Jennings Rides Again: Kristol Warns Conservatives Against 'Temper Tantrum'

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[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.

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[Lijahsbubbe]

Why are all these guys so worried we may not fall into their line and so what they say?

Because they need us and we don't need them.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Sorry about that — don’t know how it crept in. I had it right in the original at NewsBusters.

[Alberta's Child]

The Kristol crowd are cheerleaders for the worst initiatives the current administration has pursued -- including the immigration amnesty atrocity.

That is an excellent point that should not be overlooked.

[LadyNavyVet]

“if McCain becomes the Republican candidate, Her Thighness couldn’t have gotten a more defeatable opponent if she’d picked him herself...”

The way the MSM has been slobbering over him since New Hampshire, I think she did.

[LadyNavyVet]

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.

[LadyNavyVet]

Great minds think alike. Hubby and I are both planning to write in Ronald Reagan if McCain’s the nominee.

[Republicus2001]

I think the reason Big Media wants McCain in there is because it would be cake to portray McCain as a crusty mean old white man v. Obama/Clinton. He'd be crushed as demos get out the vote. With Romney that strategy is off the table. And this morning Lanny Davis told the Friends on Fox that the Dems are sooooooooooooo scared of McCain.

heh, yep, that's the way they want it - they know Romney will kill them, so for the Dems they need McCain...

[tomnbeverly]

Islamic Terrorism worries me quite a bit more than Illegal Mexicans that pick our fruit, cut our lawns et.al.

[puroresu]

Over 45,000 Americans have been killed by illegal aliens through a combination of murder and drunk driving since 9/11.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103

[CMAC51]

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.

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.

[CMAC51]

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.

[Grunthor]

[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.

[rbmillerjr]

“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.

[Gator113]

If I could only reach into my TV and get a hold of this pansy’s throat.

[Enchante]

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.....)

[jurroppi1]

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...