Tea Party is the New Neocon

Thursday, September 1, AD 2011

So I guess that makes it neo-neocon.

The Washington Times reports on a poll released by Rasmussen on the relative popularity and unpopularity of various political labels.

• 38 percent of likely U.S. voters “consider it a positive” when a political candidate is described as “conservative,” 27 percent say it’s a negative.

• 37 percent say “moderate” is a positive label, 13 percent say it’s a negative.

• 32 percent say “tea party” is a positive label.

• 56 percent of Republican voters agree.

• 38 percent of voters overall say the tea party label is a negative.

• 70 percent of Democrats agree.

• 31 percent of voters overall say “progressive” is a positive label, 26 percent say its negative.

• 21 percent say “liberal” is a positive label, 38 percent say it’s a negative.

What jumped out at me is the disparity between how the term “conservative” is received versus the term “tea party.”  The positive/negative spread for “conservative” is 38/27, but it’s 32/38 for “tea party.”  Now, conservative/tea party fares better than progressive/liberal, and that is probably worth a discussion in and of itself.*  But I want to focus on the conservative versus tea party aspect of this poll for a moment.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Tea Party is the New Neocon

  • Most people, regardless of political affiliation aren’t very capable of understanding nuance. They oversimplify things because they’re incapable of understanding things more fully.

  • I first heard the term “progressive” to describe the modern liberal wing of the Democratic Party in college right after I’d read That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis. In the book the “progressive element” are the bad guys who do all manner of despicable things. I’ve always found the term creepy. It has this Orwellian vagueness about it. Progress toward what exactly? I’d rather vote for a liberal any day.

  • That Hideous Strength is probably the best takedown of the “Progressive Element” that I’ve ever read, and it’s also pretty darned accurate in its depiction of what Progressivism is all about.

    It’s kind of interesting that both “conservative” and “progressive” are favorably viewed (though conservative moreso) when you consider that they are two labels that have completely opposite connotations.

  • Paul, polls ought to be taken with a grain of salt by a thinking person. But their impact in shaping public opinion cannot be underestimated. For example, one recent poll, I think conducted by Harris, asserts that roughly half the population supports so-called gay marriage. Either the polled were lying for PC’s sake or we’re in a lot deeper trouble as a society than we thought.

  • I definitely am not one to hold polling information up as sacred, but there definitely seems to be a more negative perception associated with “tea party” than “conservative.” I see this often on other blogs where “tea party” is all but a dirty word (or words).

  • AJ Grendel, on 09/02/11, remarked that, “Most people, regardless of political affiliation aren’t very capable of understanding nuance. They oversimplify things because they’re incapable of understanding things more fully.”
    Actually, I have to disagree that nothing could be further from the truth. As Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.”
    People who fully comprehend an issue can encapsulate the matter simply, while complexity is the analysis of the less comprehending.

  • The media also has done its level best to vilify conservatives and conservatism, so I don’t think the difference in popular reaction to the “tea party” label vs. the “conservative” label can be chalked up to media bias.

  • I think “tea party” has become a swear word for liberals and for big government, intellectualista, professional coservatives – that disparage the great unwashed, e.g., Sarah Palin.

    A question from one of the lesser unwashed: The obama Regime has either adopted or conformed to nearly every national security policy of the Bush Administration.

    Does anyone consider Obama a neocon?

  • ”Actually, I have to disagree that nothing could be further from the truth. As Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.”
    People who fully comprehend an issue can encapsulate the matter simply, while complexity is the analysis of the less comprehending.”

    It appears you’re taking that Einstein quote out of context, or you missed my point entirely.

    I’m not talking about people simplifying concepts, I’m talking about people lumping together largely unrelated political ideologies simply because they’ve heard them described as ‘right-wing’ or ‘left-wing’.

    When lefties try to lump AnCaps, neo-fascists, paleoconservatives, neoconservatives, libertarian conservatives, traditionalist conservatives (who are often more moderate on economic policy, but socially conservative), libertarians who favour capitalism but aren’t conservative and many other groups they see as ideological enemies together it makes them seem foolish, and also weakens their arguments, as these groups all have dramatically different ideologies.

    When right-wingers do the same to libertarian socialists, democratic socialists, various authoritarian Marxist-Leninist ideologies, progressives and social democrats all together they appear similarly foolish, and it similarly weakens their arguments, as again all of these groups tend to be dramatically different in ideologies from one another.

    And of course, lumping your enemies in with the Nazis seems to be popular with everyone.

    It seems to come down to the idea that people aren’t very comfortable with recognizing various shades of grey, or admitting that people they oppose on some issues they might agree with on others.

  • There is actually a Tea Party Caucus in Congress that, unlike others, is unwilling to even eliminate tax deductions.

  • RR: Them tea extremists (“even eliminate tax deductions”) are so evil they oppose giving the gangster government more money for socially just causes such as loaning $500,000,000-plus to the Geo. Kaisers (billionaire Obama campaign contributor) of the world to quickly go broke and default on the loans?

    Those evil tea partiers!

    That is Obama’s Enron. But, the lying, liberal media and you fabian commies will never call it “evil.”

  • PS:

    Evil, rich Americans already suffer elimination of tax deductions through the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which requires add back (and pay 26% on) of most tax deductions (except evil charitable contributions and qualifying mortgage interest). The AMT applies to couples with adjusted gross income over $250,000.

    Plus, think it over. The elimination of tax deductions will impact limo liberals in high tax, inflation ridden blue states.

E. J. Dionne & Maureen Dowd Are Playing With A Dangerous Fire

Tuesday, September 28, AD 2010

In a recent column Washington Post columnist, E J Dionne noted that the Tea Party movement is a great scam. Quite an indictment coming from the self described progressive Catholic who still thinks government can never be big enough and the Church should tell the faithful more about the teachings of the agnostic Saul Alinsky than that of 2,000 year old teachings of the Catholic Church. Dionne has made it his business to comment on all matter of politics and religion for quite some time. His partner in left wing chicanery is New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd who never hesitates to go for the jugular.  Though she says he she comes from humble Washington DC roots, you would never know it by how she mocks those who really came from humble surrounding and never forgot it. She probably grew up with many Sarah Palin’s and Christine O’Donnell’s around her. Yet, I doubt she mocked many to their face as she gleefully does now to the backs of Palin and O’Donnell.

Dionne and Dowd seem to have it backwards, they don’t think citizens should voice their views about the fallacies of liberal Big Government, but they do believe everyone knows better than the divine about religion. This is quite common for liberals who often seem to think they are divine. Dionne and Dowd are part of a movement who thinks they should control government and religion, and those who disagree with them are often labeled as unintelligent; the worst sin as far as liberals are concerned. However, who is the unintelligent one? Big Government has never worked. It has only brought huge debt which has to be repaid by future generations. Individuals who go into debt face a series of tough measures. Yet Dionne and Dowd seem oblivious to this and advocate the same disastrous path for the government, the end result being tough measures for everyone.  In other words Big Government is a disaster that doesn’t work.

However, Big Government isn’t the only disaster Dionne and Dowd advocate. They want the Catholic Church to turn her back on its 2,000 year old teachings and embrace the Dictatorship of Relativism, so named by Pope Benedict XVI. Dionne and Dowd are happy to embrace dissident Catholics who espouse this sort of thinking. It seems Dionne and Dowd are more comfortable with the views of Marx, Alinsky and Freud than they are with Christ, St Paul, St Thomas Aquinas, St Joan of Arc and Pope Benedict XVI.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to E. J. Dionne & Maureen Dowd Are Playing With A Dangerous Fire

  • Apologies in advance: Top ten reasons to vote dem:

    10. I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

    9. I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

    8. I vote Democrat because Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

    7. I vote Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

    6. I vote Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.

    5. I vote Democrat because I’m not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies through abortion so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

    4. I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

    3. I vote Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the democrats see fit.

    2. I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

    1. I vote Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my @$$ that it is unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.

  • T Shaw did you come up with this? If you did something tells me that this might show up across the internet. Who knows old EJ and Maureen might heartily approve, not realizing your satire (well at 2-10.)

CNN Joins The Hit Piece Parade Against Pope Benedict XVI and The Catholic Church

Sunday, September 26, AD 2010

It would appear that those in the mainstream media who want to do hit pieces on Pope Benedict XVI need to take a number. The latest to engage in Yellow Journalism is CNN. The “network of record” dispatched Gary Tuchman to do the dirty work. One might recall that it was none other than Tuchman who remarked how distressing it was travelling in the heartland during the 2008 Election campaign. He complained that some who recognized him told him that their Middle American views and ideas were repeatedly mocked by the mainstream media, all the while those of the liberal establishment were hailed. Tuchman’s words were quite revealing when it comes to this story.

CNN has been advertising their hit piece on Pope Benedict XVI as if he was already guilty of some sort of cover up, even though during the Abuse Scandal it was none other than the New York Times who praised then Cardinal Ratzinger for tackling the tough problems. What tough problems did he tackle? The most notable example being Father founder of the Legionaries of Christ. Father Marcial Maciel was one of the few prominent conservatives caught up in the Abuse Scandal, most of the abusers were Church liberals who wanted to change the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger took on Father Maciel at the height of his power and popularity. One might recall that Father Maciel was quite close to Pope John Paul II. So from this example we can see that Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) showed no favorites and pulled no punches. The Legionaries of Christ were shaken to the core and as pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI removed their leadership and installed his own, hardly the work of someone who was timid.

The CNN piece was perhaps even more despicable than the New York Times hit piece, because in the interim much of the modus operandi of the Old Gray Lady was exposed. Still CNN used the same material and claimed that they had something new. There is nothing new here. The crux of their argument comes from material provided by Jeffrey Anderson the attorney who has made millions off the scandal. Anderson says he is one a mision to “reform the Church.” What kind of reform would that be? Some Catholic dioceses have been forced into bankruptcy, which means the poor whom they dioceses assisted through their social programs are left in the cold. For all his concern of “reform”  Anderson hasn’t provided a penny to these particular poor.

Continue reading...

18 Responses to CNN Joins The Hit Piece Parade Against Pope Benedict XVI and The Catholic Church

  • This is a message for Dave Hartline:
    I was in Woodlawn in Chicago during the early years of
    The Woodlawn Organization when it was taken over by the
    Alinsky operatives, including, Fr. Egan, Nick Von
    Hoffman,et.al. I was one of two clergy who opted out
    of the movement for moral and ethical reasons. I read
    your article with comments on Alinsky and the”Radical”
    modus operandi in Fr. Dick Kim’s blog last week. You
    have a far different perspective than the Chicago Diocese at that time. Interesting.

  • Thank you for your post. I do believe there were many people like Alinsky who had great influence on those in the pre Vatican II Church. It was reported that Pope Pius XII wanted to convene the Conference but became too ill to do so. In some US Archdiocese, as well as a few in France and Belgium, movements arose that today one would view as being heretical or schismatic. I do recall the Catholic author Dave Armstrong (who was brought into the Church by Father Hardon SJ) saying that Father Hardon would often say, “The Revolution began…” Dave Armstrong couldn’t remember the precise date but it was sometime in the 1930s or 1940s.

    Anyway, what I am getting at it is before the modern communications era there were folks like Alinksy who claimed to be in line with what the Church was teaching (even though Alinsky was an Agnostic.) In reference to those who say that Alinsky’s book, “Rules for Radicals,” which was dedicated to Lucifer among others was really sort of tongue and cheek. One generally doesn’t dedicate books to the leader of the dark side as some sort of joke. I find that dedication intersting because it happened in 1971, the twilight of his life. Why didin’t he dedicate his previous books to Lucifer? The reason I feel this happened is because it would have caused a stir. Perhaps in the twilight of his life, Alinsky was being more open about his agenda.

    The first time I had heard of Alinsky occurred in my freshman year of college when some radical graduate students were quoting him like most fervent believers would quote the Gospel. In the turmoil that was the Church in the 1970s, I don’t think many people paid much heed to the role of these radicals until recently. However, I dare say that the likes of Father McBrien were quite familiar with the lofty aspirations of Alinksy and those of a similar mindset. This doesn’t even touch on those in the media who were influenced by Alinsky, and who today run those organizations. Does anyone think that the hit pieces on Pope Benedict in particular and the Church in general would have been possible had not these poeple been calling the shots?

    Fortunately as I have said before the tide is turning. I can’t help but refer back to a priest I know who was ordained some five years ago. There was quite a stir when he made no bones about his orthodox or conservative views. I spoke with him recently and he laughed saying, “those in the seminary now make me look like a milquetoast moderate.” Now that is what really drives the left up a wall, they thought the Election of 2008 would end any talk of conservatism prevailing in any sector of society. With the coming election, it appears that it is liberalism whose back is against the wall.

  • For my taste, Mr. Hartline, you seem too optimistic.

    Also, not just from you but from others I keep hearing of how good “new” seminarians are but I have not seen much to bouy my spirits among those have seen.

    Benedict is too little too late. The trials are upon us.

  • Karl with all due respect, it isn’t about your taste or mine, it is about facts. The fact is the Church was ruderless in the 1970s, Pope Paul VI said as much when uttered his famous words, “The Smoke of Satan had entered the Church.” However, Pope John Paul II’s Springtime of the Evangelization is here. We didn’t get into the mess we are in overnight, and we won’t get out of it overnight either. However, with Pope Benedict at the helm (perhaps fulfilling St John Bosco’s vision of the Twin Pillars) we will make great strides. The trials have been upon us many times before; the Islamic Invasions, the Protestant Reformation, the French Revolution, the 1960s Cultural Revolution, and yet here we are still Fighting the Good Fight!

  • I see the same facts but interpret them differently. It is not about taste though, you are spot on. The shoes we walk in influences our take. I remember into the early sixties. I have lived throughout this tempest. I believe we have seen, nothing yet.

  • In light of the customary, infernally low level of intellectual honesty in the Commie News Net pile-on piece of journalistic excrement, here’s my proposed response:

    Keep the Faith.

  • Karl, I certainly agree with you on your concluding point. However, I think we are in much better shape that we were 35 years ago. Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI, through their leadership and those seminarians, women religious and laity whom they influence, are at least beginning to waft out the Smoke of Satan that had entered the Church.

    T Shaw, the Haku War Dance. I wonder if the Knights Templar did something similar before battle? May God Keep Us All Safe from enemies within and without!

  • “All one has to do is read the writings of those who started the French Revolution (which is often widely praised and celebrated in the West)…”

    During the 1780’s, many who made up the Third Estate, particulary the bourgeoisie (merchants, bankers, lawyers, etc), were fed up with the inequities of the ruling class.

    The First Estate (Clergy) and the Second Estate (Nobility) were a small minority of privileged men who made up the Aristocracy. As a result of the blurred lines between the two classes,(holding high positions under the Church’s provision, for example) the Aristocratic ruling class was exempt from almost all taxes. Many of the bourgeoisie were also exempt, which left the burden of paying for wars, affairs of state, etc. on the backs of the peasantry.

    The causes of the French Revolution were many and historians still argue over them but there are aspects of the Enlightenment that conservatives, particularly American conservatives, should appreciate and identify with.

    Those who advocated for change at the time, pushed for positions in government, the Church and the military to be open to men of talent and merit. They fought for a constitution and a Parliament that would limit the king’s power. Religious toleration and fair trials were also part of their agenda.

    Now, as we all know, the French Revolution got totally out of hand but there are reasons for those of us in the West to identify with the philosophes of the 18th century.

  • DP

    It was Louis the XVI who called the Estates General. The likes of Robespierre, Danton et al were not interested in what you suggest above they wanted real power and to remake society as they saw fit. They wanted to import their revolution to all of Europe.

    You know sort of like Lenin and Stalin.

  • Afghani Stan, excellent point. I would also ask that our friend DP consider that some of the ideas that Enlightenment is given credit for dates back to the Magna Carta. In addition, there were already primitive forms of government in some Swiss Cantons (Catholic cantons at that) which espoused early democratic ideals. Sadly, Ulrich Zwingli tried to put a stop to that, which in some ways was the start of the Left’s War on Rural Inhabitants.

  • If memory serves (John Robinson, Dungeons, Fire and Sword), the Templars entered battle assuring each other that, “Whether we live or whether we die, we are The Lord’s.”

  • Stan and Dave,

    Yes, Louis XVI did convene the Estates General at the last minute but only after a hiatus of 170+ yrs and to no avail.

    Robespierre was, of course, an extreme leftist and a tyrant as well. But there are other Enlightenment notables such as Locke (a champion of America’s Founding Fathers), Newton and Montesquieu who contributed a great deal with regard to the expansion of thought and science in secular society.

    In fact, Pope Benedict XIV respected Montesquieu and the advances of the Enlightenment (especially tolerance) even though many of his bishops didn’t share his sensibilities at the time.

    In any case, some of the ideas and ideals of the philosophes should be celebrated by both the West and the Church.

  • Pingback: E. J. Dionne & Maureen Dowd Are Playing With A Dangerous Fire « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: AP’s Article On The Catholic Blogosphere & NPR’s Firing Of Juan Williams Are Par For The Course « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: AP’s Article On The Catholic Blogosphere & NPR’s Firing Of Juan Williams Are Par For The Course: The American Catholic « Deacon John's Space
  • Pingback: Midterm Election Results Show The Tide Continues To Turn Toward Catholic Orthodoxy « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Midterm Election Results Show The Tide Continues To Turn Toward Catholic Orthodoxy : The American Catholic « Deacon John's Space
  • Pingback: In An Unprecedented Move, Left Leaning Bishop Kicanas, Vice President Of US Bishop’s Conference Passed Over For Right Leaning Archbishop Dolan | The American Catholic

The Crisis at Which We Are Arrived

Saturday, July 10, AD 2010

President Obama seems to carry the world view that of an elite academic, that all the problems this nation faces can be solved with government intervention through high taxes and and legislation that enacts social engineering of a society of independence to that of dependence.

Or as the average layman would say, President Obama is a socialist, plain and simple.

I understand the subtleties of his liberal leanings and his good intentions, but the path to Hell is often made with good intentions.  With the failed Communist experiment in Russia in 1988 and the current economic collapse of Greece with Spain and Portugal on the horizon to experience the same, I don’t see how more spending with money we don’t have for welfare programs that we don’t need will solve our economic woes.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to The Crisis at Which We Are Arrived

  • “Or as the average layman would say, President Obama is a socialist, plain and simple.”


  • This question was raised recently.
    If they return to power, will the Republicans accuse the Obamacrats of being the party of No?? Hey, news flash, they already are the party of No!

    No more tax cuts. Let the Bush tax cuts expire.
    No more secret ballots. Unions rule.
    No more drilling. Cripple big business and suffocate the little ones.
    No more private insurance. The government is your Nanny now.
    No more Constitution. Rule by Executive order and a puppet Supreme Court.
    No more free speech. Only media approved by the White House permitted.
    No more prosecution for voter fraud or intimidation. We won, you lost Brother.
    No more mention of God. Nancy and Harry are BHO’s anointed angels for us.
    No more sanctity in marriage. Homosexuality is to be taught in school and encouraged.
    And one way or another it must be established (By the U.N. if necessary)….
    No more guns for the citizens. Only those for BHO’s promised Civilian Security Force which is to be as well equipped and funded as our current military.

    In short No More America as we knew it before the messiah who according to our first black president, Bill Clinton, did what any good democrat like say Robert Byrd did (joined the KKK). “in order to get elected” and serve admirably in West Virginia.
    Obama, who has since admitted being Muslim, joined a “Christian” church to mask himself for public consumption by voters.But who knew Rev. Wright’s true colors until it was too late? Well obviously Barack Hussein Obama surely did

  • The furtive enemies of the soul; the most dire threats (fundamentally change) to our country and our way of life; the foes of freedom are in the white House and congress.

  • Weakness and timidity abroad really do threaten a world in which terrorists and fanatics possess, and use, nuclear weapons.

    Not sure exactly where you are going with this. It could be argued that our rather ill thought out ventures abroad also threaten the world. The statement seems to lack a certain balance.

    No disagreement with the other concerns.

  • It could be argued that our rather ill thought out ventures abroad also threaten the world.

    Argued by people paying little attention to the implications of what they are saying. “The World” is not threatened by American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is threatened.

Political Miscellania 5/12/10

Wednesday, May 12, AD 2010

A wrap-up of various items of political interest.

1.  The video that heads this post is one of the reasons why my vote for McCain in 2008 was a two handed vote, with one hand holding my nose.  McCain has long been an ardent supporter of amnesty and open borders.  Now that he is in a tough primary race with J.D. Hayworth, he is a born again believer in locking down the border against illegal aliens.  I certainly favor in making it tougher for illegals to get across the border, but I do not favor politicians who embrace positions simply to save their political skin.  I hope that the voters in Arizona will finally bring McCain’s political career to a screeching halt  by voting for his opponent in the primary.

2.  It looks like Hawaii will soon have a new Republican Congressman.  The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee is pulling out of Hawaii 1 and basically conceding that Republican Charles Djou will win the special election on May 22. The Democrats have two candidates running who are splitting the vote and thus allowing the Republicans to take a Congressional seat that has been in Democrat hands for two decades.

3.  The tea party movement claimed another scalp by causing the defeat of Republican Senator Bob Bennett at the Utah Gop Convention in his attempt to get the Republican nomination for a fourth term in the Senate. This should be a warning for all politicians:  this year is different, no re-nomination or re-election can be taken for granted.

4.  Faithful readers of this blog will know that I have quite a bit of respect for blogger Mickey Kaus who is taking on Senator Barbara Boxer in the Democrat primary in California.   Shockingly last week the LA Times refused to endorse Boxer:

On the Democratic side, we find that we’re no fans of incumbent Barbara Boxer. She displays less intellectual firepower or leadership than she could. We appreciate the challenge brought by Robert “Mickey” Kaus, even though he’s not a realistic contender, because he asks pertinent questions about Boxer’s “lockstep liberalism” on labor, immigration and other matters. But we can’t endorse him, because he gives no indication that he would step up to the job and away from his Democratic-gadfly persona.

To have the LA Times refuse to endorse Boxer is a strong indication of just how weak she is this election year.  She is probably strong enough to defeat Kaus (sorry Mickey!) in the primary, but there is blood in the water for the general election.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Political Miscellania 5/12/10

  • Bob Bennett is a bit of an outlier. The Utah Republican party is becoming VERY VERY conservative, and there was an organized effort to push him out because of TARP and his Appropriations Committee role. It began two years ago when Jason Chaffetz beat Chris Cannon for his Congressional seat. While there may be a grassroots movement to “throw the bums out” Utah’s movement has been going on a bit longer.

  • Newsweek was put up for sale by the Washington Post last week. Last year the news magazine adopted a strategy of serving as an opinion journal of the Left. The decision has proven a disaster in the marketplace, although to be fair Newsweek has been losing money for quite a while.

    And a strange decision it was. The New York Review of Books, The Atlantic Monthly, and The New Yorker are about the only publications directed at that sort of audience which have been aught but philanthropic concerns during the lifetime of Newsweek‘s current editor, and the latter two are leavened with considerable reportage and fiction and offer little straightforward commentary. Comparing Newsweek to The New Republic also demonstrates that their is an art to producing an opinion magazine that not every collecting pool of journalists has; there would not be much point in a patron like Arthur Carter or Mortimer Zuckerman employing this crew.

  • The Hawaii election is very special to me.

    Having been raised the majority of my life in the Aloha State, we have never had a Republican elected to Honolulu’s 1st congressional district.

    Inouye’s “pre-selected” appointee, Hanabasu, is power hungry and feels entitled to that position held by the granola-eating Abercrombie.

    Case also feels a sense of entitlement, but then again, many Punahou School grads feel they are entitled to many things in life (Case is AOL founder Steve Case’s cousin; Punahou is the elite private school that silver spooned Obama attended as well).

    GOP Djou needs all the support he can get to rip that seat from the most powerful Democratic machine in the nation!

  • Re: #3… Here in WA, the state GOP (executive board) is looking at automatically endorsing whomever the GOP incumbent may be, even in the presence of a stronger, more conservative challenger… even if the PCO’s overwhelming support the challenger. It will be up to the voters both in the primary and the caucuses to decapitate weak incumbents.

  • McCain has proven he works for the people that voted him to office. The media would say this is flip flopping, I would say, any politician that thought one thing and turned around when hearing what his constituents believed, is exactly what govt is about. As for JD, well that is a long story that should not even be an issue. JD is as bad as they come…JD cannot find an endorsement, I am sure he will start paying people to say they like him! JD leaves us with many great memories, whether it be Abramoff, losing his seat to a democrat, ethical issues, issues about his lack of intelligence, being a huge blowhard, being a huge boozer, being a continuous egomaniac who does not have the experience needed to succeed in Washington (and he has already proven that to us!) I had decided JD was far too inexperienced, immature, egotistical and unethical to vote for him. McCain is the third most fiscally conservative member in Senate and that along with his integrity, we have a solid Senator.

Of Tea Party Terrorists and Cognitive Dissonance

Tuesday, May 11, AD 2010

With President Obama demonizing Tea Party protesters and the recent comments of New York Mayor Bloomberg speculating that the Times Square bomber was a tea party protester, it is mind boggling how the evidence continues to stack up against their arguments of Tea Party protesters being intolerant and racists.

Especially in the light of breaking news that thieves have stolen the Mojave Desert Cross that was built to honor Americans who died in World War I.  When  just less than two weeks prior the U.S. Supreme allowed that Cross to remain on the property.

I’ll bet good money that some raving liberal removed the cross because of his or her dissatisfaction with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling.

Yet where are the news of lynchings, swastikas painted on synagogues and burnt out black churches by Tea Party Protesters?

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Of Tea Party Terrorists and Cognitive Dissonance

  • Thrasybulus – ancient Greek tyrant and teacher of tyrants: “Cut down the tallest stalk in any political field.”

    Liberals are vultures.

  • Nothing frightens the corrupt criminals in the political class like the active involvement of citizens in politics.

    In their view, politics is “their” domain; our role is to show up every 2 or 4 years and cast a ballot and go home.

    Now we’re taking ownership of the political process. The tea party just unseated a Republican incumbent in the Utah primary.


    “Most of delegates, when interviewed, confirmed that they had never served as a delegate, and most had never attended the state convention or even a caucus meeting. The primary reasons cited by delegates spoken to were a concern about the increase in size of the federal government and a resulting loss of liberties.”

    The political class hears this and goes into spasms.

    And make no mistake – they are more afraid of this than they are of Al Qeda.

NY Mayor Bloomberg Thinks Times Square Bomber is a Tea Party Terrorist

Tuesday, May 4, AD 2010

The cognitive dissonance on the Left is amazing.

Last night on the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric interviewed New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a non-affiliated party member, and asked him his thoughts on who it was that planted the bomb in New York’s Times Square and what were the motives behind it.

Mayor Bloomberg’s comments are incredulous to say the least (emphasis mine):

Home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill…”

…the health care bill Mr. Bloomberg?

As in the Tea Party Movement participants?

Continue reading...

33 Responses to NY Mayor Bloomberg Thinks Times Square Bomber is a Tea Party Terrorist

  • Tito, please, he says maybe which is quite different from your title’s assertion. This isn’t a gotcha quote.

  • Doofus.

  • I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt – he was sort of pushed on it by Couric – but he would have been better off just saying “I don’t know.” For better or worse Bloomberg is not the kind of politician to shy away from controversy. This would be a “for worse” occasion.

  • The profiling of the Left.

  • I’m not sure Bloomberg is really a leftist. If I’m not mistaken, he was recruited by the GOP to run for NY Mayor. He’s even praised the Tea Party movement: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/mike_hails_activists_Ppj6WY4VgIWDF00PPQAzXM .

  • Politicians say dumb things. He should have declined to speculate without knowing any of the facts. I suppose his guess is somewhat revealing about how wealthy independent New Yorkers view the rest of the country, but he wasn’t going out of his way to claim Tea Partiers were responsible, just making an ill-advised guess.

  • Bloomberg opposed ObamaCare. But blaming liberals is just so much fun!

  • Actually a joke. But if you want to read what some Leftists thought, go here:


  • Bloomberg endorsed ObamaCare back in October restrainedradical.


    Throughout his political career Bloomberg has normally attempted to be on all sides of most political issues at one time or another.

  • Just one more bit of leftist wackiness on this matter. Here a poll on a leftist site that had 63% of respondents claim it was a right-wing militia, tea partiers or the religious right making anti-abortion statement that was to blame:


  • Bloomberg is not a leftist, but he behaves like a doofus when he reveals his moronic “cultural elite” bias about the relative risks from Islamic extremists versus Americans who oppose ObamaCare. Stupid. Just stupid.

    John Henry is correct that speculation sans facts is always dangerous, but the irrationality of his speculation is nonetheless revealing.

  • Pingback: Left laments Times Square terrorist was not a “white male”… « Jacksonian Lawyer's Blog
  • “The cognitive dissonance on the Left is amazing …”

    Indeed. Mayor Bloomberg is so cognitively dissonant that he’s been a registered Republican for the past decade or so.

    I’m pleased that the NYPD slam-dunked Dick Cheney on this one. Good work, guys. Didn’t need waterboarding to catch this criminal, eh?

  • Bloomberg is extremely popular among conservatives in NY. Not so popular among liberals.


    “I’ve given the president a lot of credit for taking on the issue; but it’s Congress that’s writing this legislation, and they are not willing to go near the things that will contain costs, which is immigration reform, tort reform, asking the question of whether or not we can afford certain tests and whether they really are cost beneficial.”

    “You know, if you really want to object to something in this bill, number one, I have asked congressperson after congressperson, not one can explain to me what’s in the bill, even in the House version. Certainly not in the other version. And so for them to vote on a bill that they don’t understand whatsoever, really, you got to question how–what kind of government we have. Number two, when they talk about bending the curve, as, as the governor said, bending the curve is a flimflam euphemism for increasing costs, but we’re going to say we’ll do it at slightly lower rate than we would have otherwise.”


    “It’s a system we can’t afford in total in this country, and a system that’s not delivering the kind of health care that we want.”

  • “Mayor Bloomberg is so cognitively dissonant that he’s been a registered Republican for the past decade or so.”

    Before he ran for mayor Todd he was a down the line Democrat. In 2007 he changed his partisan affiliation to independent.


    As for his stances on the social issues Todd, they certainly seem to be taken out of your party’s playbook:

    “Bloomberg supports abortion rights, stating: “Reproductive choice is a fundamental human right and we can never take it for granted. On this issue, you’re either with us or against us.” He has criticized pro-choice politicians who support pro-life candidates. His comments may have been directed at New York Senator Chuck Schumer, a supporter of abortion rights who supported Bob Casey, who is pro-life, in the 2006 Senate election.

    Bloomberg tends to be liberal about his policies towards many social issues. He supports governmental funding for embryonic stem cell research, calling the Republican position on the issue “insanity.” He also supports same-sex marriage with the rationale that “I think anybody should be allowed to marry anybody”.”

  • Bloomberg is pretty much a clone of Rudy Giuliani who was similarly a big government, republican-in-name-only.

    Yeah: Giuliani NY GOP’er – pro abortion, big government, gun control (when a jihadi shot up the Empire State Building, Rudy screamed for more gun control!) and every other cultural/socially liberal, immoral crap sandwich.

    Both are hated because of their (weak) fiscal conservatism and community policing to protect citizens from liberal constituencies.

    And, like their liberal cousins they only have to employ against their imagined enemies (e.g., tea party small government propoents) ad hominems, insults and lies.

    My advice to five-foot-nothing mike: spend your $12 billion NOW! You can’t take it with you. It will burn.

  • There are two things that Tea Party people have in common with Muslim terrorists. One is that neither group is shy about announcing what they are all about, and secondly, liberals in government and in the media don’t believe them. Tea Partiers say they want less government spending, lower taxes and more freedom. Islamists say “death to Israel, death to America, Allahu Akbar, we will establish sharia law in your country”.

    I believe the Tea Partiers when they say “this is what we are about.” I believe the Islamists when they say “This is what we are about.”

    But the liberals in government and the media say that what the Tea Partiers are about is racism, violence and intimidation. Likewise they totally ignore the Islamists call for killing of infidels and make up something like “these really nice family guys who just want a better way of life, economic and social justice,” which also ignores the fact that most of these guys are rich, well-educated and like to treat women like used condoms.

    Incidents like this latest one are stark examples which illustrate the use of the official narrative in place of factual elements.

  • Bloomberg is a richer, wiser, nicer (at least outside of politics), and more independent version of Giuliani. I wouldn’t want to put him in a position where he can appoint Supreme Court justices or direct foreign policy (he’s a solid Republican there whereas I am not) but as mayor I’d proudly vote for him every time as would probably most of the commenters here if they lived in NYC.

  • “but as mayor I’d proudly vote for him every time as would probably most of the commenters here if they lived in NYC.”

    I would sooner vote for the scum that I scraped off my shoe today than Bloomberg.

  • I would sooner vote for the scum that I scraped off my shoe today than Bloomberg.

    Ah, but would you sooner vote for a Democrat?

  • I’d write in “Scum” BA, and pray it wasn’t taken as a vote for Bloomberg.

  • Ok, so, from this combox, it’s safe to assume that neither liberals nor conservatives wish to claim Bloomberg as one of their own, while they both wish to pawn him off as a member of the other side. Gotcha.

  • The ‘POINT’ is Mini-mike’s knee-jerk, calumnious accusation that people who disagree with the big brother agenda/narrative are (worse than) terrorists. That’s right out of the Obama/Alinsky war plan against America.

    I’m convinced you aren’t getting into Heaven if you vote Democrat or RINO.

    I can walk from my house into NYC (Queens). I couldn’t have voted for anyone except the RtoL candidate.

    Donald (sic, I know) Dinkins pretty much paved the street for RINO’s (Giuliani/Bloomberg) as mayors of NYC, “Moscow on the Hudson.”

    Wonder if Patterson will do it for gov and Obama will do the same for POTUS.

  • Actually, Gov. Patterson is the adult in the room in the State Capitol.

  • Paterson is a child. A not-too-bright child. I don’t know a single New Yorker who likes the guy.


  • either liberals nor conservatives wish to claim Bloomberg as one of their own, while they both wish to pawn him off as a member of the other side.

    That’s not uncommon for politicians representing the opposition party in a predominantly liberal or conservative state. No one claims Ben Nelson is a liberal hero; Romney, you’ll recall, had a hard time pivoting from Gov. of Massachusetts to national GOP figure. There is a blurring of the dark blue state GOP and the red state Dems; as a result, partisans of both sides don’t recognize them as one of their own.

  • Paterson is a child. A not-too-bright child. I don’t know a single New Yorker who likes the guy.

    That is becuase you’ve never met

    1. Megan McArdle; or

    2. Yours truly.

  • What an incredibly stupid and incendiary thing to say!

    About like calling pro-life people (the ones who do not support the killing of the unborn which takes 3500 American lives daily) terrorists.

    Learn who the real enemy is.

  • Pingback: Bob Siegel
  • Henry,

    He does say “maybe”.

    It’s in my posting.

  • Katie Couric and Mayor B;oomberg just proved that this was going to be a more sinister cover up. Faisal Shahzad was going to get away with his terrorist attempt. The media (in a joint effort with the liberal left and elected democrats) was going to blame the Tea Party for terrorist attempt on NYC because of Health Care Bill. It just goes to show to what extent Mayor Bloomberg, Katie Couric, and others will go to discredit the Tea Party movement. Many Dmocrats are trying to discredit the Tea Party movement in order to protect their seats in congress and the White House.

  • Pingback: Of Tea Party Terrorists and Cognitive Dissonance « The American Catholic

Snipers and Riot Police Confront Tea Party Protesters in Quincy

Thursday, April 29, AD 2010

[Updates at the bottom of this post as of 4-29-2010 at 8:24pm]

Apparently President Obama is doing his best to paint the Tea Party movement as a group of extremists and racists.

Witness the video below as an army of riot police in full riot gear and snipers on rooftops wield their weapons to intimidate the Tea Party protesters.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Snipers and Riot Police Confront Tea Party Protesters in Quincy

  • Pingback: Snipers and Riot Police Confront Tea Party Protesters « Houston Grind
  • You never know when those grannies might go berserk!

  • Well not adherents of this new Tea Party is racist or extremists; indeed, I’d argue that the majority are not. But I have seen signs bearing the “n” word (which was humorously misspelled) as well as other strong racial remarks.

    In the same way, the activity at protests against the Arizona immigration law does not characterize everyone who opposes it.

    Every group has its extremists.

  • “You never know when those grannies might go berserk!”

    Now you’re granny profiling. Shame.

  • Eric,

    I don’t have cable so I rely on rabbit ear television and what I saw in my old hometown of Phoenix was a riot.

    Rocks and all sorts of debris being thrown by hooded delinquents unnerved me.

    Yes there are extremists on both sides, but the coverage is disproportionate to what is actually happening on the ground.

    Especially when there have yet to have any ‘racist’ verbiage captured on audio or video tape from the ObamaCare protests outside the capitol a few weeks ago.

  • Donald,

    You’re nothing more than an anti-grannite!

  • Scrolling Byline – – – Tense moment at the White House this morning when Obama daughters discovered having a tea party in their room

  • Jim,

    You’re funny . . .

  • Before you all get bent out of shape — I was at Obama’s announcement of his presidential run at the Old State Capitol in Springfield in 2007 (at the request of a newspaper I used to work for, to cover the event) and there were plenty of snipers on rooftops then too.

    Now bear in mind that was a highly friendly crowd — not tea partiers, no visible opposition outside of a few pro-life protesters — and Obama wasn’t even president yet (just a candidate), although at that point he became entitled to Secret Service protection. This is probably routine at ANY large event he attends with crowds outdoors.

  • Elaine,

    I hope you’re right. BUT the guilty start to get scared when their sins are brought to the light of day and that is exactly what the Tea Partiers are doing to Obamolech.

  • Elaine,

    I also hope you’re right, but I don’t remember seeing riot police in Portland protecting President ‘W’ when his own limousine was attacked by leftist wingnuts.

    So until I get hard evidence, ie, I”ll believe it when I see it, then it isn’t true.

    President Obama is inane enough to do this and has no compulsion to the expense he will incur.

    Considering his romp to New York on the government dime after inauguration for a “dinner” with his wife and his one and a half day foray to Copenhagen on the government dime, he wouldn’t hesitate to pull these kind of stunts hoping to provoke tea partiers if cost is any consideration.

  • Jim I am going to use that one for sure – hahah!

    But I mean seriously… snipers? At a tea party? For what? Sheesh…

  • The Quincy Police Department has issued a CYA statement (Commentary by Gateway Pundit):

    Oops! The Quincy Police Department released a bogus statement calling the SWAT Team on the the protesting grandmothers yesterday. Unfortunately, they forgot about the army of videographers that filmed this incident.

    The Quincy Police Department released a statement today following the embarrassing incident yesterday when they called in the SWAT squad to quash the peaceful tea party protest outside the convention center during Barack Obama’s visit.

    During President Obama’s address, at approximately 1530 hours, the MFFT was deployed. A group of individuals positioned themselves on the south side of York Street near 3rd Street. This was within the area that was to be kept secure at the request of the U. S. Secret Service agents in charge of the site. Prior to the event only ticketed individuals were to be in this area; during the event it was restricted to the general public completely. Secret Service personnel requested these individuals leave the area and to go back to the north side of York Street. They did not comply. Quincy Police Department personnel made the same requests and again they did not comply. At that time the MFFT was deployed to stand post between the individuals and the site and, if necessary, remove the individuals. Once the MFFT was in place, the individuals agreed to move. Once everyone complied and the site was again secure, the MFFT returned to their staging point. No physical force was used during this deployment.

    Of course, this ludicrous statement is a complete fabrication. We are currently contacting the police department to retract their statement.
    We strongly object to these points.

    1. Prior to the event only ticketed individuals were to be in this area; during the event it was restricted to the general public completely.
    From the videos below it is clear that the restricted area was not roped off or marked as restricted. The protesters repeatedly checked with the police to make sure that they were not being disruptive.

    2. “Secret Service personnel requested these individuals leave the area and to go back to the north side of York Street. They did not comply.”
    We have at least three videos below that prove that the protesters asked and double-checked with the police to make sure we were following orders.

    3. “Once the MFFT was in place, the individuals agreed to move.”
    Once again the video shows that we were already moving from the corner to the middle of York Street before the MFFT marched into place.

    The first video produced by Adam Sharp shows Adam checking and double-checking with the police to make sure that we are in the correct area. You’ll also notice that Adam was polite at all times.


    What happened here is that the Quincy Police Department hugely overreacted and went into full Barney Fife mode. Ludicrous.

  • Pingback: NY Mayor Bloomberg Thinks Times Square Bomber is a Tea Party Terrorist « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Of Tea Party Terrorists and Cognitive Dissonance « The American Catholic

The Tea Party and Social Conservatives

Thursday, April 15, AD 2010

Hattip to my friend Paul Zummo, the Cranky Conservative.  When asked what type of conservative I am, I have usually responded “just conservative”.  Like most conservatives I know, I am conservative on social issues, fiscal policies and foreign policy.  When one part of conservatism is ignored in a political race, electoral disaster often looms.  That is why I embrace completely what my fellow Illinoisan, Paul Mitchell said in a recent speech:

Continue reading...

40 Responses to The Tea Party and Social Conservatives

  • It is interesting to me that the passage above assumes the desirability of foreign policy hawkishness and low taxes; what it is justifying is the value of the family and faith. I tend to approach the question the other way around, accepting the value of family and faith and progressing outwards from there to evaluate the desirability of hawkishness and low taxes.

  • That is because you are a natural Democrat John Henry! 🙂

  • More seriously, I believe Paul was responding to attempts from some quarters to define the Tea Party as only a fiscally conservative movement. That is simply not the makeup of the Tea Party movement, as attendance at a big Tea Party rally would indicate.

  • That is because you are a natural Democrat John Henry!

    Heh. It’s worth recalling that the overwhelming majority of Catholics were Democrats prior to the hardening of their support for abortion rights in the 1980’s.

  • I believe Paul was responding to attempts from some quarters to define the Tea Party as only a fiscally conservative movement

    Yes, the pro-lifers need to fight to retain their position in the conservative coalition. About 2/3 of Republicans are pro-life, but that other 1/3 is noisy and tends to include many of the party elites. I understand the dynamics there, I was just struck by the difference between the structure of the argument in the passage and how I think the argument should be more properly ordered.

  • “Heh. It’s worth recalling that the overwhelming majority of Catholics were Democrats prior to the hardening of their support for abortion rights in the 1980’s.”

    Quite right John Henry. I am not a typical Catholic in that regard. On my father’s side, the Protestant part of my family, they have been Republicans since there was a Republican party to belong to. My Catholic mother was a Newfoundlander and therefore had no ancestral affiliation with either party, although she was proud when JFK was President, long before the colorful revelations came out about him.

  • re: defining the movement

    Local bloggers claiming to speak for the TPM recently posted a “guidelines” written up by a D.C. mid-level conservative activist named Eileen Mahony:

    “Leave the conspiracy theories at home. The Tea Parties are about small government, fiscal responsibility, and liberty — not birth certificates or black helicopters. Likewise for social issues.”

    Nice to see social issues grouped in with conspiracy theories.

    Some political leaders are getting too dumb or too personally licentious to know how to exploit social conservatives.

  • I am socially and fiscally conservative which is why I, like the Holy Father and JP2 before him, abhor an aggressive foreign policy. Being pro-life means promoting the lives of Iraqis and Afghans too. Being in favor of small government means a smaller role for the military too.

    The Tea Party needs social conservatives. It doesn’t need neo-cons.

  • Neocon restrainedradical? I was a conservative probably long before you were living on this globe. The idea that standing up to those who mean us harm abroad is an aggressive foreign policy I deny. Respecting the lives of Iraqis is ill-served by leaving them to the tender mercies of insurgents who would slaughter them, and respecting the lives of Afghanis is ill-served by leaving them to the tender mercies of the Taliban who give blood-thirsty despots a bad name.

  • The “neo-con” label is thrown about (usually as an insult) by people who have little knowledge or interest in the history of the term. It once had a very specific meaning. It was originally used to describe former leftists who were “mugged by reality” in the 1960’s and became increasingly conservative during what Paul Johnson termed “the collectivist ’70’s,” a time when democracy seemed in retreat around much of the globe. Some (but not all) of those former leftists were Jewish. All of them were strongly pro-Israel and very anti-Communist.

    Nowadays, the term seems to be used as a term of abuse to describe anyone leftists (and paleo-cons, who often sing off the same sheet of music as the lefties when it comes to defense) dislike.

    By leftist standards, Reagan would be considered a “neo-con” today, and yet nobody ever described him as one back in the 1980’s.

    Respecting the lives of Iraqis is ill-served by leaving them to the tender mercies of insurgents who would slaughter them, and respecting the lives of Afghanis is ill-served by leaving them to the tender mercies of the Taliban who give blood-thirsty despots a bad name.

    Exactly so. I wonder at those who indulge themselves in the wishful thought that if we withdraw from the world the world will leave us alone. We tried that in the ’90’s. Didn’t work out so well for us, did it?

  • Well said Donna!

  • It was intended neither as an insult nor as a catch-all for anyone I disagree with. I don’t think any of us here need a lesson in the origins of the term. I meant it in the modern sense to refer to those who share the worldview (defined primarily by foreign policy) of Irving Kristol’s ideological heirs, Bill Kristol and Co.

  • As for the matter of whether the Tea Party movement is socially conservative: I recall anti-war protests in my liberal urban neighborhood just a few short years ago (amazing how those protests vanished after November 2008, although we still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan). Plenty of signs depicting Bush as a Nazi, etc, but also plenty of signs which had nothing at all to do with the matter at hand – everything from animal rights to “Free Mumia” to abortion “rights.” Every pet cause of the left was represented.

    Personally, I’d prefer to see the TP stay focused on economics and taxes. I would expect that if you polled a bunch of TP people, the majority of them would be more conservative socially than the population as a whole. But I don’t expect to see pro-life signs at a TP because, however dear to our hearts that cause is, it has no more to do with the TP than pro-abort signs had to do with the anti-war cause. After all, the movement arose as a response to the stimulus package. Americans may disagree on social issues but there seems to be a majority consensus that A. we are overtaxed, B. government spending is outrageous and will be a great burden on future generations and C. the political and media elites in this country have grown increasingly arrogant and out of touch with the ordinary folks who pay the bills. The TP needs to build on that consensus if it is going to be something more than people letting off steam.

    The liberals would like nothing better than to see the movement splinter as social cons and libertarians and neo-cons and paleo-cons battle each other hammer and tongs. In the meantime, the Dems continue to spend like drunken sailors and devise new ways to squeeze money out of the populace.

    It is true that a fiscal conservative is not necessarily a social conservative. But what is even truer is that a liberal Democrat NEVER is, and we found out just a few weeks ago that when push comes to shove, a Blue Dog “conservative” Dem knows who’s buttering his bread.

  • I meant it in the modern sense to refer to those who share the worldview (defined primarily by foreign policy) of Irving Kristol’s ideological heirs, Bill Kristol and Co.

    But, again, that common usage is sloppy. “Neo” means “New.” It made perfect sense to describe Irving Kristol and his wife, Gertrude Himmelfarb, as neo-cons because they were once liberals (heck, I think Irving was a one-time card-carrying Commie)who turned conservative. But their son, William, has never been on the left. There’s nothing “neo” about his conservatism. (And he is certainly a social con – I recall him and Juan Williams, both normally mild-mannered, polite types shouting at each other about Terri Schiavo. Kristol was angrier and more passionate than I’ve ever seen him.)

    Yes, he believes in a foreign policy of strong defense and interventionism when necessary – traditional cornerstones of GOP policy. I guess what baffles me is when people (not necessarily you personally, RR) talk as if “neo-conservativism” is some strange mutant strain of conservatism that sprang up like the ebola virus in the post-9/11 Bush administration.

  • Donna V. writes:

    “The liberals would like nothing better than to see the movement splinter as social cons and libertarians and neo-cons and paleo-cons battle each other hammer and tongs.”

    I suspect they would love more to see social conservatives shut up as they are further and further driven out of politics. Fiscal conservatives are incapable of challenging liberals (and improvident citizens) on a cultural level, which is why a fiscally-focused movement will not succeed in its long-term goals. Our broken culture spawned the broken economy. Focusing on economics misses the foundational damage.

  • Neo-Neoncon, a blogger, is an example of the “liberal mugged by reality” type.

    My philosophy boils down into making sure folks have a chance to make their own moral choices, with support for the right ones– thus, all around conservative and pro-active foreign policy.

  • I suspect they would love more to see social conservatives shut up as they are further and further driven out of politics.

    Liberals would love to see conservatives of any stripe shut up, so the choices facing voters ends up being like the ones faced by many Europeans – do you want the far leftist or the center-left one? Many “conservative” European pols would fit solidly in the mainstream of our Democratic Party.

    Fiscal conservatives are incapable of challenging liberals (and improvident citizens) on a cultural level, which is why a fiscally-focused movement will not succeed in its long-term goals.

    Yes, but we have to do something in the short term. When you’re suffering from a raging toothache, you go to the dentist immediately. Later on, you consider whether the fact that you eat 5 candy bars a day and rarely brush your teeth might be connected to the fact that you’ve got 10 cavities. Kevin, I certainly agree with you that a culturally self-indulgent country will not be a fiscally sound one, but when we’re in a situation where many citizens refuse to consider basic math, we have to start somewhere.

  • John Henry the Democrat Party you are referring to does not exist any longer and not just because of the abortion issue. It is a a party of elitist who believe in relativism , a govenrment controlled by those who think they know what is good for the people, regardless of what people think, a government that caters to thos bored and unhappy people who consume and produce nothing and take from those happy people who produce all. It is a party that keeps people down and continues to extend welfare rather than workfare to thousand of those on the dole and their succceeding children who continue to remain in that status generation after generation amd party of the intelligensia who continue to brain wash our children and students in an education format from kindergaten to PHDs. That is what the party is today and beware if you opne your mouth to be critical, as it is also a party who try to control speech and their own interpretation of the Bill of Rights and their so callled envolving Constitution

  • I agree that in terms of the Tea Party movement itself, the emphasis should be on the fiscal side of the equation. As Donna suggests, move of these folk are probably socially conservative as well, but in this very narrow sense it is best to concentrate on a few core economic issues.

    But in the broader sense, it is folly to separate economic and social conservatism. Even if we look at this from a purely political standpoint, it is actually on social issues that conservatives have generally had broader support than on economic issues. Sorry David Frum.

  • “We tried that in the ’90s”

    We did? Really? When?

    I recall being in Iraq in the 90’s, in Bosnia, in Somalia, not to mention military bases around the world, and that littel thing in Panama (that may have been late’80s – the memory is the first thing to go). So is that your defintion of “leaving the world alone”?

  • During the nineties the Clinton administration did its very best to ignore Islamic terrorism and hope the problem would go away. Clinton specialized in futile cruise missle strikes for public consumption.


  • Clinton probably bombed or deployed troops to more countries than any other president. If it weren’t for Carter’s 11th hour appeasement deal, Clinton would’ve bombed North Korea. All the intervention caused Bush to run as the more isolationist candidate.

    But trying to get neo-cons/hawks/interventionists/warmongers/whatever to understand why America is hated is like trying to get a blind man to understand what color is.

  • Rubbish Restrainedradical. You are as one with your ideological ancestors the isolationists in this country in the Thirties who almost ensured a victory by the Third Reich in World War II. Isolationism is a good way to simply kick the can down the road for a future generation to deal with a problem while posing as holier-than-thou and calling those who have eyes to see what is coming warmongers.

  • A few years ago, someone called me a “neo-con” in the comboxes on Chris Blosser’s blog, Against the Grain. Here was my tongue-in-cheek response:

    “To apply the term ‘neoconservative’ to me or any other Southerner is an oxymoron. The South is arguably the most conservative region in the country, but there ain’t nothin’ ‘neo’ about our conservatism. We’ve always been pro military and have favored a muscular U.S. foreign policy going back to the earliest days of the Republic … The appellation ‘neoconservative’ by definition doesn’t apply to the traditional conservatism of Southerners.”

  • yes restrainedradical the same country that has bailed out country after country after wars, tsunamis , earthquakes, disrepair, genocide, AIDS, and thru foreign aid. Do you think if we stop the money we send each year to keep the UN fiancially stable and stop all our aid to other countries for any reason and removed all our troops from every base in Korea, Europe, Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other country, would that make them love us more. And btw blind persons FEEL colors.

  • AFL- you forgot the sea turtles.

    When my ship was heading back to Japan after we’d helped Thailand recover from the Christmas Tsunami, which is where we’d gone after we left support for Iraqi Freedom, we stopped and cut several trapped sea turtles out of a net.

    I know I sure wouldn’t pick a guy who tried to gut the military as having “bombed or deployed troops to more countries” than any other unless I was very sure, especially when as I remember he only acted when utterly forced to do so–no matter how much death resulted, or how much it made matters worse. Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti and the NoKs come to mind….

  • I supported the war in Afghanistan. I’m not opposed to the UN or foreign aid. I’m no isolationist. If anything, I have a bias in favor of world government. I, unlike many bloodthirsty Americans, don’t celebrate every shot America fires.

    Yes, afl, pulling troops out of all those countries would make them love us more. It’s a fact supported by polls.

  • That you favor a world government restrainedradical and that you consider some of your fellow Americans bloodthirsty surprises me about as much as the news that the sun rises in the east and that it sets in the west.

  • That you favor a world government restrainedradical and that you consider some of your fellow Americans bloodthirsty surprises me about as much as the news that the sun rises in the east and that it sets in the west.

    Then why did you say he was an isolationist?

  • BA
    I’ll answer, although un-invited, why DRM called RR an isolationist.
    World government hopefuls consider that government (at least for the purposes of discussion) as being entirely non-military. Without nations, militaries will no longer exist. Then all reactionary responses to the long arm of world governance will be charaterized as threats to the domestic peace of the world. These will be handled by police, who will be armed and trained not very differently than the special operations forces now maintained by evil national governments.
    isolationism today, in response to (always) malicious nationalistic interventionism, is not inconsistent with the “can’t we all get along ruled by our oneworld betters” global governance worldview. Logic need not apply.

  • Except for paleocons BA, something I have not considered restrainedradical to be, a strong adversion to the use of American military force and a faith in the UN and globaloney often go hand in hand, as Kevin points out.

  • Foxfier, I like the sea turtle story.

    Given the UN’s less than shining track record and proven corruption, how anybody can place trust in that sorry organization is beyond me.

  • World government. That would be just great for Catholics. Sure it would.

  • Indeed Mike, there is urgent need of a true world political authority. It would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties. Without this, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations.

    Kevin & Don, there must be a word to describe me other than isolationist. I’m not a Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul type isolationist. Can someone who supports free trade, more immigration, foreign aid, supported the war in Afghanistan, and urged intervention in Liberia, Rwanda, and Sudan, really be called an isolationist? A soft-isolationist? A soft-interventionist? An interventionist-isolationist?

  • RR,
    I didn’t call you an isolationist, I just defended the notion that eventual-one-worlders often adopt an isolationist approach to foreign policy under the current world terms of engagement.

    From your last post, either you actually believe that man is perfectable by his own efforts (heresy, however the thought is framed) or you have left unstated the requirement that the one world government entity actually be constituted and behave as the Catechism “hopes” it will. The UN is decidedly not in compliance, nor even is it likely reconcilable to that standard.
    I too wanted us to intervene in Rwanda. But since you place so much weight in polls, just think for a few minutes about the polling data six months into a bloody US occupation in Rwanda, carried out no matter how uprightly by a predominantly white US military. Polling data would support the notion that the US was trying to re-establish the slave trade and Jesse Jackson wopuld be shaking down Army Emergency Relief for Rainbow PUSH.

  • RR,
    I should have added in my last post that there is urgent need for a true world political authority capasbvle of setting all these wrongs right. But uhnless you know when Jesus plans to return, I’ll not be holding my breath that any of the pretenders out there will make things better.

  • You need to turn up your irony detector restrainedradical in regard to Mike’s comment. 🙂

    I believe that under current world conditions a world government would be the greatest engine of tyranny in the lamentable annals of human folly. As for international law, I have always thought that books on that topic should be shelved in the fiction section of libraries. At most we have international suggestions, a condition I find preferable to ceding authority to some body that would attempt to govern all the inhabitants of this planet.

  • Kevin, I more or less agree. My support for military intervention is always conditioned on likelihood of success which I am not competent to assess. I do think a world government (not necessarily the UN in its current form) can make things better. I think it already has in many areas (e.g., trade, law harmonization, and humanitarian aid).

    Don, you need to turn up your double irony detector or I need to turn down my double irony.

  • In that case restrainedradical perhaps you would care to address Mike’s suggestion that a world government would be a disaster for Catholics?

  • I don’t know how else to address it. Maybe it’s Mike’s turn to respond to my response.

Looking into the Cloudy Ball

Thursday, April 15, AD 2010

Tax day is a day when all Americans are reminded about the importance of politics and think about the importance of the political future so they can adjust their budgets accordingly. Most of the time in politics we have a reasonably good idea of what’s going on: what the issues are going to be, who the favorites in the next election are, who are the main blocs, etc. Of course, there are always surprises and upsets.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Looking into the Cloudy Ball

  • I think the GOP can count on solid tea party support in the Fall. In many states the dead line to get on the ballot is approaching or passed, and, in any case, there has been little movement by tea party members to run third party candidates. The big problem for the GOP will be if they win a huge victory in November with crucial tea party assistance, which I expect, and then proceed with business as usual. In that case I do anticipate a tea party third party in 2012.

    The post by Morning’s Minion, which you linked to, thanking God that John McCain is not president was a hoot! A weak defense indeed of the South Side Messiah!

  • Don:

    I hadn’t talked about the Tea Party as a potential third party, but I think you’re right. The Tea Party is largely built on the emotional resistance to Obama and I think the Tea Party will do its best to defeat Obama and Democrats. I would imagine they’ll stick with the GOP until at least Obama’s defeat and then perhaps start a separate party if they’re unsatisfied with the results.

    However, which candidate the Tea party will back in the Presidential primaries is anyone’s guess. Palin? Someone like Scott Brown? Will they go ideology or the best chance at winning?

  • “However, which candidate the Tea party will back in the Presidential primaries is anyone’s guess. Palin? Someone like Scott Brown? Will they go ideology or the best chance at winning?”

    At this point I am beginning to think that Palin is looking at 2016. Brown I think isn’t looking at the Presidency at all, but is completely concentrated on Massachusetts where the political revolution he initiated is gathering momentum. I think that 2012 may well be the year of someone who is little known now, at least by the general public. From the GOP standpoint it is essential that the standard bearer be someone who can cause great enthusiasm among the tea partiers.

  • From the GOP standpoint it is essential that the standard bearer be someone who can cause great enthusiasm among the tea partiers.

    Seems unlikely with Romney and Huckabee as the frontrunners. But a lot can change in two or three years.

  • The articel seems to presume that, absent the ominous “Tea Party threat,” the Republican Party would naturally sweep to victory in November, then immediately set about setting things right. Wrong! If the recent history of the American body politic says anything, it says that the parties are both more intersted in having and expanding power, rather than necessarily using power for good.

    Without the Tea Party threat, the repubs are nothing but a shade or so removed from the Dems on the critical life issues; the country club repubs most definitely want pro-lifers to go away.
    In my adult days, only once has the repub party used a majority to try to limit government expenditures and reduce the interfering influence of government in the daily lives of citizens; and ultimately, they abandoned the effort.
    Neither party can lay claim to a corner on “social justice” issues. At least not if one takes the position that forced taxpayer largesse in the social programs MUST be able to boast of resounding success in return for the now truly collossal expenditure of funds involved.

  • although not a memember of the so called tea party..people are rightly concerned that if the spending contiunes the chances of having a debt that requires a one trillion dollar interest per year will occur. the problem as i view is that we need a congress that will pass a bill demanding a balance budget each year and get rid of those bills that do not create jobs or add to an already explosive deficit and to develop a foreign policy with teeth and not just words and one that quits trying to tell people how to live. we fought one king for that right and it appears we have another trying to tell us the sme thing.

  • Kevin:

    The articel seems to presume that, absent the ominous “Tea Party threat,” the Republican Party would naturally sweep to victory in November, then immediately set about setting things right.

    Wrong on both counts though I don’t think that’s obvious from this post. I think the Republicans did a fine job of messing things up long before “Tea Party” was thought up and so would have complications going into November (i.e. the residual effects of the Bush presidency). Nor do I think the republicans would set things right, though i hope especially on issues of SCOTUS nominations and abortion funding they would be able to provide some corrections.

    My point in discussing the Tea Party was that, especially in considering 2012, they provide a variable. We don’t know what kind of effect they will have and so it is hard to predict how elections will turn out.


    develop a foreign policy with teeth and not just words and one that quits trying to tell people how to live.

    Beware that the foreign policies with teeth (such as Bush’s) are often the ones that are based on the premise that the United States has a moral responsibility to spread democracy & its principles i.e. tell people how to live.

  • MD,
    Okay, if you say that was your point, I must believe you. But if the democrats remain in control of the house in December of this year, the political game is up. No amount of right thinking in 2012 will serve any good purpose if the leak in the dike is not stopped now.
    Those of you who think that politics, carried out with the Constitution in the fundamentally fractured state it is in now, can answer the mail are probably fooling yourselves.
    What was it Gandolf said? “The board is set, the pieces are moving, the final battle for Middle Earth has begun.”
    God help us all!

  • I don’t think any of the presumed GOP candidates (Huck, Palin, Romney) will win the nomination. I think it will be someone who catches fire–like a Paul Ryan or a conservative governor.

  • The fact that they’re more educated and wealthier may just be a reflection of the fact that they tend to be white, male, and old.

    The NY Times pool reveals some other interesting facts. Most Tea Partiers favor at least civil unions for gay couples, most favor legal abortions, and most don’t go to church regularly. Most like Palin but don’t think she would make a good president!

    My money was on Romney before this whole Tea Party thing. Huckabee and Romney have fiscally liberal records which voters may not forgive. Palin is talking up Romney though so Tea Partiers may forgive his past. The liberal elite find Romney to be the least objectionable.

    Gingrich’s negatives are too high. He’d be unelectable in the general election.

    Ron Paul is polling well but he can’t win the GOP nomination.

    A lot of excitement around Marco Rubio but he’s not even Senator yet and he’s only 38. Maybe 2016.

  • Romney is a political chameleon and I doubt if he will get the nomination in 2012. Paul is going no place slowly. Gingrich is only formidable as a talk show guest. The Huckster should stick with his show on Fox. I think Palin, as I stated earlier, is waiting for 2016. Rubio is a man to watch closely, but his year is not 2012. The New York Times poll of tea partiers is as worthless as most of what appears in that poor excuse for a fish wrapper.

  • Intrade has Romney in first followed closely by Palin. In third is John Thune. Others fall way behind. Oh how far Jindal has fallen…

    Intrade also gives the Democrats slightly better odds of retaining control of the House.

    Bad news in New York. Neither Guiliani nor Pataki will challenge Gillibrand.

  • As a twenty-something male I find the whole situation depressing. When you have Romney and Palin ahead in the poles for the Republicans and I guess, um…, Obama for the Dems, you really have to fool yourself to see anything bright in the future. The way I look at it we just have to hope that our pilot was the one who was sitting at the bar before departure who only had three whiskeys instead of five. I really am sorry for it but this nation has become the fruit of a more and more Godless society. Even though we have statistics that comfort us in being a Christian nation, the label “Christianity” is about as broad as Conservatism or Liberalism. Fact of the matter is that unless there is some major miraculous turn around in the faith of the people of this nation and their education in that faith, we will be sentenced to suffer the consequences of such a society. However, conversation such as in this com box and in the greater political arena is still necessary. I may not have much faith in the future of this country but I do realize that you have to go down swinging.

Captain America vs. The Tea Partiers!

Thursday, February 11, AD 2010

In my mispent youth back in the Sixties I read a lot of comics.  My parents would give me and my brother a dollar each as our weekly allowance and at 12 cents a comic we could buy quite a few, even more if we purchased them for a nickel each used  at an antiques\junk store in downtown Paris, Illinois.  The most sacrificial Lent I have ever made was in 1965 at the age of 8 when I gave up my beloved comic books for Lent!  Back then comics were quite safe for kids.  On the whole I’d say they were beneficial for me, extending my vocabulary, introducing me to literary genres such as westerns and science fiction and the writing sometimes was of an unexpectedly high level.  Some of the artists who drew the comics were of high calibre.  Steve Ditko for example, the original artist who drew Spider-Man, had a very effective and memorable style of drawing.  I stopped reading comics back around 1972, although I do buy silver age comic compilations for nostalgia and I keep half an eye on the industry as an aspect of popular culture.

I was not surprised to learn that a current story arc in Captain America has the Captain taking on the tea party movement.  Comic book artists and writers have skewed heavily to the Left since the Sixties.  My first protest letter, my first pre-computer attempt at a blog post, was a letter I wrote to Marvel Comics in pencil in 1969 protesting a story line in which Captain America was turning against US involvement in Vietnam. 

In issue 602 of Captain America, the Captain and the Falcon, a black super-hero, see a tea party rally and decide that it poses a danger to, well that is not precisely clear, although I assume it is dangerous to the government.  Captain America hits upon the brilliant plan to have the Falcon pose as a black IRS agent and go to a red neck bar and stir things up.  (Hmmm, apparently plots and story lines have gone into steep decline since my day!)  The hoot about this is that as long as the Republicans had the White House, the comics were filled with paranoid story lines involving evil government plots.  With Obama in the White House, it is now evil to protest the government.

This of course has caused a huge amount of controversy.  When controversy rears its head the comic book industry has a traditional response: back down faster than a man who has forgotten his wife’s birthday. 

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Captain America vs. The Tea Partiers!

  • I always loved Catch Me Now I’m Falling by the Kinks. British rockers empathizing with the plight of America in the Carter years. After 911 it seemed all the more poignant.


  • When I started collecting comics they were already expensive and this was the Dark Knight Returns (Frank Miller’s) and Watchmen era. So things were edgy. At that age (high school) I was offended by the Leftist-lean and not so much by the libertine representations. Comics, especially superhero comics can be a very good influence in the culture but too many artists are indoctrinated into a leftist mentality. Comics should be apolitical, virtuous and entertaining. I don’t know what they are like these days.

    One of my favorite has always been Spiderman (Ditko did a good job, I especially enjoyed McFarlane). The motto of Spiderman, “with great power comes great responsibility.” That is awesome. If you notice in the recent Toby McGuire movies the depiction of Spiderman is of a brash youth, who learns the above lesson and sacrifices so much in his life to help people. At one point he is beaten to a pulp and the people of New York carry him, his arms are extended as if he is on a cross. When he gets invaded by a dark, alien symbiot he turns to a Catholic Church for help. He is also forgiving and empathetic to his nemeses.

    Superheros are based on the ultimate Superhero archetype – Jesus the Christ. A good superhero story always has miraculous powers or human enhancements, a vulnerability, a sacrificial attitude and stands for good as in Truth, Justice and the American Way.


  • When I collected comics, I didn’t read them. Comics belong in plastic sleeves.

  • One cannot be “Captain America” without being “pro- Tea Party”. Stan Lee has tripped off the line.

  • Ironically, not long ago Cap was literally fighting the Feds in the Civil War storyline.. but again.. that was based on leftist reaction to the GWB regime & the Patriot Act, so.. I dunno.


  • Sarah Palin’s Nashville speech was the most significant oration of the 21st century.



  • I can’t recall any leftist sympathies in my mile-high stack of Richie Rich comic books circa-1977.

  • I am sure Cadbury, the perfect butler, was a closet socialist!

  • On one hand, Marvel has a Catholic hero, Nightcrawler, who is one of the mutant “extra men” also known as “X-Men”. Nightcrawler looks like a demon but grew up in a monastery and carries a rosary. On the other hand, Marvel hosted students from the Harvey Milk School in observation of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Day, so it would be prudent to carefully screen materials from Marvel before placing them in the hands of young readers.