Thursday, October 02, 2008
|
|
When American Spectator Attacks ...
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
6:26 PM
|
Over at AmSpecBlog, Philip Klein takes issue with my post today regarding Rush Limbaugh's response to conservatives who have turned on Sarah Palin.
In pointing out the error of my ways, Philip argues that blind loyalty to Bush over conservative principle was one of the things that got conservatives in trouble these last several years. On this, I couldn't agree with him more.
Clearly, conservatives should have been quicker to question Bush on spending and big-government "compassionate conservatism" -- just to cite a couple examples. Speaking personally, I can think of at least two major instances where I opposed the White House: I vigorously opposed Bush's pick of Harriet Miers -- and just last week -- I vigorously opposed the bailout.
In my estimation, these were both examples of Bush straying from conservative philosophy (my opposition of Miers was not specifically based on her lack of experience, per se, but rather that she was a Bushie loyalist who had not demonstrated her judicial philosophy). So again, I don't disagree with Philip that writers need to exercise independent judgment.
But here is where I think Philip misses it. His analogy of Bush and Palin is a false one. Unlike my criticisms of Bush, the criticism directed at Palin has had nothing to do with philosophical reasons. Instead, her unforgivable sin was in merely giving a few unimpressive interviews.
... And what makes me question their motives most is that these folks couldn’t even wait until after tonight's debate to decide whether or not she was prepared to be vice president.
It seems to me that there are essentially three groups of people who have specific problems with Palin that has resulted in their resenting her. They are as follows:
1. Intellectuals -- I'm quite familiar with great thinkers such as Burke, Kirk, Hayek, Friedman, et al. But I also have great admiration for men like Rush Limbaugh and Ronald Reagan -- both decidedly anti-elitist conservatives. My suspicion is that much of the criticism of Palin is actually an elitist tendency to be suspicious of anyone who hasn't spent years working in government or academia.
... It just strikes me as too much of a coincidence that Palin's greatest defenders have been men like Fred Thompson and Rush Limbaugh, while her loudest detractors have tended to be members of the conservative Intelligentsia. Could it be that they view outsiders like Palin as merely rubes?
2. So-Called "Conservatives" -- David Brooks might be an intellectual, but he long ago abandoned any claim to being a mainstream conservative. His criticism of Palin should not surprise anyone.
3. Opportunists -- Today a producer called me and asked me to be on TV. The only catch was that I would have to take a position that I really didn't believe in. I respectfully turned down this opportunity, but I wonder if the next guy they called did the same. My point is that the easiest way for a conservative to get both respect -- and publicity -- is to attack a fellow conservative.
In fact, one such conservative website went out of their way to make sure other bloggers knew about one of these anti-Palin posts. Why would they do this? A desperate attempt to generate controversy for their new and flailing website, of course. They were hoping I would link to them. I did not.
A week ago, I did not know the names of some conservatives who this week stood up against Sarah Palin.
Today, I know them quite well. It seems their criticism of a fellow conservative has become quite profitable.
|
|
Regular, run-of-the-mill conservatives who will not deny what they know and see. They simply see the Palin pick for what it is and that she's simply not qualified for high office.
Too bad we are in this spot, when McCain could have easily chosen someone he knew was qualified. |
|
You've created categories that appear to represent the groups that are vying for attention on Gov. Palin.
I repost my previous entry on this matter in support of restraint by conservatives at this critical juncture titled,
Peter Rodino principle?
In the heat of the push to vote articles of impeachment on President Nixon, then Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Peter Rodino admonished his Democrat colleagues, "let us look before we leap."
In that one tried and true phrase, an old guard New Jersey Democrat at the height of Democrat control of the House and white hot hate of Nixon, stepped back and attempted to tamper down the behavior of his own for a moment of reflection, restraint and ultimately reason.
We are in the heat of our own days before this election. Gov. Palin did not handle the inquiry on court decisions with aplomb. This does not merit scholastic or intellectual review at this moment of her by other conservatives.
Perhaps every conservative writer, talker, thinker in our community could have immediately reeled off wrongful court decisions back to repudiation of the substantive due process line of cases but it is not the time to start the post mortems now.
It is not orthodoxy that is at play. It is the fight and the win. When you are in a firefight, you do not rage out against Colt for the performance of your "AR." You 'tap, rack' and fire. This is the way of victory.
There is a time and place for being clever and astute. The foxhole and the frenzy of the waning days of the campaign are best played as engagement and not introspection.
Conservatives are not cult members. We are not aligned on all issues. However, restraint is our predicate and we can do better than degrade our own.
Mr. Rodino's admonition might be a good constraint for all conservatives as we lock and load in this fight.
|
|
It just seems to me that Matt refuses to acknowledge that there may be legitimate reasons for disliking the Palin pick.
And as far as Brooks is concerned...he doesn't even call himself a conservative (he desccribes himself as a "Teddy Roosevelt Republican"). I think this illustrates the problem with movement-oriented ideology. Either you toe the line 100%, or you are of no use to them. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone agrees with him 70% of the time, that doesn't make them an enemy. Some conservatives seem to forget that.
Another thing...what the heck is wrong with being an intellectual? I'm a little tired of hearing intellectual achievement being described as a negative. It reminds me of the Harriet Miers ordeal when people were arguing that in-depth legal knowledge wasn't as important as "gut knowledge" when it comes to being a Supreme Court Justice...!!! |
|
The Intellectuals are basically a bunch of wankers who hate anyone who threatens their elitist way of life. Many so called "conservatives" in the MSM are hardly conservatives and are nothing more than moderates. And there is nothing worse than some opportunist who sells out their principles to sell more books and get invited to more parties.
Sarah Palin is amazing and more qualified to be President than Barack Hussein Obama! Lets remind the so called conservatives, opportunists and intellectual wankers that Sarah Palin's approval is over 80% in Alaska! That is higher than any senator or governor! |
|
aren't behind McCain/Palin. Hard to imagine so many people who "think" Palin is unqualified would have donated so much, lol. Spin, spin, spin
The RNC raised nearly $66 million in September, breaking its all-time record
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/ |
|
"GOP Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, said she was switching her "no" vote to a "yes" after the Senate added some $110 million in tax breaks and other sweeteners before approving the measure Wednesday night."
PORK is all it takes to surrender PRINCIPLE! This is the most corrupt bunch elected officials ever. |
|
hi please take alook at my link please share with otheres i know sarah palin she was my mayor and and now gov. please dont underestimate her she will bring fire tonight any how here is my link
http://www.rallycongress.com/americans-againstnancypelosi
please pass on thankyou |
|
|
|
Heck, that's about $16B of waste. Bush vowed to veto all pork-laden bills. Yet, that is the very tactic they resort to in spades in their desperate efforts to get this noxious piece of Marxist legislation passed.
Are you noseholders happy yet? McCain VOTED AND CAMPAIGNED FOR THIS TRILLION DOLLAR PIECE OF PORK!!! |
|
Yea about as much as ifill is... Sorry PC but your love fest with Romney kinda makes it hard to believe that you could give an unbiased view of Palin. By the way, Mitt likes her so it is ok for you and your fellow Mittbots to actually support her.
This talk about her not being qualified is a lot of rubbish. Exactly what has Biden or Obama ever done that makes you think they can run this country or for that matter, a lemonade stand!! |
|
|
anyone who isn't Romney. She just can not let herself get over it. I'm afraid it's going to affect her health, poor thing. |
|
The very first paragraph in his piece was a tip-off. He said something like ..."conservatives say yes, on the grounds that something that feels so good could not possibly be wrong." He shouldn't underestimate the reasoning power of his opponent. We had plenty of information about the Gov. Palin as well as all the names in the list of potential VPs.
I read summaries of all the names in the hat and I chose #1 Bobby Jindal and #2 Sarah Palin and I'm just a custodian at a church. Imagine how much more information high-level conservatives would've had at their disposal than myself.
Again, closet liberals and out of the closet liberals all project their morality and intellectual weakness on the rest of us and it just...I'm just embarassed for them for their weak analysis/discussions. |
|
I only disagree with one thing you said. "I am JUST a custodian at a church." That is actually your strong suit. You have not had academia try and fill you with a load of socialist hooey. You are using the brain that the Good Lord gave you. Keep the faith Wade.
PS - I am so sick of people thinking that a person has to be a graduate of Harvard to have a valid opinion. Some of the smartest people I know never went to college. And the next time you meet some intellectual who thinks he knows everything, ask him if he can replace the heater core in a 66 Mustang!! Now those guys are the geniuses!!!
|
|
I read National Review, but they are definately DC/New York elitists. These are people whose world is the same insular world as liberal media and political elites. Not all of National Review has been anti-Palin, but you can sense their discomfort with her otherness (you know attending a state school, rural background, living in Alaska).
Then the MSM calls a lot of people conservatives who most assuredly are not -- they just aren't rabid liberal on the economy.
And finally, there are those who are trying to benefit from criticizing Palin - Kathleen Parker (who is a columnist on TH) is the most glaring example. If she ever was a conservative she has completely sold-out for MSM attention and praise. |
|
PS - I am so sick of people thinking that a person has to be a graduate of Harvard to have a valid opinion. Some of the smartest people I know never went to college. And the next time you meet some intellectual who thinks he knows everything, ask him if he can replace the heater core in a 66 Mustang!! Now those guys are the geniuses!!!
I often wonder why we are supposed to consider these people so superior to the masses. I find it laughable as many have no basic survival skills. Can they provide their own food, do they know how to preserve it if they manage to produce it. Can they provide their own clothes. Could they build their own shelter. How about repair anything. You get the point. Being better at trivial pursuit is not the same sort of accomplishment. |
|
|
|