The ghost of Noonan past
[Posted by Karl]
In 1992, Peggy Noonan reviewed R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.’s The Conservative Crack-Up. In that review, Noonan provided a brief history of the Reagan Era:
A party that had spent decades hanging on through low budget liberalism was finally changing. prompted by forces its establishment had not ignited and could not control.
From the West came the broad, grass-roots antitax movement signaled by passage of California’s Proposition 13. From the East came new writers with new assumptions, who argued for change in the journals of New York and Washington. The two forces converged to produce something fresh: a modern conservatism that could govern.
At the center was Ronald Reagan, who kept in one piece a naturally divided movement—social conservatives who would ban abortion, libertarians who would legalize cocaine—first by giving its members a winner when they hadn’t expected to have a winner in their lifetimes. Mr. Reagan’s interests were widely and openly conservative. He had come to his beliefs at a time when the right’s tenets were clear: budgets should be balanced; put a Federal agency in charge or the Sahara and it would run out of sand. But he was receptive to new thinking and generous toward all strains of conservatism because in a way he believed In them all. His respect for other conservatives spread as if by contagion. For a decade the people he brought to Washington functioned pretty well as one big fractious family.
However, winning the Cold War eroded the GOP advantage on national security, while Pres. George H. W. Bush squandered the Republican advantage on taxes. This left social conservativism as the primary face of the party, but I digress (or do I?). Noonan continued:
But this book is best when Mr. Tyrrell speaks of the distance, the utter disconnection, between the nation’s establishment—the press, academia, the arts—and its people…
***
There are, in 1992, many kinds of conservatives. Concorde conservatives crisscrossing the Atlantic to check on this election and that caucus, cultural conservatives, bristling supply-siders, spiky libertarians and others, all rent by 12 years of intramural fighting, conflicting ambitions and snubs. A dozen years of leadership will leave you tired; a dozen years away from the grass roots, when you used to be the grass roots, might leave you disoriented. It would be amazing if they weren’t fighting, and weren’t mean.
Another turn of the 16-year cycle, and here we are again. As in the late 1970s, Californians are again poised to reject the big government policies that are wrecking the Golden State, policies that are the results of supposed moderation. If California is a bellwether in this regard, its state GOP is a microcosm of what is wrong with the Republican Party nationally. The state — and the nation — could use a Reagan, but is stuck with a Schwarzenegger. Movie star governors just ain’t what they used to be.
Meanwhile, moderate pundits like Rick Moran are repelled by grass roots protests against the spend-and-tax extremism of the Obama Administration. Moran also claims moderates are being purged from the party by those social con meanies on talk radio and the Internet. In the real world, the GOP got the political exhaustion represented by the “kinder, gentler” G.H.W. Bush, the “compassionate” G.W. Bush, Maverick John McCain and an out of touch Congressional GOP. One wonders what sort of party the Morans would build if fiscal cons and social cons are just too icky and mean.
Of course, there is plenty of blame to go around on all sides of the debate. However, just as in the early 1990s, it would be amazing if they weren’t fighting, and weren’t mean. Politics still ain’t beanbag. People who only like their tea parties with lace doilies may want to stay in the parlor, and leave the arena to others.
–Karl
[…] Cross-posted at Patterico. […]
The Greenroom » Forum Archive » The ghost of Noonan past (e2f069) — 5/5/2009 @ 6:50 amThe nation could use another Reagan? Really? We need a bunch of criminals selling missiles to Iran?
Festivus (567029) — 5/5/2009 @ 6:55 amThe Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend; and, in geo-politics, all friendships are transitory.
AD - RtR/OS! (52bfb0) — 5/5/2009 @ 7:05 amBut, your stupidity is a life-long condition!
I can only hope you’re right, and Obama goes down in history as Jimmy Carter II.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 5/5/2009 @ 7:07 amAnd much like now, the late 1970’s CA GOP (other than Sen. S.I. Hayakawa-John Tunney was that much of a doofus, eh?!) had its head firmly up its rear end. After all, how stupid can you be if you’re not organized enough to beat Governor Moonbeam?
Oh well. Thanks for the reminders, Karl, of how the more things change, the more they stay the same. Still say the GOP and conservatives should go all Emotional Appeal, though.
Brad S (9f6740) — 5/5/2009 @ 7:11 amWay too much handwringing over the state of the GOP.
Why is it so hard for GOP’ers to see that its the MSM that is leading the “death march”?? Pay attention to MS-DNC. As long as Olbermann, Maddow, and Schultz are running segments on topics generically titled “Look What the GOP is Doing NOW”, you can bet that those segments are good for the Dems.
QUIT DOING STUFF. Lay low and prepare.
The party out of power generally only returns to power based upon the mistakes and over-reaching of the party in power. It wasn’t the “Contract with America” that got the GOP back into power in 1994 — it was Gays In The Military and the Clinton Health Care initiative that created the opening that could be exploited.
Same for 2006 and 2008 — the Dems offered nothing substantive, its just that the electorate grew weary of the war and the Dems exploited the “culture of corruption” narrative the GOP brought on itself with it’s conduct.
We are 106 days into a 730 day election cycle. The GOP should shut up for the next 450 days and recruit good candidates and raise money.
WLS Shipwrecked (53653f) — 5/5/2009 @ 7:17 amI hope that WLS is not suggesting that the loyal opposition should go hide in their caves while Europe – style socialism and foreign policy is enacted on all fronts, but perhaps I missed his context here. And as for CA voters “poised to reject big Gov’t policies,” is that really true, even with the upcoming proposition on the ballot? Every time we hear this meme, the size and scope of the CA gov’t only gets immeasurably larger. IOW, I’ll believe it when I really see it.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 5/5/2009 @ 7:24 amOnce again the would-be leaders completely miss the point of the tea party rallies. Moran says to ignore the legitimate concerns of people who turned out by the hundreds of thousands and instead come up with some optimistic touchy-feely message that has nothing to do with the fact that people are very worried about what is being done to the country.
That advice reminds me of the pre-1994 Republicans, content as a permanent minority. The same situation applies to the present-day California GOP.
I don’t know if the Republican establishment is capable of returning to the message that got them elected 15 years ago. They have gotten fat and complacent and were turned out largely for corruption and frustration that they were not noticeably different from Democrats. Noonan has the same problem. She has been going to left wingers’ cocktail parties so long that she doesn’t recognize conservative values when she sees them.
Mike K (2cf494) — 5/5/2009 @ 7:24 amMoran, Frum et al should sit down and answer the question: “What do we stand for?”
And, how is it different from the Democrats?
Is there anything they hold dear enough, that they’d be willing to be excluded from the elites cocktail parties for?
LarryD (243b3d) — 5/5/2009 @ 7:43 am— One wonders what sort of party the Morans would build if fiscal cons and social cons are just too icky and mean. —
cboldt (3d73dd) — 5/5/2009 @ 7:54 am.
We’ll soon know. Just watch the National Council for a New America.
Well, if you needn’t be socially conservative, very few are fiscally conservative, what does that leave? I think the real issue is that Republicans who have gone around claiming to be social moderates and fiscal conservatives are really fiscal drunken sailors. In other words, Democrats. Is the tent large enough for them, too? Why have Republicans at all if this answer is yes?
brobin (c07c20) — 5/5/2009 @ 7:55 amThose angry at the “growing domination” of the conservative wing of the Republican Party also tend to have a very, very, very selective memory of just how Ronald Reagan was treated by moderates between Ford’s loss to Carter in 1976, and his own win in 1980, and especially the run-up to the ’80 election.
In their history Reagan lost to Bush in Iowa, said “I’m paying for this microphone” during the New Hampshire debate and then won there and totally united the party, then told Carter “There you go again” in the debate, which propelled him to the presidency in the final week of the election.
What they want to forget is the reason why Reagan needed the debate performance to break clear of Carter was the Republican moderates were still balking at supporting him in October of 1980. They got the vapors when Reagan pulled away from GHWB in the primaries and (along with Democrats and the big media folks) started the party campaign of Illinois Republican Rep. John Anderson. And the reason Anderson ran was not because he disagreed all that much with Reagan on economic issues — it was the social issues that led him and other GOP moderates to oppose Reagan, even though they knew that doing so would make it more likely Carter would win a second term in office (similarly Rush Limbaugh and talk radio are to the moderates after the 2008 election what the Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority was to those after the ’76 election).
So what we’re seeing today is hardly that much different than what was going on in the Republican Party in 1977, with the exception that the moderates and the Democrats’ main bugaboo, Sarah Palin, really doesn’t have the same experience level as Reagan did following eight years as California governor and two unsuccessful presidential runs. That doesn’t mean she can’t be a successful candidate and president, but her opponents see her as the leader of the social conservative wing of the party in the same way Reagan was in the late 70s, and see a similar sort of enthusiasm for her that has to be strangled before it gets too far.
John (692c5c) — 5/5/2009 @ 7:56 amOne wonders what sort of party the Morans would build if fiscal cons and social cons are just too icky and mean.
You get the Democratic party.
Official Internet Data Office (966fd7) — 5/5/2009 @ 9:08 amComment by Brad S — 5/5/2009 @ 7:11 am
John Tunney was a Democrat!
AD - RtR/OS! (52bfb0) — 5/5/2009 @ 9:20 amIn many respects, the more Palin is attacked, the more popular she becomes. Now if she can hone her philosophy and learn to articulate it – combined with Carter-esque policies and results repeating themselves over the next 3.5 years – she has the potential to become as formidable as Reagan in 1980.
As one who is very libertarian in philosophy – with the exception of national security, and illegal immigration and its accompanying social ills (damn, maybe that makes me an Objectivist(!) – I would love to see her move in my direction.
Horatio (55069c) — 5/5/2009 @ 9:33 amIf not a Conservative third party, then perhaps a Congressional Conservative Caucus to hold the feet of polititions to the fire, the way Nader held the feet of Democrats to the fire to force them to commit themselves leftward. A lot of people would support a Congressional Conservative Caucus.
davidt (0c740c) — 5/5/2009 @ 9:41 amWasn’t Festivus banned?
SPQR (72771e) — 5/5/2009 @ 9:53 amdmac — what I’m saying is that there is no need to try and have an answer for everything the Dems do in each 24 hour news cycle.
Be a clear voice in opposition, but don’t make the act of opposing the centerpiece of party activity.
Pick your spots — in boxing parlance, be an effective counter-puncher rather than throwing wild haymakers hoping to land a lucky shot.
WLS (53653f) — 5/5/2009 @ 9:58 am“John Tunney was a Democrat!”
I know that! I was just saying that a president of a flaky CSU-system school would normally not have any business unseating an incumbent senator unless that senator was a real doofus.
Brad S (9f6740) — 5/5/2009 @ 10:19 amKarl,
The media seems to want to cast the current electability problem with the Republican Party as a demand side problem: narrowly partisan voters casting their ballots for narrowly partisan candidates. I would argue that it is a supply side problem. In the last election cycle, we saw a who’s who of squishy conservatives making their bid for the White House. Only one candidate, Fred Thompson, offered the Reagan mix of fiscal and social conservatism, but he seemed to lack the stamina for the campaign or job. There simply were no serious Reagan-esque candidates in the field.
I’m a neocon and it took me some time to make the switch to the Republican Party. My conversion took place during the Reagan years. When I’d see Reagan on TV, I’d think: “Now there’s a man who speaks for me!” During the same period, I’d see the very narrowly partisan Pat Buchanan on TV who was there to represent Republicans and I’d think: “Is this guy from Mars?” It took me a while to realize that Reagan and his grand conservative vision really was the Republican Party and it was the place for me.
As long as the Republican Party continues to field narrowly partisan, Buchanan-esque candidates, we will remain the party from Mars.
Yours truly,
Neobuzz
Neobuzz (04e70d) — 5/5/2009 @ 10:40 amI’m not a regular Moran reader so maybe there’s some nuance I’m missing, but my impression of him is that he’s a gadly for whom bucking the conventional wisdom is an end in itself. Having a useful coherent position is left for others.
I’m also getting more than a little tired of listening to people (the media, liberal commenters, etc.) who wish nothing but ill for the Republican party presume to advise it on how best to rebuild itself.
tim maguire (4a98f0) — 5/5/2009 @ 10:43 amComment by Brad S — 5/5/2009 @ 10:19 am
I think that S.I.Hayakawa is one of the last people you should attempt to denigrate.
AD - RtR/OS! (52bfb0) — 5/5/2009 @ 10:53 amIf your academic credentials were just a fraction of his, you would be esteemed.
Also, if your personal integrity was equal to his, you would not say some of the silly things you post here.
Gene Tunney’s kid (and that was a great deal of his support in a state that at that time did not normally elect Democrats to the U.S.Senate) was not the most capable candidate available, but was a “pretty face” in the JFK mold.
And Yes, SDSU was a pretty flaky place, but the Chancellor was not so identified.
tim maguire,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (659cfc) — 5/5/2009 @ 10:56 amThe critics’ rather transparent fear is that when the public rejects Barack Peron — and they will — they will embrace principles of the Republican Party. So the critics want the GOP to become Democrat-lite.
A conservative myth, of course, and a slap in the face to every American president, citizen and soldier who battled the Cold War on many fronts through all its hot flashes from the Truman era through Pappy Bush. Conservatives, it seems, want free government, or someone else to pay for it.
Or never were. Conservatives who wax wistfully for the days of the Reagan myth are going Streisand, dreaming of the ‘way we were.’ Babs would be proud. To be kind, the Reagan era was mixed at best for most middle and lower class Americans. It was no Camelot. His own biographer noted Reagan’s detatchment from policy matters in his second term, worrying staffers who sensed his growing mental malaise. Of course, Americans have soundly rejected the legacy of the Reagan era and its flawed supply side voodoo economics after being burned in its second run in the Dubya years by its failures.
Both Tyrrell and Noonan are hardly apt champions for the party of ‘family values’ either. Their marriages collapsed. And worse, Noonan worked for the evil, liberal, big bad media giant, CBS News, as a street reporter.
Most of California’s problems can be traced to the refusal of Republican/conservative administrations to enforce immigration laws, favoring cheap labor for big business, with all the wreckage it has caused to state and local government services, from no auto insurance to overflowing emergency rooms.
Sanctuary cities be damned. If you are an illegal alien in the United States, arrest and deportation is the proper course of action.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 5/5/2009 @ 12:13 pmBe a clear voice in opposition, but don’t make the act of opposing the centerpiece of party activity.
Agreed – and thanks for the clarification, WLS.
In many respects, the more Palin is attacked, the more popular she becomes
Perhaps so – but I fear that Palin gave her opponents too many malapropisms that they’ll continue to hang around her head if she comes back in the national spotlight. No question that the media’s blatant hypocricy and rampant sexism were on full display last year, replete with their virtual press black – out of the idiocies that Biden said on a daily basis. It was a ridiculous double – standard, but that’s life as we know it today, and Reagan knew how to talk over the media nitwits directly to the citizens. Unless she cultivates that ability shortly, she’ll continue to be defined by her lessors.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 5/5/2009 @ 12:32 pmPalin was hamstrung by the McCain handlers, who basically said “Don’t say anything, but when you do, only say what we put on this here 3X5 card.”
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 5/5/2009 @ 12:53 pm“After all, how stupid can you be if you’re not organized enough to beat Governor Moonbeam?”
Dude, Jerry Brown is probably the frontrunner to be the next Governor of California, RIGHT NOW. That’s not to say your comment is incorrect, just that its depressing.
Sean P (e57269) — 5/5/2009 @ 12:58 pmMay 5.
An eventful day worth remembering- May 5, 1961. 48 years ago today, Alan B. Shepard was launched aboard his Mercury spacecraft, Freedom 7, in the first, manned, 15 minute sub-orbital spaceflight by the United States. 20 days later, President Kennedy announced America would put a man on the moon before the decade was out.
A different time. A different America.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 5/5/2009 @ 1:03 pmMay 5.
An eventful day worth remembering- May 5, 1961. 48 years ago today, Alan B. Shepard was launched aboard his Mercury spacecraft, Freedom 7, in the first, manned, 15 minute sub-orbital spaceflight by the United States. 20 days later, President Kennedy announced America would put a man on the moon before the decade was out.
A different time. A different America.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 5/5/2009 @ 1:03 pmSorry for the double posting. Internet snafu.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 5/5/2009 @ 1:20 pmMost of California’s problems can be traced to the refusal of Republican/conservative administrations to enforce immigration laws, favoring cheap labor for big business, with all the wreckage it has caused to state and local government services, from no auto insurance to overflowing emergency rooms.
I don’t normally respond to trolls but this is so silly, it deserves a comment.
Does anyone remember Prop 187 ? Pete Wilson is blamed for supporting it and allegedly killing the GOP in California. Which party pushed drivers’ licenses for illegals ? Which party elected Lorretta Sanchez with illegal alien votes?
Democrats, with good reason I’m sorry to say, expect that illegals, once amnesty is passed, will be reliable D votes for the next two generations.
My opinion is that people like Frum, who is much better informed than most of the moderate wing, are looking for ways to square the circle. I comment on his blog and most of his commenters are no more Republicans than I am a martian. He has some good points but he has no audience. I know he was frustrated at NRO but his influence has declined.
Republicans need to get closer to libertarian principles. The social conservatives are not always conservative. Having said that, the role of conservatives is to try to keep civil order and defend the country.
David Brooks is so wrong, I wonder where he gets these ideas. By the way, I saw him on the escalator in the Chicago Hyatt last week and wondered why he was there.
The party of untrammeled freedom and maximum individual choice is the one that doesn’t want the parents of 13-year-olds to know they had an abortion and wants to blow up the concept of marriage for the convenience of 0.01% of the population who want to pretend that the world is gay. I don’t actually care but the party Brooks describes isn’t the one I see.
Frum has a good point about the problems of the lower middle class over the past 20 years. Becoming Democrats is not the solution.
Mike K (8df289) — 5/5/2009 @ 1:33 pmThe critics’ rather transparent fear is that when the public rejects Barack Peron — and they will — they will embrace principles of the Republican Party. So the critics want the GOP to become Democrat-lite
Give this man the $64,000 prize for getting the right answer!
Tal Benschar (44ef84) — 5/5/2009 @ 2:05 pmBrooks has never been in tune with the populist wing of the GOP – a more country club conservative you’ll never see. He was forever apologizing for Bush without giving any concrete reasons why, except to make sure he’s still welcome at the DC cocktail parties – no different from Noonan, but at one time (long ago) Brooks actually made sense.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 5/5/2009 @ 2:11 pmMore confusion from David Brooks.
Karl (57ffa9) — 5/5/2009 @ 2:38 pmMeanwhile, moderate pundits like Rick Moran are repelled by grass roots protests against the spend-and-tax extremism of the Obama Administration. Moran also claims moderates are being purged from the party by those social con meanies on talk radio and the Internet.
To those of us exposed to his views it’s Moron, not Moran, because he doesn’t understand that:
In the real world, the GOP got the political exhaustion represented by the “kinder, gentler” G.H.W. Bush, the “compassionate” G.W. Bush, Maverick John McCain and an out of touch Congressional GOP. One wonders what sort of party the Morans would build if fiscal cons and social cons are just too icky and mean.
For the last 8 years the Democrats were rabidly confrontational and vicious in their criticism of the government. They are now in power led by an elegant soft spoken extremist who is a practiced liar. And a socialist. But nonetheless a man who is continuing the much vilified NSA program and ending the war in Iraq exactly as Bush would have.
Moran doesn’t get it. And never will.
Terry Gain (4f27d2) — 5/5/2009 @ 3:06 pmHas anyone watched Brooks on PBS with that old leftie warhorse Shields? I stopped watching a few years ago, he started really getting on my nerves – what a comedown from Gigot in earlier days (but displaying the same annoying qualities as Gergen did before Gigot). He reminds me a little bit of Will also – they’re both basically prigs, and look down their noses at those too uppity to realize their proper place in the GOP roster. Hence we have to witness their horrors over people like Palin (woman who hunts, eeek!) and others who dare to protest on the public streets (ignorant hayseeds!).
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 5/5/2009 @ 3:14 pmRepublicans need to get closer to libertarian principles. The social conservatives are not always conservative.
If that happens, certain Libertarians will become Republicans again. 🙂
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (659cfc) — 5/5/2009 @ 3:17 pmIf “get closer to libertarian principles” means further crowding out Christian Conservatives, then the Republican party will indeed maintain a minority status.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 5/5/2009 @ 3:39 pmWhen will you people understand? It’s not the ideas anymore, and the continuing viciousness toward Carrie Prejean should wake you up toward that obvious fact.
But no, you have to show people that you can be “fair” and “even-handed.”
Brad S (5709e3) — 5/5/2009 @ 4:08 pm#31. Brooks is right. In more ways than one. As am I.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 5/5/2009 @ 5:57 pmAnd it’s all topped today by Boss Limbaugh who croaked, ‘we dont want you moderates or liberals in our party.’ Excuse me, Boss Limbaugh, but you are the minority in our party and the tail doesnt wag the dog. Or does it, Boss.
What a gift.
Stay out front and remind Americans why moderation, science and common sense hold no standing with conservatives. We’re so glad TIME singled you and Palin out as the only two Republicans on their 100 list. Forget pizza parlors. Try meeting in a soup kitchen in El Paso or Sacremento, not post Arlington, VA.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 5/5/2009 @ 6:08 pm#40: well, that sure settles it. What’s the next topic of discussion?
Eric Blair (33cc23) — 5/5/2009 @ 6:17 pm“… but you are the minority in our party …”
DuckCrap is a Republican, who knew?
AD - RtR/OS! (52bfb0) — 5/5/2009 @ 6:26 pmI’ll bet he’s a “Concerned Christian Conservative and lifelong Republican voter” as well………
Techie (9c008e) — 5/5/2009 @ 6:39 pmDCSCA rode up San Juan Hill with Teddy Roosevelt. Just look it up.
nk (edb3d7) — 5/5/2009 @ 7:17 pm#26- Palin was hamstrung by the McCain handlers, who basically said “Don’t say anything, but when you do, only say what we put on this here 3X5 card.” Hamstrung by handlers? Now there’s a mark of leadership, psycho… for mayor of Hooterville. Yeah, presidential timber there.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 5/5/2009 @ 7:17 pmDCSCA, do you have a mop to clean up all the bile you spew?
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/5/2009 @ 7:26 pm#4- I can only hope you’re right, and Obama goes down in history as Jimmy Carter II. Promoting presidential failure. Ahhh, the Limbaugh line. Another Dittohead follows the leader.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 5/5/2009 @ 7:31 pmMoran appears more interested in promoting himself than having a coherent position. He seems a natural allt for Frum or Brooks.
The GOP can be a pale imitation of the Dhimmies and remain a minority party or it can offer a clear cut difference and promote policies which cut government and expand the free market.
We don’t need any more “moderates” whatever that means. I suppose they are the folks that when the dhimmies demand an across the board 10% tax increase will argue for 5%. Hell if Conservativisim means anything it means leveling the income tax to a flat rate of 10%.
Thomas Jackson (a495b3) — 5/5/2009 @ 7:52 pmAhhh, the Limbaugh line. Another Dittohead follows the leader.
DCSCA, if you honestly gave Limbaugh a listen for a few weeks with an open mind, you’d be vastly more informed than you are now.
But you might have trouble dealing with facts and complicated intellectual concepts that Limbaugh discusses. He’s great at explaining abstract ideas, but even his ability might not be sufficient to compensate for your atrophied intellect. Your stunted level of comprehension appears limited to composing nasty obituaries and reciting bumper-sticker slogans.
If you weren’t so thoroughly despicable, I’d pity you.
Dittohead and Proud of It Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 5/5/2009 @ 8:19 pmCalifornians are again poised to reject the big government policies that are wrecking the Golden State, policies that are the results of supposed moderation.
In the context of the early 21st Century, it’s hilarious to talk about the Republican Party as needing to be “moderate,” to be less conservative or rightwing, when the so-called center — both politically and culturally — has gradually shifted to the left over the past 50 years. When, if anything, it’s the idiotic liberalism that a large percentage of foolish Californians has embraced for over 10 years that is an illustration of destructive and self-destructive behavior. In that case, yes, the statement that there needs to be more moderation is applicable and makes sense. But that would refer to a move away from the left, and a move to the right.
This sentence from George Will’s recent column pretty much sums it up in a few words:
Mark (411533) — 5/5/2009 @ 8:34 pmRemember, Bradley, this character’s goal is to get you upset. If tiresome mottos and astroturfing don’t work, why, juvenile insults might.
Keep in mind that this person isn’t posting to engage or inform or learn, but to pick fights. That’s it.
Dmac has thoroughly fisked all the Walter Mitty stuff.
Eric Blair (33cc23) — 5/5/2009 @ 8:45 pmKarl,
Its totally amazing and astonishing to me to see someone constitently and continually blames republicans, who only from 2005-2006 had all three houses of Government (yes 2003-2004 we had a 2 seat majority but with 4 liberal Senators – it was still virtually a tie)
First of all Karl HW BUSH did not raise taxes – the Democrats did – your constant ans consistant parade of half truths and all around well – misinformative propaganda (leftist in nature) is tiresome and wornsome
Even Wikipedia has it right about what happened
Bus wanted steep cuts in massive federal spending – so much that THATS THE BUDGET HE SUBMITTED
Congress refused – with war again on the Horizon -whats a guy to do?
Had the Democrats honored the Republican Budget there probably would not even be a deficit today – Bush’s 1989 budget was soo thoughtful and far reaching that it would have seriously reformed entitlements that we see today
But Karl its much easier to blame incorrectly (might I add again) someone who was doing the right thing
Bush didn’t raise taxes – American Presidents don’t set fiscal policy – congress does
EricPWJohnson (09a606) — 5/5/2009 @ 8:51 pmEric,
DCSCA didn’t get me upset at all.
That vile troll should be under no illusions that we think it has anything intelligent to offer here. It mocks Limbaugh, but has offered nothing substantive to refute Limbaugh, or even to indicate it has even a rudimentary awareness of what Limbaugh is talking about. Your prokaryotes could do better.
Spelling out this truth in language even it (presumably) could understand was rather . . . cathartic 😉
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 5/5/2009 @ 9:18 pm#15 In many respects, the more Palin is attacked, the more popular she becomes. Now if she can hone her philosophy and learn to articulate it – combined with Carter-esque policies and results repeating themselves over the next 3.5 years – she has the potential to become as formidable as Reagan in 1980.
My God, what a gift. Yes, run her! Please run her. Please, please, please run her.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 5/5/2009 @ 9:18 pm#50- I’d pity you.
Ditto.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 5/5/2009 @ 9:21 pmBradley, the troll, like most trolls, doesn’t understand what “dittohead” means. There is no point in arguing with a robot.
Mike K (2cf494) — 5/5/2009 @ 10:11 pmI know, I know, Mike K. It is getting pitiful to see the troll repeat its talking points to an audience that knows more than it does.
I still remember its false claim that Limbaugh allows “zero” liberal callers, when in fact they go to the front of the line. Of course, that is just one among many falsehoods DSCSA has posted here. To keep track of them, we’d need a spreadsheet.
You were right: We need a better class of trolls!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 5/5/2009 @ 10:22 pmASPCA has about 8 standard talking points, memes if you will. It inserts them in every thread that it infests, regardless of topic. It has the intellectual depth of a puddle, a dry puddle.
JD (856db3) — 5/5/2009 @ 11:05 pmHa ha. The California Democratic party is jumping the shark – their new acronym by which they will be called is the “PRI”. for they are our Institutional Revolutionary Party – think of how well that worked for our dysfunctional neighbor to the south.
Californio (6657ce) — 5/6/2009 @ 1:31 amKarl,
Required reading
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/11/us/democrats-assail-the-bush-budget-terming-it-vague.html
what started the Democrat Tax increases during the Bush I era
EricPWJohnson (09a606) — 5/6/2009 @ 3:26 am“Conservatives, it seems, want free government, or someone else to pay for it.”
– DCSCA
Conservatives want government limited by the Constitution, not one that doubles the national debt in 100 days, opens the borders, refuses to defend the country, punishes success, rewards failure, and buys private companies with tax payer’s money.
“Government,” as President Reagan said,”is not the solution. It is the problem.”
arch (c1d07f) — 5/6/2009 @ 3:45 am#62- Reagan is dead. Chrysler is owned by Fiat.
Today government is the solution and Americans clearly voted for a more activist government, reinstituting strong regulation on business and Wall Street and want a national healthcare system. Conservatives are against all of this. The American people are for it.
Conservatism has been soundly rejected by the voters of America. The Party of No offers no new solutions after 30 years of misery. It is now led by a fat, deaf, high school educated drug addict, with several failed marriages, who sits alone, locked in a room, ranting to himself beside a live microphone.
He rants that Americans need taught, not listened to. Such is the elephantine voice of a party marching toward extinction. Have some more pizza.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 5/6/2009 @ 4:48 amSame shit, different day …
JD (0d131e) — 5/6/2009 @ 6:05 amReagan lives in history. Chrysler is in bankruptcy, owned by their creditors, not Fiat.
Conservatives sat out the last two elections because neither party offered a choice. McCain is part of the gang of 14 who consistently undercut the party base. I voted for McCain, but he was my third choice.
Michael Steele is the chairman of the republican national committee, not Rush. However, Rush has a following of 22 million listeners and he often speaks the truth. Why else are you Liberals so eager to silence him?
arch (c1d07f) — 5/6/2009 @ 6:06 amarch, just remember the goals of that poster.
The ironic part is how much a ranter uses the term “rant.”
And they are the same rants, repeatedly.
The strategies are simple:
So just let the fellow rant.
Eric Blair (33cc23) — 5/6/2009 @ 6:21 amre: “Rinse and repeat,” this topic should add another line to his impressive Google resume.
carlitos (5ab40a) — 5/6/2009 @ 6:27 amChrysler is owned by Fiat.
Fiat will get just 20 percent of Chrysler. The majority stake, 55 percent goes to the UAW’s health care fund.
Of course, if reading was too hard for DCSCA’s comprehension, all it had to do was turn on the radio.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 5/6/2009 @ 6:47 amTrolls exist and post comments to see responses by real people. If you don’t engage them, they begin to doubt their own existence. They have no role in reality.
I’m reading Claire Berlinski’s book about Margaret Thatcher. Boy, do we need a Thatcher about now!
On the other hand, the Tucson tea party folks sent 1000 people to a city council meeting to protest new taxes.
More than 1000 people turned out for the rally, with at least 2/3 of them wearing red, and 120 turned in cards to speak to the council.
Warned that more than 1000 people would attend the rally, the City Council moved the meeting from City Hall to the Tucson Convention Center. However, the room they chose could only fit 500 people at a time, forcing half of those who attended the rally to wait outside for a chance to get in.
The City Council meeting, which usually lasts much less than two hours, carried on for over five hours until past 10:30 p.m. Mayor Walkup was booed loudly when he tried to put other agenda items before the public hearing.
The vast majority of people who spoke to the council were against tax increases and advocated responsible spending as the solution.
Calls for the City Council to be recalled or resign were met with cheers.
Tucson, being a college town, has a left wing city council, unusual for Arizona. My brother-in-law has talked about running for mayor. Maybe this would be a good time. He is a retired Marine fighter pilot and airline captain plus he has several businesses in Tucson.
Mike K (2cf494) — 5/6/2009 @ 6:56 amMaybe non-ideological voters have figured out that the choice between big or small government is a false dichotomy. Given the size and complexity of any government — even a minimal one that would only put out fires, police the streets and keep foreign fascists, pirates, etc. at bay — it makes sense to speak more in terms of what sort of programs work and which do not.
If Head Start reduces crime, is it really necessary to rule it out simply because it exceeds the minimum mandate of government?
If Head Start cuts the cost of high school education and/or adds significantly to the average productivity of Americans, do you really expect people to reject it, simply because you label it “the road to Serfdom?”
On the other hand, if Head Start doesn’t work, it can be unassailably dismissed on those grounds alone, without calling it, as Nixon famously did, the “Sovietization” of American education.
The same can be said for government subsidized health care. Either it works, i.e. delivers benefits that exceed costs, or it doesn’t. I think most voters are still open to arguments either way. The trouble for Republicans is, they think that simply by labeling something “liberal” or “big government” or “socialist,” they have won the argument.
That strategy worked well for decades, but it has played out. It’s dead, and the GOP doesn’t know it.
Americans aren’t more liberal than they used to be, they are more pragmatic. They want policies that work PERIOD. The Red Scare stuff about going socialist comes off as cockamamie and paranoid.
I read a lot of complaining here about how spendthrifty the American conservatives leaders are. But I read little to nothing about why they spend so much. I think conservatives can thank Reagan and then Bush II for selling free market economics as a kind of painless win-win-win formula.
Faced with the reality of the vast dislocation and wealth destruction that would take place if they didn’t use government power to help steer the economy, conservatives from Reagan to Bush chose to keep the spigot of government goodies flowing.
At the same time, voters look around the world at the economic security most Western Europeans have, and at the steady growth in Japan, China, Singapore and elsewhere in Asia.
Can you blame them for asking why industrial planning — or what Fox News calls socialism and Jonah Goldberg calls fascism — hasn’t destroyed those economies? In fact, they seem to be doing better than the U.S. by some measures.
I consider myself a libertarian pragmatist. By that I mean, the government should take any action necessary to secure the maximum long-term liberty of citizens, based on its best assessment of what will actually work — as long as it of course doesn’t violate the Constitution.
So if Head Start works, fund it, on that basis alone. Not because it is a government solution or because it helps teachers or spends more money, but because its benefits exceed its costs. If it doesn’t work, don’t do it, for that reason alone.
That, not some pipe-dream free-market utopia, is the litmus test.
Dark Beergod (e897be) — 5/6/2009 @ 7:03 am“Americans aren’t more liberal than they used to be, they are more pragmatic. They want policies that work PERIOD”
Good point. Let’s consider healthcare. Our neighbor to the North, Canada, which has 1/10-th our population, has socialized medicine. While it has certain advantages, everyone I have every spoken with says it is a nightmare: rationed care, long waits for surgery and other complex procedures, and other problems.
Thousands of Canadians cross the border to use the U.S. healthcare system; the opposite rarely occurs.
Do we really want to import that system here? Because that is where Obama and company are headed — not in one fell swoop, to be sure, but in short order.
Bored Lawyer (44ef84) — 5/6/2009 @ 7:11 amCan you blame them for asking why industrial planning — or what Fox News calls socialism and Jonah Goldberg calls fascism — hasn’t destroyed those economies? In fact, they seem to be doing better than the U.S. by some measures
You do understand that some European countries have permanent 10% unemployment? When our level reached 7%, there was a complete panic.
The reality is that the European countries have a mix of socialism and capitalism. The former acts as a drag on the latter.
(Of course, another issue is that much of Europe takes a free ride in U.S. defense spending, but that is another issue.)
Bored Lawyer (44ef84) — 5/6/2009 @ 7:14 amI consider myself a libertarian pragmatist. By that I mean, the government should take any action necessary to secure the maximum long-term liberty of citizens, based on its best assessment of what will actually work — as long as it of course doesn’t violate the Constitution.
^ Democratic talking points in bad libertarian drag.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 5/6/2009 @ 7:20 amUmmm, I’m not sure I can find any libertarian in that, Bradley. Of course, not being a libertarian myself, I might be overlooking the false libertarian that’s there. I just see big government.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 5/6/2009 @ 7:38 amIt’s nothing but another MOBY in drag – and as usual, it’s talking points are ludicrously wrongheaded, which makes it quite easy to decloak.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 5/6/2009 @ 7:46 amWhoops, Bradley beat me to it.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 5/6/2009 @ 7:47 amThe most interesting point to me is that a Moby would even target libertarians. There aren’t that many of us, after all. The Dems must be anxiously pondering what will happen when Obama’s interventionist economic policies are seen to have failed.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (f5fc50) — 5/6/2009 @ 8:04 amI think it all comes down to the tea party movement, Bradley. Not only is it not fading away (to the MSM’s continuing dismay), it’s gaining more steam, with impromptu demonstrations going on all around the country, at local town council meetings, county board meetings, etc. There are going to be even more significant demonstrations that will occur on July 4th, so it’s clear that the Obamaites are freaked out by what it represents. They’ve already been reduced to wailing about FoxNews/Limbaugh, blah, blah, blah -but no one’s buying it, and in fact idiots like Roesgan are being directly repudiated for their lies in front of their own cameras. So now they’re going after Libertarians because they’ve run out of effective memes, knowing full well that the opposition to this economic program crosses all ideological lines.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 5/6/2009 @ 8:12 amWhy Dmac! Surely you know that all of the TEA parties are just due to far right wing religious conservatives marching in lockstep with Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin.
Or so we keep hearing from people who, amazingly, are hyperpartisan toward the Left.
You know, they ought to just pay double their own taxes instead of astroturfing. But they want other people to pay more taxes. As usual.
Eric Blair (33cc23) — 5/6/2009 @ 8:15 amNixon was correct, and it certainly should be dismissed solely because it (HeadStart) doesn’t work.
But that’s not really what you wanted to hear.
EW1(SG) (5766f7) — 5/6/2009 @ 8:47 am#67- May 6 (Bloomberg) — Chrysler LLC won bankruptcy court approval to auction most of its assets by May 27 with an offer from Italy’s Fiat SpA as the lead bid in a deal that would create the world’s sixth-largest automaker. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzalez approved Chrysler’s auction plan at about 11 p.m. yesterday (May 5) in Manhattan.
The carmaker proposes to sell itself to an entity owned by Fiat, a union benefit trust, the U.S. Treasury and the Canadian government. Auburn Hills, Michigan-based Chrysler wasn’t able to do the merger outside bankruptcy protection because of opposition by some of the lenders holding $6.9 billion in secured debt. The Fiat group’s $2 billion offer for most of Chrysler’s assets will be the lead bid in an auction, which is typically required for assets sold in bankruptcy.
Once a dittohead always a dittohead. Do the Parkinson’s Jig for us.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 5/6/2009 @ 2:00 pm#64- Reagan is dead. See #80 re Chrysler. Boss Limbaugh is you leader. Embrace him.
What a gift.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 5/6/2009 @ 2:05 pmThis guy really isn’t adding any value here any more. I’d prefer stories about Von Braun to this schtick.
carlitos (5ab40a) — 5/6/2009 @ 2:10 pmIf DuckCrap had actually read what he cut&pastes, he would realize that Chrysler’s creditors still have superior claims against the assets of the company, and that no sale has, as yet, occurred.
AD - RtR/OS! (a1bed2) — 5/6/2009 @ 2:17 pmHe would also realize, that FIAT has made an opening bid, and can only prevail if no other bidders submit offers.
It is also my impression from the media reports out there, that FIAT, at this point, has not offered any real cash in this matter, but is offering its’ technology in lieu of cash.
The question then arises: How will Chrysler’s creditors receive compensation from that transfer of technology?
I will be very surprised if they can stay out of Chapter-7.
As far as Arlen Specter is concerned, it’s not about driving “moderates” from the Republican Party, it’s about the secret plan to send all imbeciles to the Democratic Party.
The downside of this plan is that the number of imbeciles was underestimated .. speaks volumes about the state of education.
Meanwhile, Arlen Specter has shown that his “imbecile” status is well deserved.
The upside for Republicans, given Specter’s treatment by the Democrats, is that it is now unlikely that any of the other “moderate” Republicans will bolt to the Democratic Party.
For this I give a big “thumbs up” to the Democrats. Good Job.
Neo (46a1a2) — 5/7/2009 @ 6:19 amAD – RtR/OS! beat me to it. The little troll’s minuscule understanding of business at #81 is on a par with its knowledge of politics:
The way this Chrysler arrangement is structured, the UAW’s massive VEBA (Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association) fund will control 55-percent of the equity in the company once it clears bankruptcy. In addition to a majority share of the company, the UAW will be given a seat on the Chrysler board of directors.
That was from Counterpunch, a lefty site the little troll must have missed reading.
Here’s the Detroit Free Press:
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 5/7/2009 @ 7:10 amGettelfinger also defended the bankruptcy plan that, as envisioned by the Obama administration, would give the UAW a 55% ownership of Chrysler and fended off criticism that the UAW is receiving favorable treatment compared with Chrysler’s secured creditors.
[…] spots like northern Virginia. Beyond that, we are seeing discontent with the status quo in California and even Cook County, […]
The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Dawn of the Dead Party (e2f069) — 5/7/2009 @ 8:28 am[…] spots like northern Virginia. Beyond that, we are seeing discontent with the status quo in California and even Cook County, […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Dawn of the Dead Party (e4ab32) — 7/22/2009 @ 12:25 am