Graham: Beck is not the voice of conservatism.
Graham: Beck is not the voice of conservatism.
Last week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) created waves when he dismissed the influence of Fox News host Glenn Beck, saying, “Only in America can you make that much money crying.” Beck commented on his radio show by responding, “Lindsey Graham hating my guts is probably the highest honor I’ve ever received. Judge me by my friends and judge me by my enemies. Thank you, Lindsey Graham.” Today on Fox News Sunday, host Brett Baier — standing in for Chris Wallace — stood up for his Fox colleague and asked Graham, “Are you saying that Glenn Beck is bad for America?” Graham rejected that characterization, but said that Beck did not speak for conservatives or Republicans:
GRAHAM: No, I’m not saying he’s bad for America. You got the freedom to watch him if you choose. He did a pretty good job on ACORN. What I am saying, he doesn’t represent the Republican Party. You can listen to him if you like. I choose not to because, quite frankly, I don’t — I don’t want to go down the road of thinking our best days are behind us. We need to act decisively.
People are genuinely upset with how much money we’re spending up here. But at the end of the day, when a person says he represents conservatism and that the country’s better off with Barack Obama than John McCain, that sort of ends the debate for me as to how much more I’m going to listen. So he has a right to say what he wants to say. In my view, it’s not the kind of political analysis that I buy into.
Watch it:
Transcript:
BAIER: Sen. Graham, quickly, this week you talked about base politics. You mentioned Glenn Beck, who is of course on the Fox News Channel and you said he does not appear to you to be aligned with any party but aligned with cynicism. There’s always a market for cynicism. Are you saying that Glenn Beck is bad for America?
GRAHAM: No, I’m not saying he’s bad for America. You got the freedom to watch him if you choose. He did a pretty good job on ACORN. What I am saying, he doesn’t represent the Republican Party. You can listen to him if you like. I choose not to because, quite frankly, I don’t — I don’t want to go down the road of thinking our best days are behind us. We need to act decisively.
People are genuinely upset with how much money we’re spending up here. But at the end of the day, when a person says he represents conservatism and that the country’s better off with Barack Obama than John McCain, that sort of ends the debate for me as to how much more I’m going to listen. So he has a right to say what he wants to say. In my view, it’s not the kind of political analysis that I buy into.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Is this what Reality Check has been reduced to?
“Oh…and commence vote down you gay morons!”
I can’t even take that poser seriously anymore. Now where is that Crazy Legs….
October 4th, 2009 at 10:06 amI really am interested in knowing who the voice of conservatism is. I welcome all of the conservatives and right of center newly christianed independents to converge here today and tell me just who their leaders are and why? See ya all soon…
October 4th, 2009 at 10:14 amIt sounds like there still is a schism within the Repug’s and while they deny it, the talk show hosts still control the party.
I wonder who is really the voice of the conservatives?
Also, note how he Graham says that Beck has the right it say whatever he wants to say, but when it comes to any left leaning commentator, Graham has said in the past that they should shut up? Interesting huh?
October 4th, 2009 at 10:19 amWhat I am saying, he doesn’t represent the Republican Party.
Lindsay G needs to check with Beck’s audience; they may not agree.
Republicans can’t distance themselves from Beck. You bought him. You own him.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:28 amSo let’s recap:
Glenn Beck saying the President is a racist who harbors a “deep-seated hatred of white people” and that tyranny has come to our shores in the figure of a democratically-elected President working with Congress… that isn’t necessarily where Lindsay Graham draws the line…
Nope. It’s where Beck says that we’re better off with Barack Obama as President than we would be with John “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” McCain. THAT is the point where Graham concludes that Beck is “not the voice of conservatism”.
I think we see where the values of the Republican Party are centered.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:30 am“If you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.” – Glenn Beck
We should keep that in mind when discussing Beck.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:34 amWell, first off Lindsey, conservatism is not conservatism. Maybe if you were talking about a hard working rural family that grew their own food raised their own livestock.
The GOP is not conservative in that sense. In fact the GOP, in its Orwellian love, is just the opposite of conservatism as its all about the love of money.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:38 ambrothejr,
I don’t think it’s so much a schism as it is a dissolution. They have become so reckless and radical that anyone who gives any appearance of trying to moderate their views is set upon by the pack.
But? There isn’t a split in the GOP. It would take a group of them standing together to try and bring the party back to the center. Indeed, aside from those they toss out, the party is more homogeneous than ever.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:40 amSorry…but when it comes to this issue, what Graham has to say is quite simply wrong. I can’t say for certain whether this is because Graham’ss in denial or lying through his teeth…but despite what he’d like to believe (or would like us to believe), Beck is very much the voice of conservatism — or more specifically, neoconservatism — today. I think the most likely reason why Graham dismisses Beck is because he doesn’t want to acknowledge the fact (or at least not publicly) that when it comes to the Republican Party, the lunatics have almost completely taken over the asylum and it increasingly seems as if there’s no such thing as either a moderate Republican or a rational conservative any more.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:41 amNeither is the Republican Party the voice of Conservatism.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:41 amHe represents that new third, far right of center party: The Batshit Crazy Moron Party
October 4th, 2009 at 10:41 amTHe only problem Graham has with Beck is that he did not adhere to the party line that McCain is better for the country than Barak Obama. That was enough to get Beck excommunicated from the Graham Lieberman McCain clique. Toe the party line exactly or you will be punished. All the right knows is Lock Step unity; independent thought and opinion is not accepted, even if correct.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:41 amBAIER: Sen. Graham, quickly, this week you talked about base politics. You mentioned Glenn Beck, who is of course on the Fox News Channel and you said he does not appear to you to be aligned with any party but aligned with cynicism. There’s always a market for cynicism. Are you saying that Glenn Beck is bad for America?
GRAHAM: No, I’m not saying he’s bad for America.
But Baier is saying that cynicism is bad for America. Being a cynic means having little faith in human nature. Graham is saying that Beck is cynical about our government, that he doesn’t have faith in our leaders. Baier is defending Beck’s cynicism. So Baier is defending being critical of our government leaders. That seems to be quite a reversal from FNC’s policy of supporting everything the previous administration did. Would Baier agree that we on the left were right to be cynical of our previous government?
October 4th, 2009 at 10:42 amMiss Lindsey clamors: I don’t want to go down the road of thinking our best days are behind us.
He’s kidding right? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
October 4th, 2009 at 10:43 amI think we need the input of such deep thinking conservatives as conservative guy to get a better handle on who leads and speaks for conservatism….
October 4th, 2009 at 10:44 amFor a different view of the political landscape, go here.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:44 amThat was what jumped out at me as well, ralph…
(Graham):
“But at the end of the day, when a person says he represents conservatism and that the country’s better off with Barack Obama than John McCain, that sort of ends the debate for me as to how much more I’m going to listen.”
Lindsay latches onto the one bit of truth the spittle-flecked Beck has to offer, and gives that as the reason he discounts him?
Graham also directly contradicts himself here, as to whether he listens to Beck:
“You can listen to him if you like. I choose not to because,…..
…that sort of ends the debate for me as to how much more I’m going to listen.”
Just more mealy mouthed pandering to anyone Graham thinks might be listening to him…
October 4th, 2009 at 10:45 amLet see here,
Limpo is not the King of conservatism and neither is Michael Steele.
Kristol, Krauthammer, piggie Rove, and all the other gNOpig intelligentsia do not have enough redneck appeal.
So that leaves…
Moose Boogers?!?!
October 4th, 2009 at 10:46 amThere are no conservatives anymore, radicals have taken over the Republican party.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:46 amWait until they realize the people who won the bid to host the 2016 Olympicas are … brown-skinned!
October 4th, 2009 at 10:47 amHeh! FAUX should start a weekly show where they judge all those RINOs who dared to go off message. Then they can decide whether to just assign a penance or excommunicate the offenders.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:48 amPeople are genuinely upset with how much money we’re spending up here.
Oh reallY? Over 70% of the people says you’re bullshitting.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:48 amOT
October 4th, 2009 at 10:50 ampete horned larks and pipits are starting to show up on the coasts. The sugar maples are red and the air is crisp. Still winesap apples are only available at a few orchards. I miss that variety…
“I don’t want to go down the road of thinking our best days are behind us.”
That was several exits back down the highway, Senator, and you may not have enough gas to get back.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:52 amThat was several exits back down the highway, Senator, and you may not have enough gas to get back.
—–
October 4th, 2009 at 10:58 amNot to mention that the highway infrastructure has been poorly mantained…
I think Lindsey will feel so much better about himself when he comes out of the closet.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:00 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Hi dbadass…
I spent several hours this summer waiting for flash floods to recede before being able to proceed…one time where I should have waited an hour longer…didn’t get stuck, but there were a few bad seconds thinking I would end up aways downstream.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:06 amClark’s nutcrackers and white faced ibis were a couple of the wildlife highlights, other than the bear who came for lunch one day on the trail.
noseeum
October 4th, 2009 at 11:08 amI haven’t been your way in many years. I could use a knowledgeable guide such as yourself as there are so many lifers I could still pick up out there included both that you mention. How do we continue to instill that sense of wonder in others young and old alike?
it increasingly seems as if there’s no such thing as either a moderate Republican or a rational conservative any more.
There never were such animals. It was another repug farce, they can’t govern in a youtube world.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:09 amConservatism today is anti-liberal bigotry. Nothing more.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:13 amI don’t want to go down the road of thinking our best days are behind us.
No problem since thinking is obviously not your strong suit. How about you just go down the road and let the grown ups clean up your mess?
October 4th, 2009 at 11:18 amGraham was just having a hissy fit because Beck dissed his BFF McCain. Anyway you can’t blame Beck because Fox is full of this insanity. When Lndsey puts the blame where it belongs on Ailes and Murdoch then I’ll believe he’s trying to solve the problem.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:18 amdbadass says:
“How do we continue to instill that sense of wonder in others young and old alike?”
By demonstrating it is my best tactic. I’m fortunate to be out in an environment where there are few outside distractions like cell phones and inter-nets, and have a captive audience.
I’m back in the zoo now, we can throw things back and forth through the bars, so to speak.
:)
October 4th, 2009 at 11:19 amdbadass says:
…How do we continue to instill that sense of wonder in others young and old alike?
I’m comming to the sad conclusion that that sense of wonder is sometimes not there. There seems to be a minimum threshold of curiosity and imagination below which a person, usually a Reichwhiner of course, just goes through life half-aware.
That being said, all that the vast majority of people need is a little exposure and it’s best to catch them young. Wake your kids up and take them out to watch the Northern Lights, shooting stars, and maybe track a satellite or two. Yank them out of school for a day, if necessary, for the peak day of the leaf season. Take them camping. Etc.
The universe is wondrous enough to sell itself if people are just given an opportunity to look at it.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:24 amThere is no “voice of conservatism”. There’s spit and bile and hatred and selfish evilness but no actual voice.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:26 amIt looks like noseeum and I are from the same school.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:27 amBeck doesn’t represent the “Republican Party”? Mr. Graham is in denial or so far out of touch with reality.
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, then a duck it is !!!!
October 4th, 2009 at 11:30 amBeck is far more quoted and recognized than you ever will be Mr. Graham. The spokesman for the Republican Party is in the eye of the beholder, and Beck is out in front of the pack.
Beck belongs to the Republican Party, you own him and you are choking on it!
No sympathy for you here.
Outside State, class of ‘73
October 4th, 2009 at 11:31 amThe GOP is not conservative in that sense. In fact the GOP, in its Orwellian love, is just the opposite of conservatism as its all about the love of money. — Xisithrus
**********************************************************
With all due respect, Xisithrus, I think you’ve missed the mark somewhat even though you’re for the most part on target. Based on my observations, what the neoconservatives of the modern GOP seem to value above all else is not money per se but power — and specifically, power purely for its sake. (I think the reason why it might seem like they value money is because money has always been the primary means through which people in this society exercise power since we do not have a noble or royal class as many other societies still do.) This is why the modern GOP seems to have been growing disturbingly Orwellian in many respects — O’Brien, the villain of Orwell’s novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four”, explicitly states late in the novel that power purely for the sake of power (as an end in itself rather than as a means to an end) is the sole guiding principle and the driving force behind Big Brother, and not just power over the bodies of the citizens but also power over their minds as well to the degree that the citizens will willingly submit to anything.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:31 amIndeed. Those who currently lay claim to the name “conservative” have perverted it beyond recognition. Considering the fact that they don’t seem to understand that words have precise definitions this is not surprising. But?
There used to be conservatives and Republicans who were moderate in their views. The “Dixiecrats” might have been the beginning of the end.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:33 amIt is easy to instill that sense of wonder in children. But parents have to be involved. When all they think about is getting a new SUV and the biggest screen for their television and when they complain that every infrastructure improvement is going to raise their taxes and they think that the only important thing is that their kids excel at baseball or football and they can’t take the time to pick apples or notice the change of seasons the kids follow their lead. /rant
October 4th, 2009 at 11:34 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
A pantywaist closet queen from the Deep South stating that a paranoid cultist lunatic who makes himself cry by putting Vicks Vapo-Rub in his eyes is not the voice of their party…?
Mmmmmkay.
Whatever blows your skirts up, Liberace.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:42 amJust because an issue has two sides does not mean that we should allow bullshit to pass off as reasonable opposition.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:44 amPlus, when only one side of a debate is fact based it’s time to end dispute.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:47 amShayne says:
“…they think that the only important thing is that their kids excel at baseball or football…”
Sports programs in school have become a training ground for the competitive, do whatever it takes to beat (sometimes literally) everyone else.
Rival schools begin to hate each other, and it spills over into later life. It breeds contempt and intolerance.
How can citizens hope to have a tolerant and open world view when they boo, catcall, and sometimes come to blows with their neighbors on the other side of the bleachers?
All over a stupid ball.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:49 amThis should be repeated and repeated, perhaps even bolded:
October 4th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Bluestocking says: It increasingly seems as if there’s no such thing as either a moderate Republican or a rational conservative any more.
There never were such animals. It was another repug farce, they can’t govern in a YouTube world. — Game Of Life
************************************************************
I disagree — and with all due respect, I think you need to do your homework. There must have been moderate Republicans at some point in time, because the history books report that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was largely passed through the efforts of the Republican Party despite the opposition of the Southern Democrats. However, that was then and this is now — the Republican Party has changed in many ways since the 1960’s. If legislation akin to the Civil Rights Act were to go before Congress today — such as, oh, gay marriage? — it seems extremely unlikely that many in the Republican Party would be open to supporting it no matter what incentives they were offered in compromise. One of the reasons for this is the ironic fact that the southern states have since the 1960’s become almost completely Republican but haven’t changed a great deal in terms of their social values, which continue to be very conservative and based heavily on certain interpretations of Judeo-Christian belief.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:50 amGraham is just trying to have it both ways here: He’s trying to claim a shred of credibility for the party of no, while clearing space for Beck and Fox News to do the dirty work of riling up the racist mobs of teabaggers.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:01 pmSince raygun the definition of a political conservative has morphed. At this point all these types fall into the conservative bucket:
hypocrites
racists
authoritarianists
conspiracy nuts
domestic terrorists
the pathologically selfish
pathologically liars
the delusional
shape shifters
Basically, all those that think they’re better than others and the rules don’t apply to them… and the idiots who agree.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:05 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
And yet? Somehow the clip that Seaninshannity plays will sound like Graham saying, “I’m…bad for America”.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:08 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Can they not just dislike him as a man?
October 4th, 2009 at 12:18 pm—
Can they articulate their dislike in an intelligent way?
When you can come up with some of those reasonable alternatives? Get back to us.
A national system of vouchers sounds more Orwellian than anything the “left” gets accused of. I think it should be decided at the state/local level with the stipulation that no vouchers can go to schools that don’t meet the guidelines for federal funding.
Most of “the plans” I hear from the “right” on Afghanistan seem to include military action against Iran.
Anyone supporting the Republican stance on personal liberties has no right to participate in a discussion about personal liberties until they unequivocally support the full civil rights of all citizens.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:21 pmbackup,
I agree with you 100%. In my perspective the Republican owes the country the agent of the loyal opposition. The Republican’s have not provided this leadership. They have chosen actions that effectively destabilize the country and border as treasonous. I believe you can make a viable argument that the Republican Party is no longer fulfilling its historic roll as the loyal opposition. The Party has to deal with this issue or they will be marginalized. This implication is not only national but international. The country is being watched very closely by both our allies and our adversaries.
Two strong cooperating political parties in this country are formidable mix. I believe our present situation makes the country appear weak.
There are agencies that are profiting handsomely from the present situation but the cost to the country is substantial.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:22 pmIs there a way out?
Would you have voted for him because of his policies?
October 4th, 2009 at 12:26 pm—
Yes. Would you like to explain who had better suggestions?
OT
October 4th, 2009 at 12:28 pmpete do you realize that when I show video images of the aurora, the students think it is computer generated…
I might also add, b-kup, that the GOP doesn’t just “step in… dog poop”. They live in it. They eat it, drink it, breathe it, “bathe” in it, package it, advertise it, sell it, and revel in it.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:30 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
OT
That’s not hard to believe, dbadass. The aurora don’t translate very well and need the depth of scale only the “Mark 1 eyeball” can provide to be appreciated. They alone make winter camping, or at least getting outside our cities on winter nights, worth getting chilly.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:41 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
SoldierGurl and backup are saying the same thing. But backup uses more words.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:26 pmUm, I really have to ask our esteemed guests from the right-leaning world; Is Becky the voice of conservatism or not? Thank you for your kind reply.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:36 pmVouchers:
Vouchers would work if we had a system where the choices were there.
If we had a system in which any private school were obligated to honor a voucher as payment in full for an education?
Because in most voucher situations people don’t have the option of most ‘good’ private schools, which often leaves parochial schools as the only option.
Or worse, fly-by-night ‘academies.’
Magnet schools, while not at all perfect, provide some diversity. A compromise that would still be voucher like is to allow private concerns to set up magnet schools, answerable to but not administered by the government.
In discussing what works and what doesn’t, there are always alternative viewpoints and alternative ideas. Phonics vs. whole Language? Bilingual versus immersion? Macintosh versus Linux?
The problem is that we’re so far away from a ‘what works’ debate that it isn’t funny. Free market libertarianism has never worked in any practical government, but they don’t seem to think that the burden of proof is on them. And then they start shouting.
Health care reform? If you say ‘why don’t we try this and see if it works?’ They scream socialism and fascism. They’re not listening. To them a ‘dialogue onrace’ means ‘we get to say stuff’ and that’s it.
The’ve beencorrupted by talk radio into being unable to have discussions at all.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:38 pm.
backup says:
…When the whole protest is chalked up to racism, it’s easier in the short run, but the unanswered objections fester for the long run.
Who’s chalking it all up to racism? I don’t. The xenophobia spreads out to religion, class, regional rivalries, little league teams, and a host of other prejudices that fly in the face of the data.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:41 pmFox News Promo:
“Tonight on the Glenn Beck show, we’ll be discussing how much Sen. Lindsey Graham (D-SC) hates America. Stay tuned.”
October 4th, 2009 at 1:42 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
BTM, b-kup, which unanswered objections were we talking about?
October 4th, 2009 at 1:43 pmDale7 says:
SoldierGurl and backup are saying the same thing. But backup uses more words.
Soldiergurl is backup dressed in drag. Who are you kidding?
October 4th, 2009 at 1:43 pmArrrrgh! Typing is difficult today.
And thanks again, b-kup. Actually, I think we’ve discussed Becky before and the question was more for our other guests with whom I historically have a more adversarial repartee.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:46 pmpete. you’re cool. I’m out. My Soldiergurl heels are killing me. : )
October 4th, 2009 at 1:49 pmDang it, b-kup! You left without providing all those examples of reasonable objections. Again.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:52 pmAnd you totally left before I had an opportunity to wax poetic about why it borders on the pathological to even speak in terms of “the objections”. That’s the problem. They keep presenting objections without offering responsible alternatives. That’s not being an opposition party, it’s just contrariness.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:55 pmI must protest against whoever voted b-kup down for complimenting me.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:56 pmbackup,
When I look at Beck or Graham, I don’t see governance or a viable picture of the future. In my view, neither man contributes to a national debate on the future of this country. The Republican diatribes and rhetoric are exhausting and lack the inspiration to move the country into the 21st century. The Republicans are trying to ignore or minimize the changing demographics in our country. The United States has crossed this bridge many times before. The Republicans choose to ignore the mistakes of the past. The Republicans have also been marginalizes in the past. I wish they would wake up.
October 4th, 2009 at 2:06 pmChange can be a good thing!
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
They are trying to distance themselves from Beck since his refusal to deny he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.
October 4th, 2009 at 2:28 pmI’m afraid I’m on my way out now, b-kup, so I’ll be brief.
None of those are terribly specific. Spending, in and of itself, isn’t bad. Waste is bad and frivolous spending is bad. Taxation without representation is bad. Burdensome taxes are bad.
Our government, specifically the majority voted in last November, is charged with fixing several systemic problems while dealing with a virtually unprecedented number of inherited crises. It’s expensive but, though it’s hard for some to believe, all the spending legislation is designed to improve things.
I was reading a deficit projection and was immediately struck by the fact that that particular projection assumed that none of the spending ever worked or saw a return. The oft used analogy is that no one whines about “deficit spending” when a person signs a mortgage.
Much of this alarming “deficit spending” is of a nature that is supposed to see an eventual return but certain parties tend to show the worst possible cases where the whole plan craps out.
October 4th, 2009 at 2:39 pm@ 13. Wayne A. Schneider says:
“BAIER: Sen. Graham, quickly, this week you talked about base politics. You mentioned Glenn Beck, who is of course on the Fox News Channel and you said he does not appear to you to be aligned with any party but aligned with cynicism. There’s always a market for cynicism. Are you saying that Glenn Beck is bad for America?
“GRAHAM: No, I’m not saying he’s bad for America.”
But Baier is saying that cynicism is bad for America. Being a cynic means having little faith in human nature. Graham is saying that Beck is cynical about our government, that he doesn’t have faith in our leaders. Baier is defending Beck’s cynicism. So Baier is defending being critical of our government leaders. That seems to be quite a reversal from FNC’s policy of supporting everything the previous administration did. Would Baier agree that we on the left were right to be cynical of our previous government? October 4th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Wayne, maybe. Consider this definition of cynic from one of the on-line dictionaries (these three are for the noun cynic, not the adjective)
1. a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view.
2. (initial capital letter) one of a sect of Greek philosophers, 4th century b.c., who advocated the doctrines that virtue is the only good, that the essence of virtue is self-control, and that surrender to any external influence is beneath human dignity.
3. a person who shows or expresses a bitterly or sneeringly cynical attitude.
Actually, a person who fits definition #1 does have faith in human nature; his faith, her belief, is that human nature is bad, selfish, etc. For instance, by the end of Shrub’s term, I had faith that when it came to the crunch, Shrub or DarthBarney Cheney would do something witless, shitty, vicious, stupid, or all of the foregoing, so I was a cynic with respect to them.
A Cynic, per definition # 2, would say that Shrub and Cheney are men of little or no virtue, and that their self-control, their self-discipline, is seriously flawed.
Beck, however, is only a cynic in the first sense, and that’s because he’s willing to think the worst of our current leaders, but he can hardly be a Cynic in the second sense. He gives no appearance of valuing self-control as a virtue.
A lot of conservatives and virtually all of the Republipimp leadership are cynics with respect to liberalism and progressivism.
Neither Baier nor Beck know enough to be able to state clearly what cynicism is and whether they are one; Beck probably couldn’t even spell it.
October 4th, 2009 at 2:39 pmVirtual Pebble,
I was using the single definition from my paperback dictionary on the shelf behind me.
October 4th, 2009 at 2:43 pmbackup,
October 4th, 2009 at 2:45 pmI think it can be best said that good governance can come from any direction. We desperately need all we can get.
Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.
Soldiergurl says: Can they not just dislike him as a man?
—
Can they articulate their dislike in an intelligent way? — Dbadass
****************************************************
Hell, DB…at this point, if they were willing to simply try expressing their dislike and disagreement in a respectful way (let alone an intelligent one), that would at least be a start. But no-o-o-o…it appears even that’s too much to ask. The neoconservatives aren’t content with simply criticizing or disagreeing with Obama’s policies — they inevitably take it to the extreme of accusations that he’s bent on attacking/betraying/destroying/endangering the very fabric of the American way of life (which, of course, only the neoconservatives know anything about).
And am I the only one who remembers certain people suggesting as recently as two years ago that anyone who dared criticize the President was not showing sufficient respect for the office and therefore (*gasp*) didn’t love America? Funny how quickly so many of those same people apparently decided that the rule should only apply to Republican presidents…
October 4th, 2009 at 2:47 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Bluestocking,
October 4th, 2009 at 3:08 pmI believe the Republicans are not providing solutions; they are playing the part of spoilers. I look at their behavior and can’t find anything that resembles governing. The party is the party G. W. Bush left as his final legacy and it is pathetic as his 8 years in office. We should not be surprised with their behavior; it is a reflection of G. W. Bush.
The toxicity of the crazy right has Graham and a small handful of Republican leaders and conservative pundits worried as well it should. The GOP brand stinks and the ‘10 election cycle looms. More importantly it will take decades to wash away (let alone purge) the party of this unwanted influence. These lepers are media boys backed with the power of Murdoch and they’re not likely to go away quietly into the night. They love to fight (dirty) and they will put it right back in Graham’s face. This should be fun to watch.
Good article by Steven F. Hayward in today’s WaPo here. Enjoy.
October 4th, 2009 at 3:10 pmOoops, forgot the title:
Is Conservatism Brain-Dead?
Sorry.
October 4th, 2009 at 3:13 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Re: Backup @ 92
I can really only speak for myself…but in my own case, I think the reason why I find it hard to prevent my dislike for the policy from becoming a dislike for the person is the fact that people usually choose to support or reject policy based on their underlying belief system (morals, values, ethics, call them what you will). At least in my own opinion, a person’s value system plays a large role in defining who he or she is as an individual and will in turn probably play a significant role in determining that person’s choices and behavior. I’m willing to concede that I may be oversensitive about this…but when someone attacks my political beliefs, I personally also perceive this as an attack on my value system since the two are so strongly intertwined. In similar vein, when I observe someone whose political beliefs appear so completely antithetical to mine as to leave virtually no room for common ground — not even when it comes to something as basic as the right to have one’s own opinion — then I tend to see the other person (rightly or wrongly) as someone whose coded of ethics is also probably very different from mine and is therefore someone with whom I would find it unpleasant to associate.
I’m at a point in my life in which I respect everyone’s right to his or her opinion even if don’t agree with or understand it — I know that they’ll probably believe what they want to believe anyway no matter what I think. That doesn’t mean I never point out the holes in the other person’s argument if and when I see them, but I also make an effort out of respect for the other person to avoid extending my disagreement with their beliefs into a globalized ad hominem attack on that person’s character as a whole (even though I can’t say that I always succeed). I think most people who are familiar with my posts on this site would agree that I at least try to be circumspect!
October 4th, 2009 at 4:11 pmkwsvetures:
October 4th, 2009 at 4:17 pmWho do you think the voice of conservatism is?
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
I’m sure some will see it as waffling but I don’t hate Chimpy so much as his crimes. I hate the fact that he used the actions of criminals, mostly men without countries, to topple nations in my name. A smart, sane, President would have limited the military response to attempts to get Obama and known lieutenants. Our miss at Tora Bora should have been the cue to our withdrawal. Sometimes one doesn’t get the bad guy but ol’ Chimpy couldn’t take that. Ultimately, his actions would indicate that he wanted a Crusade so he started one.
Come to think of it, what’s not to hate? I’ll tell you what. The next time President Obama invades a country “by mistake”? I’ll start thinking about hating him.
October 4th, 2009 at 5:07 pmGlenn Beck is the voice of Big Bird.
October 4th, 2009 at 5:09 pmWell. That’s the first, and hopefully last, time I do that. That should have said “attempts to get Osama”. I think I’ll just stick with Bin Laden from now on.
October 4th, 2009 at 5:09 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Of course Beck is not the voice of the Reich. Rush is! Silly wabbits!
October 4th, 2009 at 5:39 pmbackup shut up. Captain’s orders.
October 4th, 2009 at 5:52 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
I do find it interesting that two relatively similar groups with what I would consider, similar aptitude, would have dramatically different (and passionate) views. — Backup
************************************************************
Ah, but the fact that “aptitude” is only one letter away from “attitude” doesn’t necessarily mean that the two concepts are related to each other in any other meaningful way…certainly not as much as some people (on both sides) might want to think they are!
October 4th, 2009 at 6:09 pmMy answer to both your questions: YES.
But then I would have voted for any Democrat over the McCain/Palin ticket.
SoldierGurl asks:
October 4th, 2009 at 6:20 pmWould you still like President Obama if his father had been white? Would you have voted for him because of his policies?
Let’s not use Hitler as an example. Hitler was an evil genius who set out to rule the world. Bush looks at life as a game and, through somewhat of a comedy of errors, the cheerleader ended up quarterbacking the team but never convinced most that he called his own plays.
Though it’s hard to be certain about such things, most indications are that Bush did whatever kept his cronies slapping him on the back. Bush was a product of a movement rather than the other way around.
October 4th, 2009 at 6:36 pmpete says:
——————————————————————————–
I must protest against whoever voted b-kup down for complimenting me.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:56 pm Vote Up | Vote Down | (1) | Report Abuse
October 4th, 2009 at 7:27 pmPete, I did that.
I;m tired of his phony baloney jibber jabber.
He’s only here to show how super intelligent he is.
I get tired of his answers practically being a thesis.
I will never vote him up, usually I just ignore him, so he doesn’t turn it into another vanity thread.
tony and lido
Petesee what good it does?
October 4th, 2009 at 7:30 pmI swear I’m reading someones attempt towrite a thesis on how to be obnoxious and fool people into believing you
tony and lido
@ 88. Wayne A. Schneider says: “Virtual Pebble, I was using the single definition from my paperback dictionary on the shelf behind me”. October 4th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I have a big hard-bound Random House on the shelf behind me, but I have to rearrange the clutter on top of it to get to it. My wife has a Compact OED in another room, which is really pretty definitive (heh snark); used it to look up the etymology of filibuster this morning while considering Senator DeMento’s trip to Honduras in light of earlier Yankee interference in Central American affairs (Yankee in the sense of North American, citizen of the USA, not US citizen from north of the Mason-Dixon Line; ‘gavacho’, to use a slightly cruder appellation).
Sometimes it’s easier to just open a new browser tab and google the word.
October 4th, 2009 at 7:36 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Heh! The stupid troll got it half right. There are, indeed, millions of views in this country. Recent history suggests that we are rejecting the views of the, so-called, conservatives. Personal experience also suggests that reasonable people are fleeing the GOP like rats from a sinking ship.
October 4th, 2009 at 8:58 pmdietrich,
Just a little attempt at a joke. Mostly at my own expense.
October 4th, 2009 at 9:01 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
SoldierGirl
Typical strawman from you cons. I swear the strawman argument is sacred to you clowns. No one is saying everyone who doesnt like Obama is racist. There IS racism in some of the criticisms of Obama and Beck is a disgusting weasel. Saying that Obama is a racist with deep seated hatred for white people shows a lack of decency that is frankly mind boggling. Anyone that takes this guy seriously is demented.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:04 pmActually, over the last nine months the Dems. have been losing approval while seeing a smaller increase in disapproval.
During that time the Reps. have been losing approval at about the same rate as the Dems. but, significantly I think, their disapproval numbers have gone up at an even faster rate.
And there’s certainly no reason for stating uncertainty and impatience favors the GOoPers because they are still hemorrhaging members. Heck! Even stupid trolls have been trying to rebrand themselves as “independents” or “libertarians” rather than deal with the stigma associated with the GOP and even Becky is bugged that they aren’t radical enough to actually start an insurrection.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:14 pmRace
Heyward is wrong. First Buckley also threatened to punch Chomsky in the face when Chomsky eviscerated him on his show. Second putting up the Bell curve and Goldbergs liberal fascism as serious works is absurd. Goldberg was destroyed when he tried to support his book on the talk show circuit because it is frankly ludicrous. His overall point is good but his attempt to portray Conservatism as having a solid intellectual basis lacks credibility. Yes they had Irving Kristol and Buckley. Serious intellectuals by any reasonable standard but their side has ALWAYS been thin on the intellectual scale and their movements have always been lacking serious intellectual heft. Heyward tried to say the anti tax people has supply side economics yet that has clearly failed in practice and was savaged as a theory at the TIME. I notice no one ever put Laffer up for any Nobel Prizes and what is he doing now? Washing cars? The right does better when they at least TRY to put an intellectual sheen on their crazy but in my political lifetime say since 1980 I have not seen them accomplish and credible intellectual basis for their aims. As Galbraith said “the modern conservative is engaged in one of mans oldest excersises in moral philosophy, that is a superior moral justification for selfishness”
October 4th, 2009 at 11:21 pmOOOOPS
Actually you WISH that were true.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:22 pmOops – you’re dead wrong. The R’s got nothing to offer but fear, fear and more fear.
The blowback against Obama and the Dems is because they are trying to cut deals with the rabid right, NOT because the rabid right has anything good to offer this nation. They don’t.
I don’t know why the Dems seem to think that we need to give the rabid right the time of day; I think we ought to simply kick their useless obstructionist, racist bigoted warmongering asses to the curb.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:26 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
OOOPSIamaMORON
Regurgitates a few of the idiocies Rush TOLD him to think and is apparantly far too stupid to even get how STUPID it makes him look. You do understand you are incredibly stupid dont you OOOPS? I guess to someone as bone ignorant as you that list of strawman talking points is rational. To normal humans with actual critical thinking skills, well we thank you for the free clown show
October 4th, 2009 at 11:38 pmClimate change is real. It IS something we need to fear in oder to motivate us to do something about it. Unfortunately, it may already be too late to reverse it, but R’s are too retarded or greedy or god-smacked to admit it.
They’d rather try and force us to hand the banks billions with no questions asked, lie to us about made up shit like death panels, “pulling the plug on grandma,” commies under the bed and mushroom clouds.
No comparison, moron. You lose.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:40 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
The Feb stimulous had been in the works for months. The one that got pushed through without Boner having time to read it.
The only person, other than boner, I have ever heard proudly proclaim that he didn’t/won’t bother reading a bill he voted/will vote on is Jimmy Inhofe.
There are five pieces of draft legislation for health care reform and summaries are available online. The members of the committees where they are being amended have copies as do the party leaders.
I won’t even dignify your stupidity about global climate change with a response.
It seems like our “new” stupid troll lacks a bases in recent history, science, and current events.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:47 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
OOPSISAMORON says
Nothing someone with a normal IQ would take seriously. Just how stupid ARE you OOOPS? A veto takes 2/3rds to override so that would need 66 Senators and Dems do NOT have that many. There are some Dems who are fairly conservative and some who are bought with the huge amount of money the Insurance industry is pushing right now. That doesnt mean Dems overall think the healthcare ideas are dumb. We will SEE what passes.
Then we get another foray into incredibly stupid strawman argument land. Also known as Planet Wingnut where you live. Who is saying we can just change the weather whenever we want? Are you REALLY so stupid that false dichotomy makes sense? That either we cant effect the climate at all or we can change it whenever we want? You are stupid and you are making a fool out of yourself. Why dont you just STFU until you grow a brain?
October 4th, 2009 at 11:57 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
OOOPSisamoron
WWWWWWAAAAAAHHHHH, the sun will not dawn on the day I lose an argument with a moron like you. YOU are stupid you said this
Dems have a 50 seat lead in the House and a veto proof lead in the Senate. What I pointed out had to do with THAT. Just showing you are an idiot who doesnt know what you are talking about.
YOU are stupid. I am not. I know exactly what 60 votes means. I love the way its all the Dems fault that because of GOP obstructionism a few conservative Dems can cause this kind of problem with healthcare which does NOT mean nothing will get passed. It takes time. I get that you are brainwashed and stupid and cant think in terms of anything but the lockstep way the GOP supports a GOP president but Dems have NEVER had that kind of groupthink thing going. That is why the Limbaughs of the world need brainwashed morons like YOU to be their demographic. The left doesnt NEED anyone to tell them what to think
Yes MORON they would only need 66 votes to overturn a veto but YOU said Dems have a veto proof lead. Is it a problem for you that I am showing you flat out dont know what you are talking about?
I DID learn it then, which is why, if you notice it wasnt ME saying Dems had a veto proof lead. You really are stupid, you do know this dont you?
October 5th, 2009 at 12:23 amOOOPSisamoron
My GOD you are addicted to INCREDIBLY stupid strawman arguments. Who said Gore was a scientist again? Oh thats right no one. Its just what Rush programmed you with and you are stupid enough to regurgitate like the moron you are. REAL scientists have done the work about this. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue. That YOU are a brainwashed moron who would rather let RUSH tell you what to think about science makes YOU an idiot.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:25 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
You didnt ONLY make a mistake then admit it. You ridiculed ME for EXPOSING your mistake. You tried to make fun of me and pretend I was the stupid one for showing you were WRONG. So yeah. You made a mistake. It happens to everyone. Yeah. I am with you on that. The Dems who are USING the GOP obstructionism to their advantage to increase their power by holding up MEANINGFUL reform are getting it from liberal like me. They deserve it. It is still clear to anyone paying attention that the GOP will NOT support ANY reform of healthcare because they dont CARE about Americans. They dont want Dems to get any credit for making things better for working class Americans or making healthcare better in America. Anyone paying attention can see this
October 5th, 2009 at 12:43 amOOOPS you are just a liar and a brainwashed idiot. No one holds Al Gore up as a scientific expert. He DID spend many years on the science subcomittee and knows the POLITICS of science. Saying Dems hold up Gore as an authority on Global Warming rather than the overwhelming scientific consensus is just an astonishingly stupid strawman argument that only someone completely brainwashed by a Limborg screechmonkey would repeat is if it made any sense at all. If you had an ounce of decency you would be ashamed to be so stupid and dishonest
October 5th, 2009 at 12:46 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
OOOPS
You dont know what you are talking about. There was NEVER an overwhelming consensus among the learned that the Earth was flat. It was known to the Mayans and written in the Popul Vuh the Earth was round. In China, the Sumerians, the Egyptians. Only among the Europeans during the Dark ages was the Earth considered flat. There was NEVER anything like a scientific consensus we were entering an ice age. That is a LIE. It is a rightwing talking point because a couple of articles in magazines put tendered the question. You are brainwashed and regurgitate the stupidest of talking points that flat out are NOT TRUE.
I am not a scientist. Look to the scientific consensus to answer scientific questions but you THINK that is a gotcha when its just inane. Global warming will cause huge problems as the ocean levels rise and the agricultural zones shift. THAT is the problem. Keep pretending these stupid smokescreens and strawman idiocies are meaningful if you WANT to. It just makes you look ridiculous
October 5th, 2009 at 12:55 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
While it’s utterly useless to try to argue logically with one who didn’t reach their conclusion logically, the stupid troll does raise an interesting question:
What is the optimum temperature for the earth?
The answer is that there is no optimum temperature for the earth.
On the other hand, every current species on earth has evolved in a climate that’s been relatively stable since the end of the last ice age. Any rapid change, in either direction, will weed out some species. There are a few species, like sharks and crocodiles, that have been around for many epochs but, in general, a new order of life evolves following epoch ending events.
Epoch ending events are usually attributed to rapid changes in the environment. Things like massive volcanic events, asteroid/comet impacts, and abrupt unexplained changes in the atmosphere’s CO2 content or basic chemistry. And, unless one gets their science from FAUX and hate-radio? We are witnessing a change of the scale that has been connected to previous mass extinctions.
PS. There was never a consensus that we were entering a ice age in the 70’s or any other time. There were a few models that predicted continued cooling that gained a bunch of press because “Ice Age” sells papers. But I don’t recall any major works predicting an ice age.
In fact going back to ‘73 climatologists were recording the increase in temperatures and were surprised because of the rapid change in trends.
October 5th, 2009 at 1:09 amI havent heard ANY of that and since so far your track record is just regurgitating NONSENSE that isnt anywhere close to true. I am not going to take your word for it. Especially since there was already langauge IN the healthcare bill to deny it to illegal imigrants. I wouldnt want to see ANYONE DIE from not getting critical care NOR someone turned away that had an infectuous disease that would be foolish. Since you are ALL Limborg talking points. I just cant take your word for any of this
October 5th, 2009 at 1:12 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
OOOPS
No the ignorance is on YOUR part. You are getting that from the rightwing screechmonkeys that do your thinking FOR YOU. I WAS an adult in the late 70s and I REMEMBER a few articles in some magazines but there was ABSOLUTLY no scientific consensus. That is, in fact, a lie. A stupid one that YOU have been brainwashed with.
Once again its WWWWWWAAAHHHHHHHH from you. Your posts are consistantly snide and contemptuous. If you want to snivel that I am treating YOU with contempt. Bite me. Again the scientific consensus is CLEAR on this. Even the Pentagon has a study talking about catastrophic problems from Global Warming. Are you REALLY going to stick with this maybe Global Climate Change will be GOOD for us? Please. You are all talking points all the time and for the most part they are ridiculous
October 5th, 2009 at 1:23 amhttp://www.examiner.com/x-4112-Skepticism-Examiner~y2009m3d3-Debunking-the-Global-Cooling-myth
Read it and weep
October 5th, 2009 at 1:27 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
OOOPS
No I dont. Because I know the difference between CLIMATE and WEATHER. Also lets not move the goalposts. YOU said there was a scientific consensus about an oncoming ice age. Clearly more articles were written saying we would get hotter so you were FLAT OUT WRONG, or more accuratly regurgitating the BS propaganda you were programmed with.
Your next post was just another bogus idiotic bit of strawman stupidity. Congratulations you are a joke
October 5th, 2009 at 1:55 amOops says:
…in the 1970’s there was a large number of climatologists who STRONGLY believed we were about to enter an ice age.
Hey, people used to think the sun revolves around the Earth. One of the great things about science is that it changes its theories based on new evidence. Later theories are stronger than earlier ones, because they have more data to take into account.
The fact that scientists used to think other than they do now does not discredit the current theory, it in fact strengthens it. Nor does it discredit the scientific method itself.
.
Oops says:
Debs, Don’t you find it odd that for 30 years, while CO2 was rising, your article above clearly states the earth was cooling?
You’re actually telling me that this chart trends downwards? Are you hanging by your toes from the ceiling or something?
.
Oops says:
Don’t bother reading it as to who it benefits, what effect it will have or whether it will have any effect.
What are yout talking about, people have been reading and discussing the details for weeks now.
October 5th, 2009 at 1:56 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Oops says:
When it comes to Global Warming, who do Dems turn to as the authority figure?
The world community of scientists.
Who do Republicans turn to? Big business, of course.
.
Oops says:
Dems the party of FEAR.
Hey, it’s not like we’re putting the country on an “orange alert system” or anything like that…
October 5th, 2009 at 2:11 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
OOOOPSS
Are you retarded? First NO it wasnt cooling for thirty years it went up and down and was flat for thirty years however what is NOT in dispute here is the amount of scientific articles that predicted global warming and the amount predicting an ice age. Your assertion the one you called me ignorant for not knowing IS FLAT OUT FALSE. There was never any such scientific consensus about an oncoming ice age. That is a lie. A lie that you have been programmed with because you are brainwashed.
October 5th, 2009 at 2:17 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
OOOPS 154
My GOD you are stupid. I cannot believe someone as BONE ignorant as you, someone who has consistantly made a fool out of himself and shown himself to be stupid beyond belief, would ridicule Bruce. I mean you DO know you are a moron RIGHT?
October 5th, 2009 at 2:20 amOOOPS 156
You are SUCH a liar and such a brainwashed moron it is just sad. End wiretapping? NO ONE ANYWHERE is making any such claim. Rather if you are going to wiretap Americans get a darn warrant like the fourth amendment demands. MY GOD you are stupid beyond human comprehension
October 5th, 2009 at 2:22 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
OOOPS
MY GOD you are stupid. First I dont care WHAT he said I can LOOK AT THE DARN CHART. Try it ya moron. Second saying there is a drop that is an overall drop isnt the same as saying it cooled for thirty years. The chart CLEARLY shows an up and down which was basically flat overall for that thirty years. Try LOOKING AT THE CHART YOU BRAINWASHED MORON
October 5th, 2009 at 2:28 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
OOOOPS
Good night. Try to bring your A game next time and leave off your snide contempt if you want a more civil discussion. Another bit of advise. Dont try to pass of what Rush told you to think as if they were facts.
October 5th, 2009 at 2:35 amSometimes it’s easier to just open a new browser tab and google the word.
Actually it was much, much easier to turn around, grab the book on the shelf right behind my right shoulder and look up the word.
October 5th, 2009 at 1:02 pm@ 163. Wayne A. Schneider says: … Actually it was much, much easier to turn around, grab the book on the shelf right behind my right shoulder and look up the word. October 5th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Thereby demonstrating that you’re probably working in a less cluttered environment than I, at least with respect to a dictionary. I have a few references I could yank from my bookshelf without pulling the whole thing over on me, but the Unabridged Random House isn’t one – since it’s sitting flat on the shelf, it’s easy to stack stuff like printer paper, notebooks, etc, on top of it.
Speaking of filibuster (re: #114), I notice that Representative Morrisey of Michigan (R) has placed himself in the queue for apologizing to Senator Demento. Morrisey is correct about DeMint being a) an ideologue and b) nutz, but his ideologue colleagues may not let heim get away with dissing the Senator.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:30 pm@ 164. Correction. That’s Rep. McCotter, not Morrissey. I don’t know if there’s a Morrissey in the House, and if there is, so what?
October 5th, 2009 at 3:36 pmBeck first claimed Mr Obana has a ‘deep-seated hatred for white people’. jinekomasti
October 9th, 2009 at 9:42 am