Posted on 05/09/2010 12:31:19 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Bennett’s Loss in Utah a ‘Damn Outrage,’ ‘Non-Violent Coup,’ Part of Larger Intolerant GOP Narrative By Brent Baker Created 05/09/2010 - 14:41
“This is a damn outrage,” a disgusted David Brooks, the faux conservative columnist for the New York Times, declared on Sunday’s Meet the Press reacting to Republican Senator Bob Bennett’s loss Saturday at Utah’s Republican convention which chose two others to compete in a June primary for the seat. Brooks fretted he was punished for being “a good conservative who was trying to get things done” by “bravely” working with Democrats on health care and supporting TARP. “Now,” he repeated, “he's losing his career over that. And it's just a damn outrage.”
Sitting beside Brooks on NBC’s roundtable, liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr,. a former New York Times correspondent, saw “almost a non-violent coup because they denied the sitting Senator even a chance of getting on the primary ballot.”
Over on Fox News Sunday, NPR’s Juan Williams expressed exasperation: “This is evidence of how the American political center is losing, on the right wing of the party a guy like Bob Bennett, who is a right-wing conservative, is being driven out because he’s not sufficiently conservative?”
ABC’s Jake Tapper brought Rudy Giuliani aboard This Week to address the handling of the Times Square botched bomber, but wouldn’t let him go before bringing up Bennett’s defeat as proof of an intolerant GOP: “Are you worried at all that the Republican Party is not only growing more hostile to more liberal to moderate Republicans such as yourself, but also conservative Republicans who are shown to, at least shown an ability to work with Democrats?”
Later, during the roundtable, George Will answered the presumption Bennett was the victim of an ideological purity test:
This is an anti-Washington year. How do you get more Washington than a three-term Senator who occupies the seat once held by his father, a four-term Senator, who before that worked on the Senate staff and then as a lobbyist in Washington? He’s a wonderful man and a terrific Senator. But the fact is, he’s going against terrific head-winds this year and he cast three votes: TARP, stimulus and an individual mandate for health care. Now, you might like one, two or all three of those, but being opposed to them is not outside the mainstream of American political argument.
Brooks admired those very votes from Bennett, hailing the Wyden-Bennett health plan as “a substantive, serious bill, a bipartisan bill, with strong conservative and some liberal support. So he did something sort of brave by working with Democrats which more Senators should do and now they've been sent a message to him don’t do that.”
As if this would convince conservatives, Dionne pointed to how “you just had an election in Britain where David Cameron, the conservative, almost got a majority by saying we need to de-toxicfy, take the rough edges off conservatism, appeal to a broader constituency.” But he didn’t get a majority with that approach!
From the May 9 Meet the Press:
DAVID BROOKS: This is a damn outrage, to be honest. This is a guy who was a good Senator and he was a good Senator and a good conservative, but a good conservative who was trying to get things done. The Wyden-Bennett bill, which he co-sponsored -- if you took the health care economists in the country, they would probably be for that bill, ideally. It was a substantive, serious bill, a bipartisan bill, with strong conservative and some liberal support. So he did something sort of brave by working with Democrats which more Senators should do and now they've been sent a message to him don’t do that.
The second thing is the TARP. Nobody liked the TARP. But we were in a complete economic meltdown and sometimes you have to do terrible things. And we're in a much better economic place because of the TARP. So he bravely cast a vote that nobody wanted to really cast and now he's losing his career over that. And it's just a damn outrage.
E.J. DIONNE: I agree with David on this. And I think that something’s happening inside the Republican Party that I think in the long run won't be good for the Republican Party. You just had an election in Britain where David Cameron, the conservative, almost got a majority by saying we need to de-toxicfy, take the rough edges off conservatism, appeal to a broader constituency. And here you have a state party convention, by the way, not a primary. It's almost a non-violent coup because they denied the sitting Senator even a chance of getting on the primary ballot. And I think the party in the long run risks a backlash among voters who may not be liberal at all, but don't like this kind of politics.
And before people on the right crow too much about this, it is a party convention in Utah. I would imagine the left would win a party convention on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. So let's not, sort of, make this into a bigger thing than it is. But it is a big deal to dump somebody like Bob Bennett.
From Fox News Sunday:
JUAN WILLIAMS: This is evidence of how the American political center is losing, on the right wing of the party a guy like Bob Bennett, who is a right-wing conservative, is being driven out because he’s not sufficiently conservative?...If I lived in Utah, I’m going to give up Bob Bennett and his seniority and connections?
BILL KRISTOL: Why do you need the seniority? To bring the pork home?
WILLIAMS: To bring the pork home?
KRISTOL: That’s worked well over the last several years.
WILLIAMS: Oh, so you’d sit here and say, “oh TARP was terrible, bailouts were terrible,” even though we saved ourselves from depression? That’s rational? That’s good, inspired caring about America?
Oh please.
Stop proselytizing the well-informed Freepers who post here.
Better yet......go find out the raison d’etre for this web site.
Why zot JasonC? That last post of his was excellent and to the point.
Conservatives must promote economic liberty.
Kcvl asked: Who might ‘we’ be in your world, Jason?!
to JasonC’s statement: We didn’t “give” anyone tax abatements
JasonC answered that.
I know JasonC can be ascerbic, but there’s plenty of that on FR. He brings another conservative perspective, that’s not populist. Populism will kill conservatism and he’s a voice worth hearing.
Would you reconsider zotting him? Is he suspended or permanently deleted?
If you call persistent ad hominem attacks on those with whom you disagree "excellent and to the point", you're on the wrong site.
FR is Jim's site, he can zot whomever he likes.
BTW Jim, I'll be a monetarily contributing member again, as soon as my promotion kicks in. It's been really difficult trying to cover the bills and college for two kids on a GS-7's pay, after being unemployed for 12 out of the last 24 months.
Persistent ad hominem attacks are nearly a trade mark of FR. Is something changing? The only place I’ve seen that enforced is on Religion threads.
What is “excellent and to the point” is that populism is dangerous to liberty. Jacksonian populism leads in a direct thread to todays modern liberal/Leftist. It is something to be avoided and many conservatives seem susceptible to it.
Corporatism is a direct outgrowth of big government. We need to be conservatives, not radicals, surgeons not butchers. We don’t want anarchy, but improvement. Those are the points that JasonC makes.
I don’t like his attitude and he’s misdirected his wrath at me. His social skills are very low. Yet, I’ve not seen him warned as the Religion Mods do to cease and desist.
This isn’t a thin skinned site and he posts facts to attacks in a 20 to 1 ratio easily. Take a look at his posting history. He knows more and is more accurate than most posters on economics, finance and the history of economics.
That FR is Jim’s site is tautology. I believe in private property and appreciate Jim’s incredible work sustaining and increasing conservatisms voice in America. He can zot whomever he likes. Thus my appeal to him to reconsider in JasonC’s case.
Thank you.
I haven’t posted regularly on FR in many months, but I regularly log on to read Jason’s posts on finance and economics. Even though I don’t agree with every line item of what he says, I agree with many things he does say. I think it would be a great mistake to ban him. At the very least make a request to tone down the ascerbic rhetoric. Heck, I’ve gotten nasy with people before on FR, and that includes getting raw with Jason.
And we haven’t missed you a bit.
Put me down in the “give JasonC another chance” camp. I enjoy reading his posts. Sure, he could tone down the rhetoric, but there really are only a handful of posters who understand economics and finance...and can articulate it here on FR.
No thanks. Anytime you feel a sudden urge to read a load of snot-nosed condescending statist b/s, you can search for JasonC on the web. I’m sure he’ll turn up somewhere.
"I'm not a conservative, but I play one at the NY Times."
To be honest I am a great admirer of JasonC. He comes up with things that even I don’t catch and I read a lot. I never like how he presents his information but most of it is positive in a very cynical way.
JasonC is a good man. Honestly: I don’t know what I would do without him. I came on this old thread to read jasonC’s old post. For me he puts things in a prospective keeps me on the level.
Also, I have come to JasonC for advice a number of times.
I see others are like me that do read JasonC posts and have asked you to bring him back. His condescending remarks are too much for you to read, I can understand that to be honest.
This is your site you can delete me or anyone you wish but I don’t know where to find jasonC other then here on FR.
I am sorry but this is very upsetting for me.
Steve
Mr. Robinson,
I rarely post, but I follow several people on this forum daily.
You have a few OUTSTANDINGLY clear headed and intelligent people posting on your site.
I actually consider it an HONOR to read their honest responses to current events.
JasonC has been a great teacher to me over the years.
His knowledge of the inner workings of financial system is almost unrivaled on this website.
And I would consider him to be a conservative’s conservative - instructing people on what the word REALLY means.
As I have found to be the case with most highly intelligent people, his personality can be grating at times.
Nonetheless, I would urge you to please reconsider your suspension of JasonC’s posting abilities.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Yeah, if we could just get rid of those tea partiers we would continue to have such a wonderful government.
A limerick I wrote when Bennett lost the primary:
An amnesty backer named Bennett,
tried to remain in the senate,
but Tea Parties said NO,
he just had to go,
and Cornyn had no way to spin it.
Brooks = NYT whore.
Looks like Romney has crossed the threshold from RINO to outright TRAITOR.....just like McCain did.
” Ted Kennedy, John McCain, et al. I’m conflicted over term limits, but we’ve got to try something.”
We will lose a Bachmann and a DeMint, but otherwise, they get bought by big money special interests like McCain did, and they end up with unlimited money to defeat anyone who runs against them.
AS FREEPER TADSLOS COGENTLY POSTED: “People forget that candy-a** Kristol, and his crony, metro-sexual David Brooks, are the original makeover artists for McCain post-2000. They are McC’s original groomers and media switch operators.....obsessed with religious cleansing of the party. Kristol at his most smirkiest-—urging McCain to fire his 2008 staff, to start all over at the 11th hour, as McC’s numbers tanked. Shows how how ill-conceived, advised, equipped and poorly managed McC’s campaign was. But then, what else to expect from a Republican candidate made up of neopunks Kristol and Brooks.”
Watching Kristol smirking and squirming in his Fox seat election night as McC lost was a consolation prize to this abortion of a losing 2008 election cycle. “
Did you miss Krauthammer with the same smirk as Kristol? He was even worse.
” BTW, there is a reward out for anyone who can determine what the pukes actually does for a living. None of the pukeneos have any visible means of support, unless you count:(1) media prostitution, (2) infiltratng the US government, (3) endless think-tank pontificating on how nice it is to have US troops invade foreign countries, (4) squatting in the Repub Party, hoping to destroy it from within, and, (5) kicking so/con Repubs to the curb. “
BINGO!
” Kristol is the least offensive NeoCon...and at times doesn’t really qualify “
Yes he does. He and Krauthammer were absolutely giddy the night Obama won. Kristol is also an “open borders/amnesty” boy, like Fred Barnes. No thanks.
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.