12 Comments so far

1. jp March 21st, 2007 3:27 pm

   The evidence that the right has nothing to offer is clear by their recourse to mindless name-calling, endless creation of and pandering to fear, and the use of bullies such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, et al who cannot argue issues, but can only outshout, label and smear, and distort the arguments and views of their opponents.

2. kivals March 21st, 2007 6:13 pm

   The Republican Party has always been about pursuing policies to benefit the wealthy elite, who supply the Republican politicians with the money they need for their propaganda, and fooling enough of the gullible and ignorant to go along so that candidates that support policies that benefit a small percentage of the population can get elected.

   The Republican politicians have generally succeeded by going after the low-hanging fruit (most gullible) such as gun nuts, abortion nuts, anti-tax nuts, anti-regulation nuts, and of course Christian Right nuts. However, even the most dimwitted sheep in the herd will recognize something is wrong when it is never fed what it has been promised. That is why the Republicans will try more and more to manipulate vote counting and, failing that, will jettison this whole democracy thing altogether. They will not go quietly into that good night. Expect Bush’s nascent police state to grow into one ugly beast.

3. armybrat March 21st, 2007 9:51 pm

   I agree with kival, but as a conservative, I can say we’ve gotten a bad rap from these wackos. They did for conservatives what al Qaeda did for Muslims - guilt by association. I hope we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater - traditional conservatives have backbone, have supported the military (until it ran amok), and don’t look for monsters to slay. Character, honesty, integrity, and strong moral values are still virtues. There is still a huge difference between conservatives and fascists - Americans need to learn to tell the difference. And quick.

4. montemerrick March 22nd, 2007 3:22 am

   dear armybrat-

   well its a shame barry goldwater cant run now and that john mccain is only a post-modern goldwater and as far from the real thing as cheney is far from being actually alive.

   for a realm conservative that you will probably adore, i suggest henry davidf thoreau, although he wont agree with your stance on the military, regarding a standing army as the only thing that keeps a standing government in place and the only way a government has to impel its citizens to act the way it wants them too - profoundly non-conservative, the military.

5. jimsenter March 22nd, 2007 10:48 am

   WE ARE CHOKING ON THE GOP SUCCESS. Not their failure.

   A RECENT ARTICLE in Time entitled “Why the Right Went Wrong, declares ” The principles that propelled the movement have either run their course, or run aground, or been abandoned by Reagan’s legatees.”

   BULLSHIT. Bush’s policies and those of the neoCONS are the logical conclusion of Reaganism- the “muscular foreign policy” the insane, irresponsible economic policies of don’t tax and spend like mad (on the military) remember the $200 hammers? The fusion of southern religionists with the economic royalists. “The government isn’t the solution. It is the problem.” was a quote from Reagan and FEMA in New Orleans is the result.

   ALL of it was straight from Reagan’s playbook. The GOP hasn’t failed. It has succeeded only too well, and we are choking on our own puke face down in the gutter as a result. The fact that we slowly awaken and don’t like the taste is small comfort. The power is where it is and there’s no countervailinig power in sight.

6. misanthrope March 22nd, 2007 12:26 pm

   jimsenter

   You are right on the money! The myth of Reagan as the Great Communicator who won the cold war is just another one of the big lies the Right has perpetuated.

   I’m afraid that the fiscal disaster that the Bush administration will leave in its wake will go a long way towards accomplishing their agenda.

7. Xthplanet March 22nd, 2007 3:11 pm

   I’m in agreement with kivals(above) especially in divining the force which drives the right. I think there is a general effort by the right to hide that force out of an accurate sense that the public would not support them if they saw them in the way the right sees themslves. Defining this force should be the central effort of those who wish the public to vote another way. In that spirit I offer a wonderful quote I dug up…..

   “Conservativism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others.”

   Friedrich A. Hayek
   The Road To Serfdom, University of Chicago Press, 1944
   From the forward to the 1954 (i.e. 10 year anniversary) edition, 19th printing 1967 pg. xi

   Because of the authority of the author (the supposed ‘father’ of ‘free market’ economics) and because so many ‘liberals’ don’t seem to understand what they support and so many of us all can’t answer the basic question-”what does a conservative conserve?”…I pray for our beautiful country.

8. JH March 23rd, 2007 1:15 am

   Do you think the right that you’ve described would still support Bush if his long-standing affair with Condi were exposed? I’m kidding. But I’m totally serious in my suspicions. She is omnipresent at Camp David with the Bushes. She went with W on his recent Latin American junket (I wasn’t aware the Secretaries of State needed to accompany Presidents on their foreign travel). And who can forget Laura Bush’s left-handed dismissal of Condi’s presidential prospects as being out of the question because of Condi’s unmarried and childless condition. Now there’s nuance for you.

9. montemerrick March 23rd, 2007 12:48 pm

   dont forget that time in boston when she accidentally called bush “husband”

   and also the sloppy kiss bush gave her when he announced her nomination to secretary of state!

   didnt see him smooch colin powell thusly.

   o humor - so needful in such dark times

10. bnkinopyroxa December 10th, 2007 3:02 am

    tithihaporeve…

    exripaxasaha…

11. bntycyxuxihy December 10th, 2007 3:56 am

    titzacotowowe…

    exrexavizepe…

12. bnwikywyvupe December 26th, 2007 9:29 pm

    titkosotuxato…

    exhinoryhica…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)