Note To David Frum, David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, Peggy Noonan, Chris Buckley, et al.–UPDATED
March 4, 2009 / 11:41 am • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierThanks so much.
Before the election, you were smarter than the rest of us. Rather than holding your tongues, you piled on to a struggling McCain campaign showing little of the restraint you so hoped Obama would demonstrate fiscally. Surprise! President Barack Obama is governing just as the unwashed conservative masses thought he’d govern: a big-spending, big-government, freedom-infringing liberal.
And you helped him. Allah quotes David Brooks:
Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”
David Brooks goes on to defend himself in his “moderate manifesto” and disparage the very people who were smarter than him all along. Heaven forbid power gets in the hands of those people should discontent with Obama’s policies result in Republican wins in the House and Senate.
Note to David Frum: Rush was right. Note to Kathleen Parker: does your God fear seem so helpful now? Doesn’t statist domination seem a little more fearsome than people praying? I said shortly after the election:
Perhaps Ms. Parker could gather her formidable wit and way with words and formulate a solution rather than destroy what isn’t really a problem. Dehumanizing, demeaning, and really, demonizing the whole base of the Republican party seems counter-productive for someone who is in the same party. When the foundation crumbles, the house will fall on Ms. Parker, too. Unless, of course, she’s really not part of the house anymore, if she ever was, and has already moved in spirit (and one could say, in body, considering her employer) to another home. If that’s the case, she should admit to herself and to her readers her new home.
David Frum, Kathleen Parker, Chris Buckley, David Brooks and the rest, have become experts at demolition. They need to refocus their efforts and consider what it will take to rebuild their house. Or have they already moved and don’t know it?
And yet, while some are admitting that President Obama’s policies might, possibly maybe a problem, they’re still clinging to the idea that he’s better than the alternative–religion-clinging, gun-loving, Rush Limbaugh-listening, Sarah Palin-adoring Americans.
Moderates, as usual, are stupid. They play along with the administration’s games. They’re useful dupes. Rather than help shape an alternative argument, they trash the people who pay attention. Independents and moderates don’t pay attention–they hope for a middle, gentle, “nice” way. That way lead to the Obama administration to begin with.
Ah, but that’s an inconvenient truth. Moderation means compromising any value remotely attached to conservatism. So the guys in Congress kill their own credibility by embracing the “reality” of earmarks. Voters see and are unimpressed. Why vote Republican? They’re just moderate versions of Democrats.
Why vote for a boring, moderate Mitt Romney when the people can have an exciting Barack Obama? As Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, Christopher Buckley and the rest of the moderates have demonstrated, they swoon over cults of personality. They just don’t like to go to the conservative church.
P.S. I don’t think this infighting is helpful, do you? Like Ace, I’d like to stop the infighting and non-stop. Still, when the morally obtuse moderates get a guy like this elected, it ticks me off and I think they should be ignored like the crazy uncle at the family reunion. The Republican party lead by RNC Chairman Steele should ignore the moderates, and his own moderate impulses, for that matter. This is why:
Obama’s cultists are making much of the fact that Obama seeks to put Iraq War costs back into the regular budget. They hail this as an advance for transparency, accountability, and honesty.
That’s a lie.
He wants to put the exceptional and temporary costs of the Iraq War into the regular budget so he can fraudulently claim $1.6 trillion in “savings” down the line.
In Related News… The United States has “cut” over $75 trillion from its budgets over the past 230 odd years by not fighting the fucking British every goddamn f*cking year.
And Ace is right about why people, including the dumb-butt moderates who sung Obama’s praises still love Obama:
There is a psychological principle that kicks in about expensive purchases. If someone pays a lot of money for something, they will have a high interest in claiming their purchase wise and the product sound because they don’t want to admit they’ve been gulled. (Yeah, gulled again — one of my favorite words. I’m hoping to repopularize it.)
They’ll claim it’s good, even if it’s crap. If they’d paid less money for it they’d have no problem admitting it’s crap — after all, they have no ego to protect in that case. Pay small money for something, no harm in admitting you got what you paid for.
I think that’s going on with Obama. The public took a huge chance on this stutterin’ prick, and ignored the warnings. They were also bullied by the media into voting for him, and indulged themselves in the media flattery for being so progressively-minded.
And now they’re eluctant to admit to themselves they been had. Bamboozled. Run amok.
But at some point people do confront the ill wisdom of a purchase, and at that point, the invective and anger begins flowing.
The moderates in Washington helped elect the most tax-thieving, redistribution-loving, progressive in history because they told themselves that he’d “govern from the middle”.
So, thanks a lot guys! You’re so much smarter than us that you’ve helped the demise of our country. Why are we still listening to you?
P.P.S. And oh, by the way, Joe the Plumber (who I don’t want as the Republican spokesman) got it when you didn’t. Maybe a plumber wouldn’t be a thought leader if the pointy heads had worthwhile thoughts and ideas. Bah.
Update:
I’m not the only one writing love notes. Matt Lewis = prescient.
UPDATED AGAIN:
Jennifer Rubin: “I’m Maureen Dowd, and I’ve Been Had”
Cross-posted at Right Wing News











15 Responses to “Note To David Frum, David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, Peggy Noonan, Chris Buckley, et al.–UPDATED”
March 4 2009 / 12:54 pm
Reply
Love your blog entry. My only spin on it is that I think it was their elitism, rather than their moderate politics, that led them in this direction.
March 4 2009 / 1:11 pm
Reply
His nomination speech was a long laundry list of big government programs and nanny state restrictions. His first book chronicled his love affair with the far left. People who believed him to be a moderate were deliberately choosing ignorance. Obama didn’t lie, he told us what he was. Some people refused to listen.
March 4 2009 / 1:40 pm
Reply
Their strident insistance aside, there’s no such thing as a ‘moderate’. It’s just code for “I’m on the other side of whatever you believe but I don’t feel like saying it to your face”.
My father insists he’s a moderate & an independent. I’m sure it helps him to believe that he entirely reasonable, delibertate person. But he’s never voted for anything without a “D” in front of it in his life.
Frankly, I’m glad Obama won. Because when this economic disaster hit and the finger-pointing begins, it’s going to belong Barak Obama & every lefty douchebag who voted for him.
March 4 2009 / 4:02 pm
Reply
Well done, Doc!
March 4 2009 / 4:34 pm
Reply
Such an awesome post, Melissa. You revealed a big lie (moderates iz smarter than us dumb extremists who actually pay attention), you threw back the curtain on a pronounced anti-survival-of-fittest evolutionary trait (avoid admitting buyer’s remorse at all costs), and you aptly demonstrated how insane people represent a benign force only until they come in contact with sane people, at which point they become destructive to themselves and others (“Voters see and are unimpressed. Why vote Republican? They’re just moderate versions of Democrats.”)
Triple-threat. Just like marshmallows, cookie dough and crushed Oreo cookies in the ice cream. Five-star rating for your triple-threat.
Being a pro, you already understand all this. I’m just taking notes for my own benefit — while it’s still legal to do things for my own benefit.
March 4 2009 / 5:39 pm
Reply
Heard John Ziegler (www.howobamagotelected.com)last week and he described Barack Obama as considered “too big to fail” by the MSM and some of the “moderate” types you noted above.
Great post Melissa.
March 4 2009 / 7:39 pm
Reply
This is a great post. I would like you to take a peek at my note to David Frum http://rightviewfromtheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2009/03/david-frum-needs-to-shut-his-hole.html
Don’t let the blunt title fool you! I can not believe when the so-called moderate right lowers itself to the Kos Kids and Puffington Post level. Yes, this really helps the conservative cause. Oh, BTW, by the moderate, elite standards, one Ronald Wilson Reagan should NEVER have been president. After all, he only attended itty bitty Eureka College, a-the horror-CHRISTIAN college! These people need to work with and for what we agree with. NOT GIVE THE OTHER SIDE AMMO!
March 4 2009 / 11:46 pm
Reply
Snoop–
You’re partially right. Sometimes “moderate” means “I don’t want to try to defend my position because I know I’ll lose.” Sometimes it also means, “I know nothing about this issue, and don’t intend to educate myself.”
But don’t kid yourself. Obama is never going to own any disaster. Everything is going to be the big, bad Conservatives’ fault, and a call for more government.
March 5 2009 / 4:00 am
Reply
Melissa
What source did you consult that convinced you Obama “lied” about the subject of the Iraq budget?
Dan
March 5 2009 / 8:09 am
Reply
Great post, but I agree with Tom above. Call it the bourgeoisie sticking together despite differences in ideology. It’s the idea that since Obama was a Columbia/Harvard guy that he was too smart to be a far left guy.
March 5 2009 / 2:07 pm
Reply
His own budget guy Orszag admitted in the congressional budget hearings that they took the surge level spending in Iraq, which was meant to be temporary, and projected it out for ten years as expenditures, and then subtracted it, and called it savings. Obama lied about how he got these so-called savings, as they are not real.
March 5 2009 / 11:53 pm
Reply
I grew up in the most republican state in the nation. I listened to rush for almost 10 years from 1991 – 2001. Through high school and most of college I was a hard core republican. I’m still a conservative but as of 2002 I stopped being a republican. I’m basically the David Brooks loving conservative that you all seem to despise. Let me just give you a little insight to why the republicans are destined to be a minority party until they start governing with competence. Because that’s what this really comes down to, the crazies in the conservative movement can blame this on the media, ignorant voters, elites, what ever, but the truth is I want to vote for competence.
Let me give you some examples of extreme republican incompetence.
1. The Iraq war
2. Terry Schiavo
3. Not letting California set their own environmental standards.
4. Not passing Immigration reform
5. Federal prosecuting of California marijuana offenders that are legal under California law.
6. Massive Deficits over the last 8 years
7. A push for a ban on same sex marriage
8. A push for a ban on abortions
9. A border fence
10. Infringements on privacy
That’s just off the top of my head. So far I’m still happier with Obama at the helm even with the pork that’s going on than anything the republicans want to do. I’ll come back to the republicans once they show some conservative competence. As it is now, I’ll choose competence I don’t agree with than incompetence that I don’t understand.
March 6 2009 / 5:55 am
Reply
Where does your belief that McCain would’ve been more fiscally prudent or protective of liberty than Obama come from?
A few things to remember about McCain:
- McCain “suspended” his campaign to go twist arms to get the first TARP bailout passed. What makes you think he wouldn’t have supported the subsequent bailouts and stimulus packages?
- McCain was responsible for McCain-Feingold, the biggest imposition on freedom of speech (political speech, at that) in recent times.
- McCain was a leader in the Senate during the 6 years that the Republicans controlled all three branches of government, during which time government spending increased by more than it had since LBJ (excluding the 3+ trillion dollars the war in Iraq will cost).
- McCain expressed support for warrant-less wiretapping of U.S. citizens.
Note I’m no fan of Obama. His policies have been almost uniformly terrible. But McCain would’ve been no better overall. The best that could be said of McCain from my perspective is that he would’ve had a lot more trouble getting his agenda passed through a Democratic congress than Obama has.
March 8 2009 / 2:50 pm
Reply
Admit it, according to the list, you are really a Demoncrat. Time for an intervention.