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 ...
Kristol was McCain’s advisor in previous election cycles...
The first sign that they were switching was when political prostitute I'll-Ride-Anything-To-Win-Lieberman galloped in to shadow McCain.
Lieberman is the horse-whipper---riding herd on McCain to make sure he stays in line and advances the Kristol crowd's agenda.
Little Billy loves to play dress-up——pretending he’s conservative.
Well, that makes two of us because I’m scared of McCain, too. LOL
;)
He was extremely pro-McCain in 1999 and 2000 before GWB kicked McCain to the curb. As I recall, that was when the McCain temper tantrum against the Religious Right occurred. Doesn’t anyone else remember this? Well, probably not the senile old McCain!
Fred, Mort or Bill Krystol........hard to know which one IS the liberal....they are all the same to me.
LLS
Even I, frequently referred to as the "godfather" of all those neocons, have had my moments of wonderment. A few years ago I said (and, alas, wrote) that neoconservatism had had its own distinctive qualities in its early years, but by now had been absorbed into the mainstream of American conservatism. I was wrong, and the reason I was wrong is that, ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently. It is not a "movement," as the conspiratorial critics would have it. Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a "persuasion," one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect.Irving Kristol (Bill Kristol's father), The Neoconservative Persuasion, The Weekly Standard 08/25/2003, Volume 008, Issue 47
Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy. That this new conservative politics is distinctly American is beyond doubt. There is nothing like neoconservatism in Europe, and most European conservatives are highly skeptical of its legitimacy. The fact that conservatism in the United States is so much healthier than in Europe, so much more politically effective, surely has something to do with the existence of neoconservatism. But Europeans, who think it absurd to look to the United States for lessons in political innovation, resolutely refuse to consider this possibility.
“The Clinton machine is not going to let that happen. As to whether McCain can defeat Obama—Obama may excite high ‘rat turn-out, but McCain will certainly suppress conservative turn-out—we may be a minority of Republican voters, but that minority may well be the margin of defeat if we don’t turn out to vote, or vote third party or write-in.”
I put the same stock in the “Clinton Machine” that I put in “Karl Rove = Boy Wonder” Hillary is a dangerous politician no doubt, but she’s hardly bullet proof, and Obama seems to have captured the far left and a lot of the left center.
IMO that leaves a lot of moderates on the table for McCain.
LOL - PLEASE don't throw me in that briar patch...
“No way would he EVER vote for a Republican”
My grandparents and all their friends are just the opposite. Old school Dixiecrats, but they won’t vote for Obama or Hillary.
How could Fox news pick up a guy George Stephanopolis fired?
“Since moving to and retiring in Texas I have been surprised by the number of Former/Retired Military who are DINO’s(not RINO’s).”
LOL they’re really more anti-government than anything else. They distrust Big Business, but the hate the idea of a nanny state.
Ann Coulter says she’ll vote for Hillary if Juan McCain is the nominee. I would crawl over broken glass to vote against Hillary but if it’s McCain/Obama I’ll just stay home. Heck, I might even vote for Obama.
So Mark Finkelstein thinks Kristol is a conservative?
Then I can discount everything else he writes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.