What the hell is going on at Fox News?
On Friday evening, Fox viewers were treated to an hour-long televangelical special starring Glenn Beck. (The opening of the show can be seen in our Watch Now window, at right.)
Watching Beck cry for the cameras is always a treat, although I notice that Beck’s colleague Sheppard Smith did not enjoy it very much.
But other viewers certainly did like it. Beck is eclipsing Sean Hannity as Fox’s second-biggest story; very likely the ratings for the Friday special even overtook O’Reilly. Clearly, Beck is tapping into something. What?
Beck insists “It’s not about politics.” His special made a point of featuring images of Republican House leader John Boehner during his castigation of politicians “left and right” and both “the last administration and this administration.”
So what is it about then? What are Beck’s growing number of viewers responding to? On air, Beck promotes sinister conspiracy theories. Here he is on Fox & Friends, warning that the Obama administration is planning a totalitarian takeover:
We are a country that is headed towards socialism, totalitarianism, beyond your wildest dreams. I have to tell you: I’m doing a story tonight that I wanted to debunk – these FEMA camps – I’m tired of hearing about them – you know about them? - I wanted to debunk them. We’ve now for several days done research on them. I can’t debunk them! If you trust our government, it’s fine. If you have any kind of fear that we might be heading towards a totalitarian state: look out. Buckle up. There’s something going on in our country … that ain’t good.
And here he is suggesting that serial killers erupt because they are pushed to the wall by “political correctness.”
The audience for Beck’s Friday night special were each given copies of two books. One of them was Cleon Skousen’s Five Thousand Year Leap. Skousen, who died in 2006, is one of the legendary cranks of the conservative world, a John Bircher, a grand fantasist of theories about secret conspiracies between capitalists and communists to impose a one-world government under the control of David Rockefeller.
There’s always been a market for this junk of course. Once that market was reached via mimeographed newsletters. Now it’s being tapped by Fox News.
Conspiracy theories always flourish during economic downturns. They flourished during the terrible slump of the 1890s (when they captured even so fine a mind as Henry Adams) and again in the 1930s. Today’s slump – so vast, so difficult to understand – opens the door again.
Right-wing populist conspiracy theorizing often overlaps with the left-wing variety. And yet there are significant differences.
Beck speaks to a feeling that this powerlessness is somehow new, somehow a departure from the natural order of things:
This is your country, you are still in control. … Now you’re being forced to bail those people out. There are more of us than there are of them. We surround them.
It’s not a new message of course. In fact, big parts of it seem almost self-consciously copied from Peter Finch’s legendary declamation in the movie Network.
Of course, Finch was only pretending to be crazy. He was an actor performing a role. Then again – so probably is Glenn Beck.
But what about Fox News? What’s their excuse?
279 responses so far
1 Chekote // Mar 16, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Now that the Rush story has run its course, Frum needs a new personality to take on. I guess it is Beck’s turn. Next, it will probably be O’Reilly, Ingraham. I am sure he will never take on Olbermann, Maddow or the HuffPuff. David, you are obviously uncomfortable being on the Right of the political specturum. You think we are a bunch of crazies, low brow, dowscale idiots. Do yourself a favor (I am starting to get concerned about your well being) and just ship. You probably disagree with the Left over the war on terror. But this is now moot since Obama has declared there is no war on terror and we have no enemy combatants. So go ahead. Join the Left. You will sleep better at night.
2 Chekote // Mar 16, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I went to a “We Surround Them” meeting on Friday. Most of the people there were regular, working people who don’t like all the spending and this ever growing federal government. Most believed that America is getting too centrally controlled and socialistic. Beck’s show was a disappointment. Lots of build up to nothing basically. However, I have met a lot of people and we plan to put our energy in the Tea Parties movement. So not all was lost.
3 ChristianMiller // Mar 16, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Frum whistles past the graveyard. He doesn’t see a threat. The left are just well meaning people and anyone who believes otherwise is a wacky conspiracy theorist. Chekote, you make some fine comments. Beck is tapping into the REAL new majority and they are those of us who don’t trust Republicans like Frum, Spector et al. And we know what the left is up to. Our first concern isn’t new social programs for the inner-city or anywhere else. We know that there is a giant farce going on in Washington where the politicians pretend to care and are simply lying. They are spending us into slavery, and Frum goes on talk shows trying to raise his profile for his silly initiative. The Democrats don’t really care about their phony causes of poor people, failing schools, unwed mothers etc.. And Republicans are stupid to care about people who hate them and will always hate them.I just watched a press conference with Gibbs and I thought he was pathetic! Obama is attacking AIG bonuses of 160 million meanwhile, Obama has earmarked 4.1 billion for Acorn and no one says anything. For the record I think we should stop using the word billion and call it a thousand million. Obama spends 4,100 million on acorn while lamenting the payout of 160 million to fulfill contractual obligations. See? The amount of dissembling was even grating on the WHSC (White House Stenography Corps)
This administration is sad and it is fortunate Obama is half-white so that it doesn’t directly reflect on his race how incompetent he is. We can all save face and blame his whiteness.
4 gblittle // Mar 16, 2009 at 1:35 pm
David although I very much appreciate another voice like yours attempting to build the conservative base, I’m sure you’re a pretty savvy business guy too. After all its all about hits or viewership in the case of Fox or Beck. Despite all the very fine points made my contributors on your site, ironically the ones that get the most comments by readers are your columns. And the mega comments are those based on comments about Conservatives – Rush, Palin, Bristol Palin, etc. I sure find fault with the party but in every voice I find alot more positives than negatives including Beck, Rush, Palin and even yours. Now the Whitehouse is going after Cheney — will you be next? How about riping into Obama, Pelosi, Franks, Dodd a little more often. Frankly I find a heck of a lot more to be critical of the Democrats at the present time than a TV or radio host.
5 ChristianMiller // Mar 16, 2009 at 1:50 pm
gblittle,David doesn’t read the comments here. He is an elitist through and through. Just like his contempt for talk radio he has little time to listen to ordinary folks. He has a master plan that will convert all those beltway elites who keep telling him that they want to vote Republican but we have to purify our party first. The commoners will follow like lemmings because we are ignorant and lacking in Ivy League diplomas. He wants to write for Newsweek and go on Meet the Press. You see, he is important, and they are beginning to like him! Really like him!
6 ChristianMiller // Mar 16, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I wonder what it would take for Frum to become outraged. He mocks beck for “almost self-consciously copied from Peter Finchs legendary declamation” in Network. OK, but doesn’t Frum see what is happening? I wonder what Frum would have said in the late thirties in Germany. He’d be one of those who thought everything was just fine, I have no doubt.
7 owl // Mar 16, 2009 at 1:58 pm
“And we know what the left is up to.” You do? Tell me, what is the left up to?
8 owl // Mar 16, 2009 at 2:02 pm
“Obama has earmarked 4.1 billion for Acorn and no one says anything.” An outright lie that has been repeated ad nauseum to the point where it is now considered gospel.
9 ChristianMiller // Mar 16, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Control. Nanny Statism and more control. Universal Healthcare that necessarily leads to rationing. Wealth redistribution. Class warfare. Socialism. Propaganda to hold power. One World Government. You didn’t know? It is pretty plain by now, are you pretending you are a “centrist” again?
10 petty boozshwa // Mar 16, 2009 at 2:29 pm
The average person’s mind craves for the sense of order conspiracy theories provide, so Frum is right they will always be with us. Henry Ford was a genius in taking the complex and making it simple, transferring that talent from mechanics to political philosophy didn’t work out too well. Still, our present moment seems even more fertile to this propensity than any I can remember. Take the AIG bonuses, for example. Why does the entire political class pretend that this was somehow a surprise or unexpected. My Congressman, Heath Schuler, voted against the bailout and pointed out at the time that there were no provisions to stop this type of abuse. The Forgotten Man is getting abused more vigorously than usual, and Beck is tapping into the negative energy generated by this abuse.
11 Chekote // Mar 16, 2009 at 2:50 pm
“And we know what the left is up to.” You do? Tell me, what is the left up to?”
Centralizing power in DC. Expanding the federal government in every facet of American life. They are on a power grab. If they really were interested in the education of poor kids, they would not have killed the school choice program that allowed poor kids to go to the best private school like Obama’s daughters.
12 SteveShives // Mar 16, 2009 at 2:51 pm
David Frum, your unknowing crusade to redeem conservatism in my eyes takes another big step forward with this one. First you stand up to Limbaugh and Levin, and now you take on Glenn Beck, the least funny and most vapid and irritating mouthpiece of the whole movement? Are you reading my mind? Seriously. Keep up the outstanding work.
13 krove // Mar 16, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Beck is catering to the crazy wing of the Conservative movement. people think Franco and Chekote. People who would believe anything said by the lunatics on hate radio and Fox noise. They think that they are under attack. buy bigger and better guns, plot the overthrow of the government with Hannity. It’s getting ridiculous in many ways, but gives us saner people a good laugh.
14 Chekote // Mar 16, 2009 at 2:57 pm
petty. Schuler being a Democrat allows for Pelosi and the other liberals to control the agenda. So he is right on many issues but completely ineffective because of his party label. I opposed TARP. I never believed that we would have a Mad Max scenario.
15 Chekote // Mar 16, 2009 at 3:00 pm
krove. Never owned a gun and don’t plan to get one. If you can’t see what Obama is about then you are blind and deaf. Obama himself said he wants to remake America. He said he believed in spreading the wealth and that the US Constitution is fundamentally flawed. I take the man at his words. If you want to live under the soft tyranny of the Left, that’s your choice. I rather be free.
16 sinz54 // Mar 16, 2009 at 3:24 pm
When Bush was President, the Angry Left was howling that America was becoming a fascist totalitarian country, and that Bush was going to do away with the Constitution. Now that Obama is President, the Angry Right is howling that America is becoming a socialist totalitarian country, and that Obama is going to do away with the Constitution. Yawn.
17 petty boozshwa // Mar 16, 2009 at 3:31 pm
If our party is going to comeback in my lifetime [I'm 50] we need to turn people like Schuler from D to R just as we did a generation ago. Unfortunately it will probably require a tidal wave of illegal immigration, an economic meltdown and union goons driving businesses down the tubes before he sees the light.
18 owl // Mar 16, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Franco: “Control. Nanny Statism and more control. Universal Healthcare that necessarily leads to rationing. Wealth redistribution. Class warfare. Socialism. Propaganda to hold power. One World Government. You didn’t know? It is pretty plain by now, are you pretending you are a “centrist” again?”
I am not pretending to be a centrist, I admit to being left of center. As for your list about what the left is up to, fine, great. I congratulate you on using all the polarizing, fear mongering terms. Are you located in Arizona?
19 owl // Mar 16, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Good, God (yes I am a liberal who beives in God)! You righties and your conspiracy theories make me think that you are all located in Arizona, except that you haven’t mentioned the black helicopters along the border.
20 krove // Mar 16, 2009 at 4:16 pm
For a so called “News” network to report this nonsense as fact is really something new. I’m not sure what the viewer reaction is supposed to be. I tend to view it as pantomime but some might be minded to actually believe it, which is pretty scary.
21 Chekote // Mar 16, 2009 at 4:31 pm
“I congratulate you on using all the polarizing, fear mongering terms. ” Same old. Same old. Only the people on the right are polarizing and divisive. Yet the Left is the one who constantly divides people into groups, black, white, rich, poor, middle class, lower class. All you see is groups instead of individuals. You are constantly pitting one group against the other and yet you are never divisive, racist or bigoted. I went to the We Surround Them because I wanted to meet people who are concerned about the direction of the country. Yeah, there were a few conspiracy theorists. But the same is true on the Left will all the conspiracies about Bush and the Neocons. Today, I received my first e-mail from the group and one of the attachment was some crazy video about Obama. The other attachments were about the Tea Party on April 15. I immediately shot back an e-mail telling them that I want the group to stay focused on reducing spending and the debt we are leaving to our children. I don’t want to argue about the birth certificate, North American Union and the other crazy stuff. Apparently, I was not the only to complain and a second e-mail arrives saying that the group is focused on spending/debt and not attacking Dems, Republicans. Unfortunately, conspirancies have always captured the imagination of many Americans. I dunno why.
22 midcon // Mar 16, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Chekote, you misunderstand this site. We are equal opportunity fear mongers. Both the left and the right get equal treatment. I, for one, am deathly afraid of all of you and am very tired ping ponging between the left and the right. So yeah, as you say “the same is true on the Left.” Just because we criticize the right does not man we don’t equally criticize the left. It’s just rather pointless to do that on this particular site. You’ll notice that polarizing views tend to get more respond than others because in general this site thinks that’s part of the problem, whether it’s from the left or the right.
23 sirpaulj7 // Mar 16, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Heaven help us, David Frum actually has the AUDACITY to question whether the Limbaugh’s and Becks of the world are healthy for the Republican party! Shame on you, David Frum, for retaining your ability to think critically!
24 Fitz // Mar 16, 2009 at 5:38 pm
What about Laura Ingram, Michael Medved, and Denis Pager? There is more to a.m. radio than Rush. Highlight those people instead.
25 ChristianMiller // Mar 16, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Chekote, don’t take it personally. It is just the racism of the left. The first thing is the assumption, the second is the slight, and the third is the phrasing of the Lilly white. next come the generational attack or the ageism whatever you want to call it. What hypocrites these leftists are! They are such poseurs. And it tickles me that this wise Owl is logging into “Neo-Con Central” when it comes to internet sites, and who condemns the ideology while defending David Frum’s positions.
26 TrueToryism // Mar 16, 2009 at 6:48 pm
I really hope Fox News isn’t the true face of American conservatism. What ever happened to the intellectual movement?
27 Chekote // Mar 16, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Toryism. What happened to the intellectual movement of the Tory Party? Cameron comes across as a marketing research product rather than a principled leader.
28 TrueToryism // Mar 16, 2009 at 7:26 pm
We’ve never been an intellectual party, infact ‘the stupid party for provincials’ is closer to the truth. Cameron is from the ‘one nation’ liberal wing of the Tory party, like McMillan; I suppose they’re our Rockerfeller Republicans. Not my thing at all, being on the reactionary side, but anything is better than Labour or the Liberals.
29 PiltdownMan // Mar 16, 2009 at 7:39 pm
So, I get that the strategy is to be the White Hat Conservative who takes on the Black Hat Conservatives thus raisng your profile and so forth, but what exactly is suppossed to be in it for you know – Conservatism?
30 danbmil99 // Mar 16, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Due to my place of birth, most of my friends and relatives are die-hard liberals. They tend to be educated, articulate, and intelligent. Nonetheless, at least 50% of them, when thinking about politics, are prone to the same kind of assinine conspiracy theories that people like Glenn Beck promulgate on the right. They take everything Michael Moore puts on film as gospel truth. They believe Keith Olberman is level-headed, fair-minded and shows little bias. To them, Chris Matthews is a shill for the RIGHT. They see everything through liberally polarized glasses. I guess the same is true for the conservatives. It’s a very strange feature of human nature that I can’t really comprehend or explain. It seems like a good idea to try to fight it though; the prevalence of conspiracy theories seems correlated with political instability. Look at how common they are in the Middle East, and even in Eastern Europe.
31 danbmil99 // Mar 16, 2009 at 7:48 pm
PiltdownMan said: “So, I get that the strategy is to be the White Hat Conservative who takes on the Black Hat Conservatives thus raisng your profile and so forth, but what exactly is suppossed to be in it for you know – Conservatism?” Saving conservatism from itself? If Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are the soul of conservatism, it’s already too late. I suspect WFB is spinning at near lightspeed by now.
32 conservative08 // Mar 16, 2009 at 8:11 pm
You’re linking to “ThinkProgress” now? What a joke. Beck appeals to people who are you know, conservative. I know being a conservative is kind of “silly” to people on this site, but we’re not going away anytime soon.
For now, I’ll enjoy his show and get my amusement from mocking the cluelessness of the pseudo intellectuals on the right that are coming out of the woodwork to bash conservative who actually do wonders for the movement.
33 oodoodanoo // Mar 16, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Glenn Beck is right about what’s going on in America, and he’s right that it’s only a matter of time before he and like-minded conservatives are taken off the air by this administration and its lackeys like David Frum. I for one plan to learn everything I can about ham radio operation so that when the hammer falls I will be ready to connect to my conservative brothers.
34 PiltdownMan // Mar 16, 2009 at 8:28 pm
danbmil99: The appeal of WFB was that he never came across as a capital “E” Elitist, even though one is hard pressed to imagine a man who would better personify the term. And he would never, ever have allowed Chris Matthews’ contention that Rush Limbaugh had a “race problem” to go by unchallenged. WFB liked Rush Limbaugh by all accounts – and if WFB felt that a particular viewpoint reflected poorly on the movement, he did not hesitate to say so. The Birchers, Ayn Rand, etc. were all sent packing. Not so Rush.
35 conservative08 // Mar 16, 2009 at 8:35 pm
William F. Buckley was a brilliant man, a true intellectual, who actually had common sense as well.
Do you see Thomas Sowell arguably the most intellegent reasoned person on the conservative/libertarian side of the spectrum going around bashing Rush Limbaugh? No. He’s also a fan of Sarah Palin.
36 dacookson // Mar 16, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Amazing, quite the salesman. So if I understand it Beck doesn’t believe in government so he wants ordinary people to get together, agree on a set of principles and co-operate to solve their problems. Isn’t that what a government is? How is Glenn Beck different from a left-wing revolutionary? Seems like what is being proposed here is The United States of Irony with Glenn Beck as El Presidente…
37 gallerydavid // Mar 16, 2009 at 8:41 pm
As you sow, so shall you reap. As a Quasi-Marxist Pseudo-Intellectual, I am truly enjoying the fracture and implosion of the GOP. Happy Days are Here Again! Now excuse me while I spark up a Fattie and Chill with my Marcuse.
38 conservative08 // Mar 16, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Solutions aren’t meant to come from government. Our founding fathers would be appalled that the Democratic Party, in all of it’s government largesse is in charge of this country. Granted, the Republican Party has become our 2nd major political party that is addicted to big government, so there’s not much better.
Government should be here to serve very, very basic functions. Otherwise, it should get out of the way and let the people of this country fail or suceed based on their abilities.
39 ExGOPer // Mar 16, 2009 at 9:22 pm
I’m so glad that someone is finally saying what the rest of the country has known for years, which is that the emperors have no clothes. Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Ingraham, et al are frauds and do not represent thinking conservatives. They’re all gut and no brains.
David, you’re performing a great service by calling these people out. Please don’t let the pitchfork brigade shout you down. You speak for many of us who used to feel comfortable in the Republican party.
40 conservative08 // Mar 16, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Why does it bother you so much that there are people who have strong opinion that different from you, inside the GOP?
Big government Republicans like George Bush have gotten the Republican Party into this mess it’s in. It has nothing to do with radio talk show hosts. To blame them for our problems is a total cop out.
Instead of blaming the conservative media. Why don’t you blame the Republican politicians who have totally ruined the party’s image as competent, level headed, limited government oriented.
41 ExGOPer // Mar 16, 2009 at 9:48 pm
The radio radicals are the ones who championed, defended and enabled W. for eight years. They gave him and his lackeys cover to ignore the constitution, wage a foolish war, bankrupt the treasury, unleash corporate greed, put inept cronies in charge of vital agencies, fire up the religious nuts, place ideology ahead of science, undermine the justice department and on and on and on. Yes, the Republican Congress did its share of the damage, but without the witless approval of Fox News and other right wing media, the backlash would have been felt long before the 2008 elections.
42 conservative08 // Mar 16, 2009 at 10:16 pm
It’s kind of hard to be a radical when you have 20 million plus listeners per week…
And I don’t agree with that assesment. Rush has been critical of certain aspects of the Bush administration for years. So has Ingraham. And others. They all have differing opinions, it’s not like they are all carbon copies of eachother or they wouldn’t have an audience….
43 Alarmed // Mar 16, 2009 at 10:18 pm
If there was content to the “principles” undergirding the opinions of people like Beck I would be happy for them to have a platform, just as they would be happy for someone like Frum (or even *gasp* Rachel Maddow… if not Olbermann) to have one too. That’s the basic responsibility of a democratic citizen: that you admit all viewpoints to the debate that will themselves admit the possibility that they’re wrong. Such viewpoints take opposing viewpoints seriously enough to be content to let the debate separate the wheat from the chaff. People like Beck (and Olbermann to a lesser extent) respond with a huckster moralist’s rage to disagreement or even anything less than blind certainty in the righteousness of their “righteous” emotion.
44 conservative08 // Mar 16, 2009 at 10:19 pm
ExGOPER: What do you believe, politically..whats your philosophy?
45 Alarmed // Mar 16, 2009 at 10:21 pm
That’s why its so important to them that they have however many dittoheads. Ps – over 20 million Americans are atheists… Would you say that they aren’t radical?
46 Alarmed // Mar 16, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Re: “Conservative08″: I’m sure ExGOPer is that most amazing of philosophers who has somehow managed to reconcile the contradictions between Liberalism, Fascism, Communism, Atheism and Islamism, just like everyone else who disagrees with you.
47 conservative08 // Mar 16, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Alarmed: What a dopey arguement.
For the record, I have nothing against moderates. I have a problem with people who demonize others within their own party.
Politics goes in cycles. The odds of the Republicans winning this year were zero. People need to quit the overreacting and childish sniping.
48 danbmil99 // Mar 16, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Alarmed: “over 20 million Americans are atheists… Would you say that they aren’t radical?” How in the world do you equate atheism with radicalism? And while we’re on the subject, if conservatives are for less government, how does that equate to government in my bedroom, and government promoting religion? I’m looking for a consistent ideology, but I don’t see it on either the right or the left. Maybe it’s in another dimension.
49 Alarmed // Mar 16, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Cycles… Yes, that’s probably true. But it doesn’t go in circles. The debate progresses as the world changes–hence Bush era republicans as different from Reagan era republicans as different from Eisenhower republicans. What the groupthink of the demagogues does is re the party from being able to move forward, holding it instead up to this vague, uncompromising, nostalgic ideal. Re dopey: oh that’s right… Since I’m not a communist and still don’t agree with the Rushbos I must be stupid.
50 Alarmed // Mar 16, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Danbmill: (secretly… I don’t think being an atheist necessarily makes someone a radical, not to say that many atheists aren’t political radicals and vice versa. I was trying to point out a double standard.)
51 danbmil99 // Mar 16, 2009 at 11:35 pm
I think a whole bunch of atheists are of the libertarian bent. Look at how Ron Paul did, and he’s not a very compelling candidate frankly. But we will never, ever vote for a mainstream GOP candidate as long as the party continues to traffic in divisive cultural rhetoric. I’ll say again, the GOP has to choose: marginalize the social conservatives, or never gain power again, ever.
52 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:55 am
conservative principles are timeless. sooner or later people will realize that the path of big government we’re on is unsustainable.
53 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:59 am
what does moving forward as republicans mean? accepting the premise of big government?
54 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 1:01 am
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/03/17/the_republican_civil_war
55 midcon // Mar 17, 2009 at 1:28 am
No conservative08, moving forward means we limit government to the essential functions and ensure that it is the necessary size it needs to be. In any particular era, it could be larger than another or vice versa. We allow the size to fit the need. See how non-controversial it is when you say you are for a “right-sized government”? It could be big or small, but when if it’s the right size for what we need government to do, who can argue against that? Now, getting down to the specifics of what government needs to do, is another question, but at least it is one worthy of debate.
56 dacookson // Mar 17, 2009 at 2:17 am
From the outside this looks like an irrational frenzy, tribal politics gone mad. danbmil99 is right, there are so many inconsistencies with ideology on both sides, but particularly the Republican given their current leaderless disarray, that this has ceased to be about anything except different tribes winning and losing.
57 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 5:49 am
Glenn Beck, when feeling sorry for and understanding mass murderers who kill for political purposes, officially crosses the threshold himself: Glenn Beck is a Terrorist Sympathizer. I don’t care what “side of the isle” a murderer kills from. Killing for political purposes is terrorism. By failing to condemn this behavior on the air, and by arguing its case, Glenn Beck is guilty of incitement to terrorism. So, by the way, is Ann Coulter, who has called for a Supreme Court Justice to be poisoned. And Pat Buchanan, when he called for the State Department to be bombed. David Frum, since you know so much about “Evil” that you can label three countries who aren’t allied with eachother the “Axis of Evil,” please convince me that the terrorists in the Middle East who we fight aren’t just their version of Republicans.
58 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 5:52 am
I used to listen to Howard Stern every day. I never really agreed with any of his political beliefs. One of Liberalism’s shining lights, Rick Pearlstein (who writes the best historical books about Conservatism ever written), listens to Rush Limbaugh every day. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh having millions of listeners doesn’t mean at all that their points of view are shared by their listeners. It means their listeners find them to be an entertaining distraction from the boredom of a daily commute. Something to keep in mind when pointing to ratings and pretending that they’re opinion polls.
59 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 5:55 am
Conservative08: Did you know that when William Buckley was forming the basis for his “Conservatism,” he wasn’t reading the Constitution at all, or reading the biographies of the framers of our Constitution, but rather falling in love with Theocratic Fascist Spain?
60 nolan084 // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:07 am
I don’t care much for Beck, but this anti-Rush/Levin/Beck crusade is pure childish.
61 Bulldoglover100 // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:08 am
FOX News consists of nothing but liars who have driven the Republican party straight into the ground using their own mental illness as a weapon….give me a break…do they think no one will catch it when they use a sound clip from September 2008 and try to imply Biden said it today? Do they really think they are helping us when it becomes fact that they are liars? and that snivling weak chinned Beck bawling his eyes out? Are we suppose to feel pride???? Not hardly, I wanted to drop a dollar in a cup for the mentally ill….if this party is ever going to rise above the 28% support level? We need to get rid of these National Enquirer journalist who are supposedly supporting our party.
62 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:08 am
Foor for thought: http://www.alternet.org/story/131201/
How many more workplace killings need to erupt before Reaganism is forever defeated, perhaps shrunk down small enough to drown in Rush Limbaugh’s backfat?
See how easy it is, Glenn Beck?
63 Captain America // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:18 am
I don’t get it! If the majority of those commenting on this site are supposed to be a conservative to some degree or another, why are we expending so much psychic energy savaging one another? This when the hard left is in firm control of the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government. The time for this kind of internecine warfare was when the GOP controlled the House, Senate and White House, not when we’re in the wilderness struggling for survival.
64 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:23 am
The Hard Left is in control of the federal government? Because the Military just got a pay raise and better health care than they had under Bush? Because they’re upset about criminal bankers taking tax dollars as bonus money? Captain America, you are no Steve Rogers!
65 Captain America // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:24 am
This goes for Mr. Frum as well. Hannity extreme? OK Beck very extreme? OK. Fox leaning conservative – yes. What about ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, AIr America, Olbermann, Matthews, Couric, Moyers, the BBC, Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Rangel, Snowe Specter and Collins, Newsweek, Obama, Geithner, Hollywood, Stimulus II, Cap & Trade, ……. no room for criticism there?
66 Churl // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:36 am
Let’s build a conservatism that can win again by trashing conservatives? As a political strategist, Frum is G0d’s gift to the opposition. Perhaps Frum fancies himself the new W.F. Buckley kicking the Birchers and anti-flouridators out of the party. I have read and watched Mr. Buckley. Frum is no W.F. Buckley.
67 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:39 am
Captain, you seem more concerned with rattling off names and yelling “Boooo” than you are with actually discussing an idea. Hannity is extreme because he used to appear on a White Power radio show hosted by notorious right-wing/fatwah-issuing/white power leader Hal Turner. Glenn Beck has defended spree killers (because he mistakenly thought they shared his political views), and he implied that he’s hoping for another armed revolution against the United States, or at least an attempt at secession from this nation. When you can find an example of this type of terrorist behavior from ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, NPR, Air America, Olbermann, Matthews, etc. please provide it. Until then, you’re operating from the disadvantaged position of having a worldview with many more holes in it than the people who think you hate.
68 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:44 am
Churl, the only way to build a conservatism that wins is by defining Conservatism as something other than theocratic fascist imperialsm. Americans have had enough. There is a natural economic cycle, by the way: Democrats create wealth, Republicans feed on cultural resentment to get in office, steal all the wealth, Democrats get in, create wealth, and the cycle continues. While you’re busy screaming about small government and the right of a state being more valuable than the right of an individual’s pursuit of happiness in that state, the company you work for pays less taxes than you because of their mailbox in the carribean, and plans on moving your job to India next month. And the shirt you bought with the “Made In America” tag on it was probably made off the coast of China by slaves, profits going back to the GOP.
69 ExGOPer // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:46 am
Sorry, but government itself is not the enemy. Poorly run, inefficient government is the enemy. Until we begin to accept that there are many things that the federal government can and must do, conservatives will continue to be sidelined as reckless cowboys bent on enriching hedge fund managers, denying the effects of global warming and forcing the Teri Schiavos out there to live on life support indefinitely. If we don’t clean up our act, voters will never take us seriously. And they shouldn’t.
70 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:52 am
Asking people firmly entrenched in their political philosophies to abandon them, especially after their philosophies have finally met with reality and resulted in failure, is like asking a child to give up his belief in Santa Claus. Kind of a no-brainer, unless you aren’t using your brain properly.
71 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:59 am
…. and you know, Churl, it’s probably a good idea to move the conservatives who burned their house down over to the sidelines, if you hope to rebuild Conservatism.
72 Alarmed // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:01 am
Yes the Frum / Limbaugh dynamic is helping to further delegitimate the right from the perspective of the American public, but it’s probably not going to stop because *both* players benefit greatly by it. The difference though is that Frum provides reasons for his criticisms (and the power of his criticisms lies in those reasons). Limbaugh / Beck / etc cite their viewership stats and ask “how can 20 million people be wrong?” If 20 million people believe something it means nothing. Why? Because those 20 million people, for all I know, were brought in by the crappy argument that “20 million people minus 1 believe it, how can they be wrong?” You can’t have a constructive debate; you can’t articulate a real platform unless you get beyond that kind of schoolyard nonsense.
On the big / small government question: Watch Reagan here… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7wmdPTtws0&feature=related … the first four words are “in our present crisis.” Yes, err on the side of smaller rather than bigger government, but the measure of what counts as small vs. big is circumstance. There are plenty of kitchen sinks to be thrown at Obama from this much firmer ground. Until people realize that, Obama’s gonna keep being able to do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8vXkR7WDEc&feature=related
73 Chekote // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:02 am
“…. place ideology ahead of science,…” You mean Obama refusal to use nuclear power to achieve energy independence?
74 Chekote // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:10 am
“bent on enriching hedge fund managers” Actually. the overwhelming majority of hedge fund managers supported Obama and are Democrats.
75 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:10 am
Chekote, I think Obama’s refusal has more to do with placing safety above energy independence than ideology. But I think his advocacy of imaginary “clean coal” technology is corrupt and political.
76 Chekote // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:13 am
“denying the effects of global warming” Haven’t you got the memo? It is no longer Global Warming. Now it is Climate Change. Apparently, the scientific data contradicted the assertion that the world was warming.
77 Chekote // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:14 am
Nuclear is safe. That’s a scientific fact. Obama is not using nuclear to appease his political base. France has been using nuclear with no incident for decades. Obama is putting politics before science.
78 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:19 am
Interestingly enough, Chekote, the overwhelming majority of Americans supported Obama, probably because the thought of President Sarah “My husband is a secessionist” Palin (or President John “taking a break from my awful campaign to accomplish nothing” McCain) was enough to send chills down the spines of just about anybody with some sense. And I’ve met many hedge fund managers. While I was never impressed enough with their intelligence to figure out how they managed to collect all that money (how intelligent is your average bank robber?), one thing struck me about nearly all of them: they were Republican. But my anecdotal experiences aren’t science, so whatever.
79 Chekote // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:23 am
If we continue down this path, the USA will break apart. More and more people are tired of the DC-NYC Axis of Spending setting the agenda for the whole country. We need to get back to our federalists roots.
80 ChristianMiller // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:26 am
Ouroboros. “overwhelming majority”? really? Nothing much scientific in your post at all. Whatever.
81 Chekote // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:29 am
The angst over the AIG bonuses could have been avoided if only the government had allowed the bad players to fail. Instead of bailing out, the government should have pursued an orderly liquidation strategy.
82 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:29 am
A few Chekote points being addressed:
1. Some Nuclear is safe. The US currently uses lots of it. France also imports lots of oil.
2. It’s still Global Warming, as the planet’s overall temperature increases each year, but calling it Climate Change is less confusing for troglodites who think that the planet must be in an overall cooling stage whenever it snows (see Steele, Michael). And the less confused troglodites we have running around making fools of themselves on behalf of their political party, the better for all.
83 midcon // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:31 am
Chekote: The use of an imprecise word as “safe” calling it scientific fact is incorrect. France has had incidents over the years (including last year). However, it is accurate to state that France has a nuclear power program with strong and institutionalized safety program. The key issue what to do about the spent nuclear fuel. France reprosseses the rods, but they are also in wet storage (pools of water) and dry storage casks. We have the same challenge here in the U.S. of what to do about storage, but further we no longer possess the technical skills in quantity necessary to resurrect the nuclear power industry. We need to revitalize science and engineering education in this country, which may take some investment in education spending.
84 ottovbvs // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:34 am
Beck is not unlike those fruitcakes who sprung up in the thirties like Charles Coughlin. Lets face it within the 30% of the electorate that represents the Republican “base” there are some very goofy people, if there’s any doubt about it just go read some of the postings at the more extreme conservative sites. Fox has an audience of 3-4 million therefore it doesn’t require a great leap of imagination to understand that a goodly number of these folks are among Fox regulars. And at the end of the day that’s what Fox is about. Ratings and profits. It was created to appeal to a certain demographic that Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes identified and it’s proved to be an inspired business decision. All these conservative commentators like Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Beck drink from this well. The problem with it for conservatism generally and the GOP in particular is that these folks attract a level of attention out all proportion to their importance. Fox is a of a megaphone. And it’s all massively counter productive with most Americans as they increasingly perceive the GOP as the party of fruitcakes. I’m not sure Rupert Murdoch is very concerned about this just so long as Beck brings in the audiences although there do appear to be some signs of strain inside the Fox network. I’m afraid David it’s just another case where the Morlocks have been let out of the basement and they are taking over the house.
85 Chekote // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:37 am
“France also imports lots of oil” That is for cars. Nuclear is the only energy that can be used to upgrade our electric grid. Windmills in the desert ain’t going to do the job. That is a scientific fact. If the world is warming, why not continue with the term Global Warming. It is less confusing than Climate Change. BTW, the climate is always changing. Have you heard of the Ice Age? How did we ever manage to warm up since there were no cars, coal plants, etc.?
86 Chekote // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:39 am
“We need to revitalize science and engineering education in this country, which may take some investment in education spending.” I don’t want anymore education spending until we reform our education systems. We need to get rid of the teacher’s unions. Get rid of incompetent teachers. Reduce administrative costs. And have our money got to ACTUALLY educating our kids.
87 Chekote // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:41 am
“Lets face it within the 30% of the electorate that represents the Republican “base” there are some very goofy people,” Where do you get those figures? Did somebody run a reseach study to identify the size of the “goofy” base. Was such a study done on the Left?
88 ExGOPer // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:43 am
Ouroboros, this is why I can no longer call myself a Republican. These people you’re trying to set straight are simply beyond all reasonable arguments. Today’s party regulars are proudly ignorant and completely incapable of recognizing that anyone to the left of Limbaugh could love their country (let alone have a good idea). So long as these people represent the core of the GOP, the party will drift further and further from relevance — and rightly so.
89 knowbuddhau // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:46 am
Mr. Frum,
It’s with great trepidation that I read anything you write, since you are one of the master myth-jackers of all time, with your “axis of evil” trope.
Nice holy warmongering. Reminds me of Charlie Wilson’s War and Zbig Brzezinski’s stoking of the holy war in Afghanistan to which we have just added 17,000 of our fellow citizens. Endless holy war: it’s what we do, both left and right.
Mr. Beck obviously is working your rabble better than you, is that it? Take a close look at McCain’s concession speech, right at the very start. Even at the mere mention of our new president’s name, his supporters boo and catcall. McCain holds out his hands, stiffly trying to tamp down the hate he stirred up.
Look at how mythological symbols and narratives were used to stoke hate at Palin’s rallies.
It’s a process I call myth-jacking. It’s a combination of Joseph Campbell’s comparative mythology, radical behaviorism, and Milton Friedman’s economics. It’s the process by which we jacked Chile to , and stuck the workers with the bill.
Myths aren’t just lies; they are metaphors, they are vessels, into some of which we are most easily lured, like kittens into a burlap sack.
Campbell lectured at the Foreign Service Institute, beginning in 1956. We are seeing the effects of using a warped “power of myth” to power weapons-grade domestic propaganda.
Ouroboros wrote:
Churl, the only way to build a conservatism that wins is by defining Conservatism as something other than theocratic fascist imperialsm. Americans have had enough.
Who ARE you? You rock! Love your comments. What do you think of Tom Engelhardt’s thesis: does a religion of force rule our day? I see it as a patriarchal cult of kinetic power.
Ever increasing force, power, leverage is always their answer. Look at how even financial balance sheets were overleveraged. “they blew up the banks,” they took the wind-up key and twisted until the toy broke.
I’m asking, has our organic society been made to dance itself to death to the tune called by fanatical mechanists? Have greedy men once again killed the goose that lays the Golden Eggs?
90 Alarmed // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:46 am
The argument against nuclear is that it’s expensive as : about $1500-2000 per kW of power added to the grid. In contrast, California, with the most generous incentive program in America, provides about $400 for every kW of demand reduced (through energy efficiency). Until those numbers start to even out (we’re going to get to a point where it costs a comparable amount to reduce demand as it does to increase supply) there’s really no argument for nuclear.
91 Alarmed // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:48 am
Source for nuclear power #:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
92 bloodstar // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:48 am
Would someone please tell Sheppard Smith to lock up when he leaves since he is the last sane person at Fox News.
93 knowbuddhau // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:49 am
Damn, what a lame comments section. Single paragraph only? Even HuffPo gives it’s commenters the ability to write more than one paragraph at a time.
94 knowbuddhau // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:51 am
Chekote, the 30% figure refers to the nadir of Bush’s support. 25-35% of those surveyed will support the GOP right off a cliff.
95 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:52 am
You know what the GOP needs? More squishy, inconsequential moderates. It worked out soooo well for John McCain, Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, etc. Those silly conservatives like Ronald Reagan just can’t win nationally.
96 knowbuddhau // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:54 am
Mr. Beck obviously is working your rabble better than you, is that it? Take a close look at McCain’s concession speech, right at the very start. Even at the mere mention of our new president’s name, his supporters boo and catcall. McCain holds out his hands, stiffly trying to tamp down the hate he stirred up.
97 knowbuddhau // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:57 am
Look at how mythological symbols and narratives were used to stoke hate at Palin’s rallies. The McCain campaign deliberately used myths to try to jack the election. It’s a process I call myth-jacking. It’s a combination of Joseph Campbell’s comparative mythology, radical behaviorism, and Milton Friedman’s economics. It’s the process by which we jacked Chile to , beginning on 9/11 (1973, that is), and stuck the workers with the bill.
98 Alarmed // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:57 am
“Conservative”08: Worked for Eisenhower. And you said yourself, that no Republican had a shot this year, so maybe it’s a bit silly to say that it was McCain’s moderation that killed him.
99 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:00 am
Won’t work now. People want an obvious choice between left and right. Obama isn’t even close to being moderate, regardless of what he says.
Being immitation Democrats= epic fail.
100 Alarmed // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:02 am
Rush Limbaugh is less popular than Jeremiah Wright. The fact that in a choice between psycho (whatever Wright is) and psycho “right” it’s a close game speaks volumes.
101 Alarmed // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:04 am
Knowbuddhau: Stop grandstanding. No one cares.
102 ottovbvs // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:04 am
knowbuddhau
wrote 2 minutes agoChekote, the 30% figure refers to the nadir of Bush’s support. 25-35% of those surveyed will support the GOP right off a cliff………Actually Bush’s support went to the low 20’s at times but always seemed to float back to around 30% so combined with Republican party ID’s in the low thirties it’s a fair supposition this is the hardcore base. Identifying the goofball contingent is more difficult because even if you can’t count them you know they are there…..why otherwise would Beck have a multi million dollar contract with Fox. Chekote lives at this site alas to promote denial of the reality that David is trying to explain, but I don’t think he’s ever going to get thru to this guy. It’s the problem in a nutshell.
103 ExGOPer // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:05 am
Conservative08, you completely misunderstood the 2008 election if you think McCain lost because he was a “squishy” conservative. To the contrary, he bent over backwards trying to appease the party regulars, culminating in his spectacularly foolish selection of Sarah Palin. Voters were rightly horrified that this was not the McCain of 2000 — he was now Bush Lite — and rejected him in November. As for Dole, he seemed ancient and tired compared to the youthful and energetic Clinton. There was the wrong choice to lead the nation into the 21st century.
104 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:05 am
If Rush Limbaugh is good enough for Thomas Sowell, he’s good enough for me. I’ve been a Rush Limbaugh listener since I was pretty young. A “Rush Baby” if you will. I certainly don’t consider myself extreme. Unless of course, being conservative is considered extreme nowadays
105 knowbuddhau // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:06 am
Joseph Campbell lectured at the Foreign Service Institute, beginning in 1956. That should send a chill up the spine of anyone who’s familiar with the “Power of Myth.” Look at the dramtic change in our foreign affairs after that, esp. our use of psycho-spiritual attacks. We are seeing the effects of using a warped power of myth to power weapons-grade domestic propaganda.
106 knowbuddhau // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:07 am
Ouroboros wrote: “Churl, the only way to build a conservatism that wins is by defining Conservatism as something other than theocratic fascist imperialsm. Americans have had enough.” Who ARE you? You rock! Love your comments. What do you think of Tom Engelhardt’s thesis: does a religion of force rule our day? I see it as a patriarchal cult of kinetic power. Ever increasing force, power, leverage is always their answer. Look at how even financial balance sheets were overleveraged. “they blew up the banks,” they took the wind-up key and twisted until the toy broke. I’m asking, has our organic society been made to dance itself to death to the tune called by fanatical mechanists? Have greedy men once again killed the goose that lays the Golden Eggs?
107 Alarmed // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:07 am
Conservative08: God forbid you should develop an opinion of your own. And re: “Americans want an obvious choice”: I guess I just have a higher opinion of Americans than you do.
108 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:08 am
Please. McCain bought into global warming hysteria, was in favor of a massive government bailout, favored cap and trade, campaign finance reform, amnesty, etc…..Palin was the star of his campaign. He’d be lucky to match Dole’s 40% without her.
109 ottovbvs // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:10 am
conservative08
wrote 13 minutes ago…..Pew are out with a new poll which shows some slippage for the president but the real shocker is ths collapse of approval for the GOP leadership and congressional representation. It’s at the lowest ever and really reinforces the numbers we’ve seen from Gallup and a couple of other polls out there. I’m sure you’re sincere but this is the road to nowhere.
110 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:12 am
OTTO: who cares..the inauguration was two months ago. of course people favor the democrats at this point…it won’t last.
111 Alarmed // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:17 am
Your interpretation is plausible. Equally plausible is that for every crazy person she brought in (even for every 2) McCain lost a non-crazy person. Bad trade. You can find polls that support both hypotheses (better one’s to support the latter IMHO).
Also IMHO: Palin was and is a fool. I would never vote for a ticket with her on it.
112 knowbuddhau // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:17 am
Alarmed: well, in that case, as Odysseus answered Cyclops, when he wasked by the blind giant who had put out his only eye, you can call me NO1. “Damn,” I say again, “what a lame comments section.” One paragraph at a time is a joke. Complain to the Web master, this format promotes mere drive-by dialogue.
113 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:19 am
Palin is a fool based on what? I’m sure she’s embarassing to the idiots who would rather vote for an uber liberal rather than her.
114 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:21 am
Also, what’s your definition of a “crazy” person?
115 Alarmed // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:21 am
knowbuddhau: get over yourself. You’re neither Noam Chomsky nor Gore Vidal (and I don’t really know why you want to be).
116 ExGOPer // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:21 am
conservative08, were you away last year? Obviously you never looked at the polls, because if you had, you’d have seen that after Palin’s initial introduction, McCain’s numbers cratered and never recovered. That’s a fact. The more Americans imagined Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency, the less faith they had in McCain’s judgment. Palin was a “star” alright — a shooting star that fizzled and sealed McCain’s fate.
117 Alarmed // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:24 am
(i.e. someone impervious to reason)
118 knowbuddhau // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:25 am
I turn another corner/ I go down a corridor/ And I see this guy/ He must be about one hundred foot tall/ And he only has one eye/ He asks me for my autograph/ I write nobody and then/ I wrap myself up in my woolly coat/ And I blind him with my pen… [Nick Cave: "More news From Nowhere"]
119 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:25 am
John McCain sealed John McCain’s fate by being a dunce. He didn’t stand for anything. Also he didn’t know anything about economics and it showed. He looked clueless during the bailout saga. Terrible candidate. Very much Dole like.
Palin is a fundraising machine. Unlike anyone else in the Republican Party.
120 knowbuddhau // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:26 am
Alarmed: I’m neither of those people, why would I even want to be? And you call that a critique? I get better criticisms of my work from 3-year olds.
121 knowbuddhau // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:27 am
Since Ouroboros seems to have left, I’ll be going too. Nice chatting with you.
122 isaac32767 // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:29 am
Pretending … all the way to the bank.
Just like you, David.
Just like you.
123 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:29 am
“Dirty money of crazy people”? What a joke.
124 Alarmed // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:31 am
The choice is not between being a zealot and being a relativist. I believe in principles that can be substantiated by reasons.
125 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:34 am
Those who underestimate Palin do so at their own risk. The woman is a superstar. Shes articulate and driven and that goes a long way in politics. At this point I prefer Sanford and Romney, as well as Jindal to her. But if you think she’s going away, think again.
126 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:36 am
What do YOU believe in Mr. Alarmed?
127 Alarmed // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:39 am
I believe in a pragmatism oriented towards keeping America safe, prosperous, and democratic (a.k.a. free). I want America to lead by example in the world, and in so doing, make the world a better place for my children.
128 ExGOPer // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:39 am
As Bill Maher rightly said of Palin recently, the GOP has gone from the party of Lincoln to the party of winkin’. This is why I can’t describe myself as a Republican anymore without cringing. What does it say about a party that someone so utterly lacking in intellect and honesty could be considered its “fundraising machine”? Could there be a clearer sign of the GOP’s philosophical bankruptcy?
129 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:40 am
That’s incredibly vague. Who’s your candidate of choice?
130 Alarmed // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:41 am
I’m not stupid enough to think that I have the answer to how to achieve this myself, but I have opinions and am happy to present them. If someone has a better idea, I’m happy to defer. The beauty of democracy.
131 Churl // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:42 am
knowbuddhau,”Churl, the only way to build a conservatism that wins is by defining Conservatism as something other than theocratic fascist imperialsm.” Well, I can’t claim to be a political strategy genius, but I would say that referring to the most dependable supporters of conservatism as theocratic fascist imperialists is not a clever way to build any sort of coalition.
132 Alarmed // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:43 am
I’m not going to let you put me in a box, and I don’t put all of my eggs in one basket. Give me an issue, and I’ll tell you who I think has the best idea of how to address it.
133 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:48 am
knowbuddhau, I think we can easily fall into danger of overanalyzing what is very simply the chimplistic drive to be alpha and dominate. It’s an instinct we all have in our DNA. Some of us are also better at trusting people and not being so afraid, and others have figured out that the best way to defeat the selfishness within is to commit acts of generosity and cooperation. We draw tribal lines and want our tribe to dominate because we see it as being necessary to our survival. You can use a belief in God to define your tribe, but you can also use a belief in an invisible hand which controls an economy in absence of government. Both are things which I find to be as silly as taking Lord of the Rings literally.
134 Advocate123 // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:50 am
What’s going on?
Answer: You are. People like you who say that the Republican Party needs to move more to the center after the Republican Party abandoned its principles of limited government.
Many people believe that the Republican Party needs to go back to its roots, and Beck realizes it.
135 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:51 am
Conservative 08, people are not looking for an obvious choice between left and right. People are looking for the necessary leadership to lift our country out of the mess conservative philosophies have placed it in. It was all built on lies, anyhow. Barry Goldwater, the benevolent CEO, only treated his workers as well as he did because he could take money out of his wife’s trust fund to pay for their benefits. Had that trust fund not existed, the Goldwater employees would have had to rely on Government cheese or Union representation to live decently.
136 Captain America // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:59 am
ExGoper…if you’re still here, I’m curious….if you don’t believe in anything conservatives hold dear, then why do you bother?
137 Alarmed // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:02 am
Adorno’s a bit gloomy for me (but can you blame him as a German Jew in the mid-century?) but it’s eerie how much what he describes in this essay fits the Glenn Beck’s of the world: http://www.scribd.com/doc/7168803/Adorno-Freudian-Theory-and-the-Pattern-of-Fascist-Propaganda
138 Fitz // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:09 am
David Frum is not the only one to pine for a more intellectually substantive public face for conservatism. Obviously the actual substance exists but is not always what garners the most viewers or headlines. I would say this however: During the Bush years and Bush Derangement Syndrome the Democrats let their wild radical dogs roam free. Very little attention was/is paid to how radical the far left really is/was. Our nuts are named Billy Bob and there nuts are named professor this helps as far as P.R. but doesnt make there side any less crazy and indeed much more dangerous.
139 A.B. // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:12 am
Thank you, DF. Fox is getting spooky. Everyone overlooked Hannity doing shows on “bigfoot” and the Bermuda “triangle,” this is something else altogether.
140 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:14 am
Does anyone think it was funny when Rush Limbaugh made fun of Michael J. Fox for having Parksinson’s Disease? The way he imitated Fox’s shaky reaction to his medication? I don’t believe in , but I think that if you found that funny, you deserve to have Parkinson’s Disease. Conservative08, I’m looking at you. Time to reevaluate your positions, as well as your soul, perhaps. You say “ditto” when a sociopath speaks.
141 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:17 am
My soul and positions are fine, thank you very much. I don’t belong to the NY Times wing of the GOP. Thank God.
142 ExGOPer // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:18 am
Capt, my real problem is with what passes as “conservative” these days. Why would opposition to gay marriage, for instance, ever be considered a conservative position? It encourages commitment, stability, faithfulness and responsibility. Likewise, why would a reflexive hostility to the science that proves climate change be something we would embrace? It exposes conservatives as naive and unwilling to accept reality. My goal — and I think it’s Frum’s as well, if I read him right — is to stop redefining conservatism to conform with the mindlessness espoused daily on talk radio and Fox News.
143 sinz54 // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:22 am
conservative08 sez: “For the record, I have nothing against moderates. I have a problem with people who demonize others within their own party.” What does the term “RINO” mean to you??? You have the truth turned upside down. For years now, it has been you so-called “true conservatives,” the ones who support every ounce of the SoCon agenda, who have been doing everything possible to drive us social moderates out of the GOP: Attacking us as “RINOs,” demonizing us as threats, impugning our motives and integrity, and telling us that we would be happier in the Dem Party. (Given that I voted for nearly every Republican presidential candidate except Bob Dole, what kind of sense does that make?) We’re not trying to drive you out. You’ve been trying to drive us out!
144 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:23 am
Again, Conservative08, I implore you to try using an argument not based entirely on shallow cultural identification. What do you believe in, and what does it have to do with the New York Times, who gave Bill Kristol the megaphone last year? Why do you believe in what you believe in?
145 ExGOPer // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:25 am
Ouroboros, it’s fruitless to try and reason with these people. They’ve put themselves outside the reach of thoughtful arguments and are impervious to anything but mindless shouting and demonization of anyone who doesn’t agree, which is why Beck/Limbaugh/Coulter appeal to them. The only way they’ll ever get the message is for them to continue nominating Palin-like lightweights and watching their share of the popular vote get smaller and smaller.
146 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:26 am
So, you voted for Clinton eh?
147 sinz54 // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:29 am
ExGOPer: Let’s talk about what conservatism should stand for, not just what it should not stand for. To begin with, it should stand for diversity and inclusiveness. It can no longer be a 98% white hetero Christians’ only club. To do this, we have to address the concerns and needs of other folks than the traditional GOP base. And those needs and concerns may well be different than those of the traditional GOP base. Even more than homosexuals, Hispanics are a cohort the GOP cannot just write off. Hispanics are the strategic key to winning the Southwest in the future. To win over the Hispanics, we must soft-pedal if not eliminate the hard-edged nativism of a Tancredo or a Michelle Malkin. Secondly, no political movement in the 21st century is going to survive long as a perceived enemy of science. We must embrace hearing hard truths from the scientific community, even if those truths make us uncomfortable and challenge us as to what to do about them: Cigarette smoking causing lung cancer, halocarbons causing a hole in the ozone layer, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, anthropogenic global warming. I can see how each of these theories made some folks uncomfortable and may even have threatened some entrenched institutions. But truth is truth. That a particular truth makes you uncomfortable doesn’t make that truth false.
148 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:30 am
The most hilarious thing about this argument is that there’s really no such thing as Left, Right, and Center. There is corruption, graft, and ignorance. When you ask yourself which political party currently subscribes to all three of these things and calls them principles, the Jiminy Cricket within can’t help but be compelled to whisper “Republicans.”
149 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:31 am
You’re already on Daily Kos..explains a lot. Anyway, I believe what I believe because I believe conservatism, true conservatism is the best path forward for this country. The Republican Party has failed to properly articulate conservatism since Ronald Reagan, on the presidential level. I basically believe in the founding principles of this nation. Limited government, personal responsiblity, federalism.
150 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:33 am
The Republicans are not going to win over black America, hispanics and gays by pandering. They’re not going to win them over by trying to give them stuff. That’s what the Democratic party does. They’re going to win them over by explaining to them why conservatism is the way towards a brighter future, and upward mobility. Personal empowerment. Not dependence upon the government. We’ve seen what that has done to inner cities largely ran by Democrats for years. Totally destroyed economically and morally.
151 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:35 am
Dear Conservative08, after lowering taxes in his first year in office, Ronald Reagan then raised taxes every year until he was out of office. In fact, his first tax hike, following the largest tax cut in history, was actually the largest single tax hike in history. During this time, he drove military and non-military spending higher than it had every been in our history, and drove our national debt to record levels. Why are you looking for leaders who can accurately articulate your beliefs, rather than people who govern by them? Pointing to a picture of Reagan’s face is not an argument. And paying attention to what your leaders actually do is more important than swooning over them.
152 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:38 am
Conservative08, can you really blame the liberal mayors of major cities when they’ve had their federal budget money taken away and given to companies who’d like all of their employees to live outside our borders?
153 sinz54 // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:38 am
ExGOPer: Over and over again, I’ve tried to explode the myth that McCain lost because the GOP base thought he was too moderate and didn’t turn out to vote. The exit polls from the election clearly show that McCain lost because Independent and swing voters broke for Obama. (And therefore, the GOP can only win future elections if it wins back those voters.) It’s just hopeless. I can’t compete with Limbaugh’s lies and Limbaugh’s reach. The talk-show circuit keeps circulating these lies, in the face of true facts, and the GOP base believes and trusts these talk-show hosts over anybody else. And this lie is the root of the GOP base’s attempts to purge so-called “RINOs” from the party–they really think that the country is ready to vote for a hard-right party if such existed. The only way to inject some reality into the GOP base, is if the GOP leadership addresses these issues head-on. And Steele’s groveling before Limbaugh is proof that he’s just too spineless to state uncomfortable truths (at least, not without retracting them 24 hours later).
154 sw // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:38 am
Fox is actively and deliberately dumbing down its content. Witness the Hannity show, with its imbecilic “liberal translation” segment and that pathetic peel-off poster he shows at the end. Beck’s mouth-frothing shtick is just part and parcel of the idiotization of the entire country.
This network has 24 hours to fill, seven days a week. They will put on talking dogs — that is, talking dogs that are also detectives that are looking for missing blonde toddlers — if that’s what brings in eyeballs. Fox is out to make a profit (as befits a corporation in a free-enterprise society), not to represent our voice. Turn it off. Write a blog. Read a book!
155 ExGOPer // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:47 am
conservative08, you might consider changing your moniker to conservative88, because you’re using the same tired arguments that Republicans leaned on two decades ago. I’m sorry to have to inform you that times have changed, the problems are different, the face of the nation has shifted and the GOP brand has been wounded by its gradual embrace of the no-nothing wing of the party. (In fact, it’s kind of ironic that you keep holding out Reagan as a model for the future, when, in fact, he’d probably be drummed out of the party as some kind of librul nut by the likes of today’s conservatives.)
156 sinz54 // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:48 am
conservative08 sez: “The Republicans are not going to win over black America, hispanics and gays by pandering….They’re going to win them over by explaining to them why conservatism is the way towards a brighter future, and upward mobility.” What kind of a “brighter future” can g-a-y-s have under a Republican regime that denies them the right to even form civil unions? In that case, the only avenue left open to g-a-y-s is to remain single.
157 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:49 am
Conservatism is timeless. Conservative principles can be applied to modern day problems. No fradulent pandering needed. The NY Times wing of the GOP didn’t like Reagan. They thought he was a nut. Fortunately American loved him to the tune of 49 out of 50 states won, and an electoral landslide.
158 sinz54 // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:52 am
Ouroboros: New Majority isn’t Usenet. It’s not a place for flaming back and forth. It’s a blog for discussing positive ideas and constructive criticism. If you have some positive suggestions other than telling us how much you despise us and everything about us, please make them. Otherwise you have nothing useful to contribute here, and I will inform the moderators of that fact.
159 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:52 am
Conservative08, you’re still not making any sense, and your arguments have a certain middle-school bravado attached to a kindergardener’s intellect. Obama got elected by not being guano-insane, by proving he can keep a level head when McCain can barely contain his head from exploding, and by appealing to the actual beliefs of most Americans. On nearly every issue, from progressive taxation, to abortion, to equal rights, to energy, healthcare, and environment, Americans prefer Democratic solutions. Your beliefs, as enunciated so far, seem to revolve around blind Reagan worship. But the truth is, he sucked. His wife ran the show during his second term based on advice she got from her psychic advisor. Reagan himself committed acts of treason regarding the Iran-Contra scandal. He sold weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein and his enemies in Iran at the same time, funding illegal black ops teams in South America. … And then there was the Savings and Loan scandal, which if you pay attention to current events (you do not), will seem highly familiar.
160 sinz54 // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:56 am
conservative08: There are a couple of “conservative principles” that need to be discarded. Number One on that list is the “principle” that homosexuality is wicked and sinful, and homosexuals deserve to be outcasts. Which leads me to the next one, Number Two: Our Constitution and Bill of Rights rule this nation. Not the Bible. One can still be a firm believer in limited government, private enterprise, a strong national defense,etc., without subscribing to either of these two false “principles.” Indeed, there are g-a-y-s who support limited government and private enterprise.
161 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:56 am
I don’t “worship” anyone. Conservatism isn’t built around the worship of one individiual, but a belief in the principles this country was founded on. Reagan was a fantastic president.
Obama got elected by promising to take care of grown up tasks for people too lazy, ignorant, or incompetent to do them for themselves. Free college, health care, and punishing those evil rich people sounds lovely to certain less than intelligent segments of the population…Oh, and the constant repetition of the mindless “hope” and “change” slogans..
162 sinz54 // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:57 am
sinz54: Oops, I stated the second false “principle” backwards. It is that the Bible should inform how our society should be organized and run. That’s false. Our society is based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It applies to g-a-y-s, atheists, Muslims, and Scientologists, as well as to Christians–all equally.
163 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:58 am
Sinz54- You’re making the insulting insinuation that all conservatives are against gay rights. It’s just not true. It’s a complete fabrication and classic overstatement.
164 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:00 am
sinz54, please quote something which you consider to be a flame. The goal of this site is to find a conservatism that can be popular. I am providing suggestions, since as of now there is no definition of conservative that anyone agrees with. I’m enjoying a civil conversation, even if conservative08 is not being civil. Additionally, you might not want to threaten to tattle-tale when your goal is to increase tent-size. And I hate nothing about you, or anyone.
165 ottovbvs // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:01 am
conservative08
wrote 0 minutes ago
……Reagan left office 21 years ago…..his first election was as David has pointed out almost happenstance….his second the one you quote was against a demoralized Dem party with a doofus candidate…This situ will be exactly reversed in 2012…..and this is a guy who doesn’t think it matters that the Republican leadership has the lowest appro ratings ever in Pew…..Alas the GOP is under the control of people who think like Conservative08…..I come here occasionally to lend David a hand but he needs to take a sabbatical for a couple of years….he’s wasting his time with this crowd
166 sinz54 // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:02 am
conservative08: I lived through the Carter and Reagan eras as an adult. And I agree with you that Carter was a disaster and Reagan fixed most of Carter’s disasters. (I suspect that Mr. “ouroboros” wasn’t even born yet in 1977.) *BUT* I also remember that Reagan soft-pedaled all the hard-right SoCon stuff. In 1980, he ran on a platform of economic reform and rebuilding American defense policy. I don’t even recall hot-button issues like g-a-y rights in any of the televised debates Reagan had with Carter. Back then, our conservative movement didn’t seek to divide Americans along these hot-button issues. All who wanted to see America made stronger economically and militarily were welcome to join the Reagan campaign. Roy Innis, an African-American activist from the Congress of Racial Equality, did so. So did the g-a-y Log Cabin Republicans. Back then there were even a significant number of pro-choice Republicans. Why have we become so obsessed with judging who people are and what they do in their bedrooms, rather than what they believe is best for the nation? The reason, I believe, is that the two parties have become more polarized. The Dems lost their conservative wing that used to exist in the South. And the GOP lost most of its moderate and liberal wing that used to exist in the North. The GOP is now concentrated in the Deep South and Mountain States, all of which are very socially conservative. There’s almost no one left to inject a different point of view–Giuliani was almost alone in this last year.
167 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:03 am
Gay rights is an issue best settled by the states, btw.
168 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:03 am
Elevating the discourse: can we agree that Reagan was a “robust” President, as well as fantastic? This is some awesome debate.
169 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:04 am
Gay marriage and abortion were barely mentioned in the last election. The main issue was the economy and John McCain failed epicly on that front. He doesn’t know anything about economics.
170 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:05 am
Gay rights should be settled by the states? Like how slavery should have been? Why do Conservatives want any individual’s civil rights decided by a State rather than the Constitution? Who should have more rights, a state or a person? No state that I drive through should ever deny me any of my civil rights.
171 sinz54 // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:06 am
conservative08: The 2008 GOP platform said absolutely nothing about the concerns, or needs, of our homosexual citizens. I mean ZERO. It didn’t even attempt to address such obvious conservative issues as inheritance rights and hospital visitation rights, let alone civil unions. The clear implication was that the platform considered them unpersons. Given that the laws in this country have traditionally regarded homosexuals as second-class citizens, for us conservatives to promise a “brighter future” requires us to advocate reforming those laws that are discriminatory against g-a-y-s, just as we did for blacks.
172 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:07 am
The myth that the GOP isn’t welcoming to pro choicers is rdiculous.
173 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:07 am
I’m glad we can agree that John McCain is a notorious know-nothing when it comes to economics. Why do you think Sarah Palin is any more knowledgeable, when she demonstrated dunce-level understanding about everything herself?
174 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:08 am
What laws are discrimatory against homosexuals, specifically?
175 ExGOPer // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:08 am
It’s true that not all conservatives are against gay rights, however, just about all conservatives in positions of power — be it in government or the media — are. Today’s GOP is a very hostile place to anyone who’s gay or who supports the right of gays to marry (or even have civil unions). Which of the right wing radio radicals — Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Hannity, Levin, Savage Ingraham — have ever taken a public position in favor of extending marriage rights to all citizens? Name one.
176 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:10 am
Conservative08, one of the things which Democrats “gave” Blacks in America, which Republicans stood firm against, was equal rights. Gays, today, are courageous enough to ask for equal rights, finally. What side of history do you prefer to fall upon when all is said and done? You say the alienation of gays and pro-choicers from the GOP is a myth, yet you also say you listen to Rush Limbaugh. Who do you think you’re kidding?
177 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:10 am
Most of the country is against gay marriage. That’s not a valid arguement, as being against gay marriage does not make one “extreme”. It’s a sacred institution for some people.
178 sinz54 // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:11 am
ouroboros: Individual rights have to trump states’ rights–a state cannot abrogate someone’s rights. On that, you and I are in absolute agreement. Back in the 1970s, before the Social Conservatives started to dominate the conservative movement, William F. Buckley’s National Review was beginning to advocate decriminalizing marijuana and making common cause with g-a-y-s–they want to keep government out of our bedrooms, and so did us old-style conservatives. Back then, there was a strong current in the conservative movement in favor of personal privacy, especially on things like tax returns. But circa 1978, we made our Faustian bargain with the Southern social conservatives. We found out to our dismay that they don’t compromise on anything–they think they’re getting their agenda from God and Jesus, and hence it’s non-negotiable. So on domestic issues, the SoCons have been dominating on nearly everything.
179 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:12 am
Republicans did not stand against equal rights. You need a history lesson.
180 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:13 am
Sinz: What kind of conservative is in favor of government activism? Not a big believer in federalism, eh?
181 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:23 am
If you force something as controversial as gay marriage on all 50 states, you’re going to create a major backlash. Personally, I don’t care one way or the other. It should be embraced or rejected on a state by state basis. If it couldn’t be passed in a so called “liberal” state of California (you know, the one with the pro choice, pro amnesty, very unpopular republican governor), then it’s going to be a while before it’s accepted on a nationwide level.
182 sinz54 // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:23 am
conservative08: If the GOP is a supporter of federalism, then why does the 2008 GOP Platform call for the passage of a Human Life Amendment? Last year, then GOP candidate Fred Thompson suggested that tricky issues like late-term abortion should be left up to the states to set their own policies. Within 24 hours, the SoCons came down on him like a ton of bricks. They want to pass a Human Life Amendment that would make any American woman–in any state–who has an abortion, guilty of violating the U.S. Constitution. And they rammed THAT idea into the 2008 GOP Platform.
183 Fitz // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:23 am
ExGOPer (writes) with what passes as “conservative” these days. Why would opposition to gay marriage, for instance, ever be considered a conservative position? It encourages commitment, stability, faithfulness and responsibility. Likewise, why would a reflexive hostility to the science that proves climate change be something we would embrace? #1. Redefining what has always been considered a foundational social institution – can, in no way be considered conservative. #2. It is precisely the ignorance of the social scientific consensus on family formation that drives marriage preservationists. The consensus on family formation and child an social outcomes is less in dispute than Global Warming is. #3. There can be no dispute that a society fully committed to the well-being of children would not condone a cultural trend that causes 71 percent of African-American, 50 percent of Hispanic and 28 percent of white babies – those born out of wedlock – to enter life disadvantaged.
184 ExGOPer // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:23 am
It doesn’t matter if a majority of the country opposes gay marriage today, just as it didn’t matter that plenty of Americans didn’t support interracial marriage back in the 50s and 60s. Are conservatives now so unwilling to take a principled stand for individual rights? (And it’s obvious that those polling numbers aren’t going to hold up for very long. Just look at the age gap. Younger voters overwhelmingly support extending marriage rights to gays.)
185 sinz54 // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:24 am
conservative08: Are you in favor of, or against, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act?
186 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:27 am
Sinz54: I don’t agree with the human life amendment, or the defense of marriage act. Like I said, I believe the states should handle most issues.
187 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:30 am
If Conservatives believed in Federalism, why would they demand a Defense of Marriage Act when states start legalizing gay marriage? Where is the principle, other than buried in bigotry? If conservatives really believed in the right of a State to decide choice, why the continued request for a right to life amendment to the Constitution?
And sinz54, why are you spelling out g-a-y-s? Last I heard, they like that word without the hyphens.
188 ExGOPer // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:32 am
Fitz: “marriage preservationists”?? That’s the most Orwellian Doublespeak term I’ve ever read. Quite to the contrary, those who are unwilling to extend these rights to gays are marriage exclusionists. This is Christianist meddling with the conservative philosophy. Good luck trying to win elections with that.
189 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:36 am
EXGOPer: I don’t agree with banning gay marriage, or abortion, but those issues are not why Republicans lost in 2008.
190 24AheadDotCom // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:36 am
Whatever Beck is saying, very easy searches will show that there’s some truth behind his ideas. For instance, it’s not difficult at all to find top leaders pressing for some form of “new world order”. Kissinger recently said BHO had a chance to push for that. Gordon Brown recently wrote an editorial pushing for something like that. David Rockefeller admitted to working with others to create “a more integrated global political and economic structure”.
And, here’s Oliver North on FEMA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug0IL7k3elQ
See also this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnpN07J_zg
191 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:41 am
Marriage is a sacred institution, which until very recently meant that the man bought the woman, and in biblical times included polygamy. And most marriages end in divorce, which is legal, because marriage is sacred and inflexible, and is an institution, like a college. This doesn’t make any sense, Xtians!
192 Fitz // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:42 am
ExGOPer – Your analysis is anti- intellectual, ill-liberal and a-historical. To use the term Orwellian to describe those wishing to PRESERVE the age old definition of a word is Lewis Carol(wellian).. As a matter of FACT what you are calling those who are unwilling to extend these rights to gays are marriage exclusionists Is a facial change in the very definition of a core social institution… It is as “Orwellian” as Orwell ever imagined. ……….As Justice Cordy wrote in dissent, the majority of the court had – ———-transmuted the “right” to marry into a right to change the institution of marriage itself.1 “only by assuming that ‘marriage’ includes the union of two persons of the same sex does the court conclude that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples infringes on the ‘right’ of same-sex couples to ‘marry’.2 ..”[i]n context, all of these decisions and their discussions are about the ‘fundamental’ nature of the institution of marriage as it has existed and been understood in this country, not as the court has redefined it today. 3 ..Maintaining that marriage’s – ‘fundamental’ nature is derivative of the nature of the interests that underlie or are associated with it -and that a an – examination of those interests reveals that they are either not shared by same-sex couples or not implicated by the marriage statutes.4 (1,2,3,4,) – Goodridge v. Dept. of Pub. Health,798 N.E.2d 941, 955 (Mass 2003)
(Justice Cordy dissenting)
193 ExGOPer // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:54 am
Sorry, Fitz, but Ouroboros beat you to it. Marriage has undergone many, many changes throughout the ages and your conception of it is, in fact, relatively new. But the bottom line is this: the idea that denying the institution to one group is a “protection” of it is a complete sham. Furthermore, why does Massachusetts, the only state with complete marriage rights, have the lowest divorce rate while the “marriage preservationist” states in the Bible Belt have the highest divorce rates? Your argument just doesn’t wash.
194 ExGOPer // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:56 am
conservative08, no one would argue that the GOP lost the election because of the gay marriage issue. But it’s one of many issues that the party is going to need to grapple with if it doesn’t want to see itself completely marginalized in future elections.
195 Fitz // Mar 17, 2009 at 11:00 am
I truly wonder if this sight is attracting a bunch of liberal shills. Issues like same-sex marriage have supermajority support in this country.30 States have amended their constitutions to preserve marriage and many also exclude civil unions. Even liberal California has voted twice against it. The only places it ahs been successfully imposed is through a judicial activism that represents the most egregious an ill-logical assault on the rule of law a radical expansion of a imperial judiciary that has been the locust of conservative ire since the Warren Court. Yet multiple posters on this blog constantly pop up pretending that this issue is somehow #1 a political loser & #2. Redefining marriage is actually the more conservative (politically & socially) position. Yes.Im increasingly convinced that these pages are manned by leftist shills(Frum is one thing, multiple posters are another)
196 Fitz // Mar 17, 2009 at 11:06 am
Ouroboros (writes) Marriage is a sacred institution, which until very recently meant that the man bought the woman, and in biblical times included polygamy. And most marriages end in divorce, which is legal, because marriage is sacred and inflexible, and is an institution, like a college…………… – This is hilarious feminist 101 bogus history. Its so banal a rewriting of history, yet it represents the big lie that most cultural use to build there case. The very presence of such arguments prove. #1. Most posters are ill-informed of the real history behind such a central social institution #2, most posters are ill-informed of about the myriad of unique social goods marriage delivers.
197 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 11:12 am
Fitz, read your Bible. Do not call me revisionist if you’re unwilling to say why you think I’m revising something. What part of what I said is a lie? I’m well aware of the myriad social benefits of marriage, which is why I want marriage rights extended to more Americans. Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh when he says Feminism exists to allow unattractive women a place in modern society?
198 anderbilt // Mar 17, 2009 at 11:16 am
I think its pretty evident that many websites offering comment like this site are pretty well full of shills working to drive comment this way or that way. It’s a given.
RE: Beck – - He’s trying to grapple with it, and the sad thing is that a guy like him would BE a solid Republican and hooked firmly to the party if he hadn’t met so many inside-the-beltway nuanced pols and pundits who are ready to bargain away those aspects of the party that could be firm points to rally around. The resistance to open borders, the resistance to national health care, the moral difficulty of abortion-on-demand, these issues aren’t going to go away just because “New Majority” people want to be Democrat Light.
Beck will evolve BACK to the party, but the party will by then have revolved a bit rightward to meet him somewhere.
Don’t make it take forever, David.
199 ExGOPer // Mar 17, 2009 at 11:19 am
Sorry, Fitz, if anyone with a contrary opinion offends you, but you’re just proving that the GOP has become the party for closed minds and outdated thinking. You can show me a hundred polls showing that gay marriage — since this has become such a hot button issue on this thread — is opposed by a majority of Americans, but you’re willfully ignoring the troubling details in those polls: the fact that there’s a massive generational gap in attitudes on this issue. If you want to stay on the wrong side of this issue, so be it, but be prepared for the GOP to go the way of the dinosaurs. (Of course, maybe you don’t believe in evolution either, if you’re like the rest of the party “faithful.”)
200 Cforchange // Mar 17, 2009 at 11:21 am
Fox News and the Fox Network has always held the distinction of Best in Viewing for right winged hypocrisy. The broadcast schedule brings stellar contrasts like “conservative” news along side excellant family viewing like The Family Guy. Back in the station’s infancy it was Married with Children and continued on with Beverly Hills 90210. I’ve never given them an ounce of my bandwidth because of this contradiction. They would have earned my respect and probably interest had they taken the high road and played something like Barney all day. Oh but Barney was gay wasn’t he?
201 Fitz // Mar 17, 2009 at 11:28 am
Ouroboros – Marriage has always been defined and understood as male/female & centered around responsible procreation. Even under polygamy (a institution for the rich, even in biblical times.) this is the case. I believe feminism has addled your mind as to what is both possible & desirable in our society. educate yourself http://defendmarriageresources.blogspot.com/
ExGOPer – Yours is the fate accompli mixed with a strong current of – ‘historicism” .Young People #1, Say what they think their expected to say #2, inevitably grow up. On what other issue do you rest your case not in argument, but in a perceived generational shift?
202 sinz54 // Mar 17, 2009 at 11:31 am
Fitz: Let’s put same-sex marriage aside for a moment. Let’s look at all the myriad ways our current legal code discriminates against g-a-y-s. For example, a g-a-y couple living together cannot file a joint Federal tax return, or a joint state tax return in most states. Why can’t the GOP support changing that, so that the benefits of filing a joint return are available to g-a-y-s?
203 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 11:35 am
Fitz – Restating your thesis is not the same as supporting your thesis. Otherwise, you’re doing great! Also, it’s spelled “they’re.” But you’re already slipping. Before, it was strictly 1 man, 1 woman. Now it’s polygamy for the rich. …. Why does a man need to be rich to have so many wives, unless he’s buying them? Because he has more mouths to feed? Why can’t they work for a living? Oh, yeah, that’s right! Because they were property!
204 Fitz // Mar 17, 2009 at 11:44 am
Patent advocacy forms are free at any library and give those involved greater rights than under marriage. Inheritance issues are more than adequately addresses through wills 7 trusts. Even binding arbitration can address issues of property distrabnation upon the dissolution of a partnership. As the rejection of civil unions in multiple states by same-sex marriage advocates so ably demonstrates, this has never been an issue of government benefits or obligations. What it is, Is the logical extension of the sexual revolution – ..”Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don’t confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage.” .Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march on DC.(get in the game people.there is radical (socialized medicine) and then there is RADICAL (the redefining of a age old social institution into a paradigm with no objective basis- societies premiere institution for binding men & women together with their children)
205 ExGOPer // Mar 17, 2009 at 11:47 am
Fitz, if you read the subtitle of Mr. Frum’s blog, you’ll see that it’s “building a conservatism that can win again.” That’s the point here. If you think that strapping yourself to an argument that is Christianist-based, is losing support (particularly among younger voters) and is highly discriminatory is the way to go about that, you’re delusional. That’s a recipe to make the GOP completely irrelevant as a political entity.
206 Captain America // Mar 17, 2009 at 11:50 am
Pagan Rome didn’t sancion it…..Greece in the Golden Age did’nt sanction it….even cannibals in Papua New Guinea marry….but we are wiser than the ancients, and think the answer to bringing the party back is sanctioning a male-male marriage?
207 Captain America // Mar 17, 2009 at 11:56 am
and ExGOPer you paint with a broad brush…talk radio is an ally, Fox News is an ally. There are individuals in both mediums that are beyond the pale but without these two outlets can you honestly say there would be a venue for conservative ideas? Escewing the accumulated wisdom of the past 10,000 years and buying into the unproven idea that we are the cause of climate change and that America must handicap itself (while China and India thrive) is is not conservative – with all due respect
208 Captain America // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:01 pm
It IS possible to be have goodwill toward those who practice homosexuality without becoming Holland. It IS possible to take environmentalism seriously (as Republican T. Roosevelt did) without buying into the Left’s idea that we should leave billions of barrels of oil untapped, fear nuclear power, and hog-tie our industries for the sake of a theory.
209 Fitz // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Speaking purely politically in terms of building conservatism that can win again I think the GOP is in good stead visa-vie social issues like preserving marriage. The social science overwhelmingly on our side regarding family formation, as well as elemental reason.. Any delusion that thinks in a number of years republicans will be the equivalent of racists on this issue is fanciful. One will only have to say Children need their Mothers & Fathers and society should promote that to obliterate this Bull Conner meme of the cultural left. Also the free speech, religious liberty, and public school education of youth issues same-sex marriage entails will reap political rewards for generations to come. Much like feminism was popular in the beginning and now nary a woman calls herself by that name the gay movement will fast wear out its welcome and reveal itself to the ones imposing their morality on an unwelcome nation. The party of Judicial imposition will expose itself as undemocratic if it rules on this issue..In addition to this is various trends coming from Europe that sees demographic suicide in libertine culture. In France, Germany and the Soviet Union multiple pro-family policies are being adopted that offer incentives far beyond the United States in order to shore up fragmenting families and falling birthrates. ..
210 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Of course we’re wiser than the ancients. We have more knowledge than they do. If they were still alive, they’d be much more older and filled with knowledge than we are. But they are dead, and do not.
211 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Fitz, the claim that families formulated to your liking is the best way to raise children is absurd. Barack Obama, President of the United States, was raised by a single mother in an atheist household. And his children are well-behaved. Uhh….. Maybe politicians should keep away from deciding what families should look like? We all find the best way we can.
212 ExGOPer // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Capt, with all due respect, a governing philosophy that requires the intellectual heft of Steve Doocy and Sean Hannity to defend it is not a philosophy I want to be a part of. Conservatism has its merits and I want it to be a strong counterweight to the excesses of liberalism, but it has badly gone off the rails, as this thread shows. My point, several feet down the comment section, is that arguments for issues such as gay marriage are quite naturally conservative. This is about individual choice and responsibility. But unfortunately, the loudest voices of the movement (most of whom are heard on Fox News) have dumbed down the debate with Christianist tactics that villify gays and belittle their rights. No sane conservative should want to be a part of that.
213 Rhampton // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Ironically, the socially conservative Republican is, philosophically, English and not American. — “The illuminati of American Conservatism believe that Edmund Burke believed in prescriptive right–that the British Constitution celebrated by Burke was the product of ‘history’ but not of ‘abstract reason.’ That the American Revolution was fought to defend ‘our concrete rights as Englishmen’–and not our equal natural rights as human beings–has been asserted recently by our celebrated former UN Ambassador, Jeane Kirkpatrick. Indeed, whatever their differences on other matters, this opinion unites ‘paleo’ with ‘neo’ conservatives. For this reason I have characterized their clash at a Philadelphia Society meeting as having all authenticity of a professional wrestling match. No one agreeing with Jefferson, Madison, Washington, or Lincoln, on the meaning or authority of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, was permitted into the discussion.” — ‘Calhoun versus Madison’: The Transformation of the Thought of the Founding A Bicentennial Cerebration, by Harry V. Jaffa, The Claremont Institute
214 Captain America // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:30 pm
exGOPer…then we are in agreement! I just want us to cut out the friendly fire and train our guns on the elements that are truly damaging to the country
215 Fitz // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Ouroboros – Now youre just digressing into relativism bolstered by a cheap ploy to a (supposed) authoritarianism on my part. This is the social scientific consensus on child outcomes and social stability. All societies have always privileged traditional marriage and should continue to exclusively do so. So widespread is this empirically in the social scientific literature that gay legal advocacy groups dont even attempt to dispute these facts when submitted in court. Rather they concede the scientific consensus in a effort to downplay its significance.
216 sinz54 // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Fitz sez: “I think the GOP is in good stead visa-vie social issues like preserving marriage.” According to RedState.com, the GOP base will walk out if the GOP Platform offers *ANY* kind of rights to g-a-y-s, even short of marriage. And RedState accurately reflects the mood of the GOP base. Now I’ll say it again: I’m NOT saying that the GOP should endorse full same-sex marriage. I am saying that there are still numerous laws in this country that place unequal barriers in front of same-sex couples–on taxes, inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, etc.–and that the GOP should call for removing those barriers. It doesn’t mean that society is giving g-a-y couples moral approval. If you don’t approve of that g-a-y couple living near you, then shun them. Nobody’s forcing you to be friends with them. But the *Government* shouldn’t be shunning law-abiding, tax-paying Americans on lifestyle or moral grounds. That’s social engineering of EXACTLY the type we frequently accuse liberals of doing.
217 Rhampton // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Fitz — Moral relativism is a concept proudly (and at the time uniquely) American. It’s founded on the Rights of Conscience as championed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison — “Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, ‘that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.’ The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right . . . We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.”
218 bloberfe // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:40 pm
What’s “going on” is the Spite Right! Originally on LewRockwell.com:
Http://ABCDunlimited.com/ideas/rightism.html
219 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Relativism isn’t all that bad, Rorschach.
220 HollywoodBill // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:51 pm
While same sex marriage isn’t going to get majorities back into the House or Senate, much less the White House, an endorsement like the one Republican Mormon Utah Governor Jon Huntsman put out for full parity for same sex unions sends a message that the GOP has finally gotten the socons off its neck and can breathe again. And sinz you nailed it when speaking of the 70s and 80s. Everyone knew that Reagan wasn’t a religious crackpot. For cripe’s sake he was the Governor of California. There was a tacit understanding and knowledge that Reagan wasn’t going to turn the GOP or the country into a revival tent like the socons of today demand. But giving same sex couples the same inheritance rights as their heterosexual counterparts would go a long way in reestablishing the GOP as a paricipant in equality instead of being the party of hatred that it is now. And make no mistake, the socons want to get rid of Lawrence v Texas as much as Roe v Wade. It is time for the Republican Party to take a different stance on the social issues. And all that go along with Roe and Lawrence.
221 joeofpa // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Hmmm,
We’ve got a President who hangs out with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. He voted three times to deny premature infants medical care because it might “complicate” the mother’s choice to abort. And so, of course, we’re worrying about whether Glenn Beck is the one who’s a little nutty. Mr. Frum’s Strange New Respect Award from the Left should be handed out any day now.
222 conservative08 // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:58 pm
What do the Republicans here think about Mark Sanford? His focus definately isn’t on social conservatism. He’s a principled fiscal conservative…
223 Rhampton // Mar 17, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I read only a summary of Sanford’s proposal to use the stimulus to pay down state debt, but I’m intrigued. Definitely worth fighting for if it can deliver the benefits Sanford claims.
224 HollywoodBill // Mar 17, 2009 at 1:18 pm
While parts of Sanford’s bio are interesting, like the claim that he is more libertarian, the old cliche of geography being destiny might just hold true. Another Southern aging white man is definitely more acceptable than the moose hunter or the Louisian exorcist, that’s for sure. He at least is worth a look, but so is Utah’s Huntsman too.
225 ExGOPer // Mar 17, 2009 at 1:27 pm
joeofpa, puhleez drop that tired schtick about how Obama “hangs out with” Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Have you people learned nothing from the 2008 election?? This kind of toxic guilt-by-association crap is just not cutting it anymore. (Furthermore, Palin’s associations were far more intimate and more embarrassing, so I don’t think you really want to go back down that road.)
226 Fitz // Mar 17, 2009 at 1:33 pm
All Please at least try and not rap yourself in the Founders the way the left tries to wrap itself in the Constitution. Both attempts are transparent frauds. When discussing social policy of any sort the onus needs to be on those whop want change to make a compelling case for it. The more important the policy change the more compelling the case need be. We do America and the Republicans a disservice by pretending the majority of the citizens are acting in spite. This plays directly into the leftist playbook. Sadly any compromise on basic issues has been abrogated by the left in favor of an absolutist rights based judicial impositition. This is what happened on Roe and what they are driving for on same-sex marriage. They like to Federalize and Constitution-alize every issue they cant win through popular referendum. Any self described conservative who want to abandon both procedural democracy and basic public policy as for national as marriage should probably rethink his mantle.
227 Rhampton // Mar 17, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Yesterday was James Madison’s birthday — “Madison’s emphasis was different. He believed that the main reason to have separation of church and state was to help religion. He came to this view in part because of an unusual but crucial alliance he built with evangelical Christians of his day. That’s right. At that time, the evangelical Christians were the leading supporters of separation of church and state, and Madison was one of their greatest champions. They believed that not only was government repression bad but so was government help. Madison agreed and worked hand in hand with the evangelicals to press this point. In a crucial document called the Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison integrated the arguments of the Enlightenment intellectuals with the arguments of the evangelicals to create something much greater. Separating church and state would be better for both state and church. This may be a concept that’s a bit jarring to modern culture warriors.” — ‘Why I’m Celebrating Madison’s Birthday,’ by Steven Waldman, Wall Street Journal
228 Fitz // Mar 17, 2009 at 2:21 pm
If the point of Frums piece (and indeed the point of New Majority) in this regard is help the Republicans win again than it is indeed well taken by the commenter. Both Beck & OReilly have huge audiences. They both could stand with some major retooling. There is more than enough low hanging fruit on the Left and amongst Democrats and the Obama administration that a substantial movement can be generated against them for upcoming elections. A little message control is needed and that should entail Frums suggestion to put away all fridge type issues. The presence of such issues only distracts and gives ammunition to the Left. Republicans & conservatives are going to need well placed shots and careful picked fights. For example – the D.C. voucher program should have been /can be a natural for our opposition. Lets get together and hammer these guys. The fact that the likes of Beck are so random only reinforces my belief that FOX is not a shill for rebulican party but just interested in anything that gets viewers.
229 midcon // Mar 17, 2009 at 2:30 pm
It’s says a great deal about conservatives in this country when a moderate conservative website has 228 posts (229 counting mine) regarding a Glen Beck article when AIG is paying about million dollar rentention bonuses (like they are going to get hired somewhere else with AIG on their resume) with my money, Mexico imposes tariffs on American goods, and very way way of life is theartened by the public debt hole we’ve dug ourselves in the bail out. Yet, here we are – big deal of the day – Beck. Does anyone want to admit they did not have anything more important to do so they actually watched the show?
230 barker13 // Mar 17, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Conservative08 – I like Sanford a lot! He’s obviously been laying the groundwork for a probable presidential bid in ‘12 and has clearly been making the case – to me, at least – that he should be viewed as a conservative leader within the GOP establishment. BILL
231 Chekote // Mar 17, 2009 at 3:11 pm
While Frum is wasting time attacking talk show hosts, Beck and Rush have done an excellent job today reporting on the divertionary tactics used by DC. All politicians are up in arms about the bonuses and yet not a peep about the $62 billions that AIG funneled to foreign banks. Beck did an excellent job tracing legislation which started during Clinton all the way through Bush, showing how government interference helped the AIG downfall. Dodd inserted a provision in the stimulus bill (the one there was no time to read) which protected the bonuses if contracted before February 11, 2009. So much to cover about the failures of the federal government, yet Frum is still pushing Compassionate Conservatism.
232 Chekote // Mar 17, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Sanford is my favorite so far. I saw him recently at a Reagan Dinner. He was an okay speaker but needs a little more energy.
233 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Sanford is doing the exact opposite of what all actual economists with any reputations still intact say we need to do. First of all, paying down the state budget debt will not put anyone in his state back to work, nor will it improve their livelihood. What, small business owners will all of the sudden have capital to burn? Second, how many of you here would like to see your federal tax dollars not go to paying down another state’s debt? What good will it do you? Meanwhile, somebody who works a government job will be able to buy the goods your boss (if you have one) needs to sell to keep you employed. Stimulus = spending. Any politician who claims that not spending = stimulus is trying to sell you snake oil.
234 ireign // Mar 17, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Why isn’t Frum criticizing left-leaning organizations or journalists who claim they are non-partisan such as Mike Allen or Ben Smith? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20086.html
235 Fitz // Mar 17, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Ouroboros =- basically reveals himself as a hack plant on this site. What conservative goes around smearing Limbaugh for no reason??? – One minute he’s a libertine the next he’s worried about rush’s sex life???
236 Chekote // Mar 17, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Republicans Take Small Lead on Generic Congressional Ballot
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_ballot/generic_congressional_ballot
237 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I think we’re losing sight of the important topic the article above covers: Glenn Beck is a terrorist sympathizer. And it’s great to know that anyone who “smears” (accurately describes) Rush Limbaugh is a hack plant.
238 Rhampton // Mar 17, 2009 at 4:20 pm
ireign — David Frum is trying to expand the GOP to include moderates, indepedents, and right-leaning Democrats. That means confronting Rush, Levin, and anyone else who calls for banishing moderates from the Party, or who would create an environment aggressively hostile to them.
239 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 4:51 pm
And it can’t help the Conservative cause (what is it, anyhow?) when popular Conservative TV Show hosts start talking sedition.
240 sinz54 // Mar 17, 2009 at 5:27 pm
All I’m willing to say at this point is that Mark Sanford appears to be a promising figure. Too many of us have jumped the gun before–Fred Thompson; Sarah Palin; Bobby Jindal. This time, let’s be patient and see.
241 sinz54 // Mar 17, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Ouroboros: Unlike the Federal government, by state law, state governments are required to balance their budgets. Several state governments are running deficits, as spending on social programs increases as unemployment rises. If they are forced to raise taxes to cover their expenses, that’s a real business-killer and job-killer in this economy. If the S.C. government must choose between raising taxes versus using Federal funds to pay down part of its debt, the latter is clearly preferable.
242 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 5:55 pm
When has raising taxes on the wealthiest among us ever been a business killer or a job killer? The reason car manufacturers move jobs from America to Canada isn’t taxes (higher in Canada) but because Canada pays for the workforce’s healthcare – the car company does not. You want to talk about a job builder? My employer would love it if he wasn’t expected to pay our skyrocketing insurance costs for healthcare. But back to it: point me to one real world example of higher taxes for the top 5% of the electorate being a job killer. You go ahead on. Because I happen to know that during the reign of Dwight Eisenhower, the tax rate for America’s highest earners was 91%. And as we all know, Dwight Eisenhower was a communist, and the economy didn’t expand at all. (Or he was a Republican, and the economy kept growing.) If SC has to raise taxes on its wealthy during a stimulus-based economic boom, I have a feeling nobody’s gonna lose a swimming pool over it.
243 Ouroboros // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:07 pm
It has just occurred to me that earlier today, somebody in this thread referred to Conservatism as being timeless. I think that whoever said this needs to realize he sounds more like a New Age Hippie when he says things like this than he does a serious person. Liberalism is, like, forever also.
244 ireign // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:49 pm
“Rhampton, writes,” David Frum is trying to expand the GOP to include moderates, indepedents, and right-leaning Democrats. That means confronting Rush, Levin, and anyone else who calls for banishing moderates from the Party, or who would create an environment aggressively hostile to them.”
You don’t expand the party by trying to destroy others currently in the party or by going after the one news network that isn’t overwhelmingly liberal. There isn’t enough space for a divergent of views.
Although his initial goal was laudable. Let’s be clear, Frum has never ran a campaign, formulated policy, or done anything in politics besides being a speechwriter. That said, he does have important to make. However, I don’t believe Frum is honestly at this point focused primarily on rebuilding the party. Instead, he appears to be gaining traction and promoting himself by attacking others which is ironically quite similar to Limbaugh. Before he started criticizing Republicans, Frum wasn’t a regular contributor to Newsweek or MTP so the strategy is at least somewhat self-interested.
Moreover, it seems a little bit odd that the person who coined the term “axis of evil”, led the fight against immigration reform, and against Harriet Miers is now claiming the GOP is too conservative.
I like Frum (or I wouldn’t be on this site) and he has some good ideas to contribute to the debate but I am starting to worry that what is good for him may or may not be good for the GOP. I still have yet to see a plan by him that delineates in any detail how he is going to attract upper-income professionals to outweigh the social conservatives he wants to ditch.
245 ireign // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:51 pm
I meant to write, “There is enough space for a diversity of views.”
246 Chekote // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Democracy taking hold in Iraq proving the racists on the Left that they were wrong in claiming that arabs can’t handle freedom. What a bunch of bigots the so called Lefties are.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/17/video-the-most-relentlessly-upbeat-iraq-news-segment-youll-ever-see/
247 Chekote // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:02 pm
“I still have yet to see a plan by him that delineates in any detail how he is going to attract upper-income professionals to outweigh the social conservatives he wants to ditch.” Good luck in getting one. I have been asking the same thing for weeks. Frum is out to increase the hits on his site so that he can get some advertising.
248 Ouroboros // Mar 18, 2009 at 5:16 am
Who is left in the GOP today who isn’t filled with hate and resentment? If you hope to build a governing majority out of the Republican party, it’s highly probable that nobody in it today will be a part of that party in the future. The entire country thinks the GOP is poisonous. And that’s partially due to the repulsiveness of its leadership, and the scariness of the people at the KK– I mean Palin rallies. And Mr. Frum: the inventor of the phrase “Axis of Evil” won’t be a part of any majority any time soon. Unless there is some serious mea culpa and growth. I heard you had to be talked back from the abyss after your first visit to Iraq, when you saw the destruction and despair you helped create with your ability to coin simple slogans for simple people. Nobody should have tried to cheer you up. Make things right with yourself.
249 fact based // Mar 18, 2009 at 5:33 am
Poor Mr. Frum: he seeks to rally a group of civic minded, federalist society ivy league grads who want a sane, low key presentation of conservatism.. But everywhere he turns another right wing screaming, simplistic populist nut case emerges and instantly gets millions of followers.
Meanwhile that other wing of the party with power the wsj crowd is able to manipulate this popular sentiment to implement a “get govt off our backs” agenda which is really an emvironment in which they are minimally regulated and can run roughshod over the economic interests of most americans including the Beck (et al) acolytes. Expect these folk to emerge soon fighting any increased regulation of the economy and they will be laughing all the way to the bank as the “populists” back them.
go back and read what’s the matter with kansas by Thomas Frank
Oh and that fox news “excuse” rating$ the guy is know making guest appearances all over fox and they will be adding a repeat broadcast later in the evening (for west coast viewers who miss him at 5 pm eastern time)
250 Chekote // Mar 18, 2009 at 5:59 am
Ouroboros. Still recycling the old talk points on Iraq, I see. Check out this report from ABC News http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/17/video-the-most-relentlessly-upbeat-iraq-news-segment-youll-ever-see/ . The people on the Left are the racists since they believe that only whites are able to handled democracy. The Iraq War exposed to the world the fact that the Left doesn’t believe in women’s right, human rights. The Left has spent the last eight years denouncing the removal of Saddam Hussein who murdered hundreds of thousands and tortured millions. By torture I don’t mean putting undewear on someone’s head. I mean cutting off tongues. I would be ashamed to be part of such a political movement.
251 sinz54 // Mar 18, 2009 at 6:38 am
Chekote: The Left has always looked the other way at nearly EVERY totalitarian regime’s crimes. The Left looked the other way at Lenin’s crimes, Stalin’s crimes, Hitler’s crimes (until Hitler invaded their beloved Communist Russia), Khrushchev’s crimes, Mao’s crimes, and Pol Pot’s crimes. When Joan Baez tried to get her fellow lefties to say something about Pol Pot’s genocidal war, William Kunstler shot her down: “We don’t criticize socialist states!” Why? Because the Left thinks it’s busy with more important things–like destroying capitalism. The Western Left wouldn’t oppose any of the Communist regimes, because that would put them on the same side as the hated capitalist West. You saw a great example of that in 2001. Initially, the Western feminists had actually criticized the Taliban’s savagery toward women. But after 9-11, when the Bush Administration went to war against the Taliban, these feminists instantly swung 180 degrees, to OPPOSING any effort to remove the Taliban. Why? Because they couldn’t stand to be on the same side with Bush on anything!
252 sinz54 // Mar 18, 2009 at 6:52 am
The only way the GOP can break out of its present funk, is to make a conscious determination to win elections in Northern districts where the population is socially moderate. The GOP base has to get used to the idea that a hard-right candidate can’t win in Long Island NY, New Hampshire, Oregon, or Washington State. Yet if Republicans want to regain a majority in the Congress, they’re going to have to start winning outside the Bible Belt and Mountain States, in areas where the hard-right social agenda isn’t popular. Any GOP candidate who takes a district away from a Dem will have clout in the GOP. If the GOP can get some new blood into the party that is socially moderate and proud of it, it will help dilute the power of the Phyllis Schlafly wing of the GOP.
253 Chekote // Mar 18, 2009 at 6:59 am
sinz. I was going to bring up the Pol Pot tragedy but he did it better than I could. I am disappointed in Steele not sticking to his guns regarding social issues. It is quite clear that social issues – particularly abortion – need to take a backseat. Steele should push for the party to move in a more socially moderate direction. But he can’t back down as soon as Perkins rears his head.
254 Chekote // Mar 18, 2009 at 7:04 am
BTW. Here is Beck on the abortion issue. From the Daily Beast:
“I was going to ask you about him, Michael Steele, who in a recent interview with GQ, just said he was pro-choice. Is that OK with you?
Yeah, Im a libertarian, man. I am pro-life, but in my perfect world, we encourage people to make decisions that are pro-life. Thats the way it works.” I do wish that Frum would inform himself about Beck and Rush before he takes them on.
255 Bulldoglover100 // Mar 18, 2009 at 7:49 am
Other than the Far Right wing nutters are still causing our numbers to plummet with their unstable public actions and stupidity?
256 Bulldoglover100 // Mar 18, 2009 at 7:54 am
Chekote…educate yourself honey. That was before Steel the loon came back and kissed the rear neither reigons of the round mound of sound and apologized. Beck is a mentally unstable, much like Palin the magical thinking idiot, weeper who is unable to handle the fact that his party lost the election toa black man. Good gosh your on here all the time running at the mouth and you often have your stories so screwed up that it’s difficult to even read your posts. STOP reading all the Republican sites only. Educated yourself as some Republicans have been KNOWN to lie…just this week? FOX News/Rush/Beck and Palin just to name a few. Your disliking something someone says does not ever change the FACT they said it.
257 sinz54 // Mar 18, 2009 at 7:59 am
Chekote: Frum’s disenchantment with Beck wasn’t over abortion. It was over Beck’s conspiracy theorizing. Though I agree that even that is overblown. I remember all the conspiracy theories when Reagan was elected, when Clinton was elected, etc. It’s noise. The vast majority of the electorate pays no attention. All the stuff about Vince Foster didn’t keep Clinton from being re-elected. I believe that the nativism of a Tom Tancredo or a Michelle Malkin (and to a lesser extent, Beck) is a much worse problem for the GOP. It’s killing the GOP’s ability to win over Hispanics.
258 Fitz // Mar 18, 2009 at 8:13 am
I think Fact Based (below) has a excellent take on how the big money crowd tends to manipulate the populist sentiments to advance their policy agenda. They are always the first to get paid off in any incoming administration. I also believe that multiple commentary (below) feds directly into leftist prejudice of SoCo. No analysis of SoCos is complete without the understanding that the popular press & various media attack them with the most ferocity & smear them with the most abandon. Look at the instant reaction Sarah Palin invoked (regardless of your thoughts on her leadership) The republican base does and can package its agenda in a way that appeals to moderates and doesnt turn off liberals (Think Tony Perkins) It is however swimming upstream against an extremely hostile elite who will exploit any opportunity. Think how low key McCain was on the social issues In one debate he mentioned the (indeed) health issues surrounding abortion are used to deny even minimal restrictions. (which is true) Chris Mathews spent the next two days talking about how Republicans dont care about womans health Now this is transparently absurd and extremely manipulative. As if he came out against mammograms & osteoporosis screenings. So tell the SoCos to back burner it, or to accept social moderates in certain states, or to shut up entirely. But please dont mistake the lay of the land created by a hostile elite for the actual goals, aims and temperament of so many of the republican faithful.
259 HollywoodBill // Mar 18, 2009 at 8:29 am
The Palinistas had better start getting used to the reality that she doesn’t have a chance outside of the South and the Bible Belt. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_318.pdf
260 Fitz // Mar 18, 2009 at 8:59 am
HollywoodBill – I believe you, plus She’s not “Presidential Timber” – not yet anyway. I think she should go to the Senate first and be vice pres perhaps…and then I would re-judge. Anyway – I am more interested (see below) as to the savaging she recieves in the popular culture & from the Press. This must have a considerbale impact on how those numbers you point to come out. After all – Obama was a unknown 1st time Senator.
261 Chekote // Mar 18, 2009 at 9:29 am
Bulldog. If my posts bother you, skip them. BTW, Ras has the Dems and Reps basically tied in the Cogressional Generic Poll. So all this fuss about Rush, Beck is not working. People understand the difference between talk show hosts and elected officials. The former has not power to take away our money, the latter does.
262 Chekote // Mar 18, 2009 at 9:40 am
sinz. Here are recent polls regarding illegal immigration:
68% Say Those Who Employ Illegal Immigrants Should Be Punished http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/68_say_those_who_employ_illegal_immigrants_should_be_punished
73% Say Cops Should Check Immigration Status During Traffic Stops http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/73_say_cops_should_check_immigration_status_during_traffic_stops
The vast majority of American want illegal immigration stopped. The opposition as done a great job labeling racist anyone who is trying to stop illegal immigration. Hispanics or any other group DOES NOT have a right to break immigration laws and expect to be rewarded. The Republican SHOULD NOT abadon the rule of law for a few votes. Instead, they should face down the opposition, Expose their cynical shouts of “racism” and make the case to the American people.
263 dendup // Mar 18, 2009 at 10:51 am
I guess the GOP just hasn’t gotten is mesage out about illegal immigration. May it should play this clip as often as possible. BTW, this clip has a section on the trucking controversy covered by NM. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZoHlWIoCIo&feature=related
264 Rhampton // Mar 18, 2009 at 11:05 am
This is the reality the social conservatives of the GOP refuse to accept — “The research data showed that one pattern emerged loud and clear: young adults rarely possess a biblical worldview. The current study found that less than one-half of one percent of adults in the Mosaic generation i.e., those aged 18 to 23 have a biblical worldview, compared to about one out of every nine older adults. Other groups that possess a below average likelihood of having a biblical worldview included people who describe themselves as liberal on social and political matters (also less than one-half of one percent); Catholics (2%); Democrats (4%) and residents of the Northeast (4%).” — Changes in Worldview Among Christians over the Past 13 Years, by the Barna Group, 2009
265 Ouroboros // Mar 18, 2009 at 11:09 am
Chekote – the people on the left don’t think arabs can’t handle democracy because they’re arabs. The people on the left believe that in order for a democracy to function like ours, many other social institutions need to be in place already, and the people in their own country need to bring about democracy themselves. (And Republican American Presidents can’t go assassinating their democratically elected leaders, like we did to Iran.) You can’t force a culture upon another nation that doesn’t want you telling them what to do. If France had invaded the American Colonies to free them of English rule and install democracy, instead of the Americans launching their own war against England and then asking for help from the French, we would have fought the French off, and it isn’t our whiteness which would have precluded democracy. Are you following?
266 Ouroboros // Mar 18, 2009 at 11:17 am
Chekote – you know Rass polls are generally slanted towards conservatives, right? Meaning, more self-identified conservatives are polled, per sample, than exist here in reality. I wish there was a simpler way I could explain this to you, but work is busy today.
267 anderbilt // Mar 18, 2009 at 11:46 am
this whole blog is a prime example of why “building a conservatism that can win again” won’t happen because of blogs or efforts like this which are divisive. you can’t just “deride” away people like Rush and the millions who agree with his take on things. frankly a lot of people offering opinions on how the GOP should be aren’t the least bit interested in seeing it become a “winning” party again, so quite frankly i’m discounting a lot of this. again, beck will evolve as this whole thing progresses and time will tell if he has squandered some reserve, or found a way to build a totally new political energy. sadly, the new majority here, by the tone of these posts, is the majority that already got Obama elected. enough of it already.
268 Chekote // Mar 18, 2009 at 11:47 am
Ouroboros. Apparently, Ras did just fine in predicting the outcome of the 2008 election. If you believe that illegal immigration is something that Americans approve of, go right ahead. I guess your point is that you need to have Western culture in order to understand and enjoy freedom and democracy. Another racist and bigoted comment from a leftie.
269 Rhampton // Mar 18, 2009 at 12:33 pm
“you can’t just ‘deride’ away people like Rush and the millions who agree with his take on things” — Rush Limbaugh has said many, many times that he wants does not want moderates in GOP. So when we moderates criticize him (and others like Leviv), we do so because we’ve heard this for years (see “Moderate RINOS Undermine the GOP” by Rush Limbaugh, 2005), we’re sick of it, and we’re going to fight for existence in the face of banishment.
270 Ouroboros // Mar 18, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Anderbilt- I’d love to see the Republican Party become a winning party again, provided it goes back to its Lincolnian Progressive roots, boots out the racists, imperialists, fascists, corporatists, and as many of its morons as possible. Meaning, I’d gladly join a Republican party that is to the left of the Democratic party, which I really don’t see as being all that left wing at all. We could even call ourselves Conservative. It’s not like the words have any meaning, anyhow. The conservatives in Australia call themselves Liberals. And every governing philosophy of American Conservatives has met with abject failure when employed within the real world. Like communism, the success of free-market capitalism depends on the laws of physics being different from what they really are. It’s all garbage. Do what works, and if it doesn’t work, try a different way. This is very simple problem solving.
271 J.S. // Mar 23, 2009 at 6:59 pm
I only watched Glenn Beck when he was on his CNN Headline News program. When he moved to Fox, I stopped watching. From what I’m hearing all the seeds of Beck’s worst aspects are now sprouting (if not in full bloom). He needs to check his impulses…(but then that would probably not appeal to the heads of FOX “news” who seem to enjoy the breathless, hysterical, unhinged rantings of “commentators.”)
272 Jeffriesboys // Apr 4, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I am so sick and tired of those who consider themselves the “voice” of the conservative movement. Mainly because they/you are always telling us (the real working class conservatives) that we must control ourselves, everything will be ok. Well, the way things are going EVERYTHING WILL NOT BE OK. We have entrusted those in Washington to watch out for our best interests, which they most decidedly are not doing. You should look out over the landscape. There is a reason why Beck is kicking butt and taking names on a cable network and in the 5:00 time slot no less. So, rather than bash Beck and Fox News, maybe, just maybe all you country club, snooty, RINO’s had better take notes and learn a thing or two. We are watching and organizing. If the GOP keeps this up, they will be TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in 2012 and beyond.
273 jhthel // Apr 4, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Same old crowd. Anyone that has friends or know people that listen to fox know that they are the same homogenous group of people over 40 white who never watch CNN or MSNBC. They just keep it on that same channel and have it as background noise as if it is comfort music. It makes them feel good that someone thinks like them. However, it is a small group of people 4-6 million that watch it or listen to talk radio. They are a vocal group but they have had their day. The conservative era is over. The reason the other networks have lower rating is that liberal or progressives watch a lot of different things and we get news from the internet also. Ronald Reagan is dead, you guys have hijacked the GOP it used to be a progressive party now its just a mean party with a brunch of people you would not to go to a party with. When I look at the GOP I think of Canada, you would think that the US is only made up of only white people. So you guys are going to lose for the next 10 to 15 years until you get your act together and stop letting that 4-6 million people speak for the rest of you.
274 Peter Principle // Apr 4, 2009 at 7:23 pm
“But what about Fox News? Whats their excuse?”
DIANA: (drops the sheet of paper on HACKETT’s desk) “Did you see the overnights on the Network News? It has an 8 in New York and a 9 in L.A. and a 27 share in both cities. Last night, Howard Beale went on the air and yelled bullshit for two minutes, and I can tell you right now that tonight’s show will get a 30 share at least. I think we’ve lucked into something.
Paddy Chayefsky
Network
1974
And that’s what is going on at Fox News.
275 Avg. Joe // Apr 4, 2009 at 10:49 pm
I know it’s hard to believe that others don’t always share your values, David, but you’re truly showing how shallow an individual you are by trying to denegrate Beck’s push to wake people up and get them thinking. It’s scary to people like you, so you resort to calling them names and marginalizing them. Is that the best you’ve got? I guess if you don’t have any better ideas, you have to rely on tearing others down. You call that a career? So tell me David, what are you doing to help this country get back on track?……That’s what I thought: you’re not doing anything.
276 randaway // Apr 6, 2009 at 6:36 am
What is going on at FOX is “tough love”.. Our government has been taken over by the unwashed masses and bleeding heart liberals. and.. much as I love Shep.. he has always been viewed at our house as a weeensie bit liberal.. in disguise… but.. Conservatives of all stripes are worrrrried about losing the America we grew up in… forever. Hooray for Beck even if he is a weeeensie bit dramatic.
277 rightsusan // Apr 17, 2009 at 4:31 am
If the message is intended to be taken seriously, then how could any rational person act on TV in a way that would be utterly unacceptable at dinner?
Glenn Beck is not mentally stable. Anyone failing to see this is suffering a self-imposed delusion.
If Mr. Beck can form a rational thought, and in that thought he seriously fears socialism, then he should also know that by contrast alone he is doing more to promote it than anyone other than Baugh.
278 rightsusan // Apr 17, 2009 at 4:35 am
What? “When I look at the GOP I think of Canada, …” Are you serious? Regan couldn’t have been elected dog catcher in Dildo Newfoundland. Mr. jhthel you know nothing of Canada.
279 PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Glenn Beck: End Times Preacher // Sep 19, 2009 at 2:34 pm
[...] Beck’s life. Ife i predisposed to dismiss Salon as too liberal, former Bush speechwriter David Frum describes Skousen thusly: Skousen, who died in 2006, is one of the legendary cranks of the [...]
You must log in to post a comment.