RSS Feed MenuConor Friedersdorf offers a fascinating analysis of the counter-reaction in the right blogosphere against any recognition of what Sarah Palin did to herself on July 3.
Conor is analyzing the strange nervous breakdown over at the Ace of Spades blogspot. The main blogger criticized Palin as a quitter – was criticized by his readers – and reacted by… quitting (or the blog equivalent: suspending work for a week).
The issue: the Ace blogger resented being “lumped in with David Frum.” Alas for him, his critics were completely justified. His post July 3 reactions to Sarah Palin did indeed reprise and amplify the kinds of things I’ve been saying over the past 18 months.
I am really tired of being slammed for being the guy who doesn’t just want to go along with silly fantasies and dreams because they’re pleasant… I’m sick to death of being told that my addiction to reality and aversion to fantasy is somehow cowardly or defeatist or lacking in virtue.
Sorry Ace, it’s inescapable: You’re lumped.
So let me give some advice to the Ace blogger, elitist to elitist: don’t be frightened, don’t complain, and don’t get weary. It’s going to be a long struggle to renew conservatism and the Republican party, but the alternatives are worse: marginalization, defeat, and the continuing drift of the country in wrong and dangerous directions. Rediscovering responsible and effective politics will requre a lot of relearning from all of us, but everybody should be welcome who wishes to contribute to the project of reform.
Your invitation to the next cocktail party is in the mail.
barker13 // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Re: Sinz54 // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:07 pm –
“I’m always sincere.”
(*SMILE*) You know, Sinz… I believe you. (*WINK*)
“…told that we would better fit the Dem Party.”
But, Sinz, *I* tell you that all the time. I tell you that sincerely, as a matter of strategy, not as an “attack.” I sincerely believe that the country would be better off if “center Right” folks would move in mass to the Democratic Party and take it over; work from within to purge the Left from power.
Although I’d still root for and work for the more conservative candidate (or should I say the candidate who most fit into my idea of true libertarian leaning constitutionalist conservatism), if “my” side lost at least instead of an Obama we’d hopefully get a “Sinz.” (*WINK*)
“New Majority is one conservative blog that the GOP base doesn’t control.”
Sinz. Your problem is that you live in some sort of alternate reality where NewMajority is a “conservative” blog. It’s not. (Hell, you’re the one constantly railing against the folks American society from the Academy to the Media to the General Public identifies as “the conservatives.”)
No. NewMajority is Frum’s blog effort to stay relevant. It’s “traditional country club” Republican at best; perhaps you might even go retro and call it “Rockefeller Republican.” (*CHUCKLE*) But, no, as much as we’d all like to claim the mantle of Reagan as our own, Reagan would have loved Palin and Reagan did love Rush. (*SMILE*) Yes, Reagan conservatism was different than GW Bush “conservatism,” but Palin, Rush, Gingrich, Ronny… they’re all basically the same “species” of conservative – it’s you and moreso Frum who are “off the reservation.”
Honesty, Sinz. As Sinatra sang, “Wake up to reality!” (*WINK*)
Re: Sinz54 // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:14 pm –
“I think David Frum’s heart is in the right place…”
I don’t. (*SHRUG*) No. Seriously. I don’t. This doesn’t stop me from praising Frum and agreeing with him when my agreement and praise is warranted. Nope. It’s just that as I keep on noting, Frum is the kind of smarmy elitist “staffer type,” “insider type,” whom authors of fictional political/military thrillers base the smarmy, self-interested, stab you in the back in a heartbeat, “club” types who make politics such a cesspool.
Sinz. Believe me. I know these types. I know the “Frum’s” up close and personal.
Hey… my opinion… my perspective. (*SHRUG*) Perhaps I misjudge the man… but I doubt it.
“…his articles seem to swing back and forth between puff pieces on divorce, thoughtful discussions of issues, and nasty personal attacks on Limbaugh and others.”
Exactly. (*SHRUG*) But it’s not simply the nasty personal attacks. Hell… I play rough too. It’s the sleezeness… the smarminess. It’s all the times Frum has been disingenuous as well as mean spirited. Hey… put it this way: I’ve never met Frum, but I imagine him as having a limp, sweaty handshake. (*SHRUG*) And since Frum himself brought up France in a previous post… think “Vichy.” (*WINK*)
“You may not have read my posts where I told David Frum that I wasn’t interested in joining any personal vendettas against Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh.”
Well that’s great, Sinz, but one doesn’t win medals by simply doing the right thing. Besides that, you’ve taken your fair share of shots at those you consider the “hard” Right or “Religious” Right. Still… I gladly note that you’re not a hater, you’re not the kind of person who would deliberately distort reality. When you and I disagree… (*SHRUG*)… well, I understand that you sincerely hold your position because you think it’s the right position to have. Frum – as YOU noted – can’t seem to get rid of his bitterness and worse, he’s willing to use cheap shots while venting his hatreds.
ANYWAY… enough about Frum.
BILL
barker13 // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:15 am
Re: Adude // Jul 15, 2009 at 9:55 pm –
“The concern by many conservatives is that they have a very strong basic philosophy of limited government (and by extension, low taxes), free trade, and personal freedom. This was the message of the conservative movement from the 1950’s into the 1980’s. If you would hear Buckley, Freidman, or Reagan, you heard coherent thought, not overblown rhetoric. And it acheived electoral success.”
Hmm.
Which Party controlled Congress (both Houses as often as not) during the majority of the ’50’s, ’60’s, ’70’s, and ”80’s?
As to presidents…
Truman (D), Ike (R), JFK (D), LBJ (D), Nixon/Ford (R), Carter (D), Reagan (R), Bush (R)… and then two terms of Clinton followed by two terms of Bush followed by Obama.
…except for the Reagan years a pretty mixed bag.
(*SHRUG*)
Ike was an establishment Republican. Nixon was a law and order, strong military defense, and BIG GOVERNMENT Republican. Ford was the ultimate establishment Republican. (Recall… that side of the GOP was NOT the pro-Reagan side.)
To contrast…
When the Republicans took over Congress in ‘94 it WASN’T the “establishment” GOP which won the day, it wasn’t the “country club” GOP which chased Wright, Rostenkowski, and that whole corrupt bunch out of their leadership seats. No. It was the “radicals” led by Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey.
(*SHRUG*)
Hmm… and WHOM did the victorious GOP Class of ‘94 make an honorary Member…??? Was it David Frum? Was it some “moderate” Republican establishment voice? No. It was Rush Limbaugh.
(*SHRUG*)
Folks… I like fiction as much as the next guy, but this historical revisionism about how “moderates” were the “successful” past and they’ll be the successful future of the GOP just doesn’t jive with reality.
“Even today, with the Democratic Party in power…”
(*SIGH*) (*HEADACHE*) Adude… you’re just not GETTING it. The problem for the GOP was that starting as early as ‘00 and certainly by 2006 the American People looked upon the governing GOP as RINOs – or better yet, CONSERVATIVES in name only. (And who could blame them? They were right!)
Adude… while of course the nation has now jumped from the frying pan into the fire, by 2006 it looked to most non-Leftists as if the Democrats (the big spenders, the incompetent, the irresponsible, the corrupt) WERE running Congress! (And again… they were basically right! The Republican establishment of the mid-2000’s had betrayed conservatism just as George H.W. Bush did years earlier.)
“The problem is that messsengers like Palin and Limbaugh…”
First of all, don’t equate Palin with Limbaugh. We’re talking apples and oranges – one’s a nuts and bolts political Party actor and the other is an entertainer who also happens to be in large part the most broadly known “conscience of conservatism.”
NOW… as to the latter… as to Rush… keep in mind that no matter how “big” he is in terms of name recognition and RELATIVE audience, we’re a nation of more than 300,000,000 people; Rush reaches what… five million or so – seven million maybe? My point is, in the grand scheme of things most Americans will never listen to Rush Limbaugh for hours a day, weeks at a time; what they’re exposed to is the MSM’s portrayal of Limbaugh.
To come full circle, my view is that NOT ENOUGH people are exposed to Limbaugh. Not enough people are exposed to Sarah Palin – Palin unfiltered by the MSM.
Anyway… (*SHRUG*)
BILL
ottovbvs // Jul 16, 2009 at 8:03 am
dragonlady // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:52 pm
“Time to stop feeding the trolls!”
………..One awaits a coherent answer but it never comes of course
sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:35 am
ottovbvs: I considered Frum’s comments about Limbaugh’s drug history and physical stature as completely out of line. That was an attack on Limbaugh’s character, and completely unwarranted. Lots of folks (even Democrats!) have gotten hooked on prescription painkillers that were originally prescribed legitimately for chronic pain. It’s not any kind of moral failing.
David Frum didn’t stick to disagreeing with Limbaugh’s views. He had to attack Limbaugh as a person?
sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:46 am
barker13 sez: “Your problem is that you live in some sort of alternate reality where NewMajority is a conservative blog. ”
As a science fiction fan, my response to you is: Who is to say which alternate universe is the proper one, the “correct” one?
For too long, we’ve been living in an alternate reality in which Constitutional amendments to ban abortion and gay marriage nationwide (even in liberal states, overriding their own marriage laws) is considered “conservative”; banning even online Internet poker is considered “conservative”; and waging a war in Iraq to bring “democracy” to the benighted peoples of the developing world is considered “conservative”.
I regard that alternate reality as no more “conservative” than the one I have chosen, and very likely even less conservative.
ottovbvs // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:51 pm
sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:35 am
“David Frum didn’t stick to disagreeing with Limbaugh’s views. He had to attack Limbaugh as a person?”
………….The problem is Limbaugh’s image and drug history were highly relevant to the point Frum was making…….A grotesquely overweight, red faced, blustering white guy with a history of drug taking is hardly the image you want on your electoral product……the fact you can’t discern the relevance says something about you as does the assertion that getting hooked on drugs is not a moral failing…..Of course it’s a moral failing…..I have no personal problems with moral failings as long as they don’t cause me too much inconvenience…..I’m entirely tolerant of them in fact but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist
barker13 // Jul 16, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Re: Sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:46 am –
“Who is to say which alternate universe is the proper one, the “correct” one?”
How’bout… umm… ME!
No, no… can’t have one man rule; let’s make it… umm… Me, Myself, and I. (*WINK*)
“For too long, we’ve been living in an alternate reality in which Constitutional amendments to ban abortion and gay marriage nationwide (even in liberal states, overriding their own marriage laws) is considered “conservative”…”
The policy proposals themselves may be argued as not conservative, but the recognition of the CORRECT CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES that must be followed in order to add to or subtract from the Constitution is “conservative” to the core.
(But, hey… Sinz… I thought you and the Sinzites wanted to get away from arguing social policy and stick to economics and defense…???) (*SLY SMILE*)
*** HEY! Share with me (us) your favorite Sci Fi authors.
Me? As you might guess… I’m a Heinlein man!!! For “modern” stuff… contemporary Sci-Fi… David Webber is my guy.
Anderson… Asimov… Keith Laumer… I could go on and on.
How’bout you? (Let me guess… Arthur C. Clarke? Big fan?) (I’m more of a Crichton kinda guy.)
BILL
brutus1791 // Jul 16, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Barker says: How’bout… umm… ME!
Aha! And we have the new Prince! Creating reality as is fit
(not a put down, I assure you) The Unitary Executive lives on NewMajority.
Sinz Says: “For too long, we’ve been living in an alternate reality in which Constitutional amendments to ban abortion and gay marriage nationwide (even in liberal states, overriding their own marriage laws) is considered “conservative”…
I very much appreciate Barker’s response to this. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Ends… the means in which some people are trying to make these changes are genuinely Conservative. They are not circumventing the Constitution, nor thinking of ways to do things until it has to rise to the level of Constitutional pontification (Supreme Court) as the left likes to do with their Circus Courts (borrowed from Levin). Either way, I disagree with the marriage amendment, but our problem lies in the old COmmerce Clause in which non-traditional marriages would cross state lines and their marriagial contract would have to be recognized in the next state.
The other situation, that nugatory notion of Life and what-not, is easily solved when one reads the Social Contract we are all bound by… “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property if you’re a Lockean
.
Barker, never a fan of SciFi (or as the channel now has it, SyFy). I did enjoy “Ender’s Game” though, when I read it during the days of my youth (Rousseauian days). And Crighton, how could one go wrong? I stick to the political philosophy… and Douglas Preston/Lincoln Child… guess they could be SyFy?
barker13 // Jul 17, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Re: brutus1791 // Jul 16, 2009 at 4:11 pm –
“…Douglas Preston/Lincoln Child…”
Long live Pendergast and D’Agosta!
Hey, Brutus, let me ask you, have you read much (any?) Heinlein? I mean for political/social philosophy Heinlein was the man! If you’ve never read “Starship Troopers” start there. “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” would also be another novel I’m guessing you’d appreciate. Finally, the novelette “The Man Who Sold The Moon” should be right up your ally.
Oh… and back to Lincoln Child (kinda)… have you ever read Lee Child’s “Reacher” novels? I can’t recommend them highly enough. I’d advise any new reader to start with “The Enemy.”
BILL
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Ace of Spades Is My Blog Hero, But . . . // Jul 18, 2009 at 8:53 am
[...] you’re still my hero, Ace, no matter what David Frum says. StumbleUpon| Digg| Reddit| Twitter| [...]
sdspringy // Jul 19, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Otto:….
………….The problem is Limbaugh’s image and drug history were highly relevant to the point Frum was making…….A grotesquely overweight, red faced, blustering white guy with a history of drug taking is hardly the image you want on your electoral product……the fact you can’t discern the relevance says something about you as does the assertion that getting hooked on drugs is not a moral failing…..Of course it’s a moral failing…
I certainly enjoy the kind of leftist superiority the Otto likes to exhibit. It makes for such fun when you plug the Dems into the grotesquely overweight, Kennedy, red faced, Clinton, Blustering, Biden white guy with a history of taking drugs, Obama. Oh wait not white. Really thought I had a streak going there. I also cannot believe Otto that you would express any comment concerning moral failings, being so nonjudgemental and leftist and all.
Of course Dem voters are typically nonjudgemental when electing their representatives. You can have sex with your male page, Stubbs, kill a companion, Kennedy, female page gone missing, Condit
crosses and cape, Byrd, do nasty things with cigars, Clinton, be a complete idiot, Frankenn, and of course run a brothel from your home, Frank. Get reelected everytime. Now what does that say about a Dem voter.
ottovbvs // Jul 19, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Actually sdspringy instead of an unusually angry and bilious piece of ranting you should have read what I said more carefully…… I displayed zero moral superiority…..I’m entirely tolerant of moral failings probably because I have a few myself(no doubt you have none) ….I recognize that man is human and has human frailties…..I also have some sense of perspective, adjudging bonking interns to be somewhat lower on the scale of human frailties than lying us into wars in which thousands of our kids have been killed and maimed…..none of this was massively germane to my central point that a fat, red faced, drug addict is hardly a good front man for a party that trumpets its moral values but it seems to have got you awfully excited………..Now here’s something else for you to get excited about……a few comments from your fellow christian Republicans at the hot air right wing website on the passing of Uncle Walt…..such lovely people…..some of them share your enthusiasm for Ted Kennedy too:
“Personally, I hope his extended family all die of excrutiating cancers. Karma, you know?
I’ll shed no tears over the death of a Lefty turd like Cronkite. As a matter of fact, if I could piss on his grave, I would.
I am sick of kissing the ass of people who screwed not only their country and their profession, but millions of innocents, because the media tells me I am supposed to.
Go. To. Hell. You. Lying. Bastard.
I got excited whe I saw the fox news alert, saw the grey hair from across the room, and then my weekend was ruined it wasn’t the timely demise of Ted Kennedy. Oh well……patience I guess.
Good bye Walter. May the worms enjoy you more than I did.
May he rot in hell.
Soon Ted will die and Walter, JFK, RFK and Ted can ride around Hell in Teds Olds, pickin’ up women.
Waitress sandwich anyone?
Walter Cronkite actually makes my list of greatest MASS MURDERERS in History! So, yup, he can burn in hell!!
Twist in Hell, Cronkite. I hope the only relief you find in the Lake of Fire is a million murdered Cambodians spitting on you.
Rich liberal hypocritical fool……see ya! Now we only need Teddy to retire or expire and maybe we’ll see windmills in Natucket sound.”