Give me that old-time conservatism

    My regular readers will recognize this column as having been adapted from a post from late last week. Sorry to be repetitive, but increasingly (and conveniently) I find blog posts to be adaptable into columns. I’ve developed it a bit — cutting some here, adding some there (particularly, a new ending, and therefor a new point). But the inspiration was the same.

    Aside from making my seven-day week a little more manageable, adapting a column such as this one at least exposes it to a slightly more friendly audience. The Blogosphere is more densely populated with the kinds of people who would take exception to the ideas expressed herein. I find that the newspaper’s readership contains more folks who harbor my notion of the best sort of conservatism. Every once in a while, even I would like to get a little encouragement, you know. Speaking of which, thank you, Chief Warrant Officer Libbon. It was good to get your message before the mob started screaming.

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
THE IDEOLOGUES in the Republican Party — you know, the ones who don’t care who can actually become president, as long as their candidate thinks exactly the way they do about everything — don’t know whether to spit or go blind with John McCain as their presumptive nominee.
    And I gotta tell ya, I’m loving it. My happiness will be complete once the “anger” faction of the Democratic Party is similarly discombobulated by having Barack Obama as its nominee. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves on that.
    My other favorite candidate, John McCain (The State has endorsed both him and Sen. Obama), may not quite have the Republican nomination sewn up, but he’s close enough to it to give the more objectionable elements within his party considerable indigestion. True, Mitt Romney is doing everything he possibly can to stop the McCain bandwagon, spending $1 million on ads in California alone.
    But while this moment of promise lasts, let’s savor it.
    A colleague who listens to such things says right-wing talk radio is abuzz with apocalyptic rantings about the End Times for the GOP, which sounds lovely to me, UnParty adherent that I am. But I content myself with reading about it in the papers. Let’s take just one day (Thursday) of one newspaper (The Wall Street Journal) widely associated with Conservative Orthodoxy. Under the headline, “McCain Takes the GOP Lead,” we read:

    Republicans have a clear front-runner in Arizona Sen. John McCain. By nearly all accounts, he is the candidate many Democrats least want to face, the one who would best remake his party’s battered image and draw independent voters needed to win in November.
    But Sen. McCain still confronts a problem both in the remainder of the nomination race, and, if he wins, in the fall: He is simply loathed by many fellow Republicans, often for the very bipartisanship and maverick streak that attracts independents.

    Under “Giuliani Fund-Raisers Sit on Fence for Now,” we learn that while Rudy Giuliani may have pulled out…

    Mr. Giuliani’s well-heeled supporters might not throw their money behind the cash-strapped Arizona senator so fast. “We haven’t decided what we’re going to do,” says T. Boone Pickens, the Dallas tycoon who has raised more than $1 million for Mr. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, since late 2006…

    Then, on the opinion pages, that font of oracular conservative wisdom, the very lead editorial of the hallowed WSJ itself, under the real-life headline “McCain’s Apostasies,” pronounces the following:

    Mr. McCain’s great political strength has also long been his main weakness, which is that his political convictions are more personal than ideological. He believes in duty, honor and country more than he does in any specific ideas.
    These personal qualities are genuine political assets…. But he is now on the cusp of leading a coalition that also believes in certain principles, and its “footsoldiers” (to borrow a favorite McCain word) need to be convinced that the Senator is enough on their side to warrant enthusiastic support…

    By “ideas,” the Journal does not mean “removing the inordinate influence of money from politics,” or “restraining wasteful spending” or “believing the surge would work” or “life begins at conception” or “maybe we should secure our borders without totally alienating the Hispanic vote.” No, it means such lofty concepts as: “What do you always, always do with a tax? Cut it!”
    Duty, honor and country indeed! What’s conservative about that stuff?
    Speaking of the Gimme-Gimme wing of the party, another newspaper (conservatives should cover their sensitive ears before I name it), The New York Times, reported on Friday that “leaders of the right” have practically been doing backflips trying to adjust to the new reality. My favorite in this regard is Grover “Shrink Government Until You Can Drown it in a Bathtub” Norquist, who goes further than anyone to spin this into a personal victory:
    “He has moved in the right direction strongly and forcefully on taxes,” Mr. Norquist says, adding that he’s been talking to Sen. McCain’s “tax guys” for some time. So you see, not only does this make everything OK, but Grover gets to take credit! Because, as anyone who has ever had cause to regret signing his “No New Taxes” pledge can testify, it’s all about Grover.
    By now some of you think I have it in for all things “conservative.” I don’t. I just grew up with a different concept of it from that which has in recent years been appropriated by extremists. I grew up in a conservative family — a Navy family, as a matter of fact. To the extent that “conservative ideas” were instilled in me, they weren’t the kind that make a person fume over paying his taxes, or get apoplectic at the sound of spoken Spanish. They were instead the old-fashioned ones: Traditional moral values. Respect for others. Good stewardship. Plain speaking.
    And finally, the concept that no passing fancy, no merely political idea, is worth as much as Duty, Honor and Country.

To learn more about the UnParty, go to http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/.

45 thoughts on “Give me that old-time conservatism

  1. Frank Libbon

    Brad Warthen, It would give me great pleasure Sir, to shake your hand. Our American people should STUDY the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and read the Federalist Papers, and hopefully they will learn what Duty, Honor, and Country is about. Frank Libbon, Chief Warrant Officer, US Army – Retired

    Reply
  2. Gene Retske

    Brad, c’mon, do you really believe that you are a conservative? Do you think that Roe v Wade was improperly decided? Do you think Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th Century? Do you think America is the model for the world, and is obligated to spread democracy? Do you think America is a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles? Would you leave your wife for Ann Coulter?
    If you can’t answer “yes” to all these questions, you may not be a true conservative.
    John McCain believes in Duty, Honor and Country, for sure. That these basic criteria are touted as presidential qualities shows how far down we have come. There are over 12 million current and former military who also have these qualities, and are thus more qualified than Hillary or Obama to be president.
    Sorry, Brad, you can’t redefine conservatism to your standards, nor can John McCain.

    Reply
  3. Doug Ross

    Amd Brad’s nuancing of McCain’s position on immigration is interesting. Senator McCain believes that nearly every illegal alien who has entered this country has the right to stay. True or untrue?
    He didn’t flip his position on the security of the border until the American public soundly voiced its collective opinion that illegal immigrants due more harm than good to the economy of the country.
    Watch what happens as the housing market tanks. What jobs (that Senator McCain claims Americans won’t do) will all those illegal workers do when home construction slows? Hmm, maybe there are other jobs they’ll do for less pay and no benefits? Maybe some of those jobs will be the same jobs actual American citizens hold right now but won’t settle for below market wages… which border will those American workers cross illegally to find work? And what will the increased burden be on our social services when those illegal immigrants and their families can’t find work? Who pays for their welfare?
    Senator McCain is revealing his pure political animal side now that he can see the nomination finish line. He refused (Mr. Straight Talker = HA!) to even answer a simple question as to whether he would sign the same immigration bill he proposed last summer. Refused.
    Where’s the HONOR in that? And isn’t it Senator McCain’s DUTY to put the rights of American citizens ahead of those of illegals? Which COUNTRY does Senator McCain want to be President of?

    Reply
  4. weldon VII

    Brad, I watched a re-run of the Republican debate in California last night on CNN.
    McCain misquoted Romney, and even the moderator called the old guy out on it.
    So much for McCain’s honor, or his brainpower, one or the other.
    And likewise for you, if you redefine terms like a Clinton and call yourself a conservative.
    You’d be better off to call yourself a moderate, the proper position for an UnParty guy.
    But in reality, you’re so pro-government and pro-tax, you’re way left of middle.
    You want single-payer national health care.
    You want to raise the gas tax, the cigarette tax, even the thumb tax.
    You endorsed the most liberal Democrat in the Senate and the most liberal Republican in the presidential race.
    You’re a socialist, but you wrote a column claiming to be a conservative, and you call today’s conservatives “extremists”.
    Apparently, losing the Cold War worked hard on you.
    Get over it.

    Reply
  5. Marshall Lawson

    Brad Warthen:
    The “old time conservatism” and “duty,honor and country” Brad Warthen and Senator John McCain favor is exemplified by an immigration bill that surrenders our national sovereignty to a corrupt and dysfunctional third world nation, perpetual war/nation building around the globe in the name of national security, so called free trade agreements that have destroyed much of the nation’s manufacturing base, and a bias against constitutional judges, just to name a few “conservative” principals.
    The McCain-Kennedy amnesty which just a few months ago was opposed by the great majority of American citizens (not that the will of the American people matters to “old time conservatives” like McCain and Warthen) would have legalized 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. Under current immigration law, the amnesty would have opened the door to citizenship for tens of millions more alien family members. When this bill sails though under either a McCain or Clinton presidency, none of these new citizens will be required to renounce their existing citizenship and will be allowed to vote in both Mexican and American elections.
    This disastrous surrender of national sovereignly is the type of conservatism liberal Democrats like Brad Warthen and career politicians like Senator McCain can’t get enough. In McCain’s case, this massive sellout is calculated to buy him enough Latino votes to possibly win the Presidency. In Warthen’s case, the amnesty is a blueprint for one party, Democrat rule in the U.S. within ten years as tens of millions of poor, uneducated Hispanics are added to the voter roles of the Democrat Party.
    The type of “old fashioned conservatism” Brad Warthen claims allegiance to is, in fact, a mishmash of self serving, dishonest psychobabble and political opportunism that has put America on the fast track to the graveyard of nations.

    Reply
  6. Skip Hardin

    Dear Mr. Warthen: You seem to be perplexed regarding why there is anger towards John McCain, particularly from the conservative side of the GOP. I have never considered myself even a Republican, much less a “true” Republican, of the conservative side of the GOP. Nevertheless, I can easily see why there is so much anger at Senator McCain from those types. Senator McCain has staked his career, at least the last 10 years or so, on the idea of straight talk and telling it like it is, yet now he appears to be willing to say and do anything to get the party nomination. Even to the point of exuding the feeling that it is his earned right to have the nomination.
    I can best explain the anger like this. If someone lies to you in a relationship you will be hurt and angry. If that person is a friend or family member that you trusted, you will be very angry. Senator McCain, the “Straight Talk Express” man, recently deliberately and knowingly distorted and misconstrued the Romney statement regarding time tables for withdrawal from Iraq. Every logical, fair minded person who looked at the statement saw that McCain was being dishonest in the first instance and then being even more dishonest by not saying “OK, I made a misstatement.” This kind of activity is particularly maddening when it comes from someone who keeps saying over and over and over again, “Trust me, I’m honest and will always speak the truth.” Well, BS. If you are going to p**s on me, just do it. But for gosh sakes don’t do it and then tell me its raining. That would make you just a little extra mad.
    When the preacher preaches every Sunday morning about not cheating on your spouse and then you find out that is exactly what he has been doing, it makes you mad. There are a lot of people who are angry at Senator McCain for taking a lot of bad positions on a lot of important issues, but it is the hypocrisy of his comments that has really angered so many people.
    He has become what he always preached against, someone who will say anything to get elected.
    Skip Hardin

    Reply
  7. Richard L. Wolfe

    I didn’t think so at first but this is turning into the let’s pretend blog. Let’s pretend that McCain IS a conservative. Let’s pretend that Obama IS NOT a liberal. Let’s pretend that Bush IS a good president. Let’s pretend that the war in Iraq WAS a good idea. Let’s pretend the economy IS NOT in a recession. Let’s pretend that Clinton WAS NOT a mediocre president. ( Sorry I have to do this for Bud ) Waco, Oka. City, First World Trade Center attack, losing congress, raising taxes, U.S.S. Cole, Cobalt Towers, Monica, impeachment, etc.
    Let’s pretend Hillary WILL BE better. Let’s pretend the democrats AREN’T going to raise taxes and add social programs. Let’s pretend the participants of this blog ARE going to be civil to each other. Last but not least, let’s pretend that in four years we WON’T be back having the same discussion.

    Reply
  8. Karen McLeod

    I can’t get too upset about an incidental misquote, especially since it’s been identified as such. I’m a little more perturbed about his plans re: illegal immigrants since he had taken a real stand on that. And, Gene, yes. We have come that far down. That’s why duty, honor, and country count for so much. Those are virtues that should be assumed in anyone who is presidential calibre; unfortunately we have had so many presidents lie to us for so long that we need to have at least that much. I am so tired of having to hold my nose and vote, while trying to choose the lesser of 2 evils (or the brighter of 2 nitwits). I think that both McCain and Obama exhibit at least these virtues. It will (I hope) be a pleasure to vote in an election where I can at least respect the winner, even if I don’t agree with him. What do you want? More years of Billary? A person who flips so much that when he dies he’ll be known to his cemetary neighbors as “Pinwheel Mitt”?

    Reply
  9. Richard L. Wolfe

    There is one thing that I missed in all the debates the constitutionality of mandatory health care. In the spirit of bipartisianship, I would like someone on the left to explain why it is constitutional and someone on the right to explain why it isn’t.

    Reply
  10. Skip Hardin

    Karen, I believe you are being naive to call what McCain has been doing a “incidental misquote.” And that is the problem. It was a deliberate and calculated lie. At the debate in Florida McCain also boldly lied that he never said he didn’t understand the economy. The lies are knowing, real and dangerous. We do not did a President that can so easily lie when it suits him. And you are so wrong regarding Romney’s flip flops. To change a position after thoughtful and deliberate reconsideration is not the same thing. Check the record and don’t be mislead by another lie coming from the McCain spin room. McCain has flipped on major positions in the last few months, not the last few years. He now supports the Bush tax cuts. He now doesn’t support his own liberal legislation to give amnesty to illegal immigrants. Those are flips of major importance and mark my words, if he is elected will prove to be out right lies to us now. Which is my whole point. If he will lie to us now, about the things we have caught him lying about, he will change again and go back to his old ideas. How can you trust such a person. The press should take more seriously their responsiblity to “out” on the front page every actionable lie by a politican and stop dancing aroung the sin by calling it a misstatement. It is lying.

    Reply
  11. Lee Muller

    Every lie that comes out of McCain, Obama and Hillary is calculated and intentional.
    They all refuse to give a straight answer and details of their agenda.
    They all favor amnesty for illegal aliens. Why? They refuse to say.
    McCain says, “The American people want secure borders”, but doesn’t say intends to secure the borders or run out the 30,000,000 criminals.
    Obama says, “All people have a right to be treated with dignity”. People who sneak into our country to steal $120 BILLION in welfare have no dignity.
    Hillary says, “I will give $5,000 for every baby born, free health care, and free college tuition to any illegal alien who stays in this country five years”, so just evade the law.

    Reply
  12. weldon VII

    Karen, in a nationally televised debate for a prepared presidential candidate, there is no such thing as an incidental misquote.
    McCain — Mr. Honor, Mr. Duty, Mr. Country — DELIBERATELY misrepresented the facts and got caught doing it.
    Ol’ time conservatism that ain’t.

    Reply
  13. Gordon Hirsch

    If lying disqualified candidates from office, Washington would be a ghost town and the White House would be vacant. Who’s being naive here?
    Name a president who didn’t lie.

    Reply
  14. Howard Roarke

    Wow, redefining conservatism for political gain and public favor is now the equivalent of Duty, Honor, Country? And Duty, Honor, Country was mentioned in the Declaraion of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers? I must have missed that year in American History and Constituional Law class.
    I’m willing to give Mr.Libbon a pass because of his sevice in the military – much like the national media gives John McCain one due to his service. However, I would encourage our fair editor to stop taking the views of “the mob” out of context and oversimplfying at best, and fabricating at worst. There is no excuse for that my friends.
    To say that true conservatives fume over paying taxes or get apoplectic at the sound of spoken Spanish is a generalization of the absurd and simple minded. And that is being nice about it.
    I know of very few if any conservatives who don’t recognize a role for government and the reality that it takes dollars to operate. The debate is about how large that role should be.
    The sound of Spanish is not the issue that 70+% of the country has a problem with, rather it is but a reminder of the the real problem at the border and the impact that disaster is having on the country. It reminds us that while great men like mighty McCain tell us “there’s a war going on out there folks – be afraid” nearly anyone can waltz right into the country at either border. It reminds us that honest, everyday people are being saddled with tremendous financial obligations so a few greedy business owners can prosper at our expense. It reminds us that California and Arizona are going broke largely due to the problem of illegal immigration and we simply do’t want the same thing to happen to us. Speaking Spanish again, has very little to do with it. Just so happen the majority of the people breaking into the country speak Spanish, that’s about where it stops. To say otherwise and characterize everyone based on a lonely few is intellectually dishonest – and worse, lazy.
    Conservatism for most is a personal philosophy and a way of life – it transcends political party. The fact that “the mob” is fighting the party machine on this one should make the editor happy – but it doesn’t. One would think that battling the WSJ types who don’t give a darn about everyday people – only the almight dollar – would be admirable to someone who takes great pleasure in sticking it to parties whenever possible. For some reason – it doesn’t.
    For the WSJ to claim McCain believes in Duty, Honor, Country more than he does ideas is laughable. McCain believes in McCain, pure and simple. His immigration policy, to name but one example, spits in the face of hard working citizens and legal immigrants trying to make it in this country. And for what? So a few greedy %#$^ can increase profit margins on the backs of others. That is hardly conservative.
    I suggest trying to find another candidate that exemplifies respect for others, good stewardship and plain speaking.
    To say McCain represents any of these just isn’t seeing reality and just isn’t being truthful.
    -A proud member of the conservative “mob” who’s really not even a conservative but actually feels sorry for the tomfoolery that is being perpetrated against them. Intellectuals everywhere should rise on their behalf out of principle.

    Reply
  15. Lee Muller

    Brad is engaging in Newspeak when he spins things 180 degrees – calling respectible, hard-working taxpayers who want honesty and accountability “the mob”.
    Just like “paying for tax cuts”, or calling FICA taxes your “contribution”…etc.
    Actually, “the mob”, as in “mob rule”, is the rabble of non-workers and government employees who think they are owed a living, and a fat one, by the private sector minority which creates all the wealth in the world.

    Reply
  16. weldon VII

    I’m having a little trouble squaring a bald-faced lie in a televised debate with the concept of honor, Gordon.
    I understand the purported truth changes from moment to moment in Washington, but everybody in Washington isn’t running for president on the Duty, Honor and Country platform, just McCain.
    Before the Clintons, politicians did at least bother to lie with a little finesse, rather than glibly spewing different versions of the truth in speeches an hour apart with TV cameras present at both. I long for the old-fashioned conservatism that featured prevarication more difficult to distinguish.

    Reply
  17. bud

    I think we should start refering to John McCain as the mendacity candidate. His so-called “misquotes” are coming fast and furious as he tries to fool enough folks on the fringe right to vote for him, or at least not vote at all. He can then steal the nomination by garnering enough independents who agree with many of his centrist positions.
    McCain, or at least his handlers, understand the math of winning elections. McCain simply must appeal to a significant portion of the right in the GOP to win the nomination while at the same time appealing to a broad segment of the middle to offset the defectors from the right to win in the general election. His best hope is to scare people into believing either Obama or Hillary are willing to steal all their money and welcome the evil terrorists into this country. That way he minimizes loses from the fringe right. His best ally is the classic “swift-boat” style attack that is sure to come once the nominees for the Dems is decided.
    Both Hillary and Obama are perfectly set up for this inevitable assault. It’s already started with Hillary and to a lessor extent with Obama.
    In the meantime the hapless press ignores the graveyard full of skeletons in McCain’s cryptical closet prefering to fawn over him like a bunch of teenage groupies at a boy band rock concert. The breathtaking array of unethical behavior is spun into this war-hero straight-talk maverick. It’s amazing how the press can cherry-pick the facts concerning this man. Brad’s man-crush on McCain is a great example of the MSM spin. Let’s just hope that the American voters are a bit better prepared for the coming assault on the truth than they were in 2000 and 2004. Otherwise we’re in for more war and a continued decline in the American economy.

    Reply
  18. dave faust

    Hubert:
    Conservatism is not dead as long as there are conservative people in this country. No, conservatism isn’t dead, it simply hasn’t been honestly tried in a long while. Certainly its’ principles haven’t been applied under our current president. Clinton was a disaster, and the first Bush presidency wasn’t a study in applied conservatism either. So, it’s been a long while, but conservatism is assuredly not dead. With the current drop of candidates, it looks like it may lie dormant a little while longer, but I and folks like me believe in it, and intend to continue voting for it when we see it.
    Karens’ comment perfectly distills and embodies every thing I believe about our current candidates: We’ll holding our noses and voting for either the lesser of two evils or the brighter of two nitwits.
    I wish I had said that. David

    Reply
  19. bud

    Here’s yet another example of how McCain may not be well suited to the presidency. This in an excerpt from the Boston Globe:
    Santorum said he had personally witnessed problems with McCain’s temperament, which he declined to detail.
    “I don’t know anybody in the Senate who hasn’t,” Santorum said. “Everybody has their McCain story.”
    -BG
    Apparantly McCain has a bad temper that is somehow never discussed by most of the press. (The Boston Globe is one of the rare exceptions). Again I ask, why does the press cherry pick the facts about John McCain? The world is waiting for an answer.

    Reply
  20. dave faust

    Bud, c’mon. Why does the press cherry pick facts about every one of the stories they run? Why do they cherry pick facts about the war, so that every story casts the war in a negative way when there are certainly great successes that could be at least reported, if not emphasized. When the surge started working, we saw almost a week go by without ANY news about Iraq. I presume this was the time the MSM needed to figure out how to pick, distort and contort the facts so as to fit their negative template. Why do the press cherry pick facts about the Clintons? About ANY candidate? Why have we had so much negative reporting about the economy when, until recently, it was apparently very bullish?
    Of course you know the answers Bud: The MSM cherry picks facts about McCain for the same reason they do about anyone or anything else ~ they are hopelessly and unashamedly in the tank for liberalism as embodied in the currect democrat party. No more complicated than that. You knew it all along. In McCains’ case, they haven’t needed to cherry pick facts about his temper…if you ever point a camera at him, you are likely to see him explode about something. He’s done the reporting about his own temper by losing so badly and so often in front of cameras. David.

    Reply
  21. bud

    The press hasn’t ignored the success of the surge in Iraq. Why? Because there really isn’t that much success to talk about. That’s mostly a fabrication of the far-right spin machine. There were 40 American soldiers killed in Iraq last month, the most since September. That follows the highest yearly total for the occupation. Over 500 Iraqi civilians were killed in January, also an increase from December. We just had a story about two retarded females used as suicide bombers that killed 98 persons. Apparently American soldiers “inadvertanly” killed 9 more innocent civilians while running around chasing who knows who. In the meantime the Iraqi government still can’t get it’s act together. And the Turks continue to bomb strong-holds in the Kurdish regions. Can invasion be far behind? And the whole thing is costing us more and more each day.
    Yet the right wing spin machine suggests that the one-year old surge has brought us to the brink of ultimate victory. BULL! We simply wasted another $200billion in 2007 on this failed excercise while Afghanistan is being overrun by the Taliban. And the mendacious McCain is touted as some type of folk hero for supporting the extrodinarily expensive surge. And by the way, if you count the pullout of other “coaliation” forces there are about the same number of troops in Iraq now as there were before the “surge”. And the most peaceful areas in Iraq are those who used to be under British control. So don’t give me this crap about the surge being so successful. That line of BS is simply not supportable by the facts.

    Reply
  22. Bob

    If we elect McCain, we’ll get the same things that Hillary and Obama want – open borders, more taxes and more taxpayer funded programs available of course to all the illegals that are pourimg through Arizona. Why else do you think people like Warthen and The Stae back him?

    Reply
  23. bud

    Bob, where exactly is there an intelligible argument in your post? Do you really believe that McCain, Hillary and Obama actually intend to provide more “taxes and taxpayer funded programs” to illegals? That is just a statement that you probably heard from Rush Limbaugh that has no basis in fact. I don’t care for John McCain but the reasons are based on factual evidence that I’ve tried to document. He did say for example that he would stay in Iraq 100 years if necessary. I find that offensive. He did not say, however, he would provide “more taxes and more taxpayer funded programs to illegals”. If you don’t actually have something to say other than the mindless right-wing blather that passes for evidence on talk radio then you really shouldn’t even comment here, let alone vote.

    Reply
  24. bud

    The MSM cherry picks facts about McCain for the same reason they do about anyone or anything else ~ they are hopelessly and unashamedly in the tank for liberalism as embodied in the currect democrat party.
    -Dave
    Does the MSM include Fox News? Given their large viewership I would say that it does. A regular commentator on Fox is Ann Coulter. She writes books titled “Slander” and “Treason” in reference to liberals. I find that highly offensive, but apparently not to the Fox News executives who continue to have her on.
    Fact is the idea that the MSM is liberal is pretty much just something ginned up by the right-wing spin-machine. The media swallowed one whopper after another in the lead-up to the Iraq war without ever really questioning anything. During those dark days the entire media really just served to pass along the administration’s talking points without so-much as a whimper of protest. There was ample evidence to suggest there were no WMD in Iraq but that evidence was completely ignored. And now 4,000 wasted American lives later we’re told that the surge is working. The whole notion of a liberal media is just hogwash.

    Reply
  25. Howard Roarke

    I haven’t seen the hard copy of today’s issue of The State, but I looked hard online to find a mention of Romney’s landslide victory in the Maine caucus.
    Shocking…. there is not one mention of it today. Rather amazing when you think about it.
    Perhaps our editor can throw his weight around and ask for equal treatment for the “lesser” candidates such as Romney, et. all.
    I have never seen such obvious bias in all the years I’ve followed politics. The media is hell-bent on making McCain the winner. The country will be the loser because of it.
    Wow. Nothing like it – ever.

    Reply
  26. Richard L. Wolfe

    Bud, People who repeat what they hear on talk radio shouldn’t be allowed to comment on the blog? Liberals suppressing free speech? Now the truth comes out. Only air heads like Air America should be allowed to comment. Bud you are a disgrace to thoughtful liberals everywhere. I am a Liberarian and I think we should have more speech not less. The problem with today’s liberals is they spend too much time rubbing elbows with Hollywood whose whole business is let’s see MAKE BELIEVE!

    Reply
  27. Lee Muller

    Congress authorized President Clinton “to use any means necessary to bring about regime change in Iraq”… in 1998. President Bush invaded under the same authorization which Congress gave to Clinton to drop 80,000 tons of boms on Iraq’s WMD.
    So “the dark days of run up to the war” occured under Clinton. Bush is cleaning up the Clinton mess. Get over it. Move on.

    Reply
  28. bud

    Bud, People who repeat what they hear on talk radio shouldn’t be allowed to comment on the blog?
    -RLW
    Here’s what I actually wrote:
    If you don’t actually have something to say other than the mindless right-wing blather that passes for evidence on talk radio then you really shouldn’t even comment here, let alone vote.
    -Bud
    The meaning of the two phrases is completely different. First, I’ll withdraw the “vote” comment. As for the rest, why should someone write or say something if they really don’t have anything meaningful or original to add? A reasoned, well thought-out argument is healthy for our society. I’m not saying this should be a legal matter, just one of practicality. If you want to convince me not to support Hillary or Obama or McCain do so by using well researched debating points. It’s pointless to repeat the same old tired cliches that we always hear on talk radio.

    Reply
  29. Lee Muller

    The character flaws of Hillary and McCain are exactly the attraction to their flawed followers. That’s why a factual inventory of their lies and shady financial dealings doesn’t diminish their popularity among those who hope to share in the looting of America.

    Reply
  30. Richard L. Wolfe

    Bud, You want factual imformation. I heard Hillary say in the Calf. debate that she is planning to have mandatory health care. In case you have never had a job that withholds taxes, then find someone with a pay stub. There is a little block that says Medicare/Medicaid. We already have mandatory health care. You can get out of this by not working. Hillary says that there is no hiding from her mandatory health care. That is why I voted for Obama.
    The fact that Hillary’s health care plan is unconstitutional seems to have slipped past the MSM as they are numb and dumb as usual when it comes to liberal big government ideas.

    Reply
  31. weldon VII

    Mob?
    Me, part of a mob?
    Is that a word a guy looks down his nose to use when his opinion is too much in the minority?
    Generally speaking, I avoid mobs.
    But here I am.

    Reply
  32. bud

    Richard, Hillary’s new health care plan may be unconstitutional (I doubt it) but the occupation of Iraq is almost certainly unconstitutional. When did we declare war? This whole constitutional thing is cherry-picked by conservatives whenever they have nothing better to say about an issue. I would prefer to just simply provide everyone health care, that way everyone is in compliance with the law.

    Reply
  33. Lee Muller

    The Democrats declared war on Iraq in 1998, almost unamimously.
    Obama’s socialized medical care consists of a $2,500 handout to 100,000,000 heads of household. That is a new $250 BILLION in spending.
    The mandatory side of Obama’s socialism comes in direct taxing of those who have the ability to now purchase their own medical care, and in the inflation tax of debasing our currency and destroying savings and investment through deficit spending.

    Reply
  34. Lee Muller

    Hillary’s Socialist Medical Plan
    ================================
    —- CAPTIVE CARE —————–
    Everyone would be required to have medical insurance.
    Employers would be required to provide medical insurance.
    Hillary would create a new government insurance company to provide subidized plans.
    Doctors and nurses would have their incomes capped. Most would have to work for the government – MANAGED CARE run by federal bureaucrats.
    $5,000 fine for refusing to join the government mandated health plan;
    $5,000 fine for failing to pay premiums on time;
    15 years in prison for doctors who received ‘anything of value’ in exchange for helping
    patients short circuit bureaucracy;
    $10,000 a day for faulty physician paperwork;
    $50,000 for unauthorized patient treatment.
    When told the plan could bankrupt small businesses, Mrs. Clinton said, ‘I can’t be responsible for every under-capitalized
    small business in America’.”
    —- TAX THOSE WHO HAVE INSURANCE ————-
    Clinton says that the $110 billion needed to pay for her plan would come from raising taxes on people with incomes over $250,000 and from $56 billion in costs savings.
    Claiming that she can save $56 billion through the marvelous efficiency of the U.S. government is just absurd. Experts estimate the real cost of her plan at closer to $300 BILLION. Hillary plans to cut $134 BILLION by wage and price controls on physicians, nurses, hospitals, clinics, and pharmceutical companies.
    Her newest book, Who Killed Health Care?, published in June of 2007, is on the CEO Best Seller List.
    http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=bio&facEmId=rherzlinger
    —- PRICE CONTROLS ———
    Another plank in Hillary’s health insurance plan is that she would mandate “fair prices” for pharmaceuticals.
    http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=11127

    Reply
  35. rick campbell

    …bring back the old conservatives who only want to take away benefits from social security or cut funding for poor children…and give tax breaks to the wealthiest americans and complain about SCHIP for poor kids…those are the true conservatives….you know the ones that attend church on sundays and look the other way during the monday thru friday torture sessions…the ones who beat everyone over the head with “the rule of law” argument against clinton when we all know it was about a blow job….republicans could care less about the rule of law…look at cheney and bush war crimes…anyone hearing the rule of law argument now???…anyone??
    the birth of a new america is right around the corner and neo-con chickenhawks will be out the door and using ann coulter books as their new bible…good riddance the country can now forget about this 8 year experiment with an AWOL “c” student…

    Reply
  36. slugger

    Lee Muller,
    Great posts. Keep sticking the facts to them. You may possibly wake up a few of the dumbasses. Nothing ventured. Nothing gained.

    Reply
  37. rick campbell

    lee uller went to the bill o’really school of facts…he has cherry picked or completely made up ALL the FACTS he claims…typical of neo-con chicken hawk behavior…bring back the draft and see how many republicans enlist!…mitt romneys sons can then enlist since romney compared their trying to get their dad elected to those serving in iraq!…this disabled veteran knows an awol drunk pilot when i see one!

    Reply
  38. Lee Muller

    Looks like a few unabomber types didn’t get the news back up in the hills that the AWOL smear on GW was another job of Clinton-Gore, and totally debunked by Kerry’s hometown paper, the Boston Globe.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to bud Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *