Some folks on the right side of the aisle are pretty nervous after Newt's win in South Carolina. Take Ann Coulter, conservative fire brand, for example. In her recent column entitled, "RE-ELECT OBAMA: VOTE NEWT!" she opens with
To talk with Gingrich supporters is to enter a world where words have no meaning.
Well, that's certainly true generally of conservatives:)
She goes on to discuss the circular reasoning of Newt's supporters and then explains Mitt's flip flops. This one really jumped out at me.
Romney's one great "flip-flop" is on abortion. (I thought the reason we argued with people about abortion was to try to get them to "flip-flop" on this issue. Sometimes it works!)
I actually laughed out loud at that one. No shit, isn't that the goal of pro life conservatives? Why are they complaining that Mitt's changed his mind?
She concludes with a line that is...dare I say it...Markadelphia like in its nature.
Conservatism is an electable quality. Hotheaded arrogance is neither conservative nor attractive to voters.
Finally. A conservative with which I agree on virtually nothing defining exactly what is wrong with the GOP today. Somewhere along the line, the base has allowed itself to be overtaken by virulent hubris that one normally associates with right wing bloggers. As I've been saying for the past several days, your average Joe Voter has no idea who Saul Alinksy is nor do will they respond well to another white old guy yelling at Barack Obama. If the right wants to win, Mitt is the best chance they have.
But she does raise a deeper point. Is conservatism an electable quality? It is but only in moderation as this is a center right country for the most part. I think the reason why the GOP is having such a tough time with their candidates is not they they don't like any of the above. It's because they are struggling to define who they are. Are they evangelical? Financial old guard? Libertarians? I don't think they know.
The party can't survive if one drops away so they desperately need all three. Yet they seem to be at odds with each other and don't really work and play well together. Some want to be more moderate so they can win but a very large portion want to go farther right. If the president wins re-election in the fall, this struggle will be one of the big reasons why.
16 comments:
>Well, that's certainly true generally of conservatives:)
Oh Mark. It's so cute when you so blatantly project your own faults onto others. :)
Newt's brilliance -- and the Republican Party's for that matter -- is their ability to use ignorance and bias to get people to vote against their own self interests.
By whipping up anger and hatred against the "media" and "the establishment" Newt -- who's the ultimate media and establishment guy -- is convincing gullible voters he's their man.
All the conservative editorialists I read seem to universally despise Gingrich for exactly the reasons I have long despised him. And since they're "establishment" and "media" it falls neatly into what Gingrich is saying, convincing petulant voters he is right.
Gingrich is cynical, manipulative and arrogant. And the more we say it, the more we convince the people who now support him that he's their man. If there's one thing people hate more than being condescended to, it's being told they're being condescended to. So repeating these charges will only help Gingrich for the time being.
But the Gingrich juggernaut will clank to halt as soon as Republicans tire of the circus. They will succumb to the inevitability of The Romney, and they'll fall into line when it appears that Gingrich might actually win.
Because nobody actually LIKES Newt. He combines the worst attributes of two Simpsons characters Nelson Muntz and Martin Prince -- the bully and the know-it-all -- without any of their endearing features.
...to vote against their own self interests.
I always love the boundless hubris and stupidity on display when someone (and true, it is most often lefties) says this.
It is rare for ignorance to be mistaken for insight, yet that is precisely the heart of this argument.
I always love the boundless hubris and stupidity on display when someone (and true, it is most often lefties) says this.
I always love how you really don't get this, juris, and likely never will. Time to clean out that Sowell plaque, sir!
Oh I get it. It is the person saying it that says "I know what is best for you". To which I am always happy to reply "go fuck yourself". I'm not about to listen to some self-righteous leftie or brain-dead fundie right-winger tell me what is in my best interest. You don't fucking know, mkay? Take your overinflated ego somewhere else.
Anyone that really thinks they know what is best for someone [or everyone] else needs a Mississippi river sized enema.
That you think it is valid for some leftie to say this and not for some right-wing douchebag says that you are so full of shit that even the whole Mississippi river might not be enough to clear your mind.
Whenever the left tells me they know what's best tor me, I'm reminded of one of my favorite comments from Phil Gramm.
He’s on some talk show with some woman from the education establishment. Gramm says, “My educational policies are based on the fact that I care more about my children than you do.” The woman says, “No, you don’t.” Gramm says, “Okay: What are their names?”
What a fantastic example of willful ignorance combined with an adolescent power fantasy, dave:)
Jaysus M, WTF are you talking about? Did you take a whole bottle of stupid pills?
The fact is, juris, that the federal government makes decisions every day that are in your best interest. Trying to pretend that this isn't the case is simply silly. For example, they know what's best for dave in terms of defending this country.
The fact is, juris, that the federal government makes decisions every day that are in your best interest.
No M that isn't the way it works. The federal govt makes decisions that are [supposedly] in the best interest of the country as a whole, not for me individually. The country as a whole is what gets defended, not you, me or -just dave. You seem to forget that the police (let alone the feds) are not legally obligated to do anything to defend you. They will of course prosecute someone after that person assaults, robs or kills you.
The Obama Admin sure wants to make sure I don't consume marijuana, even if my state says it is okay. Is that really in my best interest?
How 'bout I tell you what is in the best interest of you, your wife and your children? Would you be interested in that? Would you unquestioningly do as I say?
Well M? You are commenting all around this this evening. Cat got your tongue? I really don't believe you have the good sense to give up on a stupid position. You could throw me for a loop and cop to that and we could both have a good laugh.
So still no comment. Down the memory hole eh? You see, you could actually add some credibility by saying "oh, I see your point and perhaps I need to rethink/restate/reconsider my position". That isn't as hard to do as you make it out to be.
Sometimes, juris, I am content with you having the last word:)
I really think Mark doesn't understand why it might be problematic for him to a. decide what is in someone elses best interest and b. try to force those decisions on said people via the state. The hubris of an ivory tower intellectual wannabe strikes again, it seems.
More like an "Ivory Soap" Tower sort of "intellectual", methinks.
Damn, I thought you'd bite on letting me tell you what you, your wife and children should do. All I have to do is insist that I know what is best for you.
Post a Comment