Skip to comments.Jennings Rides Again: Kristol Warns Conservatives Against 'Temper Tantrum'
Posted on 02/04/2008 11:18:12 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
The voters had a temper tantrum last week . . . Parenting and governing don't have to be dirty words: the nation can't be run by an angry two-year-old. -- Peter Jennings, November 14, 2004, commenting on the Republican landslide.
[C]onservatives . . . can choose to stand aside from history while having a temper tantrum. But they should consider that the American people might then choose not to invite them back into a position of responsibility for quite a while to come. -- William Kristol, February 4, 2008, on conservative aversion to McCain.
It's one thing to be bawled out by the late Peter Jennings. But do conservatives have to have their knuckles rapped by one of their own, Bill Kristol? Apparently yes, as per the Weekly Standard editor's New York Times column of today, Dyspepsia on the Right.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
I believe that the California Republican Party decided to make the party more "competitive" (be more accepting of Democrat positions, less "divisive"). That happened when Democrat Gray Davis was elected governor in 1998.
There was much gnashing of teeth and mental suffering brought on by the lie that as Republicans they incurred great damage by supporting Prop 187 -- never mind that the last Republican governor not only won on that issue but I believe the Republicans made great gains in the legislature the same year (1994).
Since then there have been, I believe, exactly three Republicans elected to statewide offices including "star power" Arnold Schwarzenkennedy.
Now the National Republicans are saying grow up and be like the Californians.
I cannot prove it but I am certain that the California Republican Party is run by Democrat moles -- I wonder about the influence of Democrat moles on the National Republican Party.
Don’t. Voting for Obama will just send the message that the electorate wants -more- liberal candidates. If you must protest vote, write in Fred Thompson or something, but sitting it out or voting for the Dem will only be interpreted in ways that help the liberals in both parties.
True. Actually, I could never vote for a Democrat.
Liz, is there any rational explanation for what’s going with this party? I am at a total loss to explain this capitulation.
Barnes was never a Conservative... he just played one on TV.
Me either...but in all honestly we are in this present situation for a reason. First...the media has been pimping McCain....and indys and dems have voted for him.....
Brit Hume said something about all this that I thought was right on...he said that the Republicans (conservatives) piddled away their power by supporting people who could not win instead of backing the most conservative man who could win.
And now they have the most liberal guy of all in the lead.
ie . Fred, Huck, Hunter, Tancredo etc.....
He is right.
Romney would have won already if conservatives hadn’t been so damn stupid
I think conservatives did PIDDLE their power away...
Conservatism without conservatives?
Maybe he was speaking esoterically?
I don't take kindly to his partisan scolding those of us who do not agree w/him, and I certainly do not take HIS advice about whom I should vote for.
Zackly. They've got to be time-sharing a brain to think this will work.
I do not need to be lectured to by the likes of William Kristol.
I was a foot soldier.”
That pic is funny
Uh.....wasn't that 1994?
Bring back Reagan!
Thanks. That particular comment was from last week’s debate. John said that he led the way, but when he relized he had overstated his case, he backed off with the ‘food soldier’ comment.
All five of the issues that you list as dear to you are doomed if the Hispanic invasion isn’t halted. Check out California if you don’t believe me.
Funny you should ask, since if McCain is nominated I intend to write in “Ronald Reagan”. I would encourage all true conservatives to do the same. If the total were large enough to be the difference between McCain winning and losing, it would send a clear message to the Republican Party while preventing the Democrat from getting a clear majority.
Better than “non of the above” since it clearly states where you are coming from.
While I like that, I’m wondering if it wouldn’t be better to write in a viable candidate like Hunter or Thompson.
Viable? Perhaps capable of governing would be more accurate.
Because they need us and we don't need them.
Sorry about that — don’t know how it crept in. I had it right in the original at NewsBusters.
That is an excellent point that should not be overlooked.
“if McCain becomes the Republican candidate, Her Thighness couldnt have gotten a more defeatable opponent if shed picked him herself...”
The way the MSM has been slobbering over him since New Hampshire, I think she did.
I’ve been trying to tell people here for years that the military is not monolithically Republican. A lot of Freepers can’t seem to get it through their brains that the military is a cross section of America, and votes that way.
I knew military officers who supported Dukakis, although that was certainly not the norm. I also knew very few people in the military who were anywhere near as conservative as I was.
Great minds think alike. Hubby and I are both planning to write in Ronald Reagan if McCain’s the nominee.
Islamic Terrorism worries me quite a bit more than Illegal Mexicans that pick our fruit, cut our lawns et.al.
Over 45,000 Americans have been killed by illegal aliens through a combination of murder and drunk driving since 9/11.
There is no viable third party or write-in candidate. That would result in a broad dispersion of votes that would barely be reported if at all. If McCain is nominated you have limited option, hold your nose, vote Dem as a message, stay home as a message, or place a vote that sends a message. Writing in Ronald Reagan would send a clear unambiguous message if an effort could be organized.
Today I am just planting a seed. If McCain gets the nomination, I might start plowing the field.
Today, I am just planting a seed. If McCain gets the nomination, it may be time to start plowing the field. Would Rush, Hannity, Beck, Coulter and the others step up and lead a movement? If Ronald Reagan got enough votes to cause McCain’s defeat and keep the Democrat winner under 50% it would be a major victory for Conservatism. It would be better than “none of the above”, because the message it would send would be loud and clear.
Repeat the idea whenever you can. Keep planting seeds.
[C]onservatives . . . can choose to stand aside from history while having a temper tantrum. But they should consider that the American people might then choose not to invite them back into a position of responsibility for quite a while to come. — William Kristol, February 4, 2008, on conservative aversion to McCain.
Bill, Remember 2006? We were not joking then, we are not joking now.
“Islamic Terrorism worries me quite a bit more than Illegal Mexicans that pick our fruit, cut our lawns et.al.”
That’s because you have no long term perspective...and of course you are a McCainiac liberal.
If I could only reach into my TV and get a hold of this pansy’s throat.
Careful, Billie Kristol, you’re going to get a good spanking if you don’t behave yourself! (ooops, that might get some other RINOs a little too excited.....)
ding ding ding! I couldn’t agree more - this is simply the single greatest threat to our country and *should* be considered issue number one by all conservatives IMO. The influx of masses of people who do not want to assimilate or have no desire to work within our country’s system will cause our national identity to erode irreparably!
Once we lose our borders, language and culture, we will cease to exist as the greatest nation on the planet. I just can’t fathom how this OBVIOUS and simple truth eludes so many people...