Posted on 02/21/2010 1:14:06 PM PST by Sergeant Tim
I was invited to be the opening speaker at Saturday's CPAC session. I had accepted but then, to my amazement, I learned that the John Birch Society would be one of many co-sponsors. This takes the big-tent idea many steps too far for me. So, I withdrew. Apparently, others were not so moved. That's fine. But it wasn't for me. Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater, among others, chased the Birchers from the movement decades ago. And they're not a part of the movement. So, to give them a booth at CPAC was boneheaded.
I want to commend Bill Bennett for his wise piece this morning on the Corner. I agree with him.
I have no idea what philosophy Glenn Beck is promoting. And neither does he. It's incoherent. One day it's populist, the next it's libertarian bordering on anarchy, next it's conservative but not really, etc. And to what end? I believe he has announced that he is no longer going to endorse candidates because our problems are bigger than politics. Well, of course, our problems are not easily dissected into categories, but to reject politics is to reject the manner in which we try to organize ourselves. This is as old as Plato and Aristotle. Why would conservatives choose to surrender the political battlefield to our adversaries -- who are trashing this society -- when we must retake it in order to preserve our society? Philosophy, politics, culture, family, etc., are all of one. Edmund Burke, among others, wrote about it extensively, and far better that I possibly can. But all elements of the civil society require our defense. Besides, why preach such a strategy when conservatism is on the rise and the GOP is acting more responsibly?
Moreover, when he does discuss politics, which, ironically, is often, how can he claim today that there is no difference between the two parties when, but for the Republicans in Congress, government-run health care, cap-and-trade, card check, and a long list of other disastrous policies would already be law? The GOP is becoming more conservative thanks to the grass-roots movement and a political uprising across the country, which has even reached into New Jersey and Massachusetts. Why keep pretending otherwise? My only conclusion is that he is promoting a third party or some third way, which is counter-productive to defeating Obama and the Democrat Congress. These are perilous times and this kind of an approach will keep the statists in power for decades.
And what of his flirtations with Ron Paul's lunacy respecting America's supposed provocations with her enemies, including al-Qaeda? Why should such a fatal defect in thinking be ignored? Do we conservatives agree with this?
Finally, Beck is fond of congratulating himself for being the only or the first host to criticize George Bush's spending. This is demonstrably false. I not only attacked his spending, but the creation of the Homeland Security Department, the prescription drug add-on for Medicare, his "moderate" tax cuts, as well as his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, "comprehensive immigration reform," and so forth. And I was not alone -- Rush and Sean did the same, for example. And as someone who fought liberal Republicans in the trenches when campaigning for Reagan in 1976 and 1980, I don't need lectures from Beck, who was nowhere to be found, about big-spending Republicans. But this is not about me, or Beck, or Beck's past drunkenness (which he endlessly wears as some kind of badge of honor). It is about preserving our society for our children and grandchildren. Beck spent precious little time aiming fire at Obama-Pelosi-Reid in his speech, and it is they who are destroying our country.
On as a positive note, I am personally happy to see that Beck has cleaned up his public act -- as best I can tell, no more boiling fake frogs on TV or pretending to pour gasoline on someone -- and the rest of it. But I do think his speech, which contained nuggets of truth heard before and read elsewhere, including on Rush's show and in my book and many other books, may have distracted from some of the more compelling and coherent speeches at the event, including Marco Rubio's superb speech. I fear the media will see to this. I hope not.
“No, its what CNN called Jewish defense hawks and big public spenders in Bush 43’s early cabinet. Basically, neo-cons are Dixie Crats without the social beliefs.”
Why would ethnicity/Jewish have anything to do with an ideological label.
That affirms many people’s beliefs about the anti-Semitic feelings in some ranks, including the RonPaul group.
The manner in which I see it used, usually means anybody who thinks ANY military intervention is wrong.
I greatly respect both Levin and Beck. Levin is far more substantial, but Glenn is far more original. Both are critical to conservative thought and action today. I would give the slight edge to Levin--EXCEPT the fact that he is so damn loyal to the boy-wonder, the CliffNotes Conservative Sean Hannity.
Hannity is just pathetic. The worst debater. The smallest intellect of all talk hosts by a mile. And his constant sucking up to Newt Gingrich, and even John McCain on his program--WHY? I understand Levin's loyalty to Rush as they came up together, and I'm sure Sean's a nice guy and all. But he is not deserving of all the ebullient praise Levin heaps upon him on a weekly basis. (and also I remember he and Rush, and more so Mike Savage, bashing Bush for the things he mentioned. But Sean was the biggest BushBot-RoveMonkey out there).
That’s why I put it in! Glad only YOU saw it, though!
yes we do. And we see a lot of it here on FR, too.
That is exactly what Beck, O'Reilly and now Huckabee fails to understand. Seems like the Fox crowd wants to play nice with obama. If that's the case, they can do it at the expense of my viewership.
Ouch! LOL.
LMAO!
It's that big tent. LOL!
I agree with you on a more serious note.
You obviously have a liking to Levin and will defend him no matter. That my friend found Levin's whining on-air annoying and pathetic says more about Levin's broadcast communication skills than my friend's judgment. That is Levin's job.
If he doesn’t, I’ll eat my hat. Since I don’t presently own one, I’d have to go buy one first.
- - - - - - -
I’ll send you one. :)
Palin has several other organizations she is speaking at in the next days and weeks.
Between the Birchers and
Also, why give David Keene head of CPAC creds.
He is a major Palin basher and a Mittbot.
ROFL and dead on.
>SCP is lying, there has been no ping to this thread from the Savage pinglist>
Facts bother you I see.
Probably because most MSM libs are anti-Semites. I dont know why they started using it, but some examples are:
Joe Klein begrudged the Jewish influence in the approval for fighting terrorism because of the threat to Israel. He said that the neocon movement was heavily influenced by Jews.
Robert Lieber said the Jewish influence was forcing war to service Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#Criticism_of_terminology
Ironically, once he's captured our attention he encourages us to read scholarly material so we know for ourselves and have the confidence to act. Like he said last night, why is the liberal 20% running over the other 80%? Because none of us knew we were 80%!
I totally disagree with Mark giving the Republicans credit for standing against the O-genda. The Dems could have done anything they wanted, and they would have without the pressure of the Tea Parties and townhalls. I think more progress has been made this year toward cutting off the head of the statist snake and reviving our culture than I've seen since we killed the Equal Rights Amendment and none of the credit goes to the GOP.
None of them want to listen to us nor do they want to do what is right for the country. It’s all about money and personal selfish agendas.
I have my doubts. He smears all Republicans as being just like the Democrats. He never mentions what Libertarians do, how, for instance, Harry Reid has them to thank for being Senate majority leader today (Reid won in 1998 by 401 votes. The LP candidate got over 6,000) If I were new to politics, I would hear his constant refrain that there is no difference between the two major parties and play it safe by going Libertarian.
If he wants to push the Clinton "Everybody does it line" let him include libertarians. They've never advanced their purported cause one iota but they have helped elect Democrats (they also joined forces with Greens in 2004 to contest the Ohio vote).
Every story has two sides!
- - - - - - - -
But sometimes only one story is the truth.
Sept. last year Beck told Katie Couric he would probably
have voted for Hillary over McCain.
He also told her that McCain would have been worse for the
country than Obama.
I heard him more than once same the same thing on his TV program.
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.