Conservatives, and the conservatives that define them
Conservative standard bearer Fred Barnes on the conservative rift inside of conservatism:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bush, of course, is a conservative, but a different kind of conservative. His tax cuts, support for social issues, hawkish position on national security and terrorism, and rejection of the Kyoto protocols make him so. He's also killed the ABM and Comprehensive Test Ban treaties, kept the United States out of the international criminal court, defied the United Nations, and advocated a shift in power from Washington to individuals through an "ownership society." On some issues--partial privatization of Social Security is the best example--he is a bolder conservative than Ronald Reagan, the epitome of a conventional conservative.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
....uh, thanks for clearing that up, Fred. Bushies like Fred don't know quite what to do when comparing Dear Leader to their beloved Reagan. RR floats on some lofty plane of existence, surrounded by seraphim, eating popcorn shrimp with God and Colonel Sanders, and no effort is spared to trot out his bones and hold them up as "the epitome" of conservatism. Reconciling their support of a bonehead like Bush with their adoration of RR involves such painful rhetorical contortions that we end up with meaningless nonsense like this.
I hope this "conservative revolt" against Bush vets some of the dead weight out of the bloated right wing punditocracy. I remember watching Fred when he was a regular on The McLaughlin Group in the 90's, and he was an incomprehensible bumblefuck back then too. Fred and George Will and Tony Blankley should all hang it up - maybe they can recruit John O'Sullivan and start a barbershop quartet.
While I'm on the subject, can we pool our collective energy and publicly shame Art Buchwald into retirement? He hasn't been funny for years, and now he's got a new book out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bush, of course, is a conservative, but a different kind of conservative. His tax cuts, support for social issues, hawkish position on national security and terrorism, and rejection of the Kyoto protocols make him so. He's also killed the ABM and Comprehensive Test Ban treaties, kept the United States out of the international criminal court, defied the United Nations, and advocated a shift in power from Washington to individuals through an "ownership society." On some issues--partial privatization of Social Security is the best example--he is a bolder conservative than Ronald Reagan, the epitome of a conventional conservative.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
....uh, thanks for clearing that up, Fred. Bushies like Fred don't know quite what to do when comparing Dear Leader to their beloved Reagan. RR floats on some lofty plane of existence, surrounded by seraphim, eating popcorn shrimp with God and Colonel Sanders, and no effort is spared to trot out his bones and hold them up as "the epitome" of conservatism. Reconciling their support of a bonehead like Bush with their adoration of RR involves such painful rhetorical contortions that we end up with meaningless nonsense like this.
I hope this "conservative revolt" against Bush vets some of the dead weight out of the bloated right wing punditocracy. I remember watching Fred when he was a regular on The McLaughlin Group in the 90's, and he was an incomprehensible bumblefuck back then too. Fred and George Will and Tony Blankley should all hang it up - maybe they can recruit John O'Sullivan and start a barbershop quartet.
While I'm on the subject, can we pool our collective energy and publicly shame Art Buchwald into retirement? He hasn't been funny for years, and now he's got a new book out.
posted by Germanicu$ at 8:22 PM
1 Comments:
Germanicus,
I'm not sure what I think of Fred Barnes, except that he sure does fit the stereotype I desperately want the conservative side to shed. There's nothing quite like the ability of Barnes and McLaughlin to make Republicans look a hell of a lot like Barnes and McLaughlin.
My anger at the whole political ideology oversimplification is that it's dishonestly portrayed. This morning on Springer on the radio Mr Springer, my favorite of the Air America hosts, suggested that the chasm in society was between those who wanted to share the wealth and those who wanted to keep it for themselves. Then, of course, he said it had something to do with abortion. Well, Jerry, which is it?
Does Dan Lipinski stop existing because he doesn't fit in the Dualistic world of Jerry Springer and most everyone on television? Can't someone both be against abortion and look at rich white guys talking about the joys of capital gains and say "well, fuck them?"
If the best the "we care about the poor" people can come up with John Kerry, this tard's not going to go anywhere.
Post a Comment
<< Home