

In a co-authored article, Eugene Lang and Eric Morse dismiss Rasmussen as either being ignorant of Canada’s stand, or claim that he seeks seek to provoke the public into changing the government’s mind.

Lang and Morse also think Rasmussen’s comments “blow a hole in the conventional wisdom that, as a result of Canada’s commitment to and sacrifices in Afghanistan, our standing in NATO is at an all-time high.”

On the contrary, it could be argued that because our record in Afghanistan has been so effective, is precisely why NATO wants to keep our troops there, doing what they do now. Along with the Dutch (who are also leaving), the British and Americans, we are the only four of 27 NATO members who are putting bodies on the line to do what fighting is required.

Lang is an author and worked for two Liberal Defense Ministers, while Morse is a former diplomat and vice-chair of defense studies at the Royal Canadian Military Institute.

The reluctance of most NATO countries to commit soldiers to fight if necessary, bodes ill for NATO reinventing itself as international peacemakers, instead of remaining an antiquated defensive alliance against Soviet acquisitive imperialism.

To some, by withdrawing before peace and security are established in Afghanistan, makes the 127 Canadians who’ve been killed there, and the 1,000 or so who’ve been wounded, something of a waste and mockery.

Untrue, as Americans moving in takes pressure off our guys and gals.

Reality is that despite our weariness of combat, our equipment can’t take it anymore. Vehicles of every sort badly need replacement, and that can take years. If the present government behaves as past governments have, the need today will be postponed to tomorrow… and the day after tomorrow.

Wait and see…