Posted on 06/01/2011 7:57:11 PM PDT by HMS Surprise
I’m reminded of the movie The Bridge over the River Kwai. In the movie a British Colonel being held prisoner in Thailand by the Japanese leads his fellow POWs in the construction of a bridge for the enemy. Even though he knows that this is helping the Japanese war effort, his fondness for his accomplishment almost causes him to sabotage a commando raid to destroy the bridge.
RINOs and CINOs (conservatives in name only) like Krauthammer will let you kick the bridge, paint the bridge, and even spray graffiti on the bridge, but don’t ever come calling with the intention of placing plastic explosives around the main supports; he’ll calmly explain that you just don’t understand “bridge policy.”
(Excerpt) Read more at teapartytribune.com ...
Yeah, and from what I can tell from the odd listen here and there she has Rush, Hannity, and Levin in her corner. (And Drudge from what I can tell.)
Rush has been on his game lately. And when Steyn fills in little if any insight and humor is lost. Mark needs his own show.
Perfect analogy. Although the syndrome’s so rampant at the moment that I wonder if the sabotage is as unintentional.
She? You lost me.
Sourkraut a conservative? If he was a true conservative, he would not be on the WaPo payroll, they don’t allow such. Nuff said.
Ah, and now we turn to a personal attack on me. I’m slow to understand because I dare question the divine Palin’s ability to run and win.
If Palin doesn’t run, will the FR survive? I’m beginning to wonder.
ASAP!
I couldn't agree more.
Actually, if the Republicans run another RINO, will America survive? I hold to the premise that cutting government requires twice the effort that growing the government requires. If you want to cut, for instance, ten percent of the EPA, you had better elect someone who wants to eliminate it altogether.
I think I was pretty clear that her ability to communicate outside the conservative base is in question. Can she deliver the conservative message to those who aren’t conservative?
How can it? America has been dead for decades. All we are battling for now is meaningless ideology. There's no turning back. We're all aboard this roller coaster through hell whether we like it or not. I hate it but my gut says Obama will "win" 2012 and unleash Hell on Earth. But God will be right and prevail in the end, and that's what I'm all about!
I would not disagree with you at all. Her appeal seems to be on the narrow side. Unfortunately, given the state the country is in and appears to be sliding into, the next president is going to have to have some “savior” theater embedded in her/him. I don’t really appreciate having to choose a savior. I’d rather just vote for a leader like we’re supposed to do.
What I mean to say about CK is that he too-readily chimes in with dissing Palin. No one particular appearance means much, and even though I am not a SP zealot (though I would zero problem her running or winning) I don’t appreciate the shots taken at her. If she’s such a silly candidate, why must the media obsess over her? As I’ve said, if Jeffrey Immelt had undergone the withering attack SP has been thru, he’d be institutionalized. And while I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade, I agree, the SP adulation is kind of creepy.
If she does run will it survive. My only point was this article was written entirely because Krauthammer had criticism for Palin. That’s the author’s entire ‘evidence’ that Krauthammer not a ‘real’ conservative.
WE ARE NOT THE LEFT. Our candidates should be fully challenged and vetted.
This is, first and foremost, what I mean by the narrowness of the new ideas, the limiting effect of the future. Our modern prophetic idealism is narrow because it has undergone a persistent process of elimination. We must ask for new things because we are not allowed to ask for old things. The whole position is based on this idea that we have got all the good that can be got out of the ideas of the past. But we have not got all the good out of them, perhaps at this moment not any of the good out of them. And the need here is a need of complete freedom for restoration as well as revolution.
We often read nowadays of the valor or audacity with which some rebel attacks a hoary tyranny or an antiquated superstition. There is not really any courage at all in attacking hoary or antiquated things, any more than in offering to fight one's grandmother. The really courageous man is he who defies tyrannies young as the morning and superstitions fresh as the first flowers. The only true free-thinker is he whose intellect is as much free from the future as from the past. He cares as little for what will be as for what has been; he cares only for what ought to be. And for my present purpose I specially insist on this abstract independence. If I am to discuss what is wrong, one of the first things that are wrong is this: the deep and silent modern assumption that past things have become impossible. There is one metaphor of which the moderns are very fond; they are always saying, "You can't put the clock back." The simple and obvious answer is "You can." A clock, being a piece of human construction, can be restored by the human finger to any figure or hour. In the same way society, being a piece of human construction, can be reconstructed upon any plan that has ever existed.
There is another proverb, "As you have made your bed, so you must lie on it"; which again is simply a lie. If I have made my bed uncomfortable, please God I will make it again. We could restore the Heptarchy or the stage coaches if we chose. It might take some time to do, and it might be very inadvisable to do it; but certainly it is not impossible as bringing back last Friday is impossible. This is, as I say, the first freedom that I claim: the freedom to restore. I claim a right to propose as a solution the old patriarchal system of a Highland clan, if that should seem to eliminate the largest number of evils. It certainly would eliminate some evils; for instance, the unnatural sense of obeying cold and harsh strangers, mere bureaucrats and policemen. I claim the right to propose the complete independence of the small Greek or Italian towns, a sovereign city of Brixton or Brompton, if that seems the best way out of our troubles. It would be a way out of some of our troubles; we could not have in a small state, for instance, those enormous illusions about men or measures which are nourished by the great national or international newspapers. You could not persuade a city state that Mr. Beit was an Englishman, or Mr. Dillon a desperado, any more than you could persuade a Hampshire Village that the village drunkard was a teetotaller or the village idiot a statesman. Nevertheless, I do not as a fact propose that the Browns and the Smiths should be collected under separate tartans. Nor do I even propose that Clapham should declare its independence. I merely declare my independence. I merely claim my choice of all the tools in the universe; and I shall not admit that any of them are blunted merely because they have been used.
Palin was vetted, by Culvahouse no less, and he said she “knocked it out of the park.” McCain chose her over 25 others probably including Romney. She should be called, “The vetted one.”
Others have posted here all the evidence needed to prove that Krauthammer is satisfied with moderate conservatives. (read: RINOs)
I disagree. All the beltway pundits that claim to represent the GOP while simultaneously snubbing the constituency’s hero deserve all the grief they’re getting.
Was Charles a bright man when he was working for Jimmy Carter or Mondale against Ronald Reagan?
Was he more bright supporting Obama, against anyone else?
Is he really a bright man, or simply another bonafide Gramscian Marxist playing out his role to destroy the USA?
Krauthammer et al need to stop using shorthand when they talks about Palin.
I hear the “not a policy wonk,” “needs to study” and the like, and that is fine, but it is too general. I would like them to offer specific cases they think illustrate her lack of knowledge or ability. As it is, Kraut, Rove and Will might as well be 5th graders submitting their “Sarah Palin Would Be a Bad President Because...” papers. Nothing but baldfaced declarations with no supporting evidence. No footnotes.
She puts out enough material just on facebook that deconstructing her ought to be relatively easy if she is such a dunce.
And that is my problem with the solons: It is not as if they disagree with her policy positions-or at least they rarely address her policy positions.
If they can take a mutt like Jon Huntsman seriously, there is no reason they cannot do the same with Palin.
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.