David Frum on Rush Limbaugh: “Say It Louder Conservativism”
Tuesday, November 18th, 2008How about “say it snobbier pseudo-conservativism but really liberal elitism”?
Money quotes from David Frum:
“The Suburban voter who should be a bedrock Republican voter, these voters see a Democratic party that is no longer a threat to their money, but a Republican party that is a threat to their values.”
His interpretation of conservative philosophy: “As long as you don’t kill babies, anyone can run the U.S. government.”
“On our side of the aisle, we have a big problem. We have a party that is not serious about government.”
Cross-posted at RightWingNews.com and The Houston Chronicle
Patrick Ruffini: Senate Recruitment Project
Monday, November 17th, 2008Patrick Ruffini: Senate Recruitment Project
Awesome work at finding the “right” contenders in 2010. Go look.
Mommy Bloggers Get Respect, Conservative Bloggers Get Dissed–UPDATED
Monday, November 17th, 2008So, I’m watching advertising people and mommy bloggers erupt this weekend on Twitter. The subject didn’t interest me much–moms were mad at Motrin. I didn’t go look at the video, but gathered that it was disparaging to moms. Well, the ladies were majorly peeved and mounted a protest via YouTube and firestorm of rage coursed through their blogs.
Today, in my New York Times feed, what do I see? This:
By Saturday evening they were the most tweeted subject on Twitter. By Sunday there was a nine minute video on YouTube, to the tune of Danny Boy, showing screen shots of the outraged twitter posts interspersed with photos of Moms carrying babies in slings.
Bloggers began calling for boycotts. Bloggers asked their readers to alert the mainstream press. A few voices chimed in to say they didn’t find the ad to be that big a deal. There are a few more examples here and here.)
By Sunday afternoon a few bloggers and tweeters had gotten the ad agency that created the ad on the phone, to find they didn’t know a lot about Twitter and didn’t seem to have a clue that there was so much anger piling up online. And Peter Shankman, a public relations all-star who knows everything and then some about new media, was giving the manufacturers some advice:
I’m not siding with Motrin. They messed up, granted. I’m ok with that. Companies mess up all the time. They fix the problem, and it usually doesn’t make the radar screen. The problem is, Motrin happened to mess up at the expense, and in the face of, one of the most vocal, quickest-to-blog, “strongest-to-band-together-and-form-one-opinion-like-the-Borg” collectives out there - The Mommy-Blogging community.
Now I am NOT slagging on Mommy-Bloggers. Not in the slightest. Nor, am I saying they’re over-reacting to the commercial, which, by rights, was stupid and patronizing. What I AM saying though, is that Motrin will pay a MUCH bigger price, as opposed to if they’d messed up in front of say, “Construction-Worker-Bloggers.” Mommy-Bloggers are not a voice to be messed with, probably because they’re one of the most clearly identifiable voices on the web. You have a kid? You blog about said kid? You’re a Mommy-blogger. You don’t need an advanced degree in particle physics to see what these bloggers have in common.
Or, as one Tweet put it:
note to self … never piss off moms … especially twitter moms … they can be a nasty bunch
My Twitter feed also is filled with conservatives. The political folks buzz constantly about this and that, important issues, and The New York Times covers a bunch of moms ticked about a condescending pharmaceutical commercial? Sure, it’s newsworthy, but so is the rebuilding of the Republican party.
Part of the problem with the mainstream media is editorial. What and who they choose to highlight is not nearly as important as who they’re ignoring. And the voices on the Right are ignored. I don’t want to start a war with the MSM, but a little attempt at representing all voices–not just the mushy moderates who sound so sweet and “intellectual” to liberal ears–would be nice.
The Washington Post ombudsman (via Glenn Reynolds) said that there need to be more conservatives in newsrooms. Ya think?
Anyway, I like the idea that the power of a bunch of mad mommies at the bottom forced changes at the top. I’d like to see concerned conservatives bubble up from the bottom, too. But a fat lot it will do them, if no one pays any attention. The media seems to be making a concerted effort to NOT pay attention. It’s working.
Follow me on Twitter!
UPDATED: Here’s the offending video:
Cross-posted at RightWingNews and The Houston Chronicle
Iowahawk Leads The American Invasion
Friday, November 14th, 2008Iowahawk Leads The American Invasion
It’s about time we paid them back for the Beatles.
Oh Boy! Obama Is In For It
Sunday, November 9th, 2008The honeymoon is officially O-V-E-R. Those on the right have been polite but firm. Dan Gainor of the Baltimore Examiner sums the feeling up nicely:
Conservatives need to make that clear as day so the media don’t twist opposition into something it’s not. We support law and order and, as loyal citizens, we respect the office of president.
Now on to the opposition. It’s a given that conservatives oppose most of what Obama campaigned for. He will tax business even more than we do now, continue to increase the size of government and push a liberal social agenda that undermines the whole basis for American exceptionalism.
As such, he must be opposed – at every turn. Contrary to the desires of the left, Obama didn’t get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That means he can be stopped consistently. Rather than zone out for the next four years, conservatives must pressure Congress to fight the Obama agenda – even here in naively liberal Maryland.
Every bit of the Obama platform must be opposed. Card check, the destruction of the secret ballot, must be hammered as a crime against democracy. The misnamed Fairness Doctrine must be fought at all costs before it undermines free speech on talk radio. Heck, if Obama wants to order takeout, it’s up to conservatives to question that expense.
That’s because the media will not. This election proves every claim of liberal media bias and then some. Obama’s limited qualifications would be laughable if he were not the incoming president. But his empty-suit rhetoric went unchallenged by the media who almost wear Obama buttons during interviews.
Those on the Left are, as usual, impolite and erratic, but no less troubling for Obama:
No, Barack Obama made such outlandish promises on the campaign trail that buyer’s remorse is going to set in soon. In fact, it may already have.
“Comedian” (and I do use the term loosely) Patrice O’Neal dialed the John Gibson show on Friday night to explain that Obama’s election was nothing more than a propped up mechanism to falsely relieve “white guilt” over the idea that all white people are racist, and that they’ve now elected an “acceptable black man” so as to believe that America is now a post-racial nation. O’Neal went on to decry that Obama can’t and never will be able to get “black America” to forgive “white America.”
Man I’m glad that Obama’s supporters took all that “one America” stuff to heart!
But if Obama can’t make headway on a “chicken in every pot” or digesting most of Reverend Wright’s racism left overs, he’ll at least bring the troops home… right?
Have you noticed how since he’s been getting his daily security briefings that the discussion of bringing the troops home completely disappeared from his public speech? It’s also bankable that since he’s begun to see the high-level advanced intelligence on what our enemies are doing abroad, he’s regularly having to censor himself in private so as to not let all the profanity he knows be uttered in shock at what we’re actually facing in the war on terror.
Uh and oh. So, what is Obama, squished like a ripe tomato in a vice, to do? Wheeeee! Executive orders!
John Podesta, Obama’s transition chief, said Sunday Obama is reviewing President Bush’s executive orders on those issues and others as he works to undo policies enacted during eight years of Republican rule. He said the president can use such orders to move quickly on his own.
“There’s a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that,” Podesta said. “I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set.”
Here’s the thing: I have more faith that the furious Lefties will squeeze Obama more than the spineless Republican squishes. However, the Republicans have some rather incensed constituents of their own to help stiffen spaghetti spines. Conservatives should not reward the terrible Republican losing streak. Mealy-mouthed undercutters should be dealt with and swiftly. Too much is at stake for the future of America. Republicans better be the counter pressure to an unchecked Obama.
Cross-posted at RightWingNews.com
Remember How The Left Reacted After Bush Won?–UPDATED
Thursday, November 6th, 2008Remember all the actors who were moving to Canada and France? I remember the hate-filled bilge. So does The Anchoress:
It has been wonderful - really beyond wonderful - to consider how differently most of the right has reacted to their defeat than the left did in 2000 and 2004. In the two previous elections, the left responded by calling the other half of the country “stupid,” “morons,” and “Nazis” - Jane Smiley called them “unteachably ignorant” - they indulged in high drama, sniffling “apologies” to the globe, and denunciations of their fellow countrymen as “lying between repugnant and reptile in the dictionary.”
And oh, yeah (eyeroll) George W. Bush was not “their” president.While you’ll see a few disgruntled extremists on the right say foolish, even ignorant things - and many throwing daggers at the sickening double-standards of the press - they’re not indulging in that sort of dehumanizing (and very adolescent) hate of their fellow countrymen or the president-elect. The reports they’re filing read very differently than those following the Bush wins. They read as grown-up, tolerant, open-minded discourses, not tantrums. There is a willingness to be hopeful, even in defeat.
And there is a determined respectfulness being offered to the winners - people who could not manage maturity and respectfulness in their defeat and who, sadly, are not always managing it in their victory, either.
And, if Obama had lost, can you imagine the temper-tantrum? Yeah. Yes you can!
UPDATED:
Liberals rediscover the flag. I just threw up in my mouth a little.
And remember, the press bias was for your own good.
And Obama will be good for the economy.
Something To Believe In
Thursday, November 6th, 2008What can Republicans believe in that can unify the party AND the nation? Fiscal responsibility. That’s right. Money. As in, the government is going bankrupt and with the economy constricting, tax receipts dwindling, and Barack Obama’s big plans all costing more money, what are the alternatives? Cut spending or raise taxes.
Did John McCain even mention cutting taxes? Um, not that I recall. He mentioned a government wage freeze. That’s it.
I’ve been reading Michael Gerson’s book Heroic Conservativism. Maybe I haven’t gotten there yet, but through chapter 3, he’s waxed poetic about Bush’s compassion (big spending for agreeably important projects) but said little about how mean it is to sock the next generation with this generation’s ostensible compassion.
Compassionate Conservatism has meant big debt. Big debt makes the person, or the state, a slave to the master who owns the debt. As much as oil dependence is a national security issue, indebtedness is a security issue. A global recession means that everyone’s money constricts. Those who need money, need it now. Can America pay up?
The Bank Bailout is like the new Hydra. Who knows what head this thing will grow. It’s bad news.
Republicans need to get back to being the party of personal responsibility. That message alone will stand in stark contrast to everything the Democrats stand for. Conservatives believe in the power of the individual to affect change. At a certain point, bills come due. Compassion doesn’t seem so kind, then. And Socialism will go one step further and make the individual a slave to the state. Freedom constricts when money is taken away. It’s just that simple.
Thomas Jefferson says it best, “Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.” And this, “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
Cross-posted at RightWingNews.com
What Americans Want: Save Me!
Thursday, October 30th, 2008This election means change, alright, but it’s not the changes that seem evident at first blush.The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henniger gets down to what this election means for America:
Push past the historic candidacy, however, and one sees something even larger at stake in this vote. One sees what Joe (The Plumber) Wurzelbacher saw. The real “change” being put to a vote for the American people in 2008 is not simply a break from the economic policies of “the past eight years” but with the American economic philosophy of the past 200 years. This election is about a long-term change in America’s idea of itself.
I don’t agree with the argument that an Obama-Pelosi-Reid government is a one-off, that good old nonideological American pragmatism will temper their ambitions. Not true. With this election, the U.S. is at a philosophical tipping point.
The goal of Sen. Obama and the modern, “progressive” Democratic Party is to move the U.S. in the direction of Western Europe, the so-called German model and its “social market economy.” Under this notion, business is highly regulated, as it would be in the next Congress under Democratic House committee chairmen Markey, Frank and Waxman. Business is allowed to create “wealth” so long as its utility is not primarily to create new jobs or economic growth but to support a deep welfare system.
An Obama presidency would lead America towards a European “social market economy.” (Oct. 30)
The political planets are aligned to make this achievable. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, prominent Democrats, European leaders in France and Germany and more U.S. newspaper articles than one can count have said that the crisis proves the need to permanently tame the American “free-market” model. P.O.W. Alan Greenspan is broadcasting confessions. The question is: Are the American people of a mind to throw in the towel on the system that got them here?
While Europeans seem eager to for Americans to follow them into mediocrity, they ignore what that will mean for them personally. They have had the luxury of depending on American magnanimity for security so they could have universal health care and long vacations. That will likely soon change.
Americans, many of them, see these realities:
We put all this money towards AIDS in Africa, peace in the Middle East, safety in Europe and it seems like we work harder to make ends meet. Protectionism favors Democrats.
All politicians are self-involved, lying, cheating, money-grubbing, above-the-law scumbags. Cynicism favors Democrats.
We used to be able to count on loyalty from our company, a good job that didn’t require much but kept me busy and wage increases that at least met or beat inflation. Job security is a thing of the past. Fear favors Democrats.
The world seems increasingly beyond everyone’s control. Part of the reason that George W. Bush backed the Paulson Plan is because he knows that world-wide panic can cause economic and social chaos. Too many moving parts, too many decisions, too much confusing information.
State control saves a person the trouble of having to think or having to be uncomfortable. Well, that’s the idea anyway.
Americans have traditionally chosen the vicissitudes of a free market because they could see the personal benefit. There is less security, but there is much more reward. When people feel that the reward is out of reach or impossible, they turn to guaranteed not-too-awfulness–socialism. It’s better than destitution or the fear that one may end up destitute. Venezuela is Exhibit “A”, at the moment.
MaxedOutMama, wrote an excellent post in this regard. There is a WHY here and Republicans are not blameless. In fact, a whole host of uncomfortable economic information points to why Americans are where they are at. She says:
I’ll tell you what’s so insane about this election. First, neither candidate is addressing the real US problem, which are policies that have driven the bottom 60% of the US income pyramid into financial difficulty. The 80-90% segment of the pyramid is a derivative of the bottom 60%. The 90-95% segment is a derivative of the 80-90%. The 60-80% plus the 95-100% wedges are too little to carry the rest. What we need to do is subsidize the bottom 5-15%, take some of the tax load off the 15-30%, and increase taxation on the 80% - 100%. The best way to stimulate the middle is to spark corporate growth, which can best be done by going to a moderate flat tax on corporations. I’d suggest 18%.
Those destructive policies are policies of energy starvation, which destroys economies, and industrial starvation, which destroys economies, and a regressive taxation policy which increases the relative load on the bottom of the pyramid. Second, neither candidate is willing to really address the future compounding of our current problems, which is the coming retirement boom. Third, neither candidate is willing to address the nearly global changes in the business climate, which have combined to decrease US ability to compete. Fourth, both candidates advocate a carbon cap and trade policy which would be economic suicide if applied mainly to the US, and global economic suicide if applied fairly.
The bozo election will not end well. It is true that Obama is worse, because McCain’s energy policy is a lot more realistic.
When the bottom 60% feel unstable, even when they have a job, even a regular paycheck, but they live precariously, socialist policies–which would be the exact worst thing for them ultimately but sound good in the short term–become appealing.
The problem with this socialistic impulse: America just can’t do it. With Baby Boomers who have never known a challenging economic moment retiring, there are going to have to be cuts not expansion of the government. But I fear that’s exactly what both candidate will attempt.
These next four years, the next fifteen, are going to be challenging. Looking at all this, the words of Mr. T come to mind: “I pity the fool” who will be facing this mess.
Cross-posted at RightWingNews
Attention David Frum: Wait Until The Patient Is Dead To Do The Postmortem
Tuesday, October 28th, 2008Here’s the thing about so-called “Moderates”: they have no loyalty to any ideal but pragmatism. And pragmatism is defined as “what’s good for me.”
The latest ostensible voice of reason is moderate pragmatist David Frum. He is full of artful, empty prose. In a nutshell, McCain will lose. It is Palin’s fault. Stop spending money on McCain. Spend more on the Senate races.
Today, more wisdom poured forth if only the ignant masses would listen.
David Frum misses something simple:
The time to do postmortems is after the patient dies. The patient is not dead yet. It does not help a moderate Republican get elected when moderate Republicans cut the legs out from under the campaign on the home stretch.
Fiscal conservatives and libertarian Republicans have shown immense restraint this election season. John McCain was not their first, second or third choice. And yet, many soldier on because John McCain is a good man. He has served his country with honor. He will care for the soldiers and finish the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan with foresight. He actually tried to address the Fanny-Freddie mess and saw the problem ahead of time. John McCain is a far better choice than the liberal Barack Obama. That is an understatement.
And yet, guys like Mr. Frum seem to see no ethical problem with opining about building “from the ashes” the new Republican party. Well, newsflash Washington insiders, there aren’t ashes yet. Rather than addressing ideas for rebuilding the party, wait until the patient is dead.
Far from being consumed by an out-pouring of adoring love for the Republican party, the critics seem to be craven opportunists carving out safe real estate because things don’t look great for the home team. Not one of the moderates have articulated a case for Barack Obama. Rather, they’ve all parroted the trendy anti-Palin response: Quelle horreur! Palin est trés gauche!
The people paying the bills–rank and file Republicans–see these actions as more of the same problems that have plagued Congress and Washington DC in general. It is insulting enough to take cheap shots from the media and the left, but to take them from one’s own team on the eve of such a pivotal and important election, is, well, outrageous.
The election is by no means over. It isn’t helpful to have Moderates throw in the towel reminiscent of Congressional Democrats on the Iraq War. The Moderate Republicans seem a little too eager to have the Republican Party lose.
Restraint, Mr. Frum, show some. There will be plenty of time to figure out how to fix the party after this election is finished. And who knows? If McCain wins, he just may be inviting some of those loyal beer guzzlin’, gun-totin’, Bible-clingin’ Palin-lovers, to the White House. You might even have to sit next to one some time. Quel dommage!
Dr. Melissa
Donations
