Brooks, and others, were just so excited at the idea of a black President — or, more specifically, at the idea of themselves, voting for a black President — that they suspended all critical faculties. Now it’s buyer’s remorse. We’ll be seeing more of that.
Brooks is most certainly not on the left, and his current criticism of Obama has caveats as well. Brooks is one of my favorites, as he possesses almost exactly the sort of pragmatic conservatism that I mentioned a few posts back. If only the GOP would listen to Brooks instead of Dobson and Limbaugh, they might be a good choice for leadership.
ReplyDeleteI see you've been reading Obama's talking points that state that Limbaugh runs the party.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to be a little more clear.
ReplyDeleteHindsight is always 20/20.
ReplyDeletemazenko
ReplyDeleteDarren and I had a conversation a few weeks ago and one of our subjects was B Hussein Obama. FYI, Darren and I met when he was a battery executive officer and I was the battalion S2 of 1st of the 3rd Air Defense Artillery at Ft Carson CO. We went over our leadership positions over the years at Carson and since (he a platoon leader, XO, occasional acting battery commander, executive positions in the civilian work prior to his starting in school, me as a platoon leader and company commander). And it’s obvious. We’ve each had years more executive/leadership experience than the man who holds the Oval Office.
In a rare case of an intelligent utterance, Joe Biden said something that was not stupid in a Democratic debate last year. He told the junior Senator from Illinois “The Oval Office is no place for on the job training.” For once Plugs, you’re right. Didn’t stop you from jumping on the band wagon, but you finally did make a good point.
BTY mazenko, the Republican Party did listen to the likes of Brooks last year and nominated a moderate who stood for few things and just wanted to get along. He lost. Hopefully we’ve learned our lesson and will nominate another conservative (Jindal, Palin, etc) in 2012 to rid this county of B Hussein.
Regardless of Obama's talking points (though as an educated electorate I listen carefully to both sides), there is legitimate argument behind Limbaugh's influence on the GOP. When the GOP chairman calls out Limbaugh, and then (just as Emmanual ironically predicted) came out and publicly apologized to him, there is sad, but considerable, influence. I've yet to hear any Democratic politician apologize for disagreeing with Michael Moore, or any liberal pundit. Newt Gingrich, however, felt the need to publicly apologize on James Dobson's show for his very private business. How conservative is that? Why would he do it, unless he was looking at a presidential run?
ReplyDeleteLimbaugh's influence is undeniable, as McCain - originally a moderate - tacked so far to the right during the election. He lost, not as a moderate, but as a conservative. Fear of losing the base was naive, as they certainly weren't going to stay home or vote for Ron Paul and hand the election to Clinton or Obama. So McCain made a huge miscalculation. He lost because he lost the middle. He lost the moderate independents - like me who campaigned for him in 2000 and lamented his loss to Bush and hoped he'd be the choice in 2008 and then lost faith as he surrendered his pragmatism and became a neo-conservative sycophant.
There is much coming from Rush with which I concur, but that doesn't mean I see him as anything more than an entertainer with a political bent, albeit a very skilled one. Yet, you don't see Republicans apologizing to George Will or Charles Krauthammer or Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity.
The GOP has a problem in that they don't know who they are.
Mazenko: If there is one thing that did not cost McCain, it was being too conservative. You really missed the mark on that comment.
ReplyDeleteThe problem was the baggage he brought with him from the legislature - his history on immigration issues, on Guantanamo, and his remarks about global warming. Really, for us conservatives, at the time it seemed he was simply the lesser of two socialists. How much the lesser has been made rather obvious by Teh One's behavior since the election. McCain was truly a plug-your-nose-and-vote candidate.
Rush is entertaining ... but he isn't an entertainer. He voiced the principles of conservatism, pure and simple. He knows that the message resonates with a large swath of the population - and NOT JUST REPUBLICANS. Rush has the sense to know his place, although his endorsement would be absolutely invaluable to any politician who hopes to run as a conservative. The only reason that is the case is that he would not back anybody who wasn't a bona fide conservative. He never did work up the enthusiasm for McCain, as you well know!
If you will recall, Paul Harvey did not endorse commercial products he did not use himself. He tried the goods he advertised, and he promoted the ones that got his approval. That is why his endorsement was so valuable - it was trusted. Well, the same applies to Limbaugh in the political marketplace. Rush is valuable for vetting purposes.
Oh, for gosh sakes. Limbaugh's a talking head and the only reason his name has popped to the top of the list is that Obama needs an official enemy on whom to direct blame for the frightening policies he, and the Democratic party, are enacting.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that there are polls showing that the vastness of the various expenditures the Democratic party is ramming through Congress is exhausting America's credulity and the sneaking suspicion is seeping in that the Democrats are doing what they've always done which is spend public money to satisfy their conceits, not public needs.
There are a number of possible targets like the governors that have refused to accept the "stimulus" money but Limbaugh is the one chosen to, hopefully, be the lightening rod for lefty hatred and divert public attention from the immensity of the burden that the Congressional Democrats and Obama are hanging around the public neck.
But, Peggy:
ReplyDeleteHe didn't lose the conservative vote. Even if you plugged your nose and voted for him you still did it. So did Limbaugh. He lost the independents. Guantanomo, immigration, and global warming cost him no votes - there's no evidence to prove otherwise.
If you check the data, you'll see, McCain won the conservatives. He did it hands down. He made the mistake of thinking he had to appeal to the base. How strange. The base is going to vote for the party's choice regardless. Ron Paul and Bob Barr cost McCain nothing, as you know. Even with their votes, McCain lost significantly.
McCain lost the center. He lost the moderates. He did so for being perceived as out of touch with stale ideas. It was a repeat of Bob Dole campaigning against Clinton with the slogan "Who wants a tax cut?" It didn't work.
You say he didn't lose the conservative vote. I'm not so sure. I know of conservatives who sat the election out, rather than vote for McCain. It is anecdotal evidence, but factual. I don't know where you will be able to find numbers on those who didn't vote. They are harder to track than those who did.
ReplyDeleteHmm. Don't know what happened to the comment I left before, but I was going to say that while you say he lost moderates by leaning too far right, from this perspective I can tell you that there were conservatives who sat out altogether rather than vote for democrate-lite McCain. At least, I know of a couple who did, and I don't imagine they are the only ones. However, I don't know if they bother to track people who don't vote at all.
ReplyDeleteActually, Peggy, based on voter registration lists, the percentages are quite easy to track. It was done on election night and in the days after. No significant numbers of conservatives stayed home. McCain lost the moderates. It's that simple.
ReplyDelete