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’m still waiting for Kristol to say something substantive and of significance.
My brother-in-law is an old-school Hubert Humphrey conservative Democrat. He's grinding his gears at the thought of either Hillary or Obama, but when he gets in that voting booth, he'll dutifully pull the lever for one of them. No way would he EVER vote for a Republican :-(
Kristol can KMA. He is just looking for a job in a McCain Presidency.
And the Beltway Boys (Fred and Mort) think we’re all racists because we want immigration law enforced.
Although he did go out of his way to compliment Romney yesterday on FNS. I found that to be quite odd, both the substance of his compliment and the lack of context as he launched into it.
Do you think he perhaps had already gotten a lot of negative feedback from his NYTimes column and was making amends beforehand?
Just got to get Fred out of Washington for a year or two. The beltway seems to grind these guys right up. I think the close proximity to so many liberal voices tends to cloud one’s thinking. Though I do think Fred had a valid point on this issue.
The original non-filtered conservatism worked fine.
"Gimme that old-time conservatism..."
“Didnt take long for Kristol to kiss up to Sulzberger.”
I think Kristol has basically had liberal ideas except for national security for a very long time - maybe forever. He supported McCain in 2000 in the primaries and it’s no surprise he’s backing him today. I’ve never thought of Kristol as conservative.
Should McCain get the nomination and manage to win in Nov. where do conservatives go from there.
The GOP leadership will rightfully claim that they can win without the conservatives, and the what?
Not to worry. They can’t,
And so the issue is moot.
If they could win without us, not to mention treating us like dirt while doing so, then they would not be spending precious resources in damage control.
Basically, what they are trying to do is piss down your back - and then tell you its raining.
I see McCain vs. either of the democudas in debate as a repeat of Vice Admiral Stockbridge (RIP):
“Who am I? Why am I here? (How’m I doin’ Teddy?).” Only testier.
Without the immigration issue being satisfactorily addressed, then you will not have to worry about any of those other concerns in America.
Because it won’t be America.
>and pandering to them just simply sounds stupid.
Unbelievably bombastic, self aggrandizing, egocentric, rhetoric pontificating. - Cut it out.
Kristols description of the thought of John McCain as our nominee makes me sick and want to puke is too polite.
And maybe there's nothing wrong with that.
Between Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol, the Weekly Standard is unreadable.
Political expediency trumps ALL ELSE in their D.C. based mindset.
What is it exactly that the clown prince of the beltway “conservatives” wishes to conserve?
Am I the only one who has grown sick of seeing this pinch voiced, imperious, RINO elitist pontificating to us, the great unwashed, about what we should think and how we should behave?
It is not nice to pick of retired people, .............................................................................................................. could I hold you drink.
LOL. Good point.
Little Billy is not one of us. Billy's in a snit. He is behind the push to religiously cleanse the Repub Party and kick conservatives to the curb. He was four-square behind Rino Rooty's failed plot---concentrated on strangling the American political process w/ its important conservative strengths.
The Kristol crowd are cheerleaders for the worst initiatives the current administration has pursued -- including the immigration amnesty atrocity.
The sap-happy Kristols and Giuliani-----the "Everything-For Us-Nothing-For-You" types----know what they can do with their amnesty-loving, religious-hating globalism.
The Kristol crowd lost with Giuliani----now they are backing amnesty-loving McCain.
Billy Kristol and his daddy are in that nauseating group of big-government globalists. It was Billy's daddy---Giuliani's foreign policy "campaign adviser" ----who announced the shape of things to come, and I quote: "The historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be.....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." By Irving Kristol (Billy's dad).
Team Giuliani was engaged in a very dirty game conducted by remorseless people. Good riddance.
Fred was once with the New Republic before he joined the Standard. That should tell you something.
Giuliani may be out of the race, but his team simply switched horses along with him to McCrazy. A plum position awaits Rudy (and his minions) in any McCain administration (spit).
The day of reckoning for the GOP is just about here...
I thought the NYT dropped his column ...
“............ could I hold you drink.”
Hold muh beer!
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.
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 ObamaObama may excite high rat turn-out, but McCain will certainly suppress conservative turn-outwe may be a minority of Republican voters, but that minority may well be the margin of defeat if we dont 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 DINOs(not RINOs).”
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.