January 17, 2008

"It was on a blog, so I don't know if it's actually true..."

Said Rush Limbaugh, quoting something that some blogger said came from David Brooks of the New York Times. (Subscriber link to the radio show transcript.) This set up an interesting discussion, which I'll get to in a minute, but what's with "It was on a blog, so I don't know if it's actually true"?
Now, it's attributed to Brooks, but I don't know if it's true. Some blog post by a guy named Ezra Klein, who I don't know, and don't interpret this as a criticism of anybody.
I Googled some of the text and easily found Ezra's post, which contained a link to the NYT site to a piece written by David Brooks. Maybe Rush just wanted to take a gratuitous swipe at bloggers, but it doesn't say much about his level of fact checking, and since his point was to go after Brooks, why leave any question about the attribution to Brooks?

Anyway, here's what Brooks wrote:
[T]he Republican prospects in the fall just got even dimmer. I say this not only because a weak general election candidate won a primary, but because Mitt Romney’s win [in Michigan] pretty much guarantees a bitter fight for the nomination. If you doubt that, here is what Rush Limbaugh said about McCain and Huckabee on his program today: “I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party, it’s going to change it forever, be the end of it.” This week, Rush and his radio mimics have been on the rampage on the party’s modernizers, from Newt Gingrich on over.
And here's Rush's response:
I am personally trying to destroy the party's modernizers?... It is literally fascinating to hear that people who are not conservatives, or who have abandoned a lot of their conservatism, are now the party modernizers?... I am happy to be labeled and targeted as the guy who's targeting the modernizers of the Republican Party.

98 comments:

knoxwhirled said...

Well, I'm not crazy about the characterization of Huckabee as a modernizer of the republican party. I would like to think it would move in the direction of libertarianism, not a Baptist preacher "compassionate" big spender.

Trooper York said...

What does this have to do with American Idol?

save_the_rustbelt said...

If anybody destroys the GOP it will be George W. Bush, with his wild spending, unnecessary war and general disregard for competence and the Constitution.

Romney lied so much to the people of Michigan his nose should be a foot long - and Huckabee - good grief.

Then there is Rudy, who is really in love with himself. McCainis a grownup, but went off the reservation by becoming an advocate for illegal immigration.

Weak field following horrible incumbent.

Irene Done said...

Back to the theory that Rush was taking a swipe at bloggers -- when I heard the show yesterday, I wondered that too. But then as he went on to make his point, I thought it was just a throwaway comment. He was in a hurry and this was a writer he didn't know.

Given that Rush Limbaugh evidently reads a lot of blogs -- he does often reference blogs at least in a general sense -- I doubt this is the slam it sounds like.

John Lynch said...

Change should not be self-justifying. Don't change just to change. That's juvenile.

That said, it's strange to think that Rush Limbaugh is going to suddenly abandon all the ideas he's fought tooth and nail to defend for 20 years. It would be like asking Hillary Clinton to abandon public health care because it's not the future.

Well, it is the future if people vote for her. Same with Rush's ideas. If Romney or Thompson win, he's right.

Hoosier Daddy said...

“I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party, it’s going to change it forever, be the end of it.”

I don’t entirely disagree with that statement. In terms of tax cuts and USSC appointments, Bush followed conservative principles but with everything else, he’s hardly been a conservative in my eyes. Blind eye to illegal immigration, absolutely no fiscal responsibility, largest expansion of government entitlements since LBJ, NCLB etc. One can wear a the label GOP but that doesn’t make you one. I can dress up as a cucumber but that doesn’t make me a vegetable. Neither Huckleberry or McCain are what I view as conservatives in the traditional sense. To me a Huck/McCain win is still a win for the Democrats whether they admit it or not.

I'm still convinced that Bush is the Manchurian candidate and at some point in his life was probably kidnapped by a covert Democrat commando squad headed by Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi and secreted off to some compound in Vermont. He was then brainwashed by ex-KGB to destroy the GOP with dumbass policies. Although he tried to resist as best he could, he was tortured by forcing to look at naked pictures of Madeline Albright and Janet Reno wrestling in the snow.

Needless to say, resistance, was futile.

MadisonMan said...

It is literally fascinating to hear

Can something be fascinating, but not literally fascinating?

Meade said...

MadMan, I think what he literally meant was really really really fascinating.

rhhardin said...

When I heard it I took it as Rush _not_ claiming that it indicted the Drive-By media, which is his usual claim in the stuff he relays.

And there's no point in deploring bloggers, because there's every variety out there.

Unlike the mainstream media.

dax said...

The Republican party and its conservative ideals was sent to the nursing home by the G. Bush administration. An Obama or Hillary victory in 08 will put it on life support, and an Obama or Hillary re-election in 2012 will be its wake.

GOD SAVE THE AL.

B said...

There are few things that make me more ashamed of the Republican Party than the disingenousness of so many of it's famous members regarding the Republican candidates.

Rush Limbaugh, to this conservative, has done many great things for this country. However, I have not listened to Rush, except for the occasional few minutes every month or so, for years. However, Here's why:(I joined his site to do some research in his archives over the last 6 weeks)


Rush has two sides in his philosphy and presentation: the defense of American Freedoms, and the unfettered defense of rich people.

His defense of the values of America is unparalleled in today's media; Freedom is what it's all about, including the freedom to succeed.

Rush's political side, when it comes to financial politics, is primarily about what matters and affects him and those in his status. Example, the "death tax".
Rush does a service to all American's when he is a voice and activist for the repeal of the death tax. And that is because it directly affects him. But many successful people in the middle class could use a spokesperson and activist for the abolition of the AMT (which doesn't affect Rush). Oh, he's spoken about it alright, but nowhere near the passion and amount of time given to the death tax. And Washington does nothing about it. And many of my 6 figure friends have determined that the political Limbaugh is only concerned with what candidate will protect his assets.

Many - (literally hundreds) of Young Republicans at the colleges in my area are respectful of Limbaugh, but not fans. Rush is not growing in the youth demographic.
There is a new Republican Party growing - whether it wins this round remains to be seen, but the hysteria and fearmongering coming from so many rich fiscal conservative leaders and talk show hosts shows their first priority is the preservation of their personal wealth above all else, with defense and social issues down the line.

Maxine Weiss said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Simon said...

How Brooks sees Huckabee as a modernizer is beyond me, but the point I'd make is that the obvious rejoinder to Rush is that while neither McCain nor Huckabee are my first choice, the threat to the integrity of the Republican party is posed by the same kind of walkout threats that Giuliani's candidacy inspired from the right. But in my view, as I wrote about here, "if one involves oneself in the primary, one morally commits oneself to abiding by the outcome. That's the bond of trust that is a prerequisite to a primary system: it's a kind of social contract wherein I expect you to honor the result if it goes my way and you thus legitimately expet me to honor the result if it goes your way." If the people who don't like McCain or Giuliani or Huckabee can't get our preferred candidate nominated, "we should acknowledge that the party made a different choice and support the end result of the primary process." Otherwie, in essence, we act like RINOs: not in the common sense of the term as a pejorative slang for moderates, but in the sense that we are Republicans as and when it suits us, and not when not. The time to eject is before the primary begins. But once you're in, in my view, you're in, because otherwise the mutually implied agreement on which big tent parties rest evaporates.

Simon said...

B said...
"There is a new Republican Party growing - whether it wins this round remains to be seen...."

Are you alluding to Huckabee, Guiliani or someone else?

Zeb Quinn said...

... but what's with "It was on a blog, so I don't know if it's actually true"?

Hey, it's not as if bloggers are somehow ipso facto automatically imbued with the patina of a rock-solid unimpeachable authoritative source.

George said...

Limbaugh is actually a very subtle guy....

Is there anyone else, besides Limbaugh, who issues warnings about the "ChiComs"?

Notice how at the very end, after his rant against Madeline Albright, he segues into a bit about credit card debt.

That leads into a riff on wasting money.

Then! Finally! He transitions into the personalized ad for a hot water heater.

Key sentence: "And, of course, they're trying to evoke sympathy for this. Now, some of you people waste money. We all waste money."

Very clever.

Where exactly does the editorial part end and the advertisement begin?

John Stodder said...

Dax,

If you're very young, you're of course forgiven, but what nonsense. Neither Hillary nor Obama, nor an eight-year term for either of them will not be the demise of the Republican party or conservatism, anymore than 12 years of Reagan-Bush was the demise of liberalism or the Democratic Party. In the 1980-84-88 elections, Democrats got stomped. But they came back stronger in 1990 and 92, and if Bill Clinton hadn't been such a feckless narcissist, the 90s could have been a great era for Democrats.

The two Democratic candidates this year have potential to win, but also have huge problems, with only a slight margin for error. They will be elected with a very large percentage of the votes of 25 and unders and 60 and overs. That's an unstable base, inherently, because the 60 and olders are dying off and the 25 and unders are unreliable voters who tend to shift allegiance as they get older. They will almost assuredly lose among white men; as a group, white men are the least impressed by the kind of politics you saw at the Nevada debate. But their biggest problems is the smallness (Hillary) or absence (Obama) of compelling, workable, ideas of any intellectual depth. They know they want global peace and universal health care, but they don't have plans for getting either that aren't subject to massive payback from the Law of Unintended Consequences.

It's becoming more apparent to me that a lot of Republicans, probably Limbaugh included, want to lose in '08 to start a big fight in the Republican party that will clarify what the party is about. That fight will last more than four years, but eventually something new will emerge, just as voters have gotten thoroughly sick of whatever Obama or HRC represent politically. That's how politics has worked in the US from the beginning of the republic.

Maxine Weiss said...

The only thing, and I mean the ONLY thing I like about Klein is his lips. His hair is weird and boring, and looks like a toupee. His skin---he has that mole that should have been removed ages ago. His nose is too big.

(Don't high-schoolers in Irvine get nose jobs at 16? Sheesh!)

His teeth aren't wonderful, and I don't trust "brunettes" with dark eyes.

His brows aren't bad, and I've freeze-framed his hands.....which aren't bad either.

The nose and the mole have got to go, though.

And change that weird first-name.

Hoosier Daddy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hoosier Daddy said...

If the people who don't like McCain or Giuliani or Huckabee can't get our preferred candidate nominated, "we should acknowledge that the party made a different choice and support the end result of the primary process."

Simon, If I am reading your post correctly, are you stating that if say, Huckabee gets the nomination (while I wanted Thompson), as a GoP voter, I should go vote Huckabee rather than stay home or vote third party?

If that is the case, I respectfully disagree. If the Republican Party goes with either, than as far as I am concerned, the party has evolved into something other than the GoP I support. If I don’t see a whit of difference policy wise between Huck and Hillary, I fail to see why I should vote Huck simply because he calls himself a Republican.

John Stodder saidIt's becoming more apparent to me that a lot of Republicans, probably Limbaugh included, want to lose in '08 to start a big fight in the Republican party that will clarify what the party is about.

John I think you nailed it here. Personally, as a conservative, I think a Democrat win in 08 is exactly what the GOP needs to clean out its sphincter and get back to the kind of conservative principles that Reagan espoused as well as what got the GOP control of Congress in the early 1990s.

The current state of the part is abhorrent and certainly doesn't reflect the ideology that got them huge successes during those periods I mentioned.

Elliott A said...

Isn't the selection of USSC justices the most important long term consequence of the election? With modern and future medicine, a justice going on the court may be there for 35 or 40 years. They ultimately have more impact than the legislative branch on big issues. Reason enough for partisans on either side to want their candidate to win whether or not they like them.

dax said...

Mr. John Stodder - I firmly stand by my comment.
Show me true conservatism, on any level, in today's Rep. party. Please take all the time you need. I have all day.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I agree with Hoosier and John Stoddard.

The Republican party conservatives would rather see the party lose than vote for Huckabee or McCain. And they are certainly not going to vote for Hillary or Obama.

In fact, I have a friend who just registered from Independent (and who usually votes republican anyway) to Republican just so he could vote against McCain in the primary in February.

I don't agree with Simon that we should hold our noses and vote for a candidate that is not a representation of anything....anything.. that I believe in.

The Republican party is morphing into Democrat Lite. Same corruption, earmarks, open borders, give away the farm, pander to minorities and special interest groups and have abandoned the principles of conservatism which have been proven time and again to be beneficial to the economy and the Nation as a whole. They NEED a good asswhuppin'

This may be the first Presidential election in 40 years in which I will not vote. I'm that P.Oed at the entire process and will never vote for McCain or Huckabee. I could grudgingly go for Guiliani. My first choice is Thompson.

dax said...

Oh sure! Let's destroy the village so we can save it! Good God!
Let's inject 8 years of R B Ginsburg clone judges into all levels of justice and see how that works out.

ZPS said...

Nice try, Maxine.

Ezra is a fine name. And Ezra is a fine looking guy.

Jealous?

Go back to Disneyland for 5 weeks or where ever the hell you were, suffering from holiday depression.

dax said...

Dust Bunny Queen - Wasn't that asswuupin delivered last election? If that wasn't an asswuupin, what was?
It's nice to sit back and day dream that this Rep. party is going to become conservative. It's not! It's not going to happen.
Conservatism in the Rep. party died with Newt, and like the auto jobs in Detroit, it's not coming back.

garage mahal said...

Rush Limbaugh, to this conservative, has done many great things for this country

And to this liberal, keep letting this fat racist baboon define conservatism for you. I guess Ann is real tickled by a guy who openly mocks women, minorities, and people afflicted with horrible diseases.

Dreamy!

Maxine Weiss said...

He's a punk kid with a bizarre name that I can't pronounce, too hard to say, and so, it must be changed.

He's got a deviated septum, so the nose job is for health reasons.

That mole could turn cancerous, so it best be removed.

Long flowing locks would be a better hairdo for him.

Why can't we dissect his looks? He's putting himself up on video, isn't that what we do with people who willingly place themselves on video?

rcocean said...

I have agree about "Ezra". Its a weird first name - its the "Ez" combination. I pity any fool named "Ezra".

And Ezra Klein is nothing more than a cookie cutter lefty. Like an NYT editorial he's predictable and mediocre. No surprise that Rush doesn't know him.

Maxine Weiss said...

EXACTLY: It's like "Methuzalah"...why would you go around with a name like that?

John Stodder said...

Mr. John Stodder - I firmly stand by my comment.
Show me true conservatism, on any level, in today's Rep. party. Please take all the time you need. I have all day.


Short answer: Fred Thompson. Who I still think is going to end up with the nomination.

Longer answer: This shit runs in cycles, man. The problem with conservatism is nothing more than it's been done. The Reagan agenda was taken as far as it could given the political makeup of this country. Before that, the FDR agenda ditto.

I really don't know what's next. I think I know what the big issues are, but I don't hear a coherent response to all of them coming from either party or any candidate. I don't think conservatism necessarily has the answer to the entitlements crisis looming over the next 20 years. I think the odds favoring a "nanny state" rise a lot higher when you've got so much of the population heading for the wheelchairs. OTOH, the liberals have a terrible answer to the global jihad. Inane platitudes and not much else. If I squint, the next political wave looks kind of like Rudy G., except what a flawed vessel! Do we really want to be governed by a vindictive asshole with a firm grasp of reality. Or do we prefer a calmly inspiring young man who, while smart, doesn't know what he thinks? That's why this election is so fascinating and scary.

By the way, my comment to you might've been a little less intemperate if I hadn't taken yours as the triumphant bleat of a liberal netrootsy type. How wrong I was! Sorry about that.

Maxine Weiss said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
dax said...

Short answer: Fred Thompson. Who I still think is going to end up with the nomination.

As they say here in the South: Bless your heart.
Although I don't see it, I do hope you're right.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"Wasn't that asswuupin delivered last election? If that wasn't an asswuupin, what was?"

LOL. It wasn't good enough evidently. They now need a severe time out and their allowance taken away.....maybe even the keys to the car.

Seriously. I will not vote for either McCain or Huckabee and would rather eat a warbled squirrel before I would vote for Hillary or Obama.

The Republican party hacks have abandoned their base. And the people have bought into the big nanny governmental model of the Democrat/Socialist party.

peter hoh said...

Hoosier Daddy, the idea of Bush as a Manchurian Candidate was the subject of a "This Modern World" cartoon. In that version, Cheney and Rove are the ones who hatch the plot in the late 60s.

Middle Class Guy said...

garage mahal said...
…fat racist baboon


I thought that progressivism, through politically correct speech, outlawed derogatory comments about personal attributes or a person’s physical appearance. Or are only Conservatives prohibited from using words like fat?

Please provide evidence of Mr. Limbaugh’s racism- the true definition of racism- not your personal subjective one.

What have baboons ever done to you?

mmacre2000 said...

Did anyone see this Ezra Klein comment from his Twitter blog copied and posted on wonkette.com?
" Famous-for-DC American Prospect blogger Ezra Klein usually keeps it clean on his lefty blog, but on his Twitter micro-blogging ..."

Klein posted: tim russert, fuck him with a spicky acid-tipped dick"

Klein's Twitter page has since been locked and Klein insists this posting was an inside joke but maybe Rush was right questioning the professionalism of this blogger.

John Stodder said...

My Fred theory comes down to this. He has two surpassing negative virtues. No major flip-flops to explain (Romney's fatal flaw that his fans in the pundit world always mumble mumble when confronted with it). And no significant enemies (McCain and Huck's fatal flaws.)

I like Giuliani, but he's got some big problems that I don't think he can overcome. The social issue apostasy (I'm on his side, but the reality is, most of you GOPers aren't), combined with the scary personality, combined with the ridiculous love life -- maybe he could pass as a VP candidate, and he'd make a great one if the top of the ticket was a grandfatherly type like Thompson who also knows how to use TV and the web.

How it could happen: Well, first, he's got to win or place a high second in SC. So we'll know soon if he's got a prayer. Then he's got to do well in Florida. Feb 5th is a big shootout with everybody winning something, but nobody winning enough. It becomes clear at that point that you've got three red-state candidates, Romney, Huckabee and Thompson who can't win a blue state or even a purple state, and two blue-state candidates, McCain and Giuliani, who would struggle in red states. (I'm not talking about home states, but where their appeal lies.) The only winning proposition is a marriage of one of the reds with one of the blues. Certain of those matchups are so unlikely as to be ruled out. But some of them could work, especially Thompson/Rudy and Thompson/McCain. The blue staters will have some leverage in making this deal. It will have to be a pre-convention deal. Those are tickets that would still probably lose to Obama, but could beat Hillary.

TMink said...

I have NO allegience to the Republican party as they are moving further and further away from my positions on the issues. And I thought that they were a better option then the Democratic party, but after 7 years of W, I see that it is just not so.

I will vote for Fred in the primary. I could have voted for Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo too.

I cannot and will not vote for Huckabee, McCain, or Giulliani. They do not represent my views on politics. Perhaps I could vote for Romney, perhaps. And, I have been back and forth on this. Senators Clinton and Obama do not have a reality based view of people or the way government works (they are socialists, duh) so I can't vote for them. Maybe I will end up voting against one of them, but today, I would write in Fred.

Trey

reader_iam said...

... but what's with "It was on a blog, so I don't know if it's actually true"?

Rush was too busy babbling to engage in googling.

***

No, I'm not a Rush-hater. Just couldn't resist the line.

AJ Lynch said...

That was just Rush being Rush..sarcastic, irreverent and pulling someone's leg if they let him.

Maxine Weiss said...

When a son turns up with a pierced ear, we must look to the Mother, as she is responsible.

Mothers govern the fashion and style choices made by their sons at every age.

So, if there's anything strange about a son's appearance, say an earring in his ear, or piercings.....we know that Mom, in some way encouraged it.

It had nothing to do with the Father. Fathers don't get involved with style and fashion, that type of thing is exclusively a Mother's domain.

Fathers govern politics, ethics, verbal skills etc...and they pass those traits on to their children.

Leadership skills, because father is a leader. Mother is just a pushover.

But she does influence son's fashion choices, including the mistakes, like having a pierced ear.

Maxine Weiss said...

There are no Jews in Irvine.

---Except for the Klein family, apparently.

It's true, for years Jews would not move into that part of Orange County, so I'm always surprised to hear that Klein grew up in Irvine.

Unless he's lying and really grew up in say, Fountain Valley, and simply trying to pass himself off as "Irvine".

Why no Jews in Irvine? Because, for years The Irvine Co. wasn't selling the land they built their houses on. You could by the house, but they retained the land.

Bad deal. Jew = Ownership, and no self-respecting Jew is going to purchase a house without purchasing the land it's built on.

(I get freaked out by not even having mineral rights !)

I'm not saying there are no Jews in Orange County. I'm talking specifically about Irvine Co homes.

Most of the Jews that settled in the County moved into Shappell homes. Nathan Shappell was a Holocaust survivor who built quality homes throughout Orange County, and it was a better deal. You owned the land the home was built on.

Maybe things have changed, these days, in terms of the way Irvine Co. writes their purchase agreements.

Irvine is still a strange city. Basically all Wasps, and Orientals.

That's where Klein grew up?

Fascinating.

peter hoh said...

I like Thompson/McCain way better than Thompson/Giuliani.

Simon said...

Trey (and others who've raised similar points), then what do you say to, for example, a Rockefeller Republican who says "if the candidate is anyone except Romney or Guiliani, I'm not going to support them in the general election? You're saying, in effect, "I expect the party to abide by my choice, even if they disagree with it, but I won't abide by the party's choice unless I agree with it." If those participating in a primary who support various candidates don't feel honor-bound to support their chosen candidate but ultimately respect the party's choice, the party flies apart. It's only that quasi-social contract of mutual banding together that prevents all the various factions flying off in separate directions, and it's only the banding together of interests that are divergent in many regards but have points of convergence that any of us can hope to prevail. If bits of the coalition start peeling off because their preferred candidate isn't the nominee, the party becomes dysfunctional and all of us are worse off as a result.

Last election, on the other side, you didn't see trade unionists saying "if the nominee isn't Gephardt we're staying home," for example. They understood something I had thought that the Republican party intuitively grasped: that we will hang together or we will assuredly hang apart.

I don't want to speak for all GOP moderates, but I think I would feel pretty honked off if people (including Rush) who castigate moderates as "Republicans in Name Only" yet then turn around and abandon Republican candidates. Moderates have for years held their noses and put up with candidates who are not moderates; small government conservatives likewise held their noses and put up with Bush. It's a big tent party; it's in the nature of the enterprise that sometimes you're the rudder and sometimes you're the propeller. I don't support Huckabee. I don't want him to be the nominee. I don't want him to be President. I think his views across a broad range of issues are reprehensible, but the only possible circumstances in which I could imagine voting for him this fall would be if the Democratic party nominates any of the people seeking their nomination, because any of them would be much, much worse than any of the GOP nominations, even notwithstanding the mortal offense our enemies might take at a female President.

This idea that "if we let faction X nominate a really bad candidate who loses, we can wrest back control from faction X and move forward in four years" is an idea that, so far as I can determine, lacks any historical pedigree, and it's in the essence of conservatism to think that the future will generally be much like the past. If, in a fit of pique, we decide to stay home rather than support the nominee, we essentially coronate eight years of Hillary Clinton as President, and I shudder to think of what the Supreme Court will look like with six Clinton appointees (I guarantee you that four Justices resign the say the next Democratic President is sworn in, and can see Scalia and Kennedy departing before 2016).

paul a'barge said...

Thompson/Romney or Romney/Thompson ... either way, make it so and let's get it on in the general election.

Maxine Weiss said...

"Klein was born in Irvine, Orange County, California to mathematics professor Abel Klein and artist Jacqueline Klein."----Wikipedia

A mathematics professor marries an "artist" and they settle in Irvine.

Something doesn't add up here.

What's wrong with this picture?

Maxine Weiss said...

I'm probably wrong about this but....


"Abel" could be a Mexican name. Lot's of Mexicans with that first name. Abel Gomez, Abel Hernandez etc...

Wouldn't it be absolutely hysterical if an unusually dark-skinned Abel Klein was originally Abel Gomez etc... And simply changed his name converted to Judiaism, and got the very white, off-beat, and full-lipped Jacqueline to marry him.

It certainly would explain a few things.

As I say, I'm probably wrong though.

Although, I could easily find out.

Elliott A said...

I know exactly 3 families who live in Irvine. All are Jewish, and all have Jewish neighbors whom I have met. Two of my friends have lived there since early 1980's when it was first developed, the other couple moved there in about 1995. There is an Orthodox congregation there, notable since all members live in walking distance.

Maxine Weiss said...

Orange County is full of those types of people who tried to change their name and start a new life.

But, they couldn't manage to escape the prying eyes of one Maxine, though !!!!

Roost on the Moon said...

I really don't know what's next....If I squint, the next political wave looks kind of like Rudy G.

Thomas Friedman has made some very prescient predictions in his big globalization book about a potential restructuring of the American political parties. The preliminary success of Obama and Huckabee are consistent with his predictions.

If I remember correctly he doesn't use names of the parties and isn't quite this explicit, but he basically predicts that the Democrats will embrace freer trade and back off of protectionist economic policies. They'll become the party of corporate america and social liberalism. Basically, they'll skew libertarian on the economic axis, jettisoning the unions (that have done them so little good politically) and embracing the image they're already (inaccurately) branded with: the party of the elite.

At the same time, the Republicans will move in to the populist vacuum, advocating protection for the unskilled worker, closed borders, anti-China tarriffs, etc...

If he is right, Huckabee and Obama could be considered early prototypes of this new breed. If it does happen, it'll be interesting to see which sides of the new fault lines people who currently straddle them end up on.

Rush would go Dem.
OReilly would stay GOP.
Althouse would go Dem.
John Edwards would go GOP.

Maxine Weiss said...

Elliott, listen to me, and listen good: There were no Jews in Irvine prior to 1995. So your two 1980 families that moved in there then........aren't really Jewish!

Bingo.

Irvine, prior to the 1990s was a totally planned community, whereby the Irvine Co. held the land in trust. Can you imagine not owning the land your home is built upon?

(I think they leased it back to the residents at some point, but still....)

The were huge lawsuits against the Irvine Co. too, all through the 80s.

It would surprise me very much to hear that Jews bought in there back then.

Nowadays yes, having an Irvine Co. home means everything, but there's also a lot of Orientals and Ragheads that have moved in there.

It's very odd. I went to South Coast Plaza this past November and saw nothing but Orientals and Arabs scattered amidst the Wasps.

Not a single Black, but a bunch of Middle-Easterns and a phlanx of Orientals !

VTH said...

I know it's a little off topic Ann but i'd love to hear your thoughts on the following items:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/12/019408.php

and this more recent bit:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/17/politics/fromtheroad/entry3724226.shtml

and finally this bit:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/09/politics/fromtheroad/entry3694614.shtml

VTH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Stodder said...

Thanks for reminding me why Thomas Friedman makes me yawn.

There is no way the Democratic party is going to abandon the unions. If that means they'll evolve into the nativist party, that's what they'll do.

I mean, how does this transformation happen? Candidate A says, "the unions are wrong." Candidate B says, "Gladys, call my good friends at AFL-CIO, Teamsters and SEIU. Oh and send a wreath to Mrs. Candidate A."

Note that Bill Clinton's "Sister Souljah" moment took place in front of a black audience. He wouldn't have gotten away with a "John Sweeney" moment. The black vote will go Republican before the Dems will let go of the unions.

Synova said...

"Please provide evidence of Mr. Limbaugh’s racism- the true definition of racism- not your personal subjective one."

Racism is that thing, where, when you don't see any evidence of it you have to start looking for code words.

Synova said...

Racism is that thing where, when a progressive advocates abortion as a way to lower crime rates... a eugenics argument of the classical sort, that's OK, but when a conservative points out the obvious immorality of the concept, he's a racist.

Synova said...

Racism is that thing where a person's ability to be racist is determined by the color of his or her skin. For example; an Asian woman can hold sincere hate for Pink Men and express the worst stereotypes but it is not racism (nor is it sexism.)

Synova said...

Racism is that thing where it only really matters if someone deserves it or not, usually by virtue of being a race-traitor. Racism never applies to insults or slander toward those people, even if racial language or images are used.

Revenant said...

Example, the "death tax".
Rush does a service to all American's when he is a voice and activist for the repeal of the death tax. And that is because it directly affects him. But many successful people in the middle class could use a spokesperson and activist for the abolition of the AMT (which doesn't affect Rush).


How does the death tax "directly effect him"? He's unmarried and has no kids. He's got less reason to worry about the government confiscating his wealth after death than most Americans do.

As for not complaining about the AMT, why should he care more about the AMT than he does about any other taxes? He calls for tax cuts all the time. Given that the overwhelming majority of people hit by the AMT are earning well into the 6-figure range in salaries it seems pretty ridiculous to single them out as deserving of special pity.

Eli Blake said...

Rush plays fast and loose with the truth.

Let me point out somethng that he said yesterday when talking about higher CAFE standards.

He pointed out that we have to import refined products, and said that was despite "all those higher CAFE standards."

Fact: The last time CAFE standards were raised was in 1978 (that's thirty years ago) and the bill that was passed recently gives the auto manufacturers until 2020 to raise the standards. One could argue (and it has been argued) that if they'd been higher then we'd be using less oil, but Rush is the first one I've heard suggest that they already are higher which is why we aren't. In other words he makes up facts when he doesn't have any.

And that was just yesterday's monologue (I don't have a subscription because I wouldn't waste my time or money getting one; I do listen to him while traveling to Polacca twice a week mainly because it's such an isolated area that he's on the only station that comes in clearly.)

Revenant said...

You're saying, in effect, "I expect the party to abide by my choice, even if they disagree with it, but I won't abide by the party's choice unless I agree with it."

I would phrase it this way: while I do not agree with everything the party stands for, I will agree to support it provided that I can be assured that it will support those parts of its platform that I do agree with, and so long as it continues nominating candidates who are preferable to those of the opposition party.

The nomination of Huckabee -- especially following, as it would, eight years of Bush and the pathetic Republican Congress of the 2000s -- would signal to me that the Republican Party does not actually give a shit about any of the stuff in their platform except the religious and social conservative parts, and only pretend to support economic conservatives and libertarians like myself because we've got money and votes they want. In other words, it would signal that Republicans are nothing more than Bible-thumping Democrats. And given a choice between Bible-thumping Democrats and secular Democrats, I'll take the secular variety.

hdhouse said...

B said...
"Rush Limbaugh, to this conservative, has done many great things for this country."

lying one of them? he is an entertain and plays well on radio but in the end his content is fairly stupid and his commitment to truth nonexistent.

As Ann notes, he doesn't fact check at all. ever. the worst part though is that he feeds his following a plate of half-truths and half-lies and you don't know from listening to him which is which.

there is nothing "american values" about him unless you think the american value is to lie at ever turn....and i don't buy that for a second.

Revenant said...

The last time CAFE standards were raised was in 1978

That is untrue, or at least misleading. The law might not have changed in a long time, but the original law had a series of gradually-increasing fuel economy requirements. Thus, the government-mandated minimum average fuel economy increased regularly during the 70s and 80s, and was last increased (to its current level) in 1990.

Also, the CAFE standard for light trucks (i.e., SUVs) was raised a few years ago, although I believe that isn't in effect yet

AJ Lynch said...

Revenant:

Dittoes to what you said about Rush and the death tax and the AMT.

Can I add this ...the AMT disproportionally affects those who live in the higher tax states. Rush is against high taxes so it would make no sense for him to defend the AMT sufferers who are actually being afflicted by their high state and local taxes.

I believe DBQ can verify what I am saying about the AMT.

ZPS said...

Dear Maxine,

I grew up in Orange County and went to college in Irvine. My family sold real estate there, as well. There are and have been for decades plenty of Jews in Irvine. I personally know several members of the Irvine family (of the Irvine Co. you feign such authority on) and none of them are anti-semites racists, like you.

Anyone who can't pronounce Ezra has either been living under a rock or is mentally challenged. Ez is pronounced with a short "e", as heard in words like "Hi-Res" or "Mezzanine". Sorry, I know you were probably trying to say it the same way you say "EZ-Lube", but that's not correct.

Someone should really sit down with you and spend some quality time teaching you a few things about the world.

Roost on the Moon said...

There is no way the Democratic party is going to abandon the unions. If that means they'll evolve into the nativist party, that's what they'll do.

To be fair to Friedman, he leaves that door open, suggesting only that one party will become nativist/protectionist while the other becomes more pro-globalization/anti-union/elite. The more specific scenario above was my own speculation.

You're a lot more certain about this than I am. I don't know what'll happen. But I find it pretty easy to imagine Obama losing union support for operating under the assumption that the future of US manufacturing is a lost cause (which I think he does believe). And republican cultural warriors grabbing that support through anti-immigration tough-talk and anti-latte-drinker populism, and well, tariffs.

I heard a song on bad pop-country radio a few weeks ago that was pure culture-war: "How 'bout you?" by Eric Church. It's the kind of pathetic self-esteem rock that makes lots of modern country so gross. But a line about a minute in jumped out at me: "I wish that Uncle Sam would give a damn about the man whose collar is blue." I don't know if Friedman's right, but I've been noticing more and more stuff like this.

While their policies aren't really there yet, it seems as though Obama and Huckabee are testing these waters with their rhetoric.

Pogo said...

ZPS

Die Judenfeind nicht f├╝ttern.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Al, yes the AMT does porportionally affect people in high tax states. That's because the State and Local taxes and property taxes that you have paid that would ordinarily be a deduction on an itemized Schedule A, are added back to your income to be taxed at the AMT rate of 26% or 28% if over 175K.

Also added back are any charitable deductions, medical expenses over 10% of AGI instead of 7.5%, your normal standard deductions and so on. I'm not a tax preparer and I'm sure there are many more deductions that are disallowed under the AMT.

In a high tax state like California where the top bracket is 9.3% on income of about $43K. plus property taxes and interest paid on your house loan is a huge deduction that you are not allowed to take. Hardly the tax dodges of the extremely wealthy these are substantial taxes paid by any home owner and worker who makes a middle income wage.

And contrary to what Rev. thinks. A 6 figure income in San Francisco or New York City is just barely scraping by. Rush is affected by the AMT as are many more people who are of middle class and modest incomes who suddenly find that all of their deductions have been wiped out and they owe even more taxes.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Correction!!! you get your Standard Deduction, but your personal exemptions are disallowed. So, if you have a large family all the personal exemptions are wiped out.

ZPS said...

Mais je la deteste...elle pense qu'elle peut dire ce qu'elle veut.

Cedarford said...

Stodder - My Fred theory comes down to this. He has two surpassing negative virtues. No major flip-flops to explain (Romney's fatal flaw that his fans in the pundit world always mumble mumble when confronted with it).

In one of Romneys speeches to industry before becoming governor he said that he is a better decider than many, since he immerses into the data and has very good insight from watching other very talented people make decisions over the years.

BUt, he said, if it was just him, he would not be that successful. He said his best skill might listening to others that disagree with him and having the humility to change his views or a decision if he is persuaded. And listening also helps him, it seems, in his selection of people best suited to carry out the plan.
This is significantly different than the jet fighter jock management style of McCain and Bush - make a decision and stick to it, "my way or the highway".

Ive always thought a flip-flopper would ony be someone that changes his mind, does so with little thought in a short period of time, sometimes the same day. That is different than someone who sees a decsion going badly, or new thinking or new facts come in, or it was on review seen as just bad judgement.... The "flip" side of being a flop-flopper, and a far worse condition of leadership is the stubbornly, even willfully, blind manager or leader who sticks with his decision for weeks, months, years as things unravel and fail. Who is afraid to look weak by reversing a decsion or canning an appointee that has failed their position. That is from a decision usually arrived at with, at best, an inner circle of cronies knowing what the boss wants to hear.

If that is a flip-flopper, and Bush and McCain are no flip-floppers whereas Reagan flipped and flopped on positions between being governor then President, same in Romney's case? Well, I strongly prefer that latter management style that sticks to core values but pulls Marines out of Lebanon in a heartbeat when the mission turns out to have been a bad idea - and eats a little crow from those who said we should have gone in after that in full force and Reagan was being wimpy. Romney says he reconsidered stem cell research after consulting a lot of people and thinking about it and he couldn't square it with his values. If Right to live people wish to convert people to their side, it behooves not screaming at the converts that show up in camp that they are lousy, phony, flip-floppers.

That is not to say people like Reagan and Romney that have that management style - do not pander and schmooze and sometimes go with the most expedient path to the goal. Reagan was a shameless panderer. Romney wasted months trying to suck up to the Fundies. That does not make them liars or phonys.


Stodder And no significant enemies (McCain and Huck's fatal flaws.)

Not really true. People like FDR, Truman, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton
had plenty of enemies. For the most part they were external enemies. John McCain made enemies within his own Party and those people are so fed up with him that they are even violating the "collegiality" of the Senate to say McCain is a treacherous dirtball who says one thing to the public and does another with Senators behind closed doors.

Rick Santorum came out and said that the conservative members of the public have been lied to and deceived by McCain who has used the Senate backroom to try and derail progress on conservative causes well beyond the famous things he got his way on. Nothing on the stuff he tried pulling in the backrooms and was defeated by his fellow Republican Senators on. Many times, after being defeated, Santorum said McCain went out and voted for Republican legislation he opposed and even took credit later for "leading the fight to make it happen".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucmg/20080116/cm_ucmg/mccainnomoremrstraighttalk

Santorum: In an unprecedentedly frank evaluation of a former GOP colleague. Sen. Santorum, who hasn't endorsed a candidate, said McCain is "very, very dangerous for Republicans" on domestic issues.

"The bottom line is that I served 12 years with him, six years in the United States Senate," he told WABC radio talk show host Mark Levin. "And almost at every turn on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side."

Sen. McCain apparently had a nasty habit of leaving one impression in public on social issues like abortion and marriage, and another behind closed Senate doors, according to Santorum:

"That discussion is held in private, where you're jostling and jockeying to get your legislation into the queue so that you can have your time on the floor to get something done. And I can tell you, when social-conservative issues were ever raised -- whether it was marriage or abortion or a whole host of other issues -- there were always the moderates who said: 'No, no, no, we can't. They're divisive, divisive, divisive.' And more often than not, John McCain was ... with them."

"That's wrong," Santorum added. "And that gives me an insight into what he would really be like if he were president of the United States."

Maxine Weiss said...

It's not that I can't pronounce Klein's name; rather, it's that I find it unbearably inconvenient to do so.

It's not a name that rolls off the top of the tongue like "Jay" or "John".

For the record: The Clean Negro who's running for President.....I don't choose to say, or write, his name either because I find it overly exotic and too much exertion on my part to utter a name like that.

I do, very much, like the name Jacqueline Klein, but that's a gal, and gal's can have dramatic and longer names.

A guy really needs to have a short, normal name. ---Nothing too out of the ordinary, and I find Klein's name to be a challenge to utter.

I need to conserve all my vocal strength these days.

By the way: does anyone have a photo of Jacqueline Klein? I'd also like her maiden name, which I can get anyway.

A picture might be harder to come by, but I'll take anything, even a photoshop or fraudulent photo....what do I care?, I just want to get an idea of what the mother of this very full-lipped, and Irvine bred and born kid.....looks like.

Mrs. Abel Klein of Irvine, who's business title is "Artist". I'm trying to picture what such a gal looks like.

Trooper York said...

You are one creepy twist Maxine.

Revenant said...

And contrary to what Rev. thinks. A 6 figure income in San Francisco or New York City is just barely scraping by.

First of all, according to these figures, the median household income is $58,621 for San Francisco and $39,285 for New York. So if a six-figure salary is "just scraping by" in those locations, it necessarily follows that virtually everyone in those cities is in a state of personal financial catastrophe. This is not the case.

Secondly, you are forgetting that "six-figure salary" covers a wide range and isn't limited to "$100,000". 85% of people paying the AMT make between $100,000 and $500,000 per year. You could perhaps argue that $100,000 is "just barely scraping by" in the most expensive parts of the country, but $200,000 a year is good money anywhere and $500,000 per year is pretty clearly deserving of the term "rich".

Blake said...

Rev nailed it.

I'll tolerate social conservatism because I think it's--well, first it's not a credible threat any more. Nothing will roll this country back to the morals of 100 years ago, like it or don't. But just as I don't see why the government should be trying to push it, I don't see why the government needs to be pushing "secular humanist" policies, abortion, provocative art or whatever else it pushes.

Freedom is to a large extent economic freedom. I couldn't vote for W (or his father, especially in '92, for that matter) because he doesn't see that. If the social cons aren't willing to alternate a guy like W with a guy who knows how to trim things up, they're not serious about economic cons.

So, I'll vote for Fred 'cause I think he gets it. If the Reps run Huck, I'll vote against him. Otherwise, it's helllooooo Wayne Root.

(OK, I might vote for Giuliani. He'd be a freakin' blast.)

ZPS said...

Here ya go Maxine:


http://www.cdcdaycare.com/images/jackie.gif

AJ Lynch said...

Off topic a bit but are incomes stagnant? This is from a Ron Brownstein OPED today where he said high-income folks are tending to vote Dem more often. Here is his quote:

"Some of the increase among high-end voters can be explained by the simple reality that there are more of them.

From 2000 through 2006 (the most recent year for which figures are available), the share of Iowa families earning at least $75,000 increased from about one-sixth to nearly one-fourth, according to Census Bureau figures [that is a 50% increase].

In New Hampshire, the rise over the same period was from 26 percent to 38 percent [about a 45% increase]."

So which is it ? Have incomes been stagnant under Bush??

TMink said...

Simon, thanks for the thoughtful post. I need some time to digest it, but on first read I think the difference between us is that you are a Republican and I am a conservative. I mean that with no rancor or prejudice, just that my allegience is not to a party but to some ideas about governing. Today, I will vote for someone who represents my ideas, or close to them. When the day comes, I may cast the best vote possible, but today, I am only going to vote for someone who shares enough of my views.

I voted for President Bush, and I believed the prattle I heard about how he would show his true conservative leanings in the second term, and I won't be fooled again!

Aside from the abortion issue, I think I am fairly moderate socially. I favor legalization of marijuana, have no problems with same sex unions, that sort of thing. But the concept of less government being the best government is dear to my heart.

And my heart sees few people on either side of this election that share my feelings.

But I am open to persuasion, and will read your post again tomorrow. Or maybe tonight after a beer.

Trey

Middle Class Guy said...

hdhouse,
For once, I must concede, and partially agree with you.

Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, and he usually reminds his listeners of that fact. I would not consider him a great American, as I would not consider any entertainer, journalist, celebrity, or editorialist a great American.

On the other hand, Rush Limbaugh is a partisan who gets paid to express his opinions. Opinions are shaped by a mix of beliefs, facts, and sometimes half-truths. They are not necessarily absolute and are not objective. Opinions are also subject to criticism and the expression of other subjective opinions. We can agree, disagree, or if we are decent- agree to disagree.

Rush Limbaugh may or may not be honest, he may or may not regard facts, but he does what he is paid very highly to do; stir up controversy.

Middle Class Guy said...

Trooper York,
I was out and about this afternoon and picked up a listen sandwich with home made hot bbq sauce on white bread with a sie of greasy, soggy fries. It went well with the cold Corona I had in the fridge.

rcocean said...

Regarding the economic conservatives and social liberals aka Rockefeller Republicans.

They're the tail on the dog - and they should stop trying to wag the dog. They should Stop trying to destroy the party by working with the liberal MSM to push Rudy or McCain on us.

The Paulites and Rockefeller Republicans are a small minority. and most of them live in Blue states. These Blue states are all going vote Democrat anyway. So why care who they support for the Republican nomination?

They don't matter, and the rest of the Republicans shouldn't have to put up with their constant whining & bitching about "rednecks", abortion, the religious right, and "evolution". Why don't
they just join the Democrats and be Lieberman Democrats?

So they should Just shut up and vote Republican - or not. They can't help the Republicans in the general election and they hurt us with their divisive in-fighting.

Maxine Weiss said...

No, that's not Jacqueline Klein, the "Artist". But here is a picture of Abel Klein, and he's not Mexican, by any means:

http://www.math.uci.edu/faculty/aklein.html

I said I might be wrong about that. Memo to John and Christopher, as well as the Klein kid: Abel's hair is how all guys should be wearing theirs.

Maxine Weiss said...

More Abel Klein:

http://www.imbs.uci.edu/CONFERENCES/2006/MATHEMATICAL%20ECONOMICS/reception-photos/IMG_2507.JPG

...can never get enough Abel:

http://www.imbs.uci.edu/CONFERENCES/2006/MATHEMATICAL%20ECONOMICS/reception-photos/IMG_2539.JPG

How do ya like that? The father, who's pushing 60, is far better looking than the son !

Abel's got far better hair, skin etc..

The Klein kid isn't bad, but Abel looks to be far more interesting.

Well, at least we now know how it came to pass that the Klein kid bounced around from UC to UC schools, and who pulled the strings to get him in !

Simon said...

Rcocean - I see. Moderates should avoid hurting the GOP with "their divisive in-fighting" and ought to "[j]ust shut up and vote Republican," but criticism of moderates from other sections of the party isn't similarly divisive in-fighting? Religious conservatives, for example, shouldn't just "shut up and vote Republican" even if it means voting for a candidate like Giuliani?

My point is that as a big tent party, those who commit themselves to the primary process by backing a given candidate ought to feel bound to abide by the outcome. If you announce in advance that you won't support the candidate of faction X, why should they feel bound to support your preferred candidate? You might as well dissolve the party forthwith if that's how we're going to procede.

Revenant said...

The Paulites and Rockefeller Republicans are a small minority. and most of them live in Blue states.

A few points:

(1): The Huckabee Bible-thumping dipshit-redneck economic-liberal wing of the Republican Party is ALSO, thankfully, a minority. They've had the run of the party for eight years now, they've managed to fuck pretty much EVERYTHING up, and it is past time for them to sit down and let the grown-ups have a turn for a change.

(2): People who are socially liberal/moderate and economically conservative -- the group you call "Rockefeller Republicans" -- are, as you note, a minority in the party. But they represent a good quarter of Republicans, and an even larger percentage of independents. If the Republican Party loses a quarter of its voters -- or anything close to that -- it will never, ever hold the Presidency or Congress, ever again. So unless the idea of being ruled by Democrats forever appeals to you, quit your whining and accept that you need to keep us happy every bit as much as we need to keep you happy.

As for your suggestion that I go vote Democratic, that is exactly what I plan to do if you morons nominate another Southern liberal with his lips wrapped around Jesus' cock.

ZPS said...

I see you like your men sort of lothario-esque, Maxy.

I think the son is a babe...I don't know what pictures you saw of him...but in every one I've seen, he looks perfect.

Maxine Weiss said...

The father looks far more glamourous than the son. Father has that face the wreaks of power. Father is the one who should be living in Washington, or New York....Geneva? That Klein kid is really out of his element in Washington, but great genes in that family !

Still, if the Klein thinks he'll age as well as Dad, he's in for a big shock. Parents usually age well because they didn't have all the pollution, chemicals in the food supply, sun exposure to deal with.

Today's kids, with the thinning of the ozone, hormones and chemicals in the foods, increased pollution.......they won't age as well as their parents.

I predict that kid won't look anything like his father at age 60.

We really need to get a look "The Artist" mother, though.

I bet she has long hair. I can't imagine a husband's hair being longer than his wifes. That would be odd.

Maxine Weiss said...

Abel Klein really exhudes power. You have to wonder how he ended up toiling at little 'ol UCI, living in faculty housing, or whatever.

Abel really should have been an actor. He looks a little like James Coburn. The son is kind of a lightweight and buried under the aura of the father.

That happens sometimes.

Sadly, I keep thinking that the mother must be a horror. Again, as usual....I could be wrong. It's very rare to have two great, dynamic parents. In any married couple, someone has to be the monster, and (I hope I'm wrong) it might very well be Jacqueline...La Artiste !!!

Think about it: How many parents, or married couples, do you know....where they are BOTH perfect people? It doesn't work like that. One spouse is cool, the other is nasty. That's always how it is. It's the law of couples.

And from what I can tell of Abel's visage in photos....he looks to be the vivacious and dynamic one....he's the best looking face at that gathering...your eye goes to him.....which means only one thing....

---He married a very very flawed woman.

I know how these things work. But, I hope I'm wrong. Yikes, could there really be two perfect people in a marriage? Two perfect parents.

No Way! Good Cop Bad Cop.....Always !!!!

Cedarford said...

rcocean - The Paulites and Rockefeller Republicans are a small minority. and most of them live in Blue states. These Blue states are all going vote Democrat anyway. So why care who they support for the Republican nomination?

We should all care because the number of Red States are decreasing, Blues increasing. Do the simple math.

The moderate wing of the Republican Party disliked as "Rockefellers" by extrenist conservatives is cleaned out on the East Coast and in California, with the Midwest now problematic. And the growing Hispanic population is shifting Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and IMO, Florida towards a bluer tint of purple.
The Libertarians, while as impractical as the Far Left to ever be likely to have "purity" and political power together at the same time, still are a fountain of ideas that reinvigorates the Republicans.

They don't matter, and the rest of the Republicans shouldn't have to put up with their constant whining & bitching about "rednecks", abortion, the religious right, and "evolution".

Without a Republican Center, the Creationists and wannabe saviors of Terri Schiavo and all the corrupted Big Government types like Huckabee, Bush II, Trent Lott, Tom Delay, and Ted Stevens would occupy the position of the Far Left does with Democrats - a marginalized fringe of about 10% of the population.

Why don't they just join the Democrats and be Lieberman Democrats?
So they should Just shut up and vote Republican - or not.


Actually, what needs to be reined in are the big-spending Christian Socialists of the Religious Right and the corrupt evangelicals like Hastert, Delay that treated the US Treasury like their personal slush fund to reward faithful cronies and themselves.

The country really needs a REpublican Party that wants small government but which recognizes great achievements like a new energy policy and a revolution in Health Care require government to lead in certain big matters. A Party that backs hard working business owners...but one that also supports the goals and aspirations of hard-working employees and gives credit to good unions. A Republican Party that is strong on the military but not aching to use it on behalf of a foreign country or multinationals. A Party where free trade and Open Borders are not treated as absolute good by the Ruling Elites that call the shots...A Party that celebrates freedom of religion and simultaneously tells the "Save Terri Sciavo!!!" types to butt out, Americans do not want a theocracy.

James said...

rcocean - Isn't a economic conservative/social "liberal" exactly what "conservatism" is supposed to be? A "social liberal" in today's parlance would be technically conservative (as in - government stay out of personal lives, speech etc.)

I don't know, maybe we're just working on different vocabulary (i.e. you including things like social security type spending as "social", where I, considering myself an economic conservative-to-moderate, would consider that as the economic side)

To me, to call the "social conservatives" "conservative" waters down the term conservative. At least as long as I've been politically cognizant, the "social conservatives" often want government control over social aspects, though sometimes they hide behind valid issues like federalism in doing so.

Cedarford said...

Revenent - As for your suggestion that I go vote Democratic, that is exactly what I plan to do if you morons nominate another Southern liberal with his lips wrapped around Jesus' cock.

Crude, but true and funny! Two-faced Jesus-loving Christian Taliban Southerners obsessed with bringing home the bacon putting it on their grandkids credit card wrecked the 1994 Contract in 3-4 years. Then Bush, the Religious Right's greed for endless pork, the Christian Zionist-Neocon Alliance, and growing theocratic intrusion into the secular fields of science, medicine, history textbooks - finished the present era of screwing up the country.

The Republicans, whether they know it or not, are now in a recovery mode. No, make that a salvage mode. That the Democrats would ill-serve the public as much or more than the Republicans did after 1997 is no solace.

Now odds favor Hillary or Obama being President and appointing the replacements to Souter, Scalia, Ginsburg, Stevens. Enshrining Roe for another 50 years and maybe giving us gay marriage. If the Religious Right had governed honestly and morally - that would not be likely.

Don't cry if this happens, you folks brought it on yourselves.

Maxine Weiss said...

I wonder what kid Klein thinks about my psycho-analyzing his entire family based on a few photographs ???

He's just enough of a narcissist to love it !

I think Althouse loves it, too, when I put her family on the couch. She might try to act all mortified, but deep down, she loves some of the intimate observations that I've made regarding her family.

Trooper York said...

Middle Class Guy, that sandwich is right up my alley. Last night it was veal with peppers and onions on a hard seeded Italian hero with fried zuchini and breaded artichokes on the side. Topped off with a beatiful barolo from Piemonte. I have to limit the beer to once a week now so I don't blow up to Jackie Gleason proportions.

Trooper York said...

Plus I never drink Corona’s. You do know that they sneak Mexicans into the States in the Corona tanker trucks and they pee in the vat to make up the liquid displacement. Not my thing man, stick with Newcastle Brown my man.

Middle Class Guy said...

Trooper, I usually keep the Corona around for guests. I find it amazing that after a few they speak Spanish anddance on their hats. I ran out of the other beers I keep for myself.

Nut Brown Ale is nice, but I like a good oat meal stout.

Middle Class Guy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Middle Class Guy said...

Oh, yeah, and after a few more, they want to go swimming across some border. I just don't get it.