October 24, 2008

Charles Krauthammer will not be joining the "motley crew" of "wet-fingered conservatives" who are flipping to Obama.

Krauthammer sees what they're doing! Now that they see Barack Obama is going to win, they don't want to be "left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years." Krauthammer "will go down with the McCain ship." He would "rather lose an election than lose my bearings." You hear that, you traitors?

73 comments:

Darcy said...

Bravo, Dr. K. You sexy-brained man, you! Brilliant rebuttal to all of the wobblies.

Pastafarian said...

I agree with Krauthammer: Most of these commentators remind me of Kent Brockman. "And I, for one, welcome our new socialist overlords."

Traitors? No. Cowards and opportunists? You betcha.

Roost on the Moon said...

Between stuff like this and the recent comment sections around here, I think it's time to rethink the old "conservatives look for converts, liberals look for heretics" idea.

Expat(ish) said...

I would think more of these people if they would just grit their teeth and bear through it. You hear that George Will?

I am practicing saying, "My president, Barack Obama" and simultaneously crossing my fingers and hoping the damage is smaller than what Carter left behind.

-XC

Rich B said...

It's kind of sad that pointing out the obvious is viewed as some sort of wisdom.

Pastafarian said...

Bear in mind that I don't consider Althouse's choice to be selfish or opportunistic -- hers was a natural choice, since she's a Democrat.

But for someone who calls themselves a conservative to choose to support a socialist, no matter how bright or articulate he is, requires some sort of additional motivation.

I've said this in these comments before, I think, but it might bear repeating: Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer, and Ronald Reagan wasn't too terribly bright. And yet anyone who would choose Carter over Reagan is ultra-liberal by definition. That's the choice that these people are making: Obama is the closest thing to Carter that we've had since the original, in terms of intellect, policies, and disposition.

From Inwood said...

Krauthammer is speaking truth to powerlessness, that is, to those who will still become powerless if Obama wins, since they are inauthentic & have come too late to Obama.

Oh, well Gergen is getting long in the tooth & so one of them may become his replacement as the house Republican/Conservative who flourishes with quotidian (a Buckley word here for his incoherent son) criticisms of conservative principles.

Simon said...

You're a good man, Charlie Krauthammer. And in this case, entirely right.

Simon said...

"Obama’s own running mate warned this week that Obama’s youth and inexperience will invite a crisis — indeed a crisis 'generated' precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on November 4 to invite that test?"

Well, are you?

Roost on the Moon said...

To the "Obama is a socialist" crowd:

Is it a fair interpretation of you views that Obama is Democrat, and Democrats are socialists?

Or is he more socialist than the other national level Democrats?

Good faith question. I've never been clear on this.

mccullough said...

I agree with the wet-fingered conservatives crack.

All these folks, especially Colin Powell, would have a lot more credibility if they didn't support W. back in 2000.

People knew that the real George Bush didn't think his son was up to the job.

But not a peep about "in good conscience, I cannot support a feckless man who didn't sober up until he was 40 and brags that he doesn't read books even though his wife was a librarian, doesn't have a clue about foreign affairs, and has worked about 25 hours a week the past 6 years as governor of a state that constitutionally ensures it has a weak governor. The man is not Presidential material."

These cowards could support W. over Gore but not McCain over Obama?

Host with the Most said...

Traitors, yes.

See you in 2011.

Will you still be "hopeful?"

Think not.

And it will all be because you could have voted the right way for America.

In other words, it won't only be "told you so", it will be you, Obama voters, who got us into a mess like you never dreamed of.

Will you take responsibility then?

Sure. Like Carter voters.

Freeman Hunt said...

Is it a fair interpretation of you views that Obama is Democrat, and Democrats are socialists?

No. Though a lot of Democrats are socialists.

Or is he more socialist than the other national level Democrats?

Yes.

mccullough said...

My qualm with Obama's tax policies is that, if he wants to close the deficit (and maybe even the national debt), he should be pushing for a net worth tax on all individuals with more than $5 million in assets.

I have no problem whacking the assets of people who don't work for a living but live off their family's wealth. I'd take 90% of Buffett and Gates' wealth (including any stock they've pledged to their charities). Their kids should have to make it on their own.

Obama, however, will have none of this. He wants to tax the wages of those making $250,000 or more. In other words, he wants to tax people who work hard.

Obama's a big believer in the non-profit industry so he won't touch the wealth of rich people who give generously to causes and divide the rest up in trusts to their lazy and untalented children.

Instead, Obama wants to tax people who actually work hard for a living.

American Liberal Elite said...

Good. This allows me to continue to disagree with that increasingly irrelevant, wizened old neocon on everything.

holdfast said...

"Or is he more socialist than the other national level Democrats?"

-It appears that he, which is consistent with his record as being in the leftmost quartile of Senate Dems (when he deigns to vote). It is also possible that he is just more honest (in his off moments) than some of his colleagues.

-Also, some of his associates (Phleger, Ayers, Wright, Dohrn) are clearly full-out socialists (or communists in Ayers' case) - that is not an exageration, and one wonders why Obama would surrong himself with such people if he did not have at least some leangings that way himself.

-I do not think he wants to nationalize all the means of production, but instead wants to drag the Clinton/Blair "third way" as far to the left as possible, which could be pretty far. Just when experiences all around the world are showing how the over-entanglement of government and business can be really harmful to both, Obama wants to expand it.

Joe said...

The bigger problem with Obama's tax policies is that he extends tax credits which allow people to make money filing their taxes. Were Obama genuine, he'd just announce that anyone making less that $100,000 a year wouldn't have to pay income tax, have it withheld or file a tax return bigger than a post card--the savings to businesses and individuals would be huge (oh, wait, that was Fred Thompson's plan.)

Roost on the Moon said...

Thanks Freeman.

I have a hard time decoding what "socialism" means to the online right. Sometimes, it seems like they believe progressive taxes are socialist, or providing for public goods like education.

Is there a good line drawn between responsible social-democratic freedom and socialism?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Is it a fair interpretation of you views that Obama is Democrat, and Democrats are socialists?

No. That's faulty logic.

Democrats, just like Republicans come in all stripes and flavors. Many Democrats that I know would fit more into the "moderate" category. Blue dog Democrats, or the old style Kennedy Democrat like my parents were.

My view is that Obama IS a socialist based on his statements, his proposed policies and the historical connections he has had with avowed socialists and communists.

Or is he more socialist than the other national level Democrats?

HE is MUCH more socialist than most national level democrats. I have my thoughts about Barney Frank and where he sits on the spectrum. Left...far left....looney left...or just a stupid stupid man.

Over the last 8 years I have been pigeonholed as a Bush loving Republican, but the truth is that I am more of a social libertarian/ fiscal conservative. The rabid left can't seem to reconginze that there are shades of grey and they want everything to be black and white.

No, not all Democrats are the same and neither are all Republicans.

holdfast said...

mccullough;

Of course, now you are also practicing the politics of envy. I too am a hard-working white collar in the $250k neighborhood - I don't have a lot of assets and live in a very high-cost, high-tax area. I am the sort of person that Obama should want to encourage, but instead he wants to hose me. All that sais, I refuse to become like the Dems and decide that it is ok to hose those with over $5mil in the bank, since it is a number I will likely never achieve. That's just playing the Dem envy game with an extra zero on the end. I would rather change to the tax code to make it more efficient for those rich folks to put their money in a place where it might create some jobs and generate tax revenue, instead of sitting in tax free muni bonds.

The Raj Man said...

I thought Mr. K was the Grinch. No? He sounds miffed.

Joe said...

Most the conservatives Krauthammer is talking about are anything but; like the media, they are, above all, out for themselves and will hitch their wagon to anyone who will grant them power or even access to it. I don't think they're traitors because that implies they actually believed in anything but themselves to begin with (or at least had some altruistic loyalty.)

The unfortunate truth is that Republicans don't deserve to win this year; they looted the treasury once in power and have demonstrated a remarkable inability to demonstrate any principals whatsoever. Yes, politics requires compromise, but not to the point that most national Republican politicians have done so (our lone blue-dog Democrat in Utah has demonstrated more principles and backbone than his Republican colleagues--one of which already lost in the primaries [of course, we gave the world Orin Hatch, so it's not exactly hard to have principles compared to him].)

ricpic said...

It ain't over till the bitter clingers vote.

Bob said...

I respect him far more today than I do Powell today. Krauthammer shows he's going to stay with his principles even though they are not popular. Powell has shown himself an opportunist. In some ways its similiar to when you screw up in school publically. Your false friends ridicule you with the crowd. Your real friends stick with you. Powell chose to go with the new pretty girl. In a year or two let's see who has buyer remorse.

mccullough said...

holdfast,

I have nothing against rich people who earned their money legally. They are great. I have great admiration for people like Warren Buffet who is smart and worked his ass off, and Dwayne Wade who is talented and works his ass off, and I don't want to "punish" them.

But the debt is at $10 trillion and the deficit will exceed $500 billion. The progeny of the wealthy should have to work hard and make it just like their parents did or learn to live off $2 million in assets (which would produce about $100,000 a year in income).

And as far as charities go, god bless 'em and fuck 'em. People can donate to them till their heart's content with their after-tax income.

mccullough said...

holdfast,

I have nothing against rich people who earned their money legally. They are great. I have great admiration for people like Warren Buffet who is smart and worked his ass off, and Dwayne Wade who is talented and works his ass off, and I don't want to "punish" them.

But the debt is at $10 trillion and the deficit will exceed $500 billion. The progeny of the wealthy should have to work hard and make it just like their parents did or learn to live off $2 million in assets (which would produce about $100,000 a year in income).

And as far as charities go, god bless 'em and fuck 'em. People can donate to them till their heart's content with their after-tax income.

SteveR said...

I have felt "my heart strangely warmed" and so I will spend the last 10 days in my now californicated blue state of New Mexico thinking that the election will be closer than many imagine.

And if not then the wrath of history will fall upon those Republicans who jumped, but mostly on those who squandered opportunity with greed and corruption.

Yes Simon, he is a good man and entirely right.

rcocean said...

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe — neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) — yelling “Stop!” I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I’d rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

Weird that he's labeled some of this people conservatives. Hitchens has stated on BHTV he's "Not a conservative in any way", Powell has never claimed to be conservative. Adelman has been attacking Bush for 2 years & has never been a domestic conservative. Buckley isn't a social conservative and isn't really political. His main political activity seems to be attacking conservatives.

Lawgiver said...

Wet-fingered conservatives?

That sounds like a shout out to Trooper York for a joke about Tony Romo and Jessica Simpson.

And Motley Crew was never very good anyway. Let them go, who needs them?

Cedarford said...

Krauthammer is still a Neocon, too.

Roost on the Moon said...
Between stuff like this and the recent comment sections around here, I think it's time to rethink the old "conservatives look for converts, liberals look for heretics" idea.


Quite true, but not for the reasons you give. From 2002-2008, Republicans played a penny-wise and pound-foolish strategy devised by Karl Rove. Play to the Base, get their turnout, don't try and expand the Party - because it might annoy the Religious Right Fundies, militarists, neocons, and the wealthy Corporatists of "The Base".

Meanwhile, Democrats worked hard to bring up Centrist candidates for Congress after 2004, and made a huge effort to woo Hispanics, Asians, welcome the old Reagan Democrats back who had lost jobs to China or who had stagnant wages under Bush II. To expand the Democrats as a force in the South, Rocky Mountain States, and Midwest.
To reclaim those religious do-gooders from the Republican Darwinists.

The Democrats have won masses of
converts while Republicans imposed religious litmus tests (Romney loves a different Jesus than us backwoods good 'ol boys! Giulini is a stinking moderate Catholic apostate who cheated on his wife and is going to Hell!) And Republicans launched a crusade to root out and denounce heretics as "RINOs". (which did great, replacing almost every "lousy" RINO (moderate Republican) with a Democrat in 2006 elections. New England is now down to just one Republican in the House, from a majority when Bush took office.)

Abortion policy "middle of the roaders" (heretics!) like Arnold, the two Maine Senators, and Ridge were about as welcome at the 2008 Convention as pro-life Democrats were at the 2000 Democrat Convention.

Leaving Republicans a choice between a militarist wanting new wars who was 30 years as a DC Insider with 30-year old ideas, and the Religious Right's beloved creationist True Believer, Pastor Huckabee.

Republicans got what we deserved.
We got Bob Dole II - war hero with old ways and old ideas. Coupled with a not-yet Ready For Primetime Sarah Palin - who has a cultlike following with the Fundies, but cost Republicans votes of new voters elsewhere...


But at least they put those bastards Romney and Rudy and Ridge in their place. Sweet Baby Jesus is surely pleased..

Palladian said...

"Krauthammer is still a Neocon, too."

Yes, it's hard to renounce Judaism to a degree acceptable to you, Doktor Mengeleford.

tim maguire said...

The problem with many of these conservatives jumping ship and backing Obama, and why I think it's appropriate to redicule them, is that their reasons are so weak.

They list McCain's problems without any analysis on whether Obama is better on the points complained of in essays that amount to "anybody but McCain." Except the alternative isn't "anybody but McCain," it's Obama.

It is not the fact of their backing Obama but their rationale for backing Obama that makes them weak conservatives and weak intellectuals.

rcocean said...

Cederford's great advice to Republicans - get even more liberal. Get rid of southern baptists because then all the NJ soccer moms will vote Republican.

Gee, wonder why almost all NE and NY/NJ Senators are liberal democrats, must be all those New England Fundies the GOP nominates.

Note *almost* I know about NH, Collins &Snowe

ricpic said...

Krauthammer describes Powell as a moderate? I guess even Krauthammer is infected with the mustn't-ever-call-someone-with-melanin-what-they-are disease. Powell is a calculator. That's all he is. He believes in nothing but the next chess move that advances Powell's career. Nothing terrible about that. Name any institution or corporation of any size that doesn't have one or several calculators in its command structure. What's terrible is the melanin shield, which I predict will finally begin to fall apart under the coming catastrophic Obama presidency.

chickenlittle said...

Simon wrote: Obama’s own running mate warned this week that Obama’s youth and inexperience will invite a crisis — indeed a crisis 'generated' precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on November 4 to invite that test?"

I think Biden is saying bring it on. Democrats from the top down are anxious to prove their mettle, to "democratize" the struggle against illiberal fascism. This will tighten the FDR chokehold they seek.

Treason comes to my mind only when I think of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi and their embrace of defeat for what their party termed "Bush's War."

No thanks Cedar

God help us.

AlphaLiberal said...

Yeah, it couldn't possibly be that these people have principled reasons for backing Obama and dumping McCain.

Charles Fried, Reagan's Solicitor General says his decision turned on McCain's "choice of Sarah Palin at a time of deep national crisis."

Goatwhacker said...

Quite true, but not for the reasons you give. From 2002-2008, Republicans played a penny-wise and pound-foolish strategy devised by Karl Rove. Play to the Base, get their turnout, don't try and expand the Party - because it might annoy the Religious Right Fundies, militarists, neocons, and the wealthy Corporatists of "The Base".

Cedarford, great post and you hit the nail on the head. If there was ever a year and a party that deserves to lose it's this year's GOP.

I still don't see how that would justify voting for Obama, though. McCain is the closest thing in this race to a moderate and was despised by the dyed-in-the-wool conservatives for years. The same people who essentially told me they didn't want me in the party have now nominated the guy they called a RINO for years. By what logic could I justify voting for a guy who sounds moderate but really is far left?

CarmelaMotto said...

I love Charles. He's the reason I TiVo Brit Hume's show every night. He has a way with words and he makes up for ADD victim Fred Barnes.

He is right about the invitations to state dinners. It's opportunism for sure. That's what separates the Noonans and the Wills
from the avg person and those particularly psyched about Palin. They can tut-tut Palin while clinking glasses with Sally Quinn at the next shin dig.

Honestly, for most people, politics boil down to peer pressure. I don't know how many times I have pressed someone on their opinion and you realize it's not their opionion, it's just what everyone is saying.

Most people years after high school still have a need to get an invitation to the cool lunch table.

Host with the Most said...

I am proud of my votes for Bush 2000,2004.

I am proud of my vote for McCain/Palin.

I would not for one second hesitate to vote for Sarah Palin for President.

Except for the liberal wingnuts too far to the left (AlphaLib, Rooster, Michael, et al) every Obama voter will be sorry for their vote. It will take less than 3 years, except for the hard-core cases.

The far left will never be satisfied until Obama puts pictures of Fidel and Che in American schools.

And if you have studied Obama's work with the Annenberg Foundation, you'll find that possibility isn't as far fetched as you might think.

Sadly, it's not really about I told you so - and believe me, I'll be there every step of the way to say it.

It's that people that I believed were intelligent are voting so radically for change, crossing their fingers that the man they want won't really do what he's promised, and are laying down because the louder voices have made using their brains just too much work.

Self-interest before country. Germany 1936.

Simon said...

AlphaLiberal said...
"Yeah, it couldn't possibly be that these people have principled reasons for backing Obama and dumping McCain.

Certainly, if you're a liberal. If you're a conservative, there is no principled reason for backing Obama. They are working to create a world that is, in their own worldview, worse. Hence, the putative conservatives backing Obama are either not conservatives or have dishonorable, unprincipled reasons for doing so.

Host with the Most said...

As radical as it sounds, the analogy of Obama to Kennedy isn't as good as this one:

Wikipedia:

The political turning point for Hitler came when the Great Depression hit Germany in 1930.

In 1932, Hitler intended to run against the aging President Paul von Hindenburg in the scheduled presidential elections

The new German citizen ran against Hindenburg, who was supported by a broad range of reactionary nationalist, monarchist, Catholic, republican and even social democratic parties. Also in the field was a Communist candidate and a member of a fringe right-wing party. Hitler's campaign was called "Hitler über Deutschland" (Hitler over Germany).[43] The name had a double meaning; besides a reference to his dictatorial ambitions, it also referred to the fact that he campaigned by aircraft.[43] This was a brand new political tactic that allowed Hitler to speak in two cities in one day, which was practically unheard of at the time. Hitler came in second on both rounds, attaining more than 35% of the vote during the second one in April. Although he lost to Hindenburg, the election established Hitler as a realistic alternative in German politics.


No one for a second believes that Obama = Hitler.

But when the electorate - pumped by a national media that tells them the sky is falling - overshoots in it's desire for change, bad things always happen to that country.

And it takes years to fix the damage. And that's if it's not too late.

AlphaLiberal said...

Simon, the shorter version of what you said is "if they don't agree with me they're rotten people."

I think they see the road we're on as bad for the country and they want the country off that road. McCain is on that road, Obama is not.

Ken said...

Am I the only one to noticed that since she came out for Obama Althouse has been dismissive of any contrary opinion, and will not engage it? Krauthammer makes a detailed case. Althouse flippantly mocks him. Sad.

Host with the Most said...

I think they see the road we're on as bad for the country and they want the country off that road. McCain is on that road, Obama is not.

AlphaLiberal,

That is the most cogent reasoning to vote for Obama I have seen.

Though I do not agree that McCain wants to continue down the same "road", you have done the best at encapsulating a reason to consider Obama.

Well done, and I wish all discussions began with statements like that.

Joe said...

How is "McCain is on that road, Obama is not." cogent reasoning? It's not reasoning at all, it's making a weak excuse. Obama hasn't proposed a single damn thing that isn't a continuation of liberal Washington politics and an expansion of governmental control into society.

Mark said...

Roost, twelve years ago Obama won his first elected public position running as the New Party candidate.

If you read the whole post you'll see a list of interesting names associated with the New Party:

# Elaine Bernard — A Labour academic and prominent DSA member.
# Noam Chomsky — Linguist and activist, member of both DSA and CoC.
# Barbara Ehrenreich — Author, activist and DSA leader. Early this year Ehrenreich was one of the four founders of Progressives for Obama.
# Bill Fletcher — Former Maoist, a labour activist and leading DSA member. Early this year Fletcher was one of the four founders of Progressives for Obama
# Maude Hurd — Longtime ACORN president. Awarded for her work by Boston DSA. ACORN is heavily involved in the Obama campaign.

etc....

Judge for yourself from the story and from the list whether or not it's fair to call Obama a socialist. (Since there is so little firm ground upon which one can judge Obama's political principles, analysing the company he keeps is, in my opinion, perfectly fair game.)

laura said...

The rabid left can't seem to reconginze that there are shades of grey and they want everything to be black and white.

Copy that, and add, that you can say the same thing about the rabid right...

Simon said...

AlphaLiberal said...
"Simon, the shorter version of what you said is 'if they don't agree with me they're rotten people.' I think they see the road we're on as bad for the country and they want the country off that road. McCain is on that road, Obama is not."

That is not an accurate summation. If they are conservatives - if believe anything that anyone who goes under that banner are regarded as believing in - they cannot vote for Obama. That goes regardless of what I believe or whether they agree with me. Your metaphor is entirely inapt, also. Many conservatives agree that the country has been on the wrong road; both candidates will take us on a different road, so the question is which road will be chosen. One road leads to a world that conservatives can accept, even if they don't like it; the other leads to Obama's vision of an America remade as Europe.

Minzo said...

"Also, some of his associates (Phleger, Ayers, Wright, Dohrn) are clearly full-out socialists (or communists in Ayers' case) - that is not an exageration, and one wonders why Obama would surrong himself with such people if he did not have at least some leangings that way himself"

Im not sure I understand- werent we being told recently that Obama and the dems are in the tank for big business? That their opposition to regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was partly responsible for this financial crisis. You can pick a few of a man's friends to make any point. As Slate recently pointed out, Mccain's hero- Teddy Rosevelt- expressed some unambiguous opinions about the need to spread wealth around. Of course when Obama said this, he was being a socialist...

veni vidi vici said...

"But at least they put those bastards Romney and Rudy and Ridge in their place. Sweet Baby Jesus is surely pleased.."


Yeah, it's all about Jesus, which is why Bush himself was persona non grata and not included in the convention this year. Winner!

Host with the Most said...

what simon said.

*PS AlphaLiberal's statement was still a good one regarding how to begin a discussion of the benefits of voting for Obama.

Chip Ahoy said...

Now look, Krauthammer certainly has a right to his own point of view, and look, I do appreciate his intellectualism and level-headed analysis he brings to each discussion, and look, I respect him as much as the next, but look, what's the point of dragging Mötley Crüe into a discussion on politics? Look, does it make sense to drag Tommy Lee and Nikki Sixx into this? Look, I don't even know what the term "wet-fingered conservatives" means. Look, do I have to look up every little thing just to understand what the guy is getting at, and look, this word "flipping" is way over used. It's making pancake makers such as myself, go, "Look, better tip that pancake before it burns."

Palladian said...

"Certainly, if you're a liberal. If you're a conservative, there is no principled reason for backing Obama. They are working to create a world that is, in their own worldview, worse. Hence, the putative conservatives backing Obama are either not conservatives or have dishonorable, unprincipled reasons for doing so."

Agree 100%. There is no conservative philosophical justification for supporting Obama.

Roost on the Moon said...

Judge for yourself from the story and from the list whether or not it's fair to call Obama a socialist.

I'm not really interested in whether it's fair, since that's going to be a matter of opinion, and these days, we all seem to have different facts.

I'm interested in what it means to the people who use it to explain their dismissal of the candidate. My suspicion is that it's simply used as a derogatory synonym for "liberal".

This is a losing strategy for the GOP. By defining "real americans" as "those who live in small towns" and calling center-left democrats "socialists", they draw their circle smaller and smaller.

If any deviation from hard-line economic libertarianism makes you a socialist, then we live in a country where 85% of us are proud socialists.

If we think the progressive tax system is socialist, than 75% of us are socialists.

If we think a pooled-risk national health-care plan is socialist, then 60% of us are socialists.

If Barack Obama is the socialist candidate, then I'd like to direct you here, and point out that most of America wants a socialist President.

The term socialist, when tossed around so casually, is going alienate moderates from the GOP, and keep them from confronting the real economic problems of the nation's working class.

As a liberal, I hope they do follow this road for a while, an impotent minority party calling the president a socialist. But for the country's sake, I hope in 4 or 8 years there is a true center-right party to keep us honest. (As opposed to the fractured coalition of culturally-aggrieved voters, social authoritarians, and free-market ideologues that we face now.)

Synova said...

And as far as charities go, god bless 'em and fuck 'em. People can donate to them till their heart's content with their after-tax income.

Why should they?

We have decided over time that the best way to take care of the poor or needy is to force everyone to be "charitable"... which only makes them feel resentful... take their money and give it to the government, who will then, somehow, in the way perfectly designed to be least responsive to individuals, take care of our "charity" obligations.

We don't help our neighbors anymore... that's the government's job.

Heck, a whole lot of us won't even help our own PARENTS or those in our family anymore... that's the government's job.

And since our money was already taken to do that (and usually at well above the "tithe" rate) I think it's fair to say that our *obligation* to our fellow man is quite taken care of.

The fact that the government who TOOK that money has a huge debt is NOT MY PROBLEM. That they waste the vast majority of every "charity" dollar they take in before they give it out again to some faceless needy person or other is NOT MY PROBLEM.

And it most certainly is not the problem of uber rich people. Did they make the decisions of how to spend the tax money? Did they write those budgets that end in negatives? Did they write the rules of who gets what out of the pie and make all those promises? And then did they insist that bad management and policies can be fixed by sending the government more money?

No.

Not any more than any other tax paying person has done that.

What I think should happen is that the Congress and Senate should have all of their income and possessions confiscated to pay for their inability to say "No, we won't fund that."

former law student said...

Krauthammer sounds like he's running for Curmudgeon of the Year. The only thing missing from his column was a "Harrumph" audio track.

In other words, it won't only be "told you so", it will be you, Obama voters, who got us into a mess like you never dreamed of.

Will you take responsibility then?


Considering that we are currently in a mess of which we could never have dreamt, it's hard to imagine that voting for Obama could produce anything worse. The chief role off the Democrats for the next four years will be operating a broom and shovel, cleaning up the mess left behind by the elephant parade.

But if it comes to pass, I hope that Obama voters are more noble than W. voters, who blame every bad thing that happened during the Bushera on a bill requiring that banks make loans where they take deposits, passed back in 1977.

Joe said...

it's hard to imagine that voting for Obama could produce anything worse.

Really, I find it quite easy to imagine. I envision Carter style inflation and unemployment and a further entrenchment of the corruption at the core of this whole thing. Do you really believe Obama is going to challenge Dodds and Frank?

Paul said...

"No one for a second believes that Obama = Hitler."

True, but Obama also is a charismatic moving crowds to rapture with his orations.

He is also a statist and collectivist, though he ascribes to the international brand of socialism as opposed to national socialism.

He too is a racist. Anyone who sits in the pews of a church who's pastor preaches Black Liberation Theology for twenty years is a racist. Period. "White mans greed runs a world in need".

He also has ambitions to dominate the world. Look at his symbol. That's a tell for sure.

Utopians with plans to remake the world to conform to their vision are the most dangerous characters on the planet.

Obama is not Hitler. Hitler's chapter is finished. Obama is still developing his story and still has a chance to do more damage than Hitler. Or not. We'll see.

Roost on the Moon said...

Thanks for illustrating, Paul.

Paul said...

"We want to spread the wealth"

"We are the ones we've been waiting for"

"Today is the day the seas stopped rising and we begin to heal the sick"

Etc., etc.

Roost your willful stupidity is not my problem, and if America wants a socialist President my feeling is it's because they really do not fully comprehend the ramifications.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy." - Winston Churchill

Shanna said...

No, not all Democrats are the same and neither are all Republicans.

Here, Here.

I think most democrats have a good heart and advocate policies because they think they will help. I think most republicans disagree with the policies because of the law of unintended consequence, a lot of attempts for the government to “help” cause more problems then they solve.

Where Obama differs is that he seems to want to do things because they are “fair”. It’s not “fair” that rich people are rich, it’s not “fair” that poor people are poor. He doesn’t just want to help, he wants to ELIMINATE the unfairness of life. THAT is what concerns me about man, versus other dems.

And it doesn’t help that he hangs out with people who find marxism and black liberation theology and anarchism and felony and all that stuff appealing, because it’s all very whatever means necessary to achieve Fairness.

Roost on the Moon said...

Just so, Paul.

Obama is a false messiah, Obama is a Hitler-figure, Obama is a socialist.

That will win you 40% of the vote now, and 35% in 2012.

blake said...

Were Obama genuine, he'd just announce that anyone making less that $100,000 a year wouldn't have to pay income tax, have it withheld or file a tax return bigger than a post card--the savings to businesses and individuals would be huge (oh, wait, that was Fred Thompson's plan.)

Waaaaaahhhh!

(This is only a mildly exaggerated "wah".)

blake said...

joe--

It's true that the GOP doesn't deserve to win this year--but WTF do the Democrats?

The Narrative seems to be that the Dems have been powerless to fix all these terrible, terrible problems created by the GOP, despite controlling Congress for the past two years.

"Just give us more power, and we'll fix everything." Which is what the Reps said, and ignores the fact that they've had all the power there is to have on more than one occasion, and have screwed things up--just as the Reps did in the same situation.

If we were being logical, we would look at these issues that the government is involved in and ask ourselves "Does it help or hurt to have the government here?" And then we would cut all the places where the outcome has been bad. (Not the intention, but the outcome.)

Of course, that's practically everything.

Cedarford said...

Goatwhacker - Thanks for the kudos.

I don't know about what to say about who to vote for. I honestly don't. Your point on Obama being likely unfit for office because you just can't bring yourself to vote for the guy despite Republicans so richly deserving their being butchered is telling. I also can't see voting Obama.

But I think their is more hope with Obama than McCain, if I am forced to think objectively (which I can't be because I culturally revile Obama...) With McCain - you know what you get from his 30-year record...working with Democrats on cultural issues, and more of the same tax-cut, free trade Corporatism Bush worshipped. Plus more wars, and a reputation for being tempermental, capricious, and a bit of a dim bulb. And more wars and military "adventures".

With Obama, I have 70% confidence he will lead as a liberal dirtbag. 20% confidence he will do OK, and 10% belief he may actually lead the nation past Bush's catastrophic messes.

Whereas with McCain, I have 100% confidence he is the old man, with old ideas, and no vision for the future or idea how to clean up Bush's disasters. Except MORE tax cuts for the rich, more troops, and more pandering..You know what you get. At his worst, he may not be as bad as Obama at his hypothetical worst - but there is no hope with McCain, or his not-yet-ready Palin..despite her cultlike following with Fundies, perhaps because of it. And the Libertarian alternative is Bob Barr, a certified cretin.

I may leave my Presidential choice blank and vote for a Republican underticket, though I expect most, even in a Republican-leaning town and State - to lose this time.

====================
rcocean said...
Cederford's great advice to Republicans - get even more liberal. Get rid of southern baptists because then all the NJ soccer moms will vote Republican.

Gee, wonder why almost all NE and NY/NJ Senators are liberal democrats, must be all those New England Fundies the GOP nominates.


It's really simple rcocean. When a national party ignores or marginalizes a major sector of their Party, voters turn out elected officials they believe no longer have any influence - for a Party that does.

It happened to conservative Southern Democrats - good officials lost once the McGovernite wing said they would be considered outsiders.
Same thing happened to pro-life and blue collar ethnic democrats.
Either they shifted Republican, or their careers ended.

Same thing is happening now. The "Base" of Fundies has said their is no place for moderate or centrist Republicans that believe in fiscal conservatism, evolution...
So why vote for a Republican outside the Bible Belt if voters believe they will be ignored in DC? Going with a Democrat, preferably a moderate or centrist, happens almost automatically.

Thus Republicans are shrinking to a regional Party - and unless they recognize how badly "playing to Base diktats has cost them and do some serious changes - they may be in exile for a long time.

blake said...

Roost--

It's not that "socialist" is a code word for "liberal", it's that "liberal" has been co-opted by statists. "Liberalism", in the traditional sense of the word, is about the autonomy of the individual, not about expansion of state power. (Modern "liberals" are the least liberal people around.)

But, actually, you're right: We are, most of us, socialists to some degree or another.

Our tax system is specifically designed along a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Try to argue that everyone should pay the same for government, rich and poor. Hell, try to think with that notion. If you can't, you know you've got some socialist fundamentals working there.

Public education isn't necessarily socialist, but the only thing ours seems really good at is making more socialists.

Social Security isn't necessarily socialist, either, it's just a bad idea. It will become socialist, however, as means testing is incorporated and the cap is removed.

No one will be straight up about this. The government involvement in health care is socialist and look who made it even bigger.

Actually, McCain's idea to buy up bad mortgages is probably the best example of the sort of socialism we seem to want in America: We want the government to remove all risk from life.

We want the government to make sure that we don't lose everything because we get sick, or because we have bad luck--or because we're stupid.

That last one is the killer.

The government ends up filling in for parents, family, group, communities and religion. But unlike the latter groups, the government has no interest in seeing you not rely on them. They'll support your stupidity forever. They'll encourage it. And you'll be lucky to get what you need from them, anyway, because they're so promiscuous about resources, that soon all the resources are gone.

This is observable everywhere I've looked, currently and in history (with the possible exception of two ancient Chinese emperors mentioned by Will Durant in Our Oriental Heritage). For all I know, it's inevitable as religion--but it sure isn't logical.

BJM said...

Pastafarian said...

But for someone who calls themselves a conservative to choose to support a socialist, no matter how bright or articulate he is, requires some sort of additional motivation.


That one reconsiders one positions is expected as life is not static, but prominent conservative operatives and pundits flip-flopping to Obama late in the election cycle is either political Kabuki or sepuku, depending on the outcome of the election.

blake said...

either political Kabuki or sepuku, depending on the outcome of the election.

Meh. What's McCain gonna do if he wins? Nothin'.

I'd like to think he'd realize the media are not his friends, they're not unbiased or even fair-minded, and they're bad people to listen to about what's going on in the country. (His election would prove that, wouldn't it?)

Anyway, I'd like to think he'd learn from that and start listening to Thompson and Palin, but I 'spect he'll go right back to attacking his own people should he win.

Mark said...

"Also, some of his associates (Phleger, Ayers, Wright, Dohrn) are clearly full-out socialists (or communists in Ayers' case)...

"Im not sure I understand- werent we being told recently that Obama and the dems are in the tank for big business? That their opposition to regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was partly responsible for this financial crisis."

Of course, it doesn't have to be either/or. Fannie, Freddie, etc. were more than willing to give Obama et. al. gobs of money. If you're a socialist, and you believe the capitalist tools will drive society into your embrace when their greed and incompetence finally spiral into collapse, why not take their money in the meantime?

Win-win, baby! And while Fannie/Freddie/Lehman are in various stages of decomposition, Team Obama is simply rolling in cash.

If you gotta break some eggs, you might as well make quiche.

Mark said...

Considering the pretty steady drumbeat of these transformations (and the somewhat puzzling focus they seem to have on Palin) I'm starting to wonder if there isn't a money trail to be sniffed out.

(FWIW, the name Charles Fried rang zero bells for me. But then, I'm more a Joe the Plumber type than Harvard Law.)

ron st.amant said...

I can do without the Krauthammer image of 'wet-fingered conservatives' for the rest of my life thank you very much.

Charlie seems to be one of the few conservative columnists who had issue with the Palin selection but still supports McCain.

I can't think of any others...anyone?

Mark said...

"Charlie seems to be one of the few conservative columnists who had issue with the Palin selection but still supports McCain."

Eh, for a conservative, there really is no good reason to support Obama over McCain. Palin just happens to be the manufactured-consensus bad reason:

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.


Folks might pay attention to another rule, of course:

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

I might re-phrase that a little to say that the rubes might figure that the fix is in, but hey. Even the devil's debts come due.

Paul said...

"That will win you 40% of the vote now, and 35% in 2012."

Well there's the difference between us in a nutshell. You are concerned chiefly with political expediency. I am concerned with the truth and accurate analysis.