Today on Blogcritics
Home » “The End of Conservatives”

“The End of Conservatives”

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Or how to lose friends and influence with the neocons.

Paul Craig Roberts used to be an influential guy. He was US Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during 1981-82 in the Reagan administration and a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute. He was also Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review, as well as a columnist for the Washington Times. Pretty impressive conservative resume all in all. He was quoted regularly by Rush and G. Gordon Liddy. So why is he now receiving death threats from the neocons supporters?

He became a critic of the War on Iraq and the policies of the Bush admin. He recognized that the “liberal media” is a myth perpetuated to help conservatives win elections and deceive the public. And he saw conservative values and traditions thrown out the window by the neocons in the White House and on the airwaves. He sees a frightening new America and as a good conservative (yes, I said it… I’m a flaming liberal, but I don’t hate conservatives) he decided he had to speak out.

I’ll let him tell his own story:

Not so long ago I would have identified the liberal media as the New York Times and Washington Post, CNN and the three TV networks, and National Public Radio. But both the Times and the Post fell for the Bush administration’s lies about WMD and supported the US invasion of Iraq. On balance CNN, the networks, and NPR have not made an issue of the Bush administration’s changing explanations for the invasion.

Apparently, Rush Limbaugh and National Review think there is a liberal media because the prison torture scandal could not be suppressed and a cameraman filmed the execution of a wounded Iraqi prisoner by a US Marine. Do the Village Voice and The Nation comprise the “liberal media”? The Village Voice is known for Nat Hentoff and his columns on civil liberties. Every good conservative believes that civil liberties are liberal because they interfere with the police and let criminals go free. The Nation favors spending on the poor and disfavors gun rights, but I don’t see the “liberal hate” in The Nation’s feeble pages that Rush Limbaugh was denouncing on C-Span.

In the ranks of the new conservatives, however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush.

The Iraqi War is serving as a great catharsis for multiple conservative frustrations: job loss, drugs, crime, homosexuals, pornography, female promiscuity, abortion, restrictions on prayer in public places, Darwinism and attacks on religion. Liberals are the cause. Liberals are against America. Anyone against the war is against America and is a liberal. “You are with us or against us.”

This is the mindset of delusion, and delusion permits no facts or analysis. Blind emotion rules. Americans are right and everyone else is wrong. End of the debate.

….

The conservative movement that I grew up in did not share the liberals’ abiding faith in government. “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Today it is liberals, not conservatives, who endeavor to defend civil liberties from the state. Conservatives have been won around to the old liberal view that as long as government power is in their hands, there is no reason to fear it or to limit it. Thus, the Patriot Act, which permits government to suspend a person’s civil liberty by calling him a terrorist with or without proof. Thus, preemptive war, which permits the President to invade other countries based on unverified assertions.

There is nothing conservative about these positions. To label them conservative is to make the same error as labeling the 1930s German Brownshirts conservative.

American liberals called the Brownshirts “conservative,” because the Brownshirts were obviously not liberal. They were ignorant, violent, delusional, and they worshipped a man of no known distinction. Brownshirts’ delusions were protected by an emotional force field. Adulation of power and force prevented Brownshirts from recognizing implications for their country of their reckless doctrines.

Like Brownshirts, the new conservatives take personally any criticism of their leader and his policies. To be a critic is to be an enemy. I went overnight from being an object of conservative adulation to one of derision when I wrote that the US invasion of Iraq was a “strategic blunder.”

It is amazing that only a short time ago the Bush administration and its supporters believed that all the US had to do was to appear in Iraq and we would be greeted with flowers. Has there ever been a greater example of delusion? Isn’t this on a par with the Children’s Crusade against the Saracens in the Middle Ages?

Delusion is still the defining characteristic of the Bush administration. We have smashed Fallujah, a city of 300,000, only to discover that the 10,000 US Marines are bogged down in the ruins of the city. If the Marines leave, the “defeated” insurgents will return. Meanwhile the insurgents have moved on to destabilize Mosul, a city five times as large. Thus, the call for more US troops.

There are no more troops. Our former allies are not going to send troops. The only way the Bush administration can continue with its Iraq policy is to reinstate the draft.

When the draft is reinstated, conservatives will loudly proclaim their pride that their sons, fathers, husbands and brothers are going to die for “our freedom.” Not a single one of them will be able to explain why destroying Iraqi cities and occupying the ruins are necessary for “our freedom.” But this inability will not lessen the enthusiasm for the project. To protect their delusions from “reality-based” critics, they will demand that the critics be arrested for treason and silenced. Many encouraged by talk radio already speak this way.

Welcome to the new America folks. No dissent. No reason. No facts. Just blind worship.

There is nothing conservative about that.

Powered by

About spiderleaf

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    He’s got a point about some conservatives being fairly delusional, but I think he goes way overboard with suggesting that even they want the press shut down or people arrested for criticizing the government.

    What he also overlooks – most importantly – is that there is a large contingent of liberals who are just as irrational and just as delusional. For every neocon who worships Bush without thinking there’s an equally extreme liberal who hates Bush without thinking. The truth lies somewhere in the middle and unreasoning extremists on either end of the spectrum really aren’t representative of the majority in either party, even if they are the most outspoken.

    Dave

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    Granted Dave, but unfortunately the delusional ones are the ones that seem to be making policy these days.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    That’s debatable. For example, yesterday, when addressing the big pro-life rally, Bush pointedly avoiding saying anything in favor of a pro-life constitutional amendment despite their efforts to get him to commit to one. He just said it wasn’t going to happen so drop the idea.

    That’s not exactly kowtowing to the religious right.

    Dave

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    Fabulous. Glad to hear it. But all that proves is that the Repubs lied to their constituents to get votes (abortion and same sex marriage)… because they knew full well that a Constitutional ammendment requires 67 votes in the Senate and they didn’t/ wouldn’t have them.

    In fact, the same far right is pretty peeved at being mislead during the campaign… quote from Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council:

    “It was not articulated that way in the campaign,” Perkins complained (re: same sex marriage)

  • http://www.viewpointjournal.com David Flanagan

    Dave,

    Excellent points. The fact is, if Mr. Roberts continues to believe that the liberal media is a “myth” after the whole Rathergate affair, then he is the one who is delusional.

    Liberals love to quote this guy, but comparing neocons to Nazi-era brownshirts is just completely over the top. What Roberts has learned is that saying radical things is sometimes the only way to get noticed and to sell books.

    Too bad he’s willing to sacrifice his integrity for attention.

    David

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    Aww, poor babies. One of ‘your own’ gets a conscience and he gets vilified by the ‘true patriots’.

    And David, perhaps you’d be kind enough to provide a list of all those ‘liberal’ types in the media that have as much airtime, influence and extreme views as:

    Rush
    Hannity
    Coulter
    Ingraham
    O’Reilly
    North
    Buchanan
    Scarborough
    Novak
    Carlson
    WSJ Editorial page
    etc. etc.

    Hmm, it would probably look like this:

    Chomsky
    Zinn
    Conason
    Frisk

    … now how often do you see those far lefties on TV or hear them on the radio? Just screaming “liberal media” does not make it so.

  • http://www.kalyr.com/weblog Tim Hall

    The existance of a crypto-fascist fringe at the extremes of the ‘conservative movement’ should not be a matter for debate; anyone who denies it’s existance is probably part of that crypto-fascist fringe themselves.

    What is a matter for debate and concern is the size of this fringe, and how much influence it has.

  • http://www.viewpointjournal.com David Flanagan

    spiderleaf,

    You are kidding, right? Okay, here we go off the top of my head in no specific order:

    Brokaw
    Jennings
    Chung
    Oprah
    Rather
    Couric
    Stern
    Garofalo
    Franken
    Moore
    Baldwin
    Asner
    Letterman
    Wallace
    Rooney
    Rall
    Krugman
    Dowd
    trudeau…

    Pause, take a breath!

    I could go on here, but I think I’ve made my point and THANK YOU for playing celebrity bingo!

    David

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    You forgot Streisand, Robbins, Sarandon, Mayne, Springsteen, Bon Jovi and just about every hollywood actor with a grade school education that think they need to speak to the American public and are given all morning with talking heads like Curic and the rest of the day on shows like Okrah.

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    wow, you’re pretty delusional David.

    Half of that list is not as far left as my list is far right… these are some:

    Brokaw
    Jennings
    Chung
    Oprah
    Rather
    Couric
    Wallace
    Rooney

    these are not examples of “far left” opinions buddy. They don’t scream about how Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied. The War in Iraq was a mistake.

    How many of them treated the clinton admin with as much derision as did everyone else? right. all of them. they just report both sides of the issue, which in your view makes them ‘biased’.

    and the others, like Franken and Moore are not on the mainstream airwaves even half as much as the list I posted.

    Try again.

    The true far left list was the one I posted, the counterbalance to the far right list… Letterman? Stern? give me a break buddy, you obviously have no idea what it means to be far left.

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    yow. if you guys think people like brokaw are in the same spin league as folks like hannity or coulter well…i just don’t know what to say.

    sometimes you mistake a lack of conservative ideology for the presence of a liberal one.

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    you guys are hilarious — Hollywood entertainers vs. “reporters” and “opinion columnists” on all cable channels and airwaves and network news…

    that would be really funny if it weren’t so sad.

  • Shark

    Flanagan, you left Mother Theresa off yer list.

    That had to be an oversight!

    And where are all the cartoon characters?!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    The liberal advocates in the media are far more numerous and far more prominent even if some of them are relatively moderate. We’re talking about balancing a dozen conservatives whose main outlets are Fox News and talk radio against everyone on every other media outlet in the US, including almost everyone in hollywood and almost every other person in the news media ane everyone writing scripts for TV or producing TV shows, etc, plus every newspaper in the US except maybe 3.

    Yes, in the last 10 years conservatives have made some headway – 10 years ago there were virtually no conservatives with a national voice in any forum at all. But it’s still a david vs. goliath situation for them. Perhaps because they are so few in number the conservatives who do have access to the media tend to be a bit more extremist.

    Small note – I’m not sure Letterman is all that liberal. And someone above listed Pat Buchanan as a conservative and he’s a Liberal/Fascist.

    As for this guy Roberts, he’s like a Zell Miller for the liberals, one guy who got pissed off about the way they were personally treated by the guys they thought were their buddies and flipped out and went to the opposte political extreme. It’s not a mentality I uderstand at all, but apparently it happens.

    Dave

  • Shark

    Roberts’ testimony only confirms what I’ve been saying for four years: that this brand of ‘conservatism’ is about as far from true conservative ideals as one can get.

    It’s time the few rational people in the GOP wake up and try to ‘retake’ their party from the neo-con nut-bars and the facist Christoids.

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    Pat Buchanan is a liberal? A Jew and black hating liberal… yeah… riiiiiiight….

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    seriously, though conservatives may not agree with the general take on the media in the book What Liberal Media?, it deserves a look as there are some angles on the media (beyond just liberal/conservative) that you may not have considered.

    i sure didn’t.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Pat Buchanan is a liberal? A Jew and black hating liberal… yeah… riiiiiiight….<<

    If you think racism is a characteristic of conservatism you’re too ignorant to engage in a discussion with educated adults.

    Racism is independent of political philosophy and exists among both liberals and conservatives. Need I even point out the extreme anti-jewish sentiment among many black liberal leaders? Or the paternalistic anti-black policies of the democratic party for the last 30 years?

    Dave

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    If you are one of those so-called ‘adults’ then I agree. You are too closedminded and open to propaganda to engage in an actual conversation.

    Yes, racism exists regardless of political affiliation, hell, Senator Byrd was a member of the KKK until he saw the light and started working for change.

    But really, if you can claim with a straight face that Buchanan is a liberal you’ve proved that you are completely ignorant of what it means to be a liberal.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    Mark – that’s the difference though…at least in Coulters case, she doesn’t pretend to be unbiased…neither does hannity. But when you look at broadcast and print media, they try to pretend not to be biased. Dan Rather to this day, believes he did nothing wrong!

  • http://www.kalyr.com/weblog Tim Hall

    >>But really, if you can claim with a straight face that Buchanan is a liberal you’ve proved that you are completely ignorant of what it means to be a liberal.

    The Wingnutosphere would call Joseph Stalin a liberal.

    Anyone who can’t tell the difference between Stalinism with Liberalism is also too ignorant to engage in a discussion with educated adults.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    well, considering that most of what I hear from liberals amounts to nothing but socialism…and since Stalin was a socialist….I guess I’ll go play in the sandbox!!! I can’t figure it out!

  • http://www.kolehardfacts.blogspot.com Mike Kole

    Interestingly, Buchanan was one of the first ‘conservatives’ to speak out against the war. He has consistently done so.

    Buchanan might more accurately be called a ‘nationalist’ or ‘nationalist populist’. For instance, he is anti-NAFTA mainly on protectionist grounds. He is fairly anti-immigrant. He is pro-union. He is fearful of technology in general. Buchanan agrees with Ralph Nader on a surprisingly large range of issues. I get the feeling that some of the previous comments came from people who have heard one or two commentaries from Buchanan, or perhaps are familiar with his role as a Nixon speechwriter, and simply assume all the rest from that.

    All of this shows what I don´t like about political labels. ‘Liberal’ and ‘conservative’ can be so widely interpreted, beyond their original political meaning with regards to relative change from status quo. ‘Socialists’ have the Socialist Party. ‘Communists’ have the Communist Party. ‘Libertarians’ have the Libertarian Party. There is no ‘Liberal Party’ or ‘Conservative Party’, but rather, broad coalitions that may or may not agree on much of anything, uniting under the banners of the Democratic Party and Republican Party. Just as one big generalization that pretty well holds- the average Ohio Republican is more ‘liberal’ than the average Indiana Democrat. For comparison, I´ll offer Ohio Republican governor Bob Taft v. Indiana US Senator Democrat Evan Bayh.

    I’m glad Roberts has spoken out against the war. It’s a shame he used the imagery he chose.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    By the classic definition of a Liberal Buchanan is certainly not a Liberal, but we don’t use that term anymore. By that definition the entire Democrat party isn’t Liberal. Buchanan does fit in well with the current liberal/progressive movement which is anti-Jew, anti-industry, anti-immigrant, highly suspicious of nebulous government conspiracies, and in favor of all sorts of statist anti-federalist policies. These folks don’t fit in the definition of classic Liberalism at all.

    Technically Buchanan is a statist/socialist and he does have a lot in common with Joe Stalin. He gets mistaken for a conservative because some of his social views fit in with the religious right, but truthfully most of the religious right’s agenda is more Liberal than conservative in the classic sense.

    If we want to go back to classical definitions of Liberalism I’m probably one of the more Liberal people on here.

    Dave

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    Dave, you’re not a liberal, you’re just ignorant, as your comments bring into stark relief.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Gah, do I have to go back into History Professor mode and explain what Liberal and Conservative actually mean. Maybe after lunch.

    Dave

  • JR

    Gah, do I have to go back into History Professor mode and explain what Liberal and Conservative actually mean. Maybe after lunch.

    If your claim that Hitler was democratically elected was indicative of your “History Professor mode”, I’d say don’t waste our time.

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    oh please great swami, educate us lesser beings.

    Let me educate you on who liberals have been in recent history and then try to tell me with a straight face that you have anything in common with them:

    (and in terms of anti-Jew… bring out the repub talking points again… being critical of Israeli gov’t policy does not equate to anti-semetic or anti-Jew… hmmm… Palestinians are a semetic race as well… so I guess the term fits conservatives and the Israeli gov’t a bit more than liberals, eh… but I suppose my husband is just a self-hating Jew… I’ll be sure to let him know a rightwing nutbar on a blog thinks so)

    Barbara Boxer
    Paul Wellstone
    Ralph Nader
    Pierre Trudeau
    Joe Conanson
    Robert Fisk
    Naomi Klein

    Pray tell how you have so much in common with these true liberals…

    And just in case you didn’t realize it in your ‘history professor’ role, the US is not the only country in the world with liberals, so you’re definition should be all incompassing and take into consideration the social movements of other countries, including Canada.

    I can’t wait, oh wise one, for your response.

  • Shark

    Dave: “…Do I have to go back into History Professor mode…”

    Dave, ever heard of MacDiva?

    I think yall should get together and update your CVs…

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    No, who’s MacDiva? Can he help me update my CV? It’s horribly out of date and generally obsolete. I’ve got a visiting lecturer slot coming up next year and I might need it.

    Dave

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com Eric Berlin

    Spider – Thanks for pointing out this article. I saw it a day or so ago and was hoping someone would mention it.

    I think that as is often the case when discussing politics, the rhetoric is flying a bit manically.

    A couple of my takes:

    * There are a number of “traditional conservatives” who now feel free to openly criticize the re-elected Bush Administration. Ardent Bush supporters have become so reflexive and inflexible when dealing with criticism that it’s become commonplace to question sanity, patriotism, credentials, no matter the source.

    * The day Pat Buchanan is considered a liberal… I don’t know what that day would be. He’s an ideologue, just not of the neo-conservative bent of the Bushies. He’s got his own crazy ideas to be sure, but he’s not afraid to take shots at the White House.

    Eric Berlin
    Dumpster Bust: Miracles from Mind Trash

  • http://www.viewpointjournal.com David Flanagan

    Well, I think it ironic that spiderleaf would question the idea that liberals would ever act in a hateful manner towards someone in the black community just a day after Robert (KKK) Byrd villified Condi Rice and voted against appointing her to become the first black woman Secretary of State.

    It seems that liberals have a hidden clause somewhere that allows them to take on racist tones as long as their slandering minorities who are conservative. Go figure.

    David

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    David, you are really too much.

    Senator Byrd was doing his job as a member of Congress in question Rice’s statements on a war. It was not a racist act… or are we now to never question anyone’s statements because of the color of their skin? Really, get a grip.

    And yes, as I mentioned, Byrd used to be a member of the KKK, as did many, many others in the old South. He however has been working towards change since realizing the errors of his way vs. the racist veiled statements coming from oh, I dunno, Lott, Thurmond, DeLay, Limbaugh, etc. There is a reason that African Americans don’t trust the Republican party my dear — actions speak louder than words.

    MLK himself said he was hoping for a society where people are judged by the strength of their character, not the color of their skin… but you seem to think that questions regarding someones character are offlimits if they are black… nice.

    yeah, the Democratic party is so racist 90% of African Americans voted Dem.

    Get a grip.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Ah, Spidey suffers under the misaprehension that MLK was a ‘liberal’ in the same sense that todays Democrats are.

    And let’s not go into which party actually has a history of supporting civil rights. Except for the last 40 years or so the Republicans have totally dominated the cause of liberation and equality for African Americans. The Dems didn’t come around to that position until they realized it would be politicially advantageous. As I’m sure you know, every major civil rights bill of the 1950s and 1960s passed through congress with a larger percentage of votes among Republicans than among Democrats.

    So don’t go trying to tar Republicans with the racist brush just because they have the more optimistic view that we’ve more or less achieved functional equality.

    Dave

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    Oh I do apologize Dave… I’m accused of using racist tones and I’M the one with the problem? Your far right ideology is rearing its ugly head again Dave, despite all your protestations to the contrary.

    Actions speak louder than words Dave & David, and the actions of the Republicans towards civil rights and equal rights (I happen to believe same sex marriage/ civil union) is a human rights issue, but Republicans had no problem stiring up bigotry towards homosexuals in the last election either.

    And let’s see — the old Dixiecrats of the old Dem party all conveniently ended up in the Repbulican party precisely because of issues like civil rights, when Johnson (a Democrat, lest we forget) said that attitude was not what the Dems stood for… and then almost 30 years later we had the Willie Horton ad… by… right, a Republican. And then there’s that whole “welfare mother” thing which is just veiled speech for “single poor black woman”. And then as another example Rush Limbaugh waxing philisophical about the reason for Donovan McNabb’s success on ESPN… And Trent Lott at Thurmond’s 100th birthday party (ya know, the guy who filibustered civil rights legislation) talking about how wonderful it would have been had Thurmond been elected president. Or how about “the Bell Curve” which drove African American intellectuals from the AEI in the ’90’s because of its racist statements… and those are just off the top of my head.

    The Republicans are most surely the party of civil rights…. if you buy that I have a bridge to sell you…

    And the fact that Republicans would try and play the race card against Dems in questioning a woman who was NSA (and is trying to be promoted to SoS) when the worst attack on American soil took place and then helped lie about the reasons to invade Iraq is really disgusting. And truly lame and transparent.

    But please, go ahead and agree with David that I’m speaking in racist tones… and this from a man who in the “mourning in DC” thread openly disagrees that blacks were killed in the South back in the day for trying to stand up for their rights… in response to an African American man who said he wouldn’t “get out if he didn’t like it”.

    I am through talking to either you or Flannagen. You are truly unworthy of anyones time. go take a long hard look in the mirror.

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    And Eric Olsen, as an addendum to our discussion yesterday about me and my anti-war/ Bush views, from now on I will make it a point to be completely dogmatic in my views because of the bile spewed on this site by far right extremists.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    I get a kick out of reading some of this stuff…it seems every time I read the name Dave, it goes off in my head like the movie 2001…

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Actions speak louder than words Dave & David, and the actions of the Republicans towards civil rights and equal rights (I happen to believe same sex marriage/ civil union) is a human rights issue, < <

    And a strong majority of Republicans SUPPORT civil unions.

    >>but Republicans had no problem stiring up bigotry towards homosexuals in the last election either.< <

    Wanting to keep marriage as a religious institution and hating gays are not actually the same thing. Leaping to that conclusion exposes your own prejudices.

    >>And let’s see — the old Dixiecrats of the old Dem party all conveniently ended up in the Repbulican party precisely because of issues like civil rights, when Johnson (a Democrat, lest we forget) said that attitude was not what the Dems stood for… and then almost 30 years later we had the Willie Horton ad… by… right, a Republican. < <

    Ok, I did say prior to the last 40 years. When the Dixiecrats switched parties the Republicans did get a small contingent of racists who had previously been Democrats. As I made clear in my post I was talking about the historical position of the party, not the position of some individuals who preserved the racist philosophy of the southern wing of the Democratic party. The overall position of the party, excepting a small number of dixiecrat holdovers and crypto dixiecrats is still not racist.

    >>And the fact that Republicans would try and play the race card against Dems in questioning a woman who was NSA (and is trying to be promoted to SoS) when the worst attack on American soil took place and then helped lie about the reasons to invade Iraq is really disgusting. And truly lame and transparent.< <

    Turnabout is fair play. You have to remember that most Republicans think of themselves as members of the Party of Lincoln, the party that freed the slaves and championed civil rights. Yet they had their black constituency stolen away by the Democrats - the same people who had promoted Jim Crow laws and segregation - and now find that same party accusing them of racism. When they have a chance to demonstrate resoundingly with their support for African American appointees how wrongheaded the Democrats are, are you surprised that some of that resentment surfaces?

    >>But please, go ahead and agree with David that I’m speaking in racist tones… <<

    I never said anything like that, now did I?

    I just think you don’t make any effort to see things from anyone else’s perspective. Republicans are NOT evil and don’t see themselves as evil, and after being vilified unfairly (as they see it) for years over the race issue, they are understandably touchy.

    Dave

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    Yet they had their black constituency stolen away by the Democrats

    Wow, that’s a pretty big statement there Dave. So blacks can’t think for themselves and decide which party deserves their support?

    Man oh man.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Dave said:
    Wanting to keep marriage as a religious institution and hating gays are not actually the same thing. Leaping to that conclusion exposes your own prejudices.

    She didn’t say anything about hating gays. She said “no problem stirring up bigotry”, which is exactly what the Bush campaign did this last election for political gain.

    He terrorized millions of Americans and their children (remember, what you called a brilliant political strategy) by the threat of writing into the Constitution their permanent second class citizenship. He might not hate gays, but one can ‘stir up’ the bigotry and hatred in this country without actually doing the hating himself.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    Steve – your boy Kerry was for the same amendment, before he was against it, before he was for it!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    No Andy, you’re wrong on two counts.

    1) He was never for it.

    2) He was never my boy.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    I stand corrected Steve.

    It is just a little difficult to follow Kerry’s stances on any issue. He is against a Federal ban and for a state ban. I’ll keep looking, I’m pretty sure there was someplace on the campaign trail that he supported it.

    I was under the impression that you were a kerry supporter, my mistake.

    From BPNews.com

    The editorial board of the largest newspaper in Sen. John Kerry’s own state has criticized him for endorsing a marriage amendment to the Massachusetts constitution. [BPNews]

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    It is just a little difficult to follow Kerry’s stances on any issue.

    I had no problem understanding where he stood on issues.

    I am aware of his stance on the state constitutions. The difference is, he is expressing his beliefs as a voter. He is not campaigning or in any other way actively working towards making discrimination a permanent politcal reality.

    I preferred Dean and Clark over Kerry both for very different reasons. I’ve had to stand up for Kerry repeatedly here, because of all the lies, smears, false accusations, demonizing and character assassinations that you and your side put our during the election. That’s probably where you got the idea that I preferred him. I did vote for him though, when it was down to him and Bush.

    Now, since the subject has been successfully turned around to a criticism of Kerry and his marriage stance, I would like to direct it back to the original complaint. That this is a post that does nothing but assault the Left for some reason or another.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    I got your “you and your side” right here Steve! I’ll make sure to lump you in with every person I don’t agree with too!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    But Andy, the attacks really did come from you…and your side. It’s not a generalization, it actually happened. Are you going to claim now that you praised Kerry during the election? No, you attacked. You call the man’s wife the ‘b’ word.

    The Right also attacked Kerry relentlessly. There is no denying that. I fail to see the claim of ‘generalization’ in stating that you and your side both attacked Kerry. I don’t see it as an insult to you, I see it as a reporting of what happened, a reporting of fact.

    I was just pointing out that this post does nothing but attack Democrats in one form or another with rants, and Dave had said just last night he wouldn’t tolerate such stuff.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Yet they had their black constituency stolen away by the Democrats

    Wow, that’s a pretty big statement there Dave. So blacks can’t think for themselves and decide which party deserves their support?

    Man oh man.<<

    Do you have or want to have any capacity at all for thinking outside of your own narrow little box? I was trying to give you the Republican perspective. Maybe stretch your imagination just a little bit for a moment and see things the way they see them.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>He terrorized millions of Americans and their children (remember, what you called a brilliant political strategy) by the threat of writing into the Constitution their permanent second class citizenship. He might not hate gays, but one can ‘stir up’ the bigotry and hatred in this country without actually doing the hating himself.<<

    What second class citizenship? There’s no constitutional right to marriage now for gay or straight couples.

    Dave

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    What second class citizenship? There’s no constitutional right to marriage now for gay or straight couples.

    Dave, in every state where the Right to Marry made it through the court system, it came down in our favor. Everytime, including in conservative places like Alaska. That is why the only counter to it, is to block it by trying to get it thrown out on a technicality or to amend a state constitution. There could not possibly be such a large contingent of activist judges across the entire land. Have you bothered to read the rulings about why denying some people the Right to Marry violates the Constitution, if so, why would you ask me?

    Your refusal to comment on my fact that not 24 hours after you said you wouldn’t tolerate flames and rants from the Right, it has been disproven, gives me my answer, unfortunately.

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    If that’s they way “they” see it (although you are as far right as they get, so I’d include you in ‘they’) then that is just plain racist and your whole argument about why African Americans would even consider voting Republican is full of shit.

    And btw – ‘they’ didn’t say it, you did.

    perhaps you should try thinking before you type…

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Dave, in every state where the Right to Marry made it through the court system, it came down in our favor. Everytime, including in conservative places like Alaska. That is why the only counter to it, is to block it by trying to get it thrown out on a technicality or to amend a state constitution. There could not possibly be such a large contingent of activist judges across the entire land. Have you bothered to read the rulings about why denying some people the Right to Marry violates the Constitution, if so, why would you ask me?

    Your refusal to comment on my fact that not 24 hours after you said you wouldn’t tolerate flames and rants from the Right, it has been disproven, gives me my answer, unfortunately.<<

    Steve, no right-winger has come on here and said ‘gays are evil, so they shouldn’t be allowed to marry’. Not one. How am I supposed to argue with them if they don’t say anything for me to argue with.

    The fact that you accuse them of believing this doesn’t give me anything to work with. You and I both know that gays aren’t evil and we’re close enough to agreeing on the gay marriage issue. I’ll gladly agree with you that there are a good number of right-wing nutters who think that homosexuality is a tool of the devil and that there’s a secret conspiracy to brainwash our kids into becoming gay. But until someone comes out here on BlogCritics and actually says they believe this, what am I supposed to do?

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Spidey: If that’s they way “they” see it (although you are as far right as they get, so I’d include you in ‘they’) then that is just plain racist and your whole argument about why African Americans would even consider voting Republican is full of shit.

    Um what the hell are you talking about? Are you tryin to tell me it’s racist to say that historically blacks voted Republican until the Democratic party won their loyalty away in the 1960s? That’s not racist, that’s a statement of fact.

    I haven’t made an argument about why African Americans should vote Republican today. I do think that they should, mainly because Republicans are more likely to look out for the interests of individual African Americans and encourage advancement based on personal merit. But on the other hand Democrats have appealed to African Americans as a group very effectively and offered them support in a number of ways which have earned their loyalty.

    My belief is that the things which Democrats have done to help African Americans as a group have hurt the possibilities for advancement of African Americans as individuals. Treating them as an oppressed minority is fine up to a point, but there comes a time – and I think it is already past – where they need to move beyond that status and start to participate in society on an even basis with everyone else.

    Dave

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    I was just repeating your words Dave. “Stolen constituency”… remember?

    If you can steal something from someone you are claiming ownership of that something… in this case, blacks.

    Better luck with your spin next time.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>I was just repeating your words Dave. “Stolen constituency”… remember?

    If you can steal something from someone you are claiming ownership of that something… in this case, blacks.<<

    Oh, don’t be ridiculous. Believing that a particular constituency owes loyalty to your political party is not the same as believing you own them like a slave. Trying to put those words into my mouth is just foolish. No one with half a lick of sense thought I was saying anything like that.

    Dave

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    yeah, okay. whatever makes you feel better… I’m sure the African Americans out there would be pleased to hear that the Republican party believes the Dems ‘stole their constituency’ and wouldn’t take offense at all.

    Like I said… spin away my dear.

    And while you’re at it, how about that Strom Thurmand and Rush Limbaugh and Trent Lott… sure are upstanding guys and not a wee bit racist… the faces of the Republican party.

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    btw – did you hear ‘good conservative’ and ‘good Christian’ Michael Savage spewing about the Tsunami victims… another ‘compassionate conservative’ to add to the list of why most minorities would not want to be part of the Rethuglican party…

    It’s not a tragedy. I wouldn’t call it a tragedy. It’s a human disaster. It’s not a tragedy in that sense. But, the issue is, theological questions suddenly arise. … Now, for you atheists, you have no questions about this. It’s a pure accident of nature. You don’t ask yourself, “Was it God’s hand?”

    If you are a God-believing, God-fearing person, I am sure at some point you ask yourself, wait a minute. The epicenter of this earthquake and the resulting tidal wave was adjacent to the sex trade island of Phuket, Thailand … and then it knocked out many, many regions of Indonesia, some of which are the most vicious recruiting grounds for Islamic terrorists. That’s a fact of reality. Then going the other way, it hit Sri Lanka, ex-Ceylon. And as you well know, Sri Lanka is a viciously anti-Western nation, the home of the Tamil Tigers, who are not only separatists but anti-Westerners, anti-Christians, etc. You could argue, maybe this is God’s hand, because some of their brethren struck Christian America. Maybe God speaks the truth but waits. Seeks the truth and waits. I don’t know. You could argue: God struck them. Now, I don’t argue that because I’m not a theologian. Nor do I believe that God is omnipotent. I believe God is omnipresent. But I don’t think God has control over every act because there would be no free will and I don’t believe in that. … But then again, who knows? I’m one man amongst billions of people, with one man’s opinion.

    […]

    Many of the countries and the areas in these countries that were hit by these tidal waves were hotbeds of radical Islam. Why should we be helping them destroy us? … I think what we’re doing is feeding our own demise. … I truthfully don’t believe in foreign aid.

    […]

    We shouldn’t be spending a nickel on this, as far as I’m concerned. … I don’t want one nickel of my money going over there. … I am sick of being bled to death by every damn incident on the earth.

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    I wonder if he believes the hurricanes in Florida were ‘God’s will’ to send a message about the stolen 2000 election.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    But until someone comes out here on BlogCritics and actually says they believe this, what am I supposed to do?

    oh, I see, you weren’t talking about demonization rants, just potty mouths.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    OK, who’s Michael Savage, sorry, I know that may sound ignorant, but I don’t know the guy. He Canadian Spider?

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    He hosts “Savage Nation” a nationally syndicated talkshow based out of California.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    spiderleaf – I’m not buying that god’s hand BS but I do have a problem with how many of the people in that area of the country feel about the US. You should read the post I put up yesterday from an officer onboard the USS Lincoln here But the US gets shit on all the time around the world, so why should this be any different?

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    Thanks Andy, I missed that post the first time around… I agree, there are assholes all over the world and the Indonesian gov’t has not been very helpful in the relief efforts (not just the US though.. Paul Martin, Canada’s PM, went over to assess the damage and the gov’t wouldn’t let him travel to the hardest hit areas because of their political battle with the rebel group… god I hate politics).

    But I sincerely do think with ordinary civilians in those areas it will matter that the US is there to help.

    And good for the crew eating off of paper plates to save water for the relief efforts. That’s good stuff.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>And while you’re at it, how about that Strom Thurmand and Rush Limbaugh and Trent Lott… sure are upstanding guys and not a wee bit racist… the faces of the Republican party.<<

    Cynthia “kill the jews” McKinney, Jesse “hymie town” Jackson – the faces of the Democratic party?

    Everyone’s got a few closet cases.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    BTW Spidey, Michael Savage is some sort of lunatic and I don’t listen to the other talk show hosts you mentioned.

    And as for the ‘government’ of Indonesia, I wouldn’t be weeping if we quietly took those murderous bastards out of the picture too.

    Dave