Why is it that the Stan Evans Rule of Washington seems to apply to the liberal media? That rule is "by the time we get a conservative in there, he’s no longer a conservative"? Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson is touted as the author of the January 28 Newsweek cover story on "How My Party Lost Its Way," but Gerson has to compare the GOP to the Communists. How distasteful. Here it is:
In this cycle, many Republicans seem led to support their candidate by process of elimination – "I guess I could live with X." At the same time, many Republicans seem led to oppose candidates passionately – "The nomination of X would end Western civilization." This is a factionalism of Bolshevik fervor, and it is a bad sign. Parties that prefer purity to victory – a la Goldwater and McGovern – usually lose. At this moment, Republicans look like the party that wants to lose the most.
If were picking which conservative could represent us in Newsweek, conservatives would now find it hard to say "I guess I could live with Michael Gerson." These same Republican voters that are now being muddied with comparison to the Bolsheviks for their obsession with "purity" voted easily for Gerson’s man George W. Bush in the last two elections, despite his lack of such purity. At the very least, Gerson might have the manners not to dismiss the voters who gave him his cozy place of profit and prominence as a bunch of bloody-minded Soviet commissars.
Surely, liberal Newsweek editor Jon Meacham loved every word of this piece, especially the claim that major GOP donors are thinking of going Obama.
You could easily argue that voters who prize ideological perfection to other qualities that might make a Republican candidate electable – charm, rhetorical fluency, an ability to build trust – could be making a mistake. But Gerson is writing that conservatives should be championing everything George W. Bush did to expand the federal government, and the fact that these achievements are contrary to their vision of a freer future is beside the point:
Though all Republicans share a belief in federalism and limited government, a simplistic, exclusive emphasis on those themes serves only to confirm the worst Republican stereotypes. What does it profit Fred Thompson to criticize President Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, arguing that we should focus on "problems here"? What is the benefit when candidates turn against the No Child Left Behind Act, which has succeeded in improving minority test scores? Why attack a Medicare prescription drug care plan that has been implemented smoothly and is wildly popular among the elderly? In all these cases, why not defend achievements instead of abandoning compelling issues?
Gerson writes that Republicans need to find "compelling conservative and free-market policies that appeal to the concerns of young people, Hispanics and an anxious middle class." That sounds fine. But creating new runaway Medicare entitlements and expanding federal education spending aren’t "free-market policies."
Gerson is demanding that conservatives surrender in an arm-waving attempt to avoid "the worst Republican stereotypes." But the worst Republican stereotypes were the me-too Republicans of the liberal 1960s and 1970s who not only didn't win the Congress -- they weren't in any way persuading the public to embrace conservatism.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Yeah, what's wrong with
January 27, 2008 - 01:14 ET by balboaYeah, what's wrong with Gerson? Doesn't he know that Democrats are the only ones allowed to be compared to Communists? Did this guy not get the memo?
Fine, we'll compare them to
January 27, 2008 - 01:31 ET by fitzfongFine, we'll compare them to Nazis. Last I heard, only Republicans were allowed to be compared to Hitler and his crowd. Say, I like these "New Rules".
Witch of these thing is
January 27, 2008 - 02:07 ET by general companyWitch of these things is most like the other?
Capitalism=Communism?
or
Socialism=Communism?
So I guess he will be voting for?
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
Last I heard, only
January 27, 2008 - 10:21 ET by JasonCLast I heard, only Republicans were allowed to be compared to Hitler and his crowd.
Unless, of course, there's such a perfectly insulting portmanteau to be made, like "Hitlery Clinton", that it simply can't be passed by. I mean if I thought of that witty little gem, I'd trademark it and start printing up t-shirts.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
So, I assume you've seen
January 27, 2008 - 20:20 ET by fitzfongSo, I assume you've seen this "perfectly insulting portmanteau" in Newsweek (or some similarly "unbiased" news periodical)? 'Cause I know I've seen the Bolshevik Republican one there.
"Bolshevik Republican" is
January 27, 2008 - 23:16 ET by JasonC"Bolshevik Republican" is not a portmanteau.
And no, I've only seen Hitlery here at NB. Although "Shrillary" and "Her Royal Thighness" have made appearances on this site and other places.
And no, Newsweek is not a tool of the left.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
How highbrow
January 27, 2008 - 23:30 ET by BlondeAnd all along I thought a portmanteau was a Bogey-styled raincoat.
You liberals are just sooooooo superior.
FYI....I call Mrs. Clinton HRC. Take it as you will, Jase.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Sorry, Jason. How about
January 28, 2008 - 00:53 ET by fitzfongSorry, Jason. How about "Bolshlican"? "Republevik"? And, yes. I had to look that one up. I've never even seen that word used before. As I received a Bachelors degree in English, I suppose I should feel shame. OK, I'm over it.
I just find it odd that a periodical that would portray itself as "objective" would invite someone to spout perjoratives (covering the publication from responsibility by highlighting that this attack came ostensibly from the right) like "Bolshevik" to describe Republicans who don't happen to support a particular candidate. This site is not objective. Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh are not objective. I am not objective. No one who contributes to this thread is objective. However, unlike Newsweek, we don't pretend to be objective when we use dismissive perjoratives or portmanteaux.
I like 'Bolshlican'.
January 28, 2008 - 10:18 ET by JasonCI like 'Bolshlican'. 'Republevik' is good but it sounds like a late 50s Soviet satellite. And I only know that word because I subscribe to two e-mail words of the day and I am fanatical about vocabulary, grammar, and usage.
I was also interested that your degree is in English; as I recall, we once had a bitter discussion of academia, and in my experience, those in the humanities are the most supportive of academic institutions like tenure and peer review, perhaps because it's one of the few places where our rarefied skills are wanted. May I assume you had a bad experience?
Finally, I read the issue of Newsweek in question and their whole premise was that the Republican party is splintering and stratifying. Can this possibly be seen as untrue? In the past 8 years, the party had Bush and the WoT to rally around, a common hatred for the Clintons the 8 years before that, Bush Sr. before that, and 8 years of the conservative guru himself before that. The infighting going on now is not only alarming, but somewhat inevitable. Whether or not the Newsweek editors "enjoyed" listening to a former Bush spokesperson (or whatever he was) critique the party along lines that everyone who pays attention to politics is aware of, I just don't think that demonstrates bias. It seems as though there is a sentiment, perhaps in reaction to some of the MsM's worst bias offenses, that now the media must not even be critical of the right (and I mean critical in the classical sense), lest it be perceived as bias in and of itself.
(OK, given my earlier comments I feel compelled to point out that there are some imperfections in the preceding paragraph including a sentence ending with a preposition, but sometimes you have to go for clarity over syntactic perfection.)
I don't know if you read NW on a regular basis, or only when NB alerts you to its suspected leftist propaganda, but I think that writing it off as a tool of the left is a case of barking up the wrong tree.
And yes, Blonde, in general, we are.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason, this might be a
January 28, 2008 - 16:21 ET by fitzfongJason, this might be a stretch, but couldn't Newsweek itself be considered something of a portmanteau?
As for my academic career, it was largely satisfactory. I took classes from one or two useless professors, but most of my professors were quite good. My issue with tenure is largely with guaranteed employment in general. As I've seen it, it often empowers the underachieving beneficiaries and gives virtually no incentive for its beneficiaries to improve. I think it also stirs resentment among those who don't need tenure to preserve their positions due to their consistency of achievement...they are not rewarded for their work any more than the slacker, so they have little personal incentive to work as hard...sure, turning out future success stories is a high achievement, but it won't make this month's mortgage payment I've seen it with labor unions, with academia and especially with the Court system. For example, the majority of judges are decent people who adhere to strong ideals. However, some use the comfort of lifetime appointments to abuse their authority. Then, when questioned, dig their heels in with increasingly self-serving and absurd justifications knowing that they face little (if any) accountability...and use their lack of patience for scrutiny as an implied threat to adjudicate in the negative. And trial lawyers often play on the "unpredictability" not just of juries, but of rogue judges, to ratchet up billable hours and/or force unfavorable settlements. I know I've gone a little far afield here, and my argument may appear somewhat esoteric...and even conspiratorial...but excessive job security without proper accountability can, and often does, lead to abuse of power. And the overall benefit to the customer/the student/the people diminishes. I've seen your posts and agreed (and more often disagreed) with aspects of what you've said...but I can see that you can articulate your views and that you have passion for the work you do. That means that you don't need tenure to do the work you do because your passion will drive your achievement and others will see your work as valuable. You guarantee your employment through your achievements...and the results are better.
I can honestly tell you that I don't subscribe to Newsweek, and I don't often gravitate towards it when I'm at the local Borders. However, over the last couple of years, I've been to the Doctor's Office more than my fair share of times. Typically, you're captive in the waiting room, then in the tongue depressor/butcher paper room until the Doctor can see you. Usually, before I go in to get my blood drawn, I sample the periodicals...and not being a golf addict, I have to stick to the news magazines Time/Newsweek/U.S. News & World Report, etc. The bias is there...it's usually exhibited in subtle turns of phrase (a lot of "Some say", "experts say"...very few balancing "others say"), context games and token dissenters like this guy. How often do you see these "objective" news periodicals seizing on a sentence or a paragraph from a Scott McClellan or Alan Greenspan book as if the sentence or paragraph, outside of the context of the book, is actually the sum total of the book? I'm not suggesting that Newsweek is the New Republic or Mother Jones, but it is not straight-down-the-line-nonpartison-objective, either. It leans left of center. And perhaps this is the question to ask: Would Newsweek have given a forum like this to a former Bush speechwriter if his piece was a flattering endorsement of the battle for the soul of the Republican Party? To me, this internal battle is worth fighting (and losing, if necessary). I'm tired of the Linc Chafees, Arlen Spectors and Arnold Schwarzeneggers getting jobs they're ill-equipped to handle because "this is the best we can do for now". Schwarzenegger has been a disaster here in California, and if we have to suffer a crisis to regroup and purge the party of this country club RINO culture, I believe we'll be better off for the struggle.
Fitz, with regards to the
January 29, 2008 - 11:29 ET by JasonCFitz, with regards to the academic/tenure question, I see your point about the inherent problems with lifetime employment, but I think there is a very strong rationale in academia. Just getting to tenure is a huge uphill climb. Most people in the humanities are lucky to get it by their late-30s, and this is after spending around 7 years in grad school and another 5 on the tenure-track (which is no guarantee of tenure). Those years, especially the first 7, involve an incredible amount of hard work for very little compensation. In other words, the current academic system is quite effective in weeding out those who aren't passionately interested in their research. Nobody goes into academic humanities for the money or the leisure. The figure of the lazy professor who's just nursing tenure is, I think, just an overblown stereotype perpetuated by those who oppose tenure. And those who do fit the stereotype are likely much oldre professors who got into decades ago when achieving full professorship wasn't the lengthy, competitive crucible. So, I would predict that in the next several years, you will see an increase in intellectual output from newly-minted Ph.D.s and tenured profs because they have worked so hard to get to the point where they can devote themselves to the work they consider important. In a way, it's a capitalist morality; the huge competition and necessary hard work of getting there will increase output and quality in the long run. Finally, tenure ensures that a professor can say what they wish without ideological reprisal. Sometimes this is a big controversial deal, like with Ward Churchill or David Horowitz' fascistic little blacklist. But often it's more subtle, as in someone simply wanting to work on something that is academically unfashionable but in which they are interested. A common saying in academia is "Your first book has to be marketable. After tenure, you write the book you care about."
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason, You do exhibit
January 29, 2008 - 17:01 ET by fitzfongJason,
You do exhibit quite an interesting perspective on the benefits of the tenure system. But I have to wonder if the tenure-track is really an effective method of identifying the cream of the crop...or if it's counter-productive. From the outside, it appears that up-and-coming professors must essentially conform, stifle their true interests and creativity in the short term and avoid rocking the boat until they've essentially cleared the security firewall. Once they've achieved tenure, they can profess what they believe without much fear of reprisal. But does that necessarily serve the interests of the students? In the short term, the students are potentially exposed to "Professor-lite"...playing it safe, running the "prevent defense" to keep the clock moving, effectively denying the students of some interesting insight. In the long term, the "Trojan Horse" effect could be a huge factor. A professor with strong, even subversive opinions and ideas manages to play ball for a few years, uses his abilities to earn tenure without showing too much of his hand, then turns it up to 11 when he no longer has to float under the radar. Upon reaching tenure, said professor may be so in love with his own ideas, that he requires a regurgitation of those ideas without question from his students. Wouldn't this be somewhat akin to academic blackmail...requiring students to adopt the ideas of the professor simply to avoid getting a bad grade? Pardon all the symbolic cliches, but I think they're descriptive of my thoughts.
I've got no problem with Ward Churchill professing what he believes. While I find some of the statements attributed to him highly offensive, he has a right to speak his mind...I'd imagine students have a choice whether or not to take his courses (if any of his classes are required as prerequisites, I might take issue). But when you speak your mind and do so from a position of authority, you leave yourself open to scrutiny. As I understand it, Churchill wasn't a particularly notable professor until his "Little Eichmanns" reference. At that point, people from throughout the spectrum of academic and political thought tried to learn more about him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was discovered in his vetting that he had committed fraud in his employment application to qualify himself for a position he lacked the full qualifications to accept. As such, his tenure was "fruit from the poisoned tree" leading to whatever actions were taken. What is his status now, anyway?
As for the marketable publications requirement, I had a professor in college who got around that one pretty easily. At the beginning of the semester, we received the syllabus which contained the list of required texts for the Literary Journalism class. In amongst the Hunter S. Thompsons, the Joan Didions and the Kurt Vonneguts were a pair of books...written by my professor.
Anyway Jason, if you have the time or inclination, I'd be interested in reading your thoughts. Cheers.
-fitz
If you're around long
January 27, 2008 - 23:35 ET by balboaIf you're around long enough, everyone gets compared to Hitler.
I just find it funny that Tim thinks it's "distasteful."
I know. I saw Red Eye the
January 28, 2008 - 00:57 ET by fitzfongI know. I saw Red Eye the other day, and Greg Gutfeld signed off his "Gregalogue" with a tongue-in-cheek reference to anyone disagreeing with him being "worse than Hitler".
Bush Strategy
January 27, 2008 - 01:29 ET by Lame CherryGeorge Bush was an extremely bright boy who I believe in how God constantly won battles for him was quite on God's agenda even if I do not agree with all of what he did.
Bush had a definite plan to out spend the Democrats so they wouldn't have any more money to buy votes with. It was quite bright and plotting and he deserves credit for that tactical manuever.
The problem for the Republican party is not Putin Bolshevikism, but the fact is the hunger for an American to lead them who understood BASIC foreign policy and BASIC economic policy as Ronald Reagan did.
Right now the Republicans have not the brightest people running who have no direction or vision but are adept at saying I IS RONALD REAGAN TOO.
The Democrats are run by super hedge fund operator George Soros. The top 3 hedge fund recipients are Hillary Clinton 1, Barak Obama 2 and John Edwards number 5.
Republicans are going in a direction as the nation is going and they refuse as Americans always refuse to be led where some Hillary or McCain want to lead us over the abyss.
It is called being an American, that is all.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
This is a factionalism of
January 27, 2008 - 01:46 ET by fitzfongThis is a factionalism of Bolshevik fervor, and it is a bad sign. Parties that prefer purity to victory – a la Goldwater and McGovern – usually lose. At this moment, Republicans look like the party that wants to lose the most.
With all due respect to Mr. Gerson (not that there's any due), we here in California chose "victory" over purity in 2003 when we recalled Gray Davis and replaced him with Arnold Shriver. We overlooked Arnold's "centrist" tendencies and his Kennedy ties because we saw him as the only "Republican" who could defeat Davis in a blue state. And what did we win? A coward and a fraud who promised to rid the state of the career politicians that got California into huge deficit trouble in the first place. And now that the state will be running a $14 Billion deficit in this year's budget, what is Governor Shriver doing? Trumpeting high tax & spend "Global Warming" initiatives and supporting term EXTENSIONS for the same corrupt "career politicians" he promised to eliminate. If that's considered "victory" these days, I'll gladly take the "L", regroup and come back stronger in the face of weakened opposition. An empty victory is no victory at all.
Well Said Fitzfong
January 27, 2008 - 11:05 ET by RovinAnd you could have mentioned the 14 billion health care plan that may go down to defeat in the senate as soon as Monday. Of course, if this plan was submitted by anyone other that Arnold, the Dems would be "full steam ahead"-----damn the deficits.
Rovin
Gerson analysis
January 27, 2008 - 05:19 ET by KC MulvilleConservatism is a theory of government. "Theories are nice, but we have to get things done!" All that proves is that you're working on a different theory. Gerson betrays a hazy trust in centrism.
Gerson believes that to win voters, you have to coddle them. He thinks he's being "realistic," and anyone who disagrees is just a purist who wants to fail. But he's wrong, and I have proof: Ronald Reagan. Reagan didn't treat conservatism as a nice theory to be abandoned when facing reality. Reagan showed that conservatism was the true reality, and centrism was the failure.
Gerson talks about party
January 27, 2008 - 05:52 ET by USA4freedomGerson talks about party purity? You talk about what was winning in the 80’s? I’m sorry but if you take out all the BS,we are the customers. If you don’t give us what we want we shop (or don’t shop) some where else, (or stay home) I am sorry if you don’t like that, Its called tuff $hit. It takes a lot of gall for someone that writes speeches for Bush to tell US, that WE lost our way!!!! Whether you call it purity or what ever here is my list of what (IMHO) (we the people)..(remember that phrase??) want.
Its simple to me,what the base wants..
Not in anyparticular order..
#1: Tax cutting
#2: spending cutting
#3: pro gun
#4: pro life
#5: no ear marks
#6: build fence
#7: clamp down on companies using illegal help
#8: fair or flattax
#9: strong defense
#10: drill for oil
# 11: build more refineries
#12: cut foreign aid to countries that criticize us for 5 years
# 13: make electionday April 16th. (if we don’t get #8)
#14: win the war.
I pray that the Republicans try to understand the last election. While the conservative base may never vote for the Democrats, they (the Republicans) have to do something to EARN OUR VOTE. They seem to think we didn’t vote in that election because ofthe war. Wrong! Republicans stayed home because of:
#1 Spending
#2 Immigration / lack of wall
Our representatives need to be told “If you ignore our wishes, you will be out of work.”Unfortunately, they will be out of office after it is too late to save this country.
If their motivationis to get the immigrant vote, which is doubtful, and they lose the Republican base.
I’m so frustrated.I don’t know what to do. If they say screw you to us, the people that support them, our only relief is to vote them out of office AFTER THE FACT. At which point we will have no hope of removing the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 new immigrants. It’s very similar to the Prescription Drug Act which is costing us SO much money. Fine Bush was elected in part due to his support of thePrescription Drug Act. Now, another super large burden is left for every subsequent generation.
I feel like apassenger on the Titanic who is pointing out the iceberg, and the captain yells at me for seeing it. I don’t wont to wait until the ship is sinking from the flood of immigrants and I’m up to my ass in ice water before we decide to do something.
Then to be called names by the people that that I campaigned for and gave money to? Spent many hours defending his policies? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!!!
Linda Chavez: aspokesperson for Bush said:
“We need to quit pretending that the ‘No Amnesty’ crowd is anything other than what it is: a tiny group of angry, frightened and prejudiced loudmouths backed by political opportunists who exploit them.”
George Bush tells us: "we don't want to do what's right for America”. Are you kidding me? We are the only ones that are. We are trying to look out for our children and grandchildren. Because of this bill, we are going to leave them with larger taxes and more of a welfare state. And something that no one in the Republican party can see is that they will be out of work forever. This will become a one party country!!!!!
George Bush says that the Staunch Conservatives are "skeptical about immigration reform, primarily because they don't think the government can fix the problems.” History proves that they haven’t done much to fix the problems! There is no fence, (even after money was set aside). The administration calls the American citizens who are trying to protect our border “vigilantes.” Our government will not even back the law enforcement officers on the border. Now magically we are to trust Bush and Kennedy (of all people) with the border? I think not.
Gerson said: What does it profit Fred Thompson to criticize President Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, arguing that we should focus on "problems here"? Well for starts he was trying to get elected, you might notice Bush’s approval rating is crap, that is not all Democrats there are a lot of us that are quite pissed off from (your own party)!!
Not to mention, what does the world say after we give 15 Billion to aids help? They call us cheep! What if we give 10 dollars they call us cheep. (yes I know it is what America has always done) but I get tired of doing the right thing and still getting kicked in the ass by the world. Well what did we get for our 15 Billion, that lined alot of pockets in Africa rulers? Did the Aids rate go down? Are people suddenly seeing the light, and not having sex or using protection? Obviously not. Maybe it was used to extend the life of people that have aids..? Here is a cruel fact, if someone that has aids lives longer, does that make it more likely to pass Aids along for a longer time to people that are not infected? I don’tknow, just call me cruel or heartless but to me, giving any money to Africa is like stuffing money down a rat hole and then having the rats call you names for not giving enough!!
WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM..THE RNC/BUSH and RINO’s are THE PROBLEM.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Evangelical Spin
January 27, 2008 - 09:26 ET by PopularTech#1. Stop the Baby Killers!
#2. Destroy the Sodomites!
#3. Quote the Bible - GUARANTEED to convince all those who do not follow it literally!!!
#4. Ignore All other Issues
#5. Did I say Stop the Baby Killers and Destroy the Sodomites!
Huckabee: Raising Taxes OK
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Nothing ever changes; the
January 27, 2008 - 06:52 ET by motherbeltNothing ever changes; the main problem with Republicans is that they're not enough like Democrats.
Is Gerson angling for a job with McCain?
January 27, 2008 - 08:36 ET by Parker1227Sounds like it. Never mind that McCain is much more of a Lieberman Democrat than anything else. He occupies valuable ground in the center that the Democrats ceded when they gambled and lost on Iraq. Lieberman, and most other centrist Dems are politically homeless at this point. And they make up a big part of that silent majority whose gut instincts are so difficult for pollsters (or anyone else) to read.
Maybe McCain is a compromise offer from a Left that fears they have lost it all. A back up hand.
But he's too centrist, too much of a finger in the air populist and attention hound to get my support - even if he is preferrable to Hillary or Obama.
That said, none of the three remaining Republicans are perfect conservatives. In this, Gerson has a point.
Florida should be interesting.
PS The way the Democratic primary is melting down, with the Clintons swift-boatinging Obama for the Republicans, (and earning their place in infamy by doing so) - I think any of the surviving Republicans could win in 2008.
Not yet. The best thing that
January 27, 2008 - 09:49 ET by Evil CapitalistNot yet. The best thing that can happen is if Clinton continues to fight Obama until the convention... That would require both to spend significant amount of money, including the cash they could be spending in GE. Based on the way Obama is raising money, should he runaway with a victory on Super Tuesday, GOP could very well be outspent.
Screw Compassionate Conservatism
January 27, 2008 - 10:37 ET by PopularTechScrew Compassionate Conservatism with useless and idiotic financial aide to garbage third world countries who have not developed out of the stone age. All based on failed emotionally idealistic and naive crap. The sucker conservatives who don't understand tough love and think we have some obligation to dump money outside of this country are mentally insane. Go vote Democrat! Please get out of the party.
Compassion my ass, I am so sick of these "feel" good solutions that I want to puke. God knows how many suckers and fools in the Republican party right now really believe that being anti-CO2 caused global warming is anti-pollution or anti-environment. These absolute morons are as dumb as a rock. They vote McCain or Huckabee because they failed their science classes or are simply computer illiterate. It is maddening!!! Oh you are so "pro-environment", guess what: WE ALL ARE!!! We just did the damn research - you didn't and WE are trying to prevent YOUR energy bills from going through the goddamn roof!
Here is a clue - there is no environmental emergency and there is no evidence man-made CO2 is causing climate change least of all catastrophic. There is nothing to fight, polar bears are not dying, sea levels are not rising more than 1-2mm a year and Hurricanes are not getting worse. HELLO! CO2 is NOT POLLUTION YOU MORONS! CO2 is NOT Carbon Monoxide - You have no idea how many times I have to explain this to people.
Take your "compassion" and stick up your ass! Maybe that will wake you up to figuring out how to REALLY solve problems. No Bush spending and spending is not a smart idea. No testing standards does nothing but make public schools now have classes on how to take these tests (I am not kidding). These kids don't learn anymore then they did but they are sure good at taking standardized tests! Compassion, compassion - SCREW COMPASSION! Give me TOUGH LOVE CONSERVATISM.
Gerson is a mental idiot as well as people who think this way.
Huckabee: Raising Taxes OK
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
TOUGH LOVE CONSERVATISM
January 27, 2008 - 10:40 ET by DelsaPopularTech has my thought EXACTLY!
PT, I’m with you, SCREW
January 27, 2008 - 11:06 ET by USA4freedomPT,
I’m with you, SCREW COMPASSION! Give me TOUGH LOVE CONSERVATISM !!
The guy writes about us having the nerve to complain about our taxes being wasted on Africa. How dare us or any candidates of saying any thing about our great leader. Just because he goes against 80% of America on immeragration, that does not mean anything.
Gerson, we get it, you want a job at Mc Cain & Co. Maybe you can work with Hernandez to jam another finger in our eye!
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
The Bush legacy
January 27, 2008 - 09:59 ET by masslibertarianIt seems that President Bush's legacy will likely include a Pyrrhic victory component.
Conservatives voted for him in droves, even in 2004 after we figured out that he wasn't very conservative (steel tariffs, McCain-Feingold, Medicare Drug Act, etc.). In return for sending him back to the White House, which we had to do to secure victory in the war on terror, we got President Bush and John McCain calling us racists as they were trying to ram amnesty down our throats.
Because President Bush is labeled as a conservative by the MSM and the Dems but doesn't govern as one, he has done tremendous damage to the conservative movement. For this reason, I would much rather have Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama in the White House for 4 or 8 years doing stupid things as liberals (or progressives or whatever they call themselves these days) than I would John McCain doing stupid things as a "conservative."
Gerson can call it a search for idealogical purity or Bolshevism all he wants as he continues to miss the point. Conservatives have been badly burned by his boss, and we're not going to simply line up for 4 more years of this crap, as we know that one more "victory" may be our undoing.
that one more "victory"
January 27, 2008 - 10:19 ET by motherbeltthat one more "victory" may be our undoing.
Well put. What difference does it make whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House if the result is the same? Enough of "taking the issue away from the Democrats"..Medicare drug plan, for example. Bush called it a victory. Yeah, if you call handing over your lunch money to the bully so he won't beat you up, a victory.
"The only cure for my fever is more cowbell baby!"
January 27, 2008 - 10:27 ET by CrashThe press packs the Republican parties baggage and the Republicans board the plane in trusting fashion. In the forties the isolationists were the bane of the GOP, but, seem to be touted as a badge of honor to the Democrats and the MSM these days. It didn't work for Fred, nor does it work for Rue Paul. Gerson may have been a speech writer, but, he's a lousy analyst. Any person with a brain realizes how bad communism and socialists are, yet, those who gallantly fought against them in the fifties are derided in fanatic portrayals like Miller's Crucible. JFK hated communism in the same way his father hated jews. The press never reminds of us that little embarrassment (it was bad enough John was Catholic). The left trots out it's triple crown, welfare state, public reeducation and class envy - straight from the communist manifesto - no less.
Sorry Gerson, fear and pity only works to motivate the weak and we're looking for a leader with strength, courage, character and consistency. Rest assured, those qualities are nowhere to be found on the left.
Conservative Republican vs I'll take "any" Republican
January 27, 2008 - 10:38 ET by DelsaWell just shoot me! I am not voting for McCain because the news media say he is the one to beat Hillary or Obama. Ideas will beat them and a Republican candidate who delivers those ideas to the American people is the one with the winning card. McCain is NOT the one.
I will cast a vote in Florida for Romney. Perfect NO a winner YES. When beside Clinton or Obama touthing Conservative Ideas he wins agains the Socalist Democrats.
I pray.
How convenient
January 27, 2008 - 11:00 ET by candanceNewsweek finds a Republican operative who is willing to call Republicans Bolshevics. What kind of message does that send to liberals? It basically gives them a free pass to call us whatever they want to because Bush's speech writer brought it up first.
And of course Balboa misses the point. Republicans are called Nazis and Facists all the time. But this is like Obama's speech writer saying Dems are Klan members if they vote for someone else.
Thanks for the loyalty Gergen. From now on I'll be sure to mark "independent" when I register to vote. Can't have communists infiltrating your party.
Bolsheviks, Nazi's, Demons
January 27, 2008 - 11:38 ET by rammingspeedOne point is that only Republicans are called bad names and demonized in every fashion imaginable. Commie-pinko-goose stepping-Nazi-Bolshevik-Swastika-Hammer and Sickle and nanny nanny boo-boo, stick your head in doo-doo.
There's one side of these issues who always resorts to that tactic, and we know who they are.
In fact, demonization is their first and only move.
I'm gonna go watch some WWE.
Yep, there is demonization
January 28, 2008 - 01:41 ET by JerYep, there is demonization of Republicans by the Left, but if you have listened to as much conservative talk radio as I have over the past couple of decades, you'd have to admit the opposite is also true.
Jer
1) Although there may be
January 27, 2008 - 11:46 ET by Vinman1) Although there may be some consternation among conservatives about who is the "purest" candidate, they most certainly will not switch over to Obama in any measureable quantity. Enough of this stupidity.
2) Are GOP-watchers in the media so discouraged because the right isn't running an Obama-like candidate? So be it! What could possibly be the benefit of promoting such an unqualified person, who has hardly more experience than an average state senator?
www.wikistan.com