By Rick Morris
From time to time, we try to accommodate our Lounge content consumers who just want some fun, light entertainment. Hence this edition of our Video Clips series, entitled "Fun Timewasters."
These are simply some video clips that you can enjoy and consume in the form of good, mindless entertainment. On with the show!
Here's an oldie but a goodie. Did you know that Screamin' A. Smith loves him some cheese doodles?
In this year's NFL Draft, the Cleveland Browns did not get a chance to make a selection until the fourth round due to previous deals. Their pick in Round Four, UNLV ILB Beau Bell, sure plays like a beast, though. Dare I say "mad dog in a meat market?"
If you had any exposure to pro wrestling in the 1980s whatsoever, I only need three words to set up this next clip: "Piper. Snuka. Coconut."
Here's something hugely inspirational: the 1980 "Miracle on Ice" USA Hockey team lights the torch at the 2002 Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony in Salt Lake City.
OK, this might be in somewhat questionable taste, but hey, it's Vince Vaughn! Who doesn't love a little Vince Vaughn comedy? It's UnAmerican not to chuckle appreciatively!
Is the nickname "Human Highlight Reel" already taken? Well, I think Henrik Zetterberg just claimed it for himself. Nice to see the Avs cough up another one.
On one of those political TV talk-fests, Pat Buchanan tells an annoying woman to shut up:
Larry King gets schooled by Jerry Seinfeld for his ignorance:
After watching this clip, I'm convinced that mean ol' Zell Miller would have absolutely pummeled everyone's favorite TV talking dough boy Chris Matthews:
Showing posts with label Pat Buchanan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pat Buchanan. Show all posts
Monday, May 5, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Sore loser Gore hurts Democrats 8 years later
By Rick Morris
It's commonly accepted that the Democratic battle for president is the messiest since 1980, if not 1968 (and folks, we're headed for some Days of Rage out in Denver if Obama gets this nomination ripped from him). Everyone attributes two factors for this state of affairs:
1. The volatility of the usual Democratic obsession with identity politics being mixed with the certainty that either the first black or first woman candidate will be nominated.
2. The unparalleled ambition and ruthlessness of the Clintons.
But everyone's forgetting the vital third element in the equation, and this amnesia is surprising because it related directly to the rage Democrats have felt against George W. Bush since his first national campaign:
3. The legacy of the tactics deployed by Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election -- or rather, his refusal to accept the outcome of the 2000 election.
You remember the conduct of Sore-Loserman in the aftermath of the vote, don't you? The transformation of infantile drivel such as "the will of the people" becoming the official mantra of the Democrat party?
[Side note, Dick Nixon legitimately had the 1960 election stolen from him by crooks manipulating the "graveyard vote" in Illinois and Texas. Four decades later, Gore lost primarily because some of his core voters were illiterates who couldn't understand a simple butterfly ballot. Nixon refused to contest the election and conceded so our country wouldn't be divided at a time of peril in the Cold War. Regardless of what voters intended in their hearts, Gore lost the election by losing Florida and yet divided our country with relish at a vulnerable time when his president had spent eight years not facing up to the terrorist threat plaguing our nation. And yet it's Gore who gets made into a secular saint by the simpletons who comprise the ranks of "opinion leaders" in the U.S.A.]
Gore ran around the country trumpeting the fact that he won the popular vote, which is Constitutionally irrelevant under our system of government. Democrats demagogued the Electoral College, pronouncing it an anachronism when it suited their purposes. One of the chief phonies at the time was Hillary Clinton, who pronounced it undemocratic and who is now being blocked from the nomination by other phonies who pronounce her efforts undemocratic. Yes, there is a God and He has a sense of Karmic humor!
Gore picked a fight in a game of chicken he knew he could not possibly win, for it was certain that even if the U.S. Supreme Court backed the partisan hacks on the Florida Supreme Court and allowed the little old ladies with hatpins surreptitiously poking holes in the chads to steal the election that the House of Representatives would vote to recognize the legal Katherine Harris slate of electors. So he had no chance -- not immediately that is, as the clear endgame was to bloody up Bush for a rematch four years later and that scenario would have played out had Gore not chickened out when Bush was still in his post-9/11 popularity phase.
By posing as if they were the only ones concerned with "counting all the votes," Democrats ended up creating an extra standard in all elections. Now, even though the rules don't give Barack Obama any edge whatsoever because of it, he can claim a Divine Mandate because he's ahead in the popular vote and elected delegate count. Hillary has to augment her logical argument with "the rules say nothing about those factors" with more of her patented say-anything drivel like "caucuses are undemocratic."
By working so hard to delegitimize the winner of the 2000 presidential election (and I pronounce Bush the rightful winner of the election despite the fact that I did not vote for him, but rather, Patrick J. Buchanan), Democrats created a set of circumstances where tactics unexceptional by historical standards would call for the language of delegitimization to be invoked. The bitter fruit they are now choking on can best be called their just desserts.
It's commonly accepted that the Democratic battle for president is the messiest since 1980, if not 1968 (and folks, we're headed for some Days of Rage out in Denver if Obama gets this nomination ripped from him). Everyone attributes two factors for this state of affairs:
1. The volatility of the usual Democratic obsession with identity politics being mixed with the certainty that either the first black or first woman candidate will be nominated.
2. The unparalleled ambition and ruthlessness of the Clintons.
But everyone's forgetting the vital third element in the equation, and this amnesia is surprising because it related directly to the rage Democrats have felt against George W. Bush since his first national campaign:
3. The legacy of the tactics deployed by Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election -- or rather, his refusal to accept the outcome of the 2000 election.
You remember the conduct of Sore-Loserman in the aftermath of the vote, don't you? The transformation of infantile drivel such as "the will of the people" becoming the official mantra of the Democrat party?
[Side note, Dick Nixon legitimately had the 1960 election stolen from him by crooks manipulating the "graveyard vote" in Illinois and Texas. Four decades later, Gore lost primarily because some of his core voters were illiterates who couldn't understand a simple butterfly ballot. Nixon refused to contest the election and conceded so our country wouldn't be divided at a time of peril in the Cold War. Regardless of what voters intended in their hearts, Gore lost the election by losing Florida and yet divided our country with relish at a vulnerable time when his president had spent eight years not facing up to the terrorist threat plaguing our nation. And yet it's Gore who gets made into a secular saint by the simpletons who comprise the ranks of "opinion leaders" in the U.S.A.]
Gore ran around the country trumpeting the fact that he won the popular vote, which is Constitutionally irrelevant under our system of government. Democrats demagogued the Electoral College, pronouncing it an anachronism when it suited their purposes. One of the chief phonies at the time was Hillary Clinton, who pronounced it undemocratic and who is now being blocked from the nomination by other phonies who pronounce her efforts undemocratic. Yes, there is a God and He has a sense of Karmic humor!
Gore picked a fight in a game of chicken he knew he could not possibly win, for it was certain that even if the U.S. Supreme Court backed the partisan hacks on the Florida Supreme Court and allowed the little old ladies with hatpins surreptitiously poking holes in the chads to steal the election that the House of Representatives would vote to recognize the legal Katherine Harris slate of electors. So he had no chance -- not immediately that is, as the clear endgame was to bloody up Bush for a rematch four years later and that scenario would have played out had Gore not chickened out when Bush was still in his post-9/11 popularity phase.
By posing as if they were the only ones concerned with "counting all the votes," Democrats ended up creating an extra standard in all elections. Now, even though the rules don't give Barack Obama any edge whatsoever because of it, he can claim a Divine Mandate because he's ahead in the popular vote and elected delegate count. Hillary has to augment her logical argument with "the rules say nothing about those factors" with more of her patented say-anything drivel like "caucuses are undemocratic."
By working so hard to delegitimize the winner of the 2000 presidential election (and I pronounce Bush the rightful winner of the election despite the fact that I did not vote for him, but rather, Patrick J. Buchanan), Democrats created a set of circumstances where tactics unexceptional by historical standards would call for the language of delegitimization to be invoked. The bitter fruit they are now choking on can best be called their just desserts.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Way down in Kosovo -- Bermuda, Bahama ...
By Rick Morris
I am someone who is intrigued by geopolitics, but even I find the situation in the Balkans (both over the last 20 years and historically) very confusing. I do know that I opposed the 1999 US war on Serbia as something that was not in our vital national interest and I would have rather seen a minimal US presence in international peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia over the years -- but beyond the few issues very clear to me one way or another about our national interest, I don't have too many strongly-held beliefs about how our country should navigate through this swamp of ethnic and religious hatred and endless cycles of revenge.
But, as I do in general when it comes to international affairs, I find myself nodding affirmatively to the writings of Pat Buchanan, perhaps the foremost "America Firster" on the scene today. His latest article, "Does Balkanization Beckon Anew?" raises questions that the Einsteins in our State Department who eagerly led the United States to recognize the new "country" of Kosovo cannot possibly understand.
Again, I don't claim to understand all of the radioactive factors at play in this particularly sticky corner of the globe. But after reading Pat's article, I do know this: we have set an absolutely horrible precedent here. Consider the list of countries who are dealing with their own secession movements -- and who we now are bound by precedent to anger by supporting their breakaway republics:
^ Serbia (again)
^ Montenegro
^ Macedonia
^ Bosnia and Herzegovina
^ Romania
^ Georgia
^ Spain
^ Turkey
^ Moldova
^ Russia
^ China
^ Canada
Huh. That's a long list of countries to have PO'd at us, don't you think? And all because the eggheads at Foggy Bottom couldn't wait to scratch that anti-Serbian itch one more time.
Everybody in this country that praises diplomacy has apparently never studied our diplomats ...
I am someone who is intrigued by geopolitics, but even I find the situation in the Balkans (both over the last 20 years and historically) very confusing. I do know that I opposed the 1999 US war on Serbia as something that was not in our vital national interest and I would have rather seen a minimal US presence in international peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia over the years -- but beyond the few issues very clear to me one way or another about our national interest, I don't have too many strongly-held beliefs about how our country should navigate through this swamp of ethnic and religious hatred and endless cycles of revenge.
But, as I do in general when it comes to international affairs, I find myself nodding affirmatively to the writings of Pat Buchanan, perhaps the foremost "America Firster" on the scene today. His latest article, "Does Balkanization Beckon Anew?" raises questions that the Einsteins in our State Department who eagerly led the United States to recognize the new "country" of Kosovo cannot possibly understand.
Again, I don't claim to understand all of the radioactive factors at play in this particularly sticky corner of the globe. But after reading Pat's article, I do know this: we have set an absolutely horrible precedent here. Consider the list of countries who are dealing with their own secession movements -- and who we now are bound by precedent to anger by supporting their breakaway republics:
^ Serbia (again)
^ Montenegro
^ Macedonia
^ Bosnia and Herzegovina
^ Romania
^ Georgia
^ Spain
^ Turkey
^ Moldova
^ Russia
^ China
^ Canada
Huh. That's a long list of countries to have PO'd at us, don't you think? And all because the eggheads at Foggy Bottom couldn't wait to scratch that anti-Serbian itch one more time.
Everybody in this country that praises diplomacy has apparently never studied our diplomats ...
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Romney hypocrites: sit down and shut up!
By Rick Morris
With the whiff of desperation in the air, the followers of Objectively Unfit Mitt (click here for 50 great reasons to vote against Romney) are insulting the intelligence of every voter on the right by proclaiming the superior purity of their hearts and they are also quite busy demeaning everyone opposed to their hollow hero as a squish or tool of the media or worse.
Well, I've had about all I can take from these posers and it's time to hang them with their own words.
Let's be quite unambiguous about this: the betrayers on the right who have thrown in with Mitt Romney's attempt to dupe the American people and are now daring to present themselves as "more conservative than thou" have transgressed against conservative policy way more than I ever have in my voting record or support of candidates -- and that's true of countless other citizens as well.
Because of space consideration, I'm going to limit this to one apiece, but here are several reasons that the leading opinion-shapers on the right who are trying to shove Mittens down our throats have PREVIOUSLY proven that they are not to be trusted.
^ Rick Santorum, who courts an image of the purest of the pure right-wingers, is a complete phony who colluded with Dubya and the D.C. power brokers to save Arlen Spector's worthless RINO hyde in the '04 primary.
^ Rush Limbaugh bashed Pat Buchanan and other challengers to Bob Dole in '96 and H.W.'s boy in '00 in faithful, unquestioning service to the Washington Republican Establishment he now amusingly claims to have always opposed.
^ Hugh Hewitt -- ah, how do you limit yourself to just one of his intellectually dishonest bon mots -- OK, here we go -- he, the self-professed arch-nemesis of all things "MSM," took to the New York Times editorial page to whimper about how the conservative movement had lost its moorings by depriving America of That Future Hall of Fame Supreme Court Justice, Harriet Miers.
^ I lied, here's another one about "El Rushbo": he took an elitist stand disregarding the wishes of the American people regarding the Dubai ports fiasco.
^ Michelle Malkin played the fool during Hurricane Katrina by assuming that just because state and local authorities, under the control of Democrats were incompetent (they were) that the Feds, controlled by Dubya Who Can Do No Wrong were competent (they were not): "Contrary to the usual Bush-deranged kvetching, the president is on the job."
^ Sean Hannity, whose Bush-era sniveling sycophancy is second to none, praised the PRE-SURGE state of affairs in the Middle East in his customary slavish terms in 2004.
^ Mark Levin, maybe the most holier-than-thou basher of anti-Romney Republicans, was so big a pro-Bush sellout that he tried to drag down the Gipper by using him as cover for George W's misadventures.
As has been documented previously on this esteemed blog, Fred Thompson was The One True Hope of The Right in this election cycle and the above members of Mendacious Mitt's Choir failed to "mount up and ride to the sound of the guns" when they legitimately had a chance to stand up for the future of this country. To them, and the other nauseating "opinion leaders" on the right who want to lead us down the primrose path as they demonstrably have before:
Sit down and shut up.
With the whiff of desperation in the air, the followers of Objectively Unfit Mitt (click here for 50 great reasons to vote against Romney) are insulting the intelligence of every voter on the right by proclaiming the superior purity of their hearts and they are also quite busy demeaning everyone opposed to their hollow hero as a squish or tool of the media or worse.
Well, I've had about all I can take from these posers and it's time to hang them with their own words.
Let's be quite unambiguous about this: the betrayers on the right who have thrown in with Mitt Romney's attempt to dupe the American people and are now daring to present themselves as "more conservative than thou" have transgressed against conservative policy way more than I ever have in my voting record or support of candidates -- and that's true of countless other citizens as well.
Because of space consideration, I'm going to limit this to one apiece, but here are several reasons that the leading opinion-shapers on the right who are trying to shove Mittens down our throats have PREVIOUSLY proven that they are not to be trusted.
^ Rick Santorum, who courts an image of the purest of the pure right-wingers, is a complete phony who colluded with Dubya and the D.C. power brokers to save Arlen Spector's worthless RINO hyde in the '04 primary.
^ Rush Limbaugh bashed Pat Buchanan and other challengers to Bob Dole in '96 and H.W.'s boy in '00 in faithful, unquestioning service to the Washington Republican Establishment he now amusingly claims to have always opposed.
^ Hugh Hewitt -- ah, how do you limit yourself to just one of his intellectually dishonest bon mots -- OK, here we go -- he, the self-professed arch-nemesis of all things "MSM," took to the New York Times editorial page to whimper about how the conservative movement had lost its moorings by depriving America of That Future Hall of Fame Supreme Court Justice, Harriet Miers.
^ I lied, here's another one about "El Rushbo": he took an elitist stand disregarding the wishes of the American people regarding the Dubai ports fiasco.
^ Michelle Malkin played the fool during Hurricane Katrina by assuming that just because state and local authorities, under the control of Democrats were incompetent (they were) that the Feds, controlled by Dubya Who Can Do No Wrong were competent (they were not): "Contrary to the usual Bush-deranged kvetching, the president is on the job."
^ Sean Hannity, whose Bush-era sniveling sycophancy is second to none, praised the PRE-SURGE state of affairs in the Middle East in his customary slavish terms in 2004.
^ Mark Levin, maybe the most holier-than-thou basher of anti-Romney Republicans, was so big a pro-Bush sellout that he tried to drag down the Gipper by using him as cover for George W's misadventures.
As has been documented previously on this esteemed blog, Fred Thompson was The One True Hope of The Right in this election cycle and the above members of Mendacious Mitt's Choir failed to "mount up and ride to the sound of the guns" when they legitimately had a chance to stand up for the future of this country. To them, and the other nauseating "opinion leaders" on the right who want to lead us down the primrose path as they demonstrably have before:
Sit down and shut up.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
A New Year’s Plea: Fred!
By Rick Morris
As managing partner of the FDH family, I want to wish all of the readers, viewers and listeners of our content a very Happy New Year.
Now, speaking only for myself …
Our 22nd edition of The FDH Lounge program this past Sunday night featured our first fantasy presidential election draft and a tremendous political roundtable afterwards. During the course of that discussion, I ended up butting heads with my fellow Dignitaries Burrell Jackson and Chris Galloway. Burrell is explicitly for Mitt Romney on the Republican side in the upcoming presidential race and Chris, while agreeing with me that Fred Thompson is the best candidate, does not oppose Mittens with nearly the same intensity I do (to put it mildly!). The segment was a truly outstanding piece of broadcast entertainment, as three passionate followers of the political game let loose as only we can. As Burrell and Chris correctly noted, my usual insane level of intensity was even more pronounced than usual as I begged and pleaded for what seems like the inevitable to be stopped – the Republican nomination of Mitt Romney.
Chris did not agree with my use of the word “conspiracy” to describe what is happening right now, and we could perhaps quibble on the exact application of the word vis-à-vis this process, but it is indisputable that the Grand Poobahs of the Republican party and the conservative movement are closing ranks behind Romney at light speed. I have already written here on how these self-appointed arbiters of what’s best for
I believe strongly that Romney cannot be trusted given the fact that he ran on one set of beliefs to get elected governor of a radical left state and a contrary set of ideas when trying to get elected nationally. I believe strongly that Romney, given his plastic, calculated, say-anything, politics-as-usual persona, will have absolutely no appeal to independent and Democratic voters in the fall – and that his cold corporate persona reinforces every preconceived notion about the Republican party not caring about the little guy and is particularly unsuited to draw votes in these uncertain economic times. I believe strongly that Romney is outside the Judeo-Christian tradition that has governed our country since its inception (and I urge those who disagree with me about this to at least research Romney’s religion first rather than spitting out tired clichés about religious bigotry). And I believe strongly that Romney has served as a magnet for every phony conservative leader who can’t sell out his or her beliefs fast enough.
It didn’t have to be this way. Earlier this year, Fred Thompson served as a beacon of hope for not only Republican voters, but also open-minded independents and Democrats who related to his plain-spoken common-sense approach. He chose the unconventional approach of trying to enter the race as an official candidate in the autumn months while serving as an unofficial “non-candidate” earlier. We can perhaps quibble on whether he should have thrown his hat in earlier or put in more appearances in the early states or any other “inside baseball” notion that wouldn’t have any resonance at all with the American people if the professional pundit class wouldn’t beat it into the ground. But what is clear as day is the notion that I angrily spit out to Chris Sunday night when he alluded to some of these notions working against Fred: if he loses this race, in large part it won’t be because of the self-inflicted wounds everyone speaks of incessantly. No, if he loses, it won’t be suicide on the part of his campaign. It will be premeditated murder on the part of the self-serving parasites in the Republican party and conservative movement who could have heeded his call to join a purifying movement to save our country but chose instead to sell their souls to Romney’s well-heeled greasy machine.
So yes, I agree that I was coming across with scary intensity Sunday night. Guilty as charged, because I’ve seen this routine before. The Republican party as a rule casts aside its best and most qualified candidate in favor of the person they cynically perceive as a winner for whatever reason. The insiders gathered in the smoke-filled rooms of D.C. in a panic in ’96 when their pet Bob Dole got smoked by the people’s populist Pat Buchanan in
Again, I am not for McCain or Huckabee, I am strongly for Fred Thompson. But I do not brush off lightly the one-sided treatment these candidates have received from the GOP and right-wing nomenklatura. In this zero-sum game that we find ourselves in just prior to the
Burrell warned me that if enough people agree with me that Hillary Clinton will end up getting elected president. I repeat here what I said to him: it won’t be on our heads, it will be on the heads of those who crammed Romney down the throats of the American people as one of two nominees for president. The notion that absolutely any squalid excuse for a candidacy can be foisted on us with the bogeyman of Hillary Clinton being utilized to expect us to behave as robots will apparently have to be squashed the hard way when the Mittbots end up ensuring the third Clinton term.
Despite my pessimistic tone above, I must mention and reiterate that it is not too late for this country to come to its senses. Fred posted an unbelievable video summation of the rationale for his candidacy and for what he will do for this country if elected. Chris and I joked about how I as a paleocon see the glass half empty. But I do believe these are dire and urgent times for our country. The Republican party, for all of my many and profound differences with it, remains the institution closer to my belief set by far, and it needs redemption after the many problems with adherence to conservative principles and competent execution of policies these past seven years. As was the case in 2006, the political winds are blowing strongly to the Democrats and we face the very real possibility in 2009 of a President Hillary Clinton working with an enlarged Democratic majority in the House under Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid having a filibuster-proof 60 votes in his back pocket on any issue. Our country cannot be saved by cynical attempts to rally around a politician perceived to be slick enough to be a winner. We can only salvage our future by getting behind an honest man who doesn’t pander and tell us what we want to hear – a man with experience who commands confidence by communicating strongly to us a principled vision for the future. That man is Fred Thompson, and in lieu of a general wish of Happy New Year for this country, on this day I wish for our country to prove itself worthy of many happy years to come by getting behind Fred while we still can.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Pat Robertson's 30 pieces of silver
By Rick Morris
Pat Buchanan's forecast that Rudy Giuliani would try to bridge his differences with social conservatives by buying them off with militarism is paying off -- witness his endorsement by Pat Robertson, one of the big poohbahs of the Social Issues Right since the 1980s. Apparently the willingness to bomb Iran on the drop of a dime transcends every other difference that is supposed to exist between Robertson and the thrice-married drag queen.
Robertson's sellout of the pro-life and traditional marriage community is shameful but not unexpected. For all the rhetoric about leaders of the "far right" in this country, most of them have proven to be phonies and sellouts who want a place at the table far more than they want the advancement of their principles. The best example of all comes from the leadup to the 1996 Republican presidential race, when Bill Clinton was at a low ebb and several candidates with a legitimate conservative pedigree were entering the fray: Buchanan, Phil Gramm, Steve Forbes and Alan Keyes among others. So who did Ralph Reed and other alleged "radical right" potentates line up behind? Good old Mr. Establishment Bob Dole.
For those who have appointed themselves as the leaders and guardians of right-wing thought, viability always trumps every other principle, including integrity and idealism. On the same day Robertson shamed himself by traipsing hat-in-hand to the anti-life frontrunner in the presidential race, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback was putting a period at the end of his campaign by endorsing fellow Senator John McCain. Brownback's effort was doomed when leaders of the so-called "Religious Right" refused to rally to the side of the most consistently pro-life candidate ever to run for president. He wasn't "viable" enough in the polls for them -- in the winter of 2006-07, mind you, when the Howard Dean precedent of 2003 proved that a longshot had plenty of time to catch on -- and they abandoned him to be willfully misled by politicians they know will let them down if elected.
The blogs and message machine on the Left always bemoans the alleged all-powerful influence of the leaders of the "Religious Right." This country should be so lucky. They're a bunch of whimpering, toothless sellouts just like so many other influence-chasers in D.C.
Pat Buchanan's forecast that Rudy Giuliani would try to bridge his differences with social conservatives by buying them off with militarism is paying off -- witness his endorsement by Pat Robertson, one of the big poohbahs of the Social Issues Right since the 1980s. Apparently the willingness to bomb Iran on the drop of a dime transcends every other difference that is supposed to exist between Robertson and the thrice-married drag queen.
Robertson's sellout of the pro-life and traditional marriage community is shameful but not unexpected. For all the rhetoric about leaders of the "far right" in this country, most of them have proven to be phonies and sellouts who want a place at the table far more than they want the advancement of their principles. The best example of all comes from the leadup to the 1996 Republican presidential race, when Bill Clinton was at a low ebb and several candidates with a legitimate conservative pedigree were entering the fray: Buchanan, Phil Gramm, Steve Forbes and Alan Keyes among others. So who did Ralph Reed and other alleged "radical right" potentates line up behind? Good old Mr. Establishment Bob Dole.
For those who have appointed themselves as the leaders and guardians of right-wing thought, viability always trumps every other principle, including integrity and idealism. On the same day Robertson shamed himself by traipsing hat-in-hand to the anti-life frontrunner in the presidential race, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback was putting a period at the end of his campaign by endorsing fellow Senator John McCain. Brownback's effort was doomed when leaders of the so-called "Religious Right" refused to rally to the side of the most consistently pro-life candidate ever to run for president. He wasn't "viable" enough in the polls for them -- in the winter of 2006-07, mind you, when the Howard Dean precedent of 2003 proved that a longshot had plenty of time to catch on -- and they abandoned him to be willfully misled by politicians they know will let them down if elected.
The blogs and message machine on the Left always bemoans the alleged all-powerful influence of the leaders of the "Religious Right." This country should be so lucky. They're a bunch of whimpering, toothless sellouts just like so many other influence-chasers in D.C.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Larry Craig gone: hateful people rejoice
By Rick Morris
It's always an honor when somebody you respect so immensely pens a column that echoes sentiments you have already stated. Pat Buchanan's piece about Le Affair Craig is one such example, as he voices an opinion similar to that of my previous blog entry here about the people hatefully rejoicing in Craig's downfall because he is allegedly a "hypocrite" for opposing same-sex marriage -- and he notes Mitt Romney's slimy (my word, not his) "I don't know no Larry Craig" reaction to the downfall of one of his biggest supporters. Read it, it's a great piece and it demonstrates why he is one of the foremost observers today of the American scene.
It's always an honor when somebody you respect so immensely pens a column that echoes sentiments you have already stated. Pat Buchanan's piece about Le Affair Craig is one such example, as he voices an opinion similar to that of my previous blog entry here about the people hatefully rejoicing in Craig's downfall because he is allegedly a "hypocrite" for opposing same-sex marriage -- and he notes Mitt Romney's slimy (my word, not his) "I don't know no Larry Craig" reaction to the downfall of one of his biggest supporters. Read it, it's a great piece and it demonstrates why he is one of the foremost observers today of the American scene.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Famous pundits weigh in on Karl Rove
By Rick Morris
Rush Limbaugh interviewed Karl Rove today, "interviewed" actually being a kind euphemism for the most shameless sucking up since the last time he had an Establishment Republican on his show. The next time Limbaugh starts with his "conservative grass roots" charade, remember this display when he whiffed on his chance to confront George Bush's main man about:
* the attempted Dubai ports sellout
* the attempted travesty of Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court
* the attempted immigration amnesty monstrosity
* aiding and abetting the drunken-sailor spending and pathetic pork-barreling of the Congress when it was under unified Republican control
* aiding and abetting the Congress in running from any shred of the Contract with America reforms when it was under unified Republican control
* this administration's passive tolerance of Iraq's slide into chaos and the complete collapse of our capacity for military deterrence before this year's troop surge
* the No Child Left Behind boondoggle and the double-cross of poor families who voted for Dubya believing his rhetoric about fighting for school vouchers
* a fight for Social Security reform waged with such ineptness and such a political tin ear that the resulting rout has poisoned the waters for needed reforms for at least the next decade
* the Medicare prescription drug boondoggle that didn't even succeed in its only cynical goal: bribing a decent number of old people to switch to the Republican party
* a federal response to Katrina that somehow managed to match, if not trump, the incompetent local and state efforts and which the Bush crew decided to whitewash by pushing reckless and loosely regulated federal spending
In other words, Limbaugh, who shilled for Bush during the 2000 primaries and made fun of Pat Buchanan for leaving a Republican party which was stacking the deck in W's favor, did exactly what you would expect.
Next, we come to some amusing wishful thinking from the Ragin' Cajun, James Carville. Here, he opines that Bush and Rove's many blunders have led to a Republican "lost generation." Now, I have long been a skeptic that a figure as politically polarizing as Carville's girl Hillary Clinton could be elected. But with the "Reagan precedent" of 1980 looming increasingly large -- a scenario in which a woefully unpopular incumbent can cause the nation to turn to a candidate of the opposite party previously dismissed as unelectable -- Hillary stands a good chance of becoming the next president, if for no other reason than the fact that the Republican nominee will have to work a John Kerry-esque straddle between denouncing Bush's above-noted failures and praising his successes (the tax cut-fueled economic expansion, two Supreme Court justices who interpret and don't legislate, the success of the Global War on Terror in most areas except Iraq). But nothing will bring back Republicans and independents chased away by Bush and Rove like the presidency of Madame Hillary, a figure already reviled in much of
Finally, we come to the analysis of one of my all-time favorites, Pat Buchanan. Unsurprisingly, I find his thoughts closest to the mark. I should note also that I am glad that his many years of well-received exposure on MSNBC since his presidential campaigns have exposed the lie about his brand of politics being hateful and destructive to the public interest. He is a true patriot, and is entitled to the "I told you so's" that he does not stoop to taking in this fine assessment of Bush and Rove's unpleasant legacy. As noted above, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Republican Establishment were in the tank for Bush in the 2000 primaries and were working feverishly against Pat in 1996 when he appeared for one brief shining moment to be on the verge of sparing the party from the specter of horror known simply as "Republican Presidential Nominee Bob Dole." Were Rush and the rest of the backroom Republican elite capable of learning from their mistakes, one might well ask if they're happy they got what they wished for, but that would of course be an exercise in futility.
But for all of Buchanan's many cogent points, he hints at but does not actually state the heart of the matter about the Bush and Rove mistakes. He denounces the Wilsonian neoconservatives who co-opted the Bush presidency after 9/11 and led our country to increase our over-commitment around the globe and he also excoriates their insane immigration policies, but he does not mention the solution. It's called paleoconservatism, a school of thought to which he and I both subscribe and the Bushes and Roves of the world have tried in vain to exterminate. It places the needs of the
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)