Rebuilding On The Right, Part II
October 30, 2008 / 5:13 pm • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierPatrick Ruffini has another post up about rebuilding the Rightroots. (Here’s what I wrote on this. Great comments, by the way.) This is inbred blogging and boring as all hell to most of you, I know, but that’s why I blog. It’s my blog and I can whine if I want to. Anyway, in response, Rick Moran wrote a salient piece that’s worth reading. He says:
Ruffini seems to be saying that he wants bloggers who will shill for the cause. He appears to want bloggers who would subsume their independence and buy into the notion that the “primary purpose” of an individual’s blog is “to build political power for a cause.” That “cause” would be backing specific conservative candidates and issues.
One assumes this would be accomplished by adopting some of the online activist model created by the netroots – the most important in my opinion being the creation of online communities that I mention above. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this idea and I hope it is realized.
The problem, as Patrick mentions, is that many of us old mossbacks are stuck in 2003 and our blogging is unrelated to political activism, except in a roundabout way that presupposes our readers are forced to think about what we write and whose opinion might be altered because of the scintillating brilliance of our logic and reasoning.
Or not.
I am not so full of myself that I actually believe my writing makes a difference. But it is mine, my own, and not beholden to a group, a party, or a cause. I suppose that means I will be left behind when this new conservative on line community begins to take shape. That will be my choice and I will harbor little bitterness towards those who choose another path.
Moran himself “shilled” for Fred Thompson (which is more than I did and I supported Thompson throughout the primaries), but ultimately wanted the freedom to say what he wanted. So far, so good. And then he says this:
There is a definite push back on the right these days against the “elites” who make their living inside the Washington-New York axis; where conservative media and commentators exist side by side with their liberal counterparts and it is believed – wrongly in my opinion – that criticism directed at conservatives in flyover country for their passionate embrace of Sarah Palin and the emphasis placed on social issues like abortion is an attack on “ordinary folk” and indicative of the elites’ desire to be accepted at liberal cocktail parties as well as a lack of ideological purity.
I have written that this smacks of a nascent anti-intellectualism (to go along with the anti-science notions pushed by some of the social cons) and that this is an argument as old as the republic itself (populists vs. elites). Questioning the conservative bona fides of Peggy Noonan or David Brooks – two conservatives who have done more to promote conservative ideas than all of their critics combined – doesn’t make sense in any other context except as an indication that many on the right prefer purges to debate and the guillotine to reasoned discussion.
Now, wait just one little minute. This writer has taken on Peggy Noonan and quoted her in enthusiastic agreement both. I have been critical of David Frum and Peggy Noonan and the other Insiders who I called the “smarty-pants set”, not because they were critical, but because, yes, I questioned the timing. My criticisms tacitly acknowledge their power to persuade the masses and their position at the top of the ideological heap. We don’t need the people who have “done more to promote conservative ideas”, to be the ones undermining their OWN candidate a week before the election. It is not party purity I seek. It’s a party, period. Performing autopsies on the still living tends to kill the patient not diagnose the problem. It IS the problem. And more, it reeks of self-preservation and/or promotion. “See, I’m so smart I predicted the implosion, while the true-believing rubes fixate on abortion and loading their duck blinds in their pick-em-ups.”
We are all on the same team. And it is frankly offensive to reduce the right-roots to anti-intellectual populists who look to create their own one, pure, party and country. Hells bells! That’s the Kos Kid’s territory. Remember the treatment of Joe Lieberman? Yeah, that’s some big tent, they have.
I’ll just speak for myself here, but I would like the Washington pundit class to show some self-discipline. We’re all maintaining it. Many on the Right have been holding their fire because they see an Obama presidency as a scary swing into one-party leftist rule.
Now, I fully respect those like Michelle Malkin who have beaten the conservative drum no matter who it irritates. Good for her. Her role is different than David Frum’s and Peggy Noonan’s and people in the party are smart enough to know it. It’s a stretch to accuse Malkin or Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingrham as lacking intellectual acuity or promoting anti-intellectualism. And it’s wrong to attribute anti-intellectualism to 30 million Americans who listen and read these people. That’s foolishness. Those listeners and readers have money and spend it to support the Republican party. A little respect is due. Their voices matter, too.
And another thing: for all the power conservative Republicans wield, why has the Republican hierarchy governed like porky liberals? I’ll answer my own question: Because people in power want to stay in power. That powerful motivation makes buying support back home very attractive. And, the voters back home see the money and the favors and the taxes that they’re paying and figure I might as well get some, too. In addition to the power deal, many Republicans, the current president included, have embraced “compassionate” conservatism (a moniker that has irked me to no end because it implies that conservative policies are mean, but that’s another topic for another day) which may be better described as soft liberalism. And America should move further to the Left? It’s my view that people seek an alternative and a clear defining message. Even in these muddy, underfunded Republican waters, John McCain is doing better than expected.
Rick Moran believes that the Democrat ascendancy will pull Republicans left. I don’t know about that. Democrats haven’t succeeded by being Republicans-lite. The most liberal Senator to run for President Barack Obama could win the election, Congresswoman Pelosi (a San Francisco leftist) and the Barney Frank leadership are not exactly “pulled conservative” or even modestly moderate.
Anyway, this talk could go on and on. And, it should. But success won’t come from Republicans doing to each other what the media and parties have done to the country: falsely polarizing the electorate. Americans are far more sophisticated and nuanced than either the punditry or political class would have us believe. George Will is right about that. Most of American politics IS played between the 40 yard lines. Even still, the parties are defined by the end zones. Right now, Republicans are playing without a goal post.
20 Responses to “Rebuilding On The Right, Part II”
October 30 2008 / 7:07 pm
Reply
So . . . is this a non postmortem postmortem?
As an obvious outsider to your “inside conversation”, allow me to make a few observations. I find this focus on ideology horribly misplaced. When you start “protecting the Right” or “defending the Left” you are forced into the unfortunate position of defending obvious incompetence and abomination.
Instead of “Pro-Right”, why not advocate a “Pro-Country” approach? Learn from what happened on the Left. We have had eight years of self-flagellation. Contrary to the caricature presented of some sort of lock step automation – we have gone at each other’s throats.
This fight spilled into the public with the war between the Obamaites and the Clintonites. This was a good thing. Both camps understand each other better now. The split came down to Iraq. There was a faction of the Democratic party that simply couldn’t abide that fiasco any longer. Others had their own reasons for supporting the heir apparent of the Democratic party.
If Obama had supported the war from the start (as did Hillary) he would not be in a position to be President now. That’s a big difference, and it could not be swept under a rug. The fight had to happen. It was over an issue, not an ideology.
You will find the a large portion of the Left will be more critical of Obama’s administration than even the Right. Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” was deeply resented, and his infidelities cost the nation the best chance we had at universal healthcare, progressive tax reform, and educational reform. (Additionally, there are eight years of frustrated policies that need to see the light of day.)
The Right, on the other hand, is exhausted.
That is why this Palin thing is so interesting. I know she energized a core of the Right. But what is not reported is how she energized a core of the Left. She proved a fundraising phenomena for the Obama campaign. She struck terror into the heart of a lot of people who had either abandoned Obama or sat on the fence. Had McCain made a reasonable pick, he might be in a very different position right now.
Yesterday, Palin made plain that she did not intend to exit the national stage. While this may have warmed the souls of some of you on the Right – you must realize that the Left could not be more pleased. Palin, whose pick may have cost McCain the Presidency, may prove the gift that keeps on giving.
Because here’s the thing. For all the talk of “Socialist” and “Marxist” and other nonsense – most Americans don’t care about your ideological warfare (of which Palin is the most prominent proponent). People are losing jobs, losing children in ridiculous wars, and losing their retirements after eight years of brutal misrule.
If Obama screws up as spectacularly as Bush, he will be rejected as well. But this will likely prove a judgment based on results and competence – not ideology. I will not support an incompetent simply because he is on my “team”. Which is as it should be.
Now, I know you will want to battle each other over who is “really” Right and who is not. But, like it or not, we are all Americans. Battle over solutions rather than ideologies. Focus on real solutions to problems instead of creating new ideological litmus tests.
But hey, it’s still kindof a free country. You Righties do what you will, that’s just what I think . . .
October 30 2008 / 7:34 pm
Reply
Glynn,
Your take is interesting and thought-provoking. About Palin: Why did she energize the Left? Because she was a serious threat. Young, accomplished, articulate, and a popular Governor, she is the future…just like Obama.
If McCain had picked some old Senate hand or some other old white guy, what would we be hearing? What we are hearing now about McCain, but louder: old, in the past, associated with Bush, establishment insiders, same old, same old.
Far from sinking McCain, Palin saved him…and not just with the Right. McCain did what Obama was too insecure to do: Pick a strong woman as a running mate. Had Obama picked Hillary, he would be up 15 points and this election would be over. Instead, it’s a statistical dead heat.
If by some chance Obama loses, there will be cries of racism, but the Dems will have to blame their own house for the defections.
October 30 2008 / 9:01 pm
Reply
Melissa,
It was not Hillary that cost her the vice-presidential nomination. It was Bill. Obama made the choice that he couldn’t afford to have the potential drama / craziness of the Clinton team.
Obama was right. Would you trust the Clinton’s not to cause some devilment in the next eight years? Bill probably has a hooker and a six pack of Pabst in the back of some car right now. It just wasn’t worth it, and it’s another mark of Obama’s wise decision-making.
And as far as Palin . . . please note that it was not her articulateness that energized the Left. The thought that someone that scary would be next in line for the Presidency that did it. McCain is 72 years old. The Left acted out of love for Country.
And there are plenty of Republican women that McCain could have picked (Christie Todd Witman, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Linda Lingle leap to mind). He should have chose a female that knows something. Instead, McCain’s own campaign has repeatedly leaked to anyone that would listen that Palin knows absolutely nothing about foregn or even national policy.
So, they had a choice. Put her in front of the national media and pray, or hide her away. It’s absurd, and it’s all McCain’s fault. Surprise, polling reveals that she is acting as a major drag on the ticket. Palin was like Halloween candy, it tasted good at first, but the next morning you need to throw up.
And, Doctor, it ain’t a “statistical dead heat.” Obama is busy looking for a Chief of Staff.
October 31 2008 / 1:11 am
Reply
I need to disagree on Brooks. I don’t think he is anymore of a conservative than Sullivan is. He was picked by Sulzberger to be the house conservative for the New York Times – that’s why we write about him. His comment on Palin and his implicit support for Obama show he’s no conservative.
At some point, we have to stop calling moderates and centrists “conservatives”. And stop giving them positions of influence.
October 31 2008 / 7:53 am
Reply
I think the biggest problem we have today is this perception of what our leaders should be. So many people have this idea that our leaders should be “intellectual,” but how many of us have actually cracked a dictionary to look at what that word actually means? I’ll give you a clue; it has absolutely nothing to do with how you talk and how you look and what schools you went to. Rather it has everything to do with being rational rather than emotional and engaging the intellect.
So to me, when Palin says cut taxes and grow jobs, it tells me shes thinking rationally. Anyone with half a brain who thinks logically for half a second knows that if you allow a business to keep more of its profits, it will likely grow itself to make more money. And business growth necessarily implies new jobs needed to support said growth. Who cares how she articulates that idea? The method of delivery has nothing to do with being an “intellectual” only the rationality and thought portrayed by her position.
When Obama is confronted by the reality that lowered tax rates led to increased tax receipts, and he could only stammer something about “fair.” I wonder why people would think that is “intellectual” coming from a candidate who claims to be able to make our economy strong again and proposes billions in new social programs on top of it. How is it intellectal to tell us that we will be strong on defense by cutting the military, including our cutting edge defense development, by 25%? How is that displaying rational, deep thought?
Or is it that “intellectual” in today’s discourse has been coarsened to simply mean someone “who went to the ‘right schools,’ wears the ‘right clothes,’ and talks with big, impressive words put together in the ‘right way’?” In which case I submit to you that you aren’t looking for an intellectual at all in the truest sense but the coolest kid like you were in high school.
October 31 2008 / 10:09 am
Reply
Any person who has the courage, then follows with skill, to beat their own incumbent party inside their own machine state, is a person people can admire for HONESTY. Politicians are known for anything BUT honesty and when one is discovered who is honest, then successful – while remaining honest, that person restores the faith of people that democracy still works. Palin is the average *Joe* who got involved in her community, displayed skill at leadership, advanced and won one for the people. She governed well, and is loved by her constituents, and thus was seen as breaking the mold by someone in the Senate calling himself a “Maverick” and given what used to be an invisible spot on the ticket.
The anger and scorn of her is by people who want to think they represent the rest of *conservatism* but have become very much like the people they make their living “commenting” on, and they see Palin as the outsider that she really is, but they resent her for it, unlike the rest of us. Reagan made a couple of mistakes once he became president, and on his way there he had many so-called *conservative* pundits dissing him(for ideology among other things), and some of them never quit stabbing him in the back even after historic landslide winning.
If Palin really is tough, and positive, like Reagan was, she will keep moving forward despite the nay sayers, and will succeed, with or without McCain, and with or without the nose-in-the-air, tea-and-croissant, Northeast Corridor squishes.
October 31 2008 / 10:17 am
Reply
Reagan’s mistakes were, incidentally, small…but among them was trying to do a deal with Democrats that involved him Amnesty-ing 3-4 million illegals on his part of a bargain that was broken by commie-lib Dems. “Bi-partisanship” will kill the GOP…
October 31 2008 / 5:22 pm
Reply
Glynn W says, “I find this focus on ideology horribly misplaced. … why not advocate a ‘Pro-Country’ approach? … Battle over solutions rather than ideologies.”
What in the world does that mean? What is an “ideology” if not a set of ideas that you believe will solve problems and be good for the country? Glynn’s statements are like saying, “The general should quit focusing on strategy and just come up with a way to win the war” or “This company should get over debating what would make a good marketing plan and just find a way to sell our products.”
You hear this sort of statement a lot from liberals. At best I suppose it might mean that they can’t think of any overall theory in which they have confidence, and think we should just try things at random in the hopes that something might work. I strongly suspect it’s an attempt to divert attention from an unpopular philosophy. They can’t say, “Our plan is for the government should take over more and more control of people’s lives.” They know the voters would reject that. So instead they say, “We’re just looking for something that works, and we think a government bailout is the only solution to the present problem.” (or whatever the plan at the time is.) When someone asks, “Isn’t that socialism?” they reply, “This is not socialism; this is necessary”. A quote, you will note, that I didn’t make up. It’s a real quote from, um, a not-socialist who just happens to always advocate socialist solutions to every problem.
October 31 2008 / 5:49 pm
Reply
Okay Jay, you have fun battling the next episode of “Is David Brooks Really a Rightist?”. I’m sure that will prove VERY interesting. In the meantime, we’ll get busy fixing the calamities left by your last ideologue.
October 31 2008 / 6:27 pm
Reply
Jay,
Here we have yet another case of the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Righties call dems “socialists” because they want to spend money on people based plans, but will spend untold billions on rebuilding someone else’s country (with dubious benefit). The corporate bailout is yet another prime example of a socialist manuever that gets a free ride with repubs because it is supposedly for business, yet it is rewarding incompetence and greed for selected businesspersons. Call it what you will, it’s still socialism. Untold billions have gone to Halliburton, KBR, etc. with no real benefit for the people of this country. All of these companies have performed sloppy accounting and management, and no one is holding them accountable for missing funds. This is corporate socialism on a grand scale. What I find interesting is how many on the right are so offended by the notion of “lazy” dems recieving government checks, yet they will open the checkbooks wide for the military-industrial complex and Wall street, both entities that have shown total financial incompetence. As a former servicemember who had access to purchase order reciepts, I can tell you that the fraud and abuse in the military purchasing system are completely off the charts. This willingness to overlook financial abuses leads me to believe that for republicans spending is also purely idealogically driven, just in a different sense than far left dems. Neither approach is fiscally responsible. I believe that long time republicans are defecting in droves not because of ideology but simply because the republican party has lost the right to call itself conservative. In an earlier post, the Doc had mentioned that the republicans had a “big tent”, intimating that there were many ideological stripes welcome in the party. I believe that the tent she describes is quickly becoming a pup tent, with only the fundamentalist, nation building brand of repub allowed inside. Until you open the door a little wider and stop the rampant spending, you will continue to lose true conservatives.
As a side note, back in May I told my wife that if Hillary lost the nomination, I would probably vote for McCain. I was truly leaning towards him (just slightly) until he chose Palin. My objection to her has nothing to do with experience (Obama certainly is thin on it), but moreover her overriding fundamentalist beliefs. I believe that she will be purely ideologically driven with regards to the conflict in Iraq, and will probably be more than willing to spend many billions more and sacrifice many more Americans for this dubious cause because she believes that it is a mission from God. Your party needs to lose the far right idealogues before it will be viable for most Americans again.
November 1 2008 / 11:50 am
Reply
Red Dawn: McCain Stabs Palin in the Back
A number of McCain’s top cohorts are pro-Obama communist infiltrators. (They will be named after the election.) Those traitors have advised McCain to adopt all sorts of stupid tactics which will cause him to lose. For example, he vetoed any ‘Swift Boat’ type revelations about Obama. He refused to discuss Obama’s lack of citizenship, and he let his handlers sabotage VP candidate Palin. When McCain’s insiders decided to bring in Palin as VP candidate, they were confident that she would be the coffin nail in McCain’s campaign. They were then shocked at how well she was received. Her beauty, presence, charisma, and speaking skills far eclipsed those of Obama or McCain. McCain insiders realized that properly handled, she could have won the election single-handedly. Such an option was against their self-defeating plan. They decided to make Palin into an object of ridicule in the hope that she would be forever nullified. Instead of seasoning her with several positive or right wing interviews, they decided to throw her to the Marxist running dog Katie Couric, without any training or pre-interview briefing. They allowed Couric to tape the interview so that she could edit it into a smear of Palin. The interview should have been live, but instead they let Couric maul Palin. Afterwards, instead of accusing Couric of her very real bias, while simultaneously sending Palin to a number of pro-Palin interviewers to strengthen Palin’s confidence, while hacking away at media pro-communist bigotry, they did nothing. For a week the leftist media paraded Palin’s humiliation by Couric, and the McCain insiders left her hanging in the wind. The traitors inside McCain’s HQ made sure no competing tapes of Palin being interviewed fairly were allowed to surface. In that way McCain and his leftist Republican cronies were able to start Palin off in the hole. She had to rally on her own. Because of her courage she has become stronger. Yet the McCain handlers have constantly refused to let her “take the gloves off” in attacking Obama. She has been repeatedly sabotaged because the game is fixed; a fixed election to bring in a communist president. It’s been done so many times before in other countries.
My own 19 year old nephew predicted it when McCain, the back-stabber, was put up for President. Genius is not required to predict gangster democrat behavior, only a clear mind is required.
The election has been lost not because Obama has been superior or ran a legal campaign. His front group Accorn bought votes, inflated voter registration rolls with people who were not registered, and committed a number of serious felonies on a massive scale. They will never be punished for their crimes either. The whole objective was to win this election by typical communist illegal means. Once Obama gets in he will destroy all the evidence.
McCain’s back stabbing of Sarah Palin was only one tactic of many insidious, ugly, stratagems to illegally gain power chosen by America’s new communist controllers. Those controllers include all major Marxist-corporations and several million Stalinist type communists.
Welcome to Red Dawn!
November 1 2008 / 12:02 pm
Reply
I am suspicious of anyone who says “the right wing is exhausted.” Only conservatives get exhausted quickly. The right wing is not exhausted. If a person is exhausted, he/she must not take up space with defeatist drivel. Get ideologically cured, then return if you are serious.
There is a cultural-ideological-racial war going on in America. Lets fight it like we think we are going to win. I have had enough of leftists pretending to be conservatives in order to spread defeatism. That is provocation.
November 1 2008 / 12:21 pm
Reply
The paranoid, delusional, xenophobic rants posted above by Jack only validate what I said earlier: Your party needs to get rid of the nuts before mainstream america will embrace it again. For all of it’s foibles, the party of Reagan was far more accomodating to most voters than the current one. Jack, go put on your tinfoil hat, load up the shotguns and buy more fertilizer – the race war is imminent!
November 1 2008 / 12:40 pm
Reply
Mr Chuckles
You are an impudent micro-provicateur who is given the opportunity to approve and disapprove what is said on this forum. Your arrogant comments are meant to influence us and you undoubtedly feel reinforced because your stupidity is graced with print. I dont understand why red snakes who crawl into sites are allowed to continue but I am only a contributor not a post jacker wannabe.Your twisted Matxist rhetoric is supposed to incite us to follow your staggering gait?
Why would you, an obvious enemy of everything that your opponents stand for expect to wield such influence? How much time do you invest weekly in shutting off those who disagree with you? Do you look forward to being a site moderator someday?
You are a walking marxist maniac with no sense of reality. Nothing you say is worth responding to. Those other phonies who chime in with you will probably all chuckle later that you “shot down another fanatic in his own back yard,” You think that your stupid attack-kitten drivel will promote you to influence on this site? If it has, I am on the wrong site.
In the meantime I would love to fight your snarky distorted views if I thought you were sane. I consider all reds to be insane however. My words are directed at non-reds or sane people.
November 1 2008 / 12:50 pm
Reply
Do “glynn w” and the adelpaited, drivilous “mr chuckles” constitute a political correctness team seeking to identify and drive out the ones who are diametrically oposed to their Marxist insanity?
I notice that they are getting more than their fair share of excremental dialogue into print.
With luck, as I have seen before, several chuckles-type hypocritical PC teams could end up controlling this site because right wingers, unlike me, become convinced that this is yet another phony conservative site. Why? Because crazy communists get most of the space.
This ugly little situation is quite common on the internet.
chuckles and glynn are you regular contributors to MoveOn too?
November 1 2008 / 1:13 pm
Reply
Hey Jack,
Ease up on the medication, ok? Yes, the Doc has let me post here. Maybe she truly believes in free speech, maybe I’m red meat for guys like you. Either way, I don’t know her on any level other than what she posts here. You’re being paranoid again, bro. This particular topic was supposed to be about how conservatives can regain the strength and direction of their party. As an independent (sorry dude, no communism here) I am only offering my simple little point of view. The Doc has opened the door to comments. She could easily toss mine into the electronic round file. Her call, not mine or yours. Again, your tactics are to label and then divide into “us and them”. This type of thought only serves to further drive average Americans apart. Nevermind me, who do YOU work for? Sorry, but I’m not affiliated with anyone but me. You can try to bait me with your little flame war, but I’m not biting. And sorry, but “not you” does not equal marxist, communist, fascist liberal, ad nauseum. Nice try. BTW – If nothing I say is worth responding to, then why not one, but TWO posts? You’re an angry little fella aren’t you…
November 1 2008 / 1:54 pm
Reply
Hi Guys,
Part of the reason I like blogging is it sharpens my thinking. That process includes hearing what the other side believes. By other side, I mean Democrats.
Ultimately, though, we’re all Americans and feel passionately about what makes America a better place. And truly, I do not believe Americans are nearly as divided as the press and pundit class would have us believe.
So, while I share my view on things, I’m open to other views both to the left and right of my own. As long as people are civil, they are welcome here.
And for what it’s worth, I grew up with Glynn. He is a friend and it is part of my life mission to persuade him to embrace my optimistic, open, conservative-libertarian worldview.
November 1 2008 / 4:55 pm
Reply
Another Forum-Jacked Red Provocation Unit
1. The mark either starts her own forum pretending to be an honest conservative
2. Or she fall sprey to smarmy reds who easily convince her to “compromise like a good progressive” and eliminate rightist from having any voice.
There is no such thing as a conservative-libertarian! what a joke!
I know you will erase all my comments because you mean to keep your little charade in motion. However, I have a few tricks of my own when it comes to exposing communist fronts.
Yeh after the flood of leftist insults “mr compromiser or chuckles” is now holding out his slimy paw. Melissa, does that satisfy you about what a great concilliator your “teacher” is?
This is a red re-education blog in disguise. You all are too deceitful to identify your real self.
chuckles is of course denying that he is red. He is just on here to “educate” people, eh? He probably explained to Melissa how this all works. Insult-concilliation-compromise-subjugation!
Anyone who is to the right of Stalin is a thug in the red’s book. So chuckles and Glenn are friends of this blog’s owner? She gives them carte blach to insult rightist people repeatedly, in the guise of the re-educator being either a phony conservative or a red she is trying to rehabilitate. If they star gettin trounced she comes in to reveal that they are protegees of her and hence untouchable! What a crock!
The red scum always accuses his target of “starting flame wars” I dared answer his Marxist cliche insults and now I am a flamer. Now chuckles, the flaming red, can say to Dr Melissa: “Buddy I tried. But you must get rid of those right wing fanatics if you are ever to have a proper Republican Party.” She nods reflectively at his sonorous “words of wisdom.” As if that pseudo, below average IQ, red twit, is an authority on anything. He says “we are all the same”… Americans. There is no such thing as everybody being the same. This is a balkanized melting pot that has never worked. The most viscious criminals are taking over while blowing smoke up the buns of idiots. What did Lenin say about idiots?
Its disgusting. But I know you now.
That is exactly how forum jackers fool people.
In this case I gave Dr Melissa more credit than she deserved. I believed she was at least conservative as she pretended. But now, here she is, mouthing the same pap as Glenn and chuckles. (That’s a very good point Glenn, our soldiers are baby killers.”)
So I will be banned I ran afoul of of another nest of phony entryist reds.
That’s fine. I have identified yet another “third way” covert leftist (some of my best friends are commies yada yada) soo-called “conservative forum.
For the info of the delusional, there is a great gulf between left and right. It is not anything but ideological.
Melissa pretends to be a rightist then use her forum to preach communist drivel, incompetently disguised of course. She turns loose her ignorant red friends whom she admires and then watches the carnage.
It is unfair of her not to mention that a supposed conservative has Benadette Dorn-type buddies who are here “to teach us all how to behave-comply.”
I am incensed but I have a voice as you will find out.
I will continue to fight your type of phony forum where reds set up a ostendibly “conservative”forums and preach nothing but communist crap! Polarization is necessary because as long as sneaking rodents like you all crawl around the net, you will fool some half wits with your lies.
That is why I will sound the alarm.
In the meantime, yuk…I will now go bathe.
November 1 2008 / 9:03 pm
Reply
Jack,
Anyone who reads through my posts and comes to the conclusion that I’m communist is simply beyond help. All forms of borg-like group-speak make me crazy which is why I welcome all views.
Rarely, if ever, now that I think about it have I agreed with Mr. Chuckles or Glynn. Honestly, I don’t know why they come back considering they are very unlikely to hear anything they like. But visit they do. And as long as they comment with thought and decency, they are welcome.
I’ve actually come to like Mr. Chuckles–even if I disagree with him. Glynn, I’m afraid, may be beyond hope, but I’ve known him since I was a wee lad.
And, if you bubbleheads don’t go out and vote for McCain, I’m going to owe him a bottle of wine. So get the lead out and vote McCain–to save me some money. Goodness knows, you guys don’t pay me dirt!
January 7 2009 / 3:12 pm
Reply
UihoLwyKeGTAJ