Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Hugh Hewitt :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Funny Thing About Revolutions....
by Hugh Hewitt
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Most modern revolutions have not turned out well for their early enthusiasts.

The American experience was different of course, with the original patriots mostly revered in their days and down the decades since.

But things miscarried badly in France, Russia, China, Cuba and Cambodia as risings from the left saw the vanguard first kill off the enemies and then each other.

Of course American has never seen and will likely never see anything like the revolutions which consumed those unfortunate countries. Even our wildest political actors who gain traction are from with the mainstream of democratic tradition even if some of them sit on the left or right banks of that tradition.

But even those of us confident of the fundamental stability of the American political order know that sudden shifts in expectations bring about huge and unexpected changes.

This year the GOP has opted --again-- for the familiar face of the second-place finisher from the last open contest. Senator McCain has his critics on the right, but he also has many friends there as well as a claim of "next-in-line" that has counted for much in the GOP of the post-Ike years. He lost his lead for a while but it came back to him as the fundamental institutional conservatism of the GOP reasserted itself as the field divided and divided again.

The upheaval --genuine, deep-seated upheaval-- is underway within the Democratic Party.

The MSM loves this story, of course, because it is as new as Senator Obama's experience with every federal issue. There is genuine drama here: No one has ever raised S32 million in a month, much less a year after the low hanging fruit began to be harvested.

And the crowds, the celebrities, the passion! All very impressive.

But what else is being swept away by the Obama tide?

The Democratic Party is a party of bosses --union bosses, interest group bosses whether in NOW, the NAACP or Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and even new media bosses like Kos.

There are and always have been "first among equals" in the party that labels itself the friend of the working man or woman. Hollywood has been a fixture since the '60s, and extremely wealthy players are always much in evidence at gathering of the faithful.

This was supposed to be the year that Hillary harnessed all that structure and experience to the frustration of eight years of exile from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and swept the old guard back to power and position.

Now Senator Obama --who wasn't even elected to the Illinois state senate until Bill Clinton had won re-election to the White House-- is sweeping away all the expectations and pushing aside the old guard. Very exciting for the media and the new voters he is bringing along with him. Very unsettling for the folks who have been waiting in line for a long time.

The funny thing about upheavals is that they spread. If Barack Obama can push aside Clinton Inc, why can't young orators in the AFL-CIO do the same to John Sweeney, or rising stars in the civil rights movement topple Julian Bond or Jesse Jackson? Why is Kim Gandy in her second term at NOW when she has been unable to get Hillary over the goal line?

And if a third year senator can be the presidential nominee of the party, why not a third year senator the Majority Leader, or a third year Congressman the Speaker of the House?

The example of Barack Obama is unsettling many Republicans these days, but it has to be deeply disturbing to the old guard of the Democrats as well. After all, he owes them nothing or almost nothing.

He's the new man, with a new team, a new agenda, and very new demands.

And when the convention meets in Denver, he won't be the only new power in the party who thinks the time has come for change.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Hugh Hewitt is host of a nationally syndicated radio talk show. Hugh Hewitt's new book is The War On The West.

Be the first to read Hugh Hewitt's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

So?
"He has said he wants Mexicans to remain Mexicans even if they are living here."

Does that mean the thousands of Americans living abroad should give up their citizenship as well?

You know that a host of other countries allow their citizens to keep their citizenship even if they become naturalized US citizens and the US allows for its citizens to remain US citizens even if they become citizens of another country.

So my question is who cares?


JOHN MCCAIN NEEDS A HEARING AID

When I heard McCain's Hispanic Outreach guy was none other than Smiling Juan Hernandez, I knew John McCain has heard nothing we have had to say.


Smiling Juan Hernadez
We know who he is, we know his loyalties are to Mexico, we know he wants to erase our borders and immigration laws.

JOHN MCCAIN, YOU NEED A NEW HEARING AID

Smiling Juan Hernandez
In case you don't know him, he used to work for the Mexican govt., lately he has been shilling for "rights" for illegal aliens in this country. He has said he wants Mexicans to remain Mexicans even if they are living here. His loyalties are to Mexico, not U.S.



Questions for illegal alien apologists like John McCain:

Why does The National Council of the Race (la raza in spanish) and the Chamber of Commerce get to negotiate a "Comprehensive Shafting of The American Citizens" behind closed doors? Since when does an organization representing foreign nationals breaking our laws get to rewrite our immigration laws to suit the lawbreakers? Isn't this akin to allowing NAMBLA to rewrite our laws regarding child predators? Or allowing organized crime syndicates to rewrite racketeering, gambling, prostitution, and extortion laws?

We The People are being told by our representatives that we should sit down and shut up while they invite in the entire world. We The People should get some say in this matter. Another amnesty will set off a stampede like we have never seen before. There is not much time to save our country. All the money and power are on the side of shoving this amnesty down our throats. The RNC wants an amnesty candidate, don't vote for one.

for jdw
OK, I'll bite:

What is the "optimistic, hopeful" platform that conservatives like you wanted to offer to the American people this year?

Where is it? What website is it on?

Because I didn't see it. I didn't see hope and optimism coming from Fred Thompson, or from Tancredo, or from Duncan Hunter, who were the true conservatives in this race. I saw grimness.

for religiouslib
religiouslib writes: "have you sat down and listened to one of his speeches?"

I've listened to a couple of his speeches, in fact.

In style, Obama can't be beat. And I respect him for calling Americans to national unity and bipartisanship.

There's just one little problem that you Obama supporters don't acknowledge:

WE DON'T AGREE WITH OBAMA'S PROGRAM!

Obama's entire call for "bipartisanship" is going to fall apart the first time conservatives and Republicans say "NO!" to one of his proposals. What's he going to do then?

Unlike you liberals, we conservatives tend to put economic opportunity AHEAD of economic security. That's a fundamental difference in philosophy that Obama can't paper over no matter how much soaring rhetoric he employs.

And as far as social issues are concerned, Obama's rhetoric can't paper over the fact that he will be the most pro-choice President in 30 years, even though half the nation is pro-life. That's another fundamental difference that Obama can't paper over with soaring rhetoric.

Hellery Goddam Clinton told an
auto plant that she would tax all the industries that provide many of the jobs, and use the money for programs that do no good for the people or the country. We must keep her out of the WH and get her out of Congress.
WE MUST ALL GET OUT AND VOTE TO PUT A LARGE CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE AND, HOPEFULLY, IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

Obama wrote a bill
that would increase the amount of foreign aid by 800 BILLION DOLLARS, and allow foreign nations to impose taxes on US citizens living in the US. It would make the US responsible for ending all the poverty in the world. It does nothing about getting rid of the dictators who stole the foreign that we previously sent to needy countries. He wants to impoverish the American People.
We must keep him out of the WH and get him out of congress.


China
"Birdman II writes: Thursday, February, 14, 2008 10:25 PM
Hugh said,
'...But things miscarried badly in France, Russia, China, Cuba and Cambodia as risings from the left saw the vanguard first kill off the enemies and then each other.'

This is a great comparison. Have you ever wondered why the American Revolution fared so well and all the others fared so bad?"

The revolution people should look at in China is not 1911 (which did ultimately fail) or 1949 but 1978. The Deng Xiao-ping revolution of 1978 (juyou zhongguo tese shehui zhuyi)--Socialism with Chinese characteristics is the real revolution in China and it has been a success--growth rate this past year was over 11%, and since at least the 1980s it's rate has been 7% or more every year. Never in Chinese history has the average Chinese had the amout of social and personal freedom as they do now. And never has so many Chinese been rich or at least well-off. China is #10 as the country with the most billionaires and #5 as the country with the most millionaires (US is #1 in both).

That is the revolution that is important in China..1978 not 1949.


JDW
jdw writes: Thursday, February, 14, 2008 4:17 PM

"P.S. The real revolutions that changed America were the Industrial Revolution (which allowed poor people to have nice things and live in comfort, as well as -- when the men went Over There -- allowing women to enter the work force"

I don't disagree that these were revolutions as well...when did I say these weren't?

"The Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century. Our soldiers went "Over There" in WWI, not WWII, and we didn't have to put women in factories until WWII. The amusing thing is, you say, "let them". Yeah, I always feel privileged when I'm taken down from a pedestal of respect and refinement and allowed to wallow in pigsh*t."

Let them? Let whom do what? you need to be more clear on what you mean here. I don't read minds, and even if I did, I'd avoid trying to read those that belonged to stupid people. Are you talking about women? So besides being stupid you are a sexist pig too?

"After the Confederate War, the worst thing that could have happened to the U.S. was WWII. It prematurely launched us into our imperial period, it gave excuse to put females in the workplace, producing far, far, far more material than we needed for the war effort, while people on the homefront were encouraged to sacrifice when they didn't need to. Gotta love that commie S.O.B. Roosevelt."

The US imperial period began about the time it invaded Cuba and the Philippines and Puerto Rico. Fought a war with the Filipinos that often looked like a war of extermination, oh we can add other imperial pre-WWII actions--Haiti, China, Nicaragua, Panama. You could go even back to the Mexican War as an example and of course Hawai'i.

As for your last statement, I am sure most historians will back you up on that. (Hint: I am mocking you here, not serious in the least).

Confederate War? Outside of you, who uses this term?








JDW
Go out and read something.

If the "commies" still think so poorly of their former enemies, then Hu Jintao seems to be getting pretty chummy with the KMT lately. Remember the Lian Zhan's visit in 2005? He and 69 other members of the KMT in which he and Hu singed a number of agreements? Seems they don't seem to think so poorly of the KMT today, now do they?

As for Jiang, well, outside of a few die-hard mainlanders, he is not too well thought of in Taiwan either. Yes, there are still roads named for him (Zhong Zheng Lu), but by in large his image has been totally exercised from Taiwan (there are a few of his statues still lurking about as well).

JDW, tell me when the US moves to a one party state, adopts a politburo, has vast SOEs, etc. China is becoming more like the US is correct, the US isn't moving toward anything like the PRC. Has China got better--yes since 1978 much better, has the US gotten worse, well that is a matter of opinion I suppose.

More to follow

kapahulu, JDW only put me in my place in your little idiotic mind of course you don't understand my posts--oxen don't understand music either--dui niu tan qin.





Vic - 11.10 am - yesterday

REVOLUTION

You hit the proverbial nail in it's proverbial head.
================================================
""the candidates left running are the absolute worse that I have ever seen in my lifetime. We are no longer even allowed an option of voting for the lesser of two evils because there is no “lesser”. We continue to get the same old dregs every election as both parties move incessantly to the left. Consider this for this election, the Republican anointed by the Party opposed tax cuts because it “benefited the wealthy” too much, he opposed drilling for oil in a desolated frozen tundra because he was “concerned” with the environment, not to mention he has signed onto the AGW bandwagon, and to top off all of that, he wants to erase the borders and allow free reign to migrants crossing the border at will.

As for the Lames; LOL the people looking for change there like the Kosites want a European style America. Yes, a socialist nation mired in government handouts and control that worships at the shrine of the U.N. and they want it without a wasteful military. After all, if only we would sign onto the “real” agenda at the U.N. and sing kum-ba-yah, the world would reach a new nirvana and all would be peaceness and light. LOL, they don’t even reach the level of Lenin’s(sic) useful idiots anymore.

Yes, it is time for a revolution, hopefully in the form of a new conservative party. If not, then the revolution will not be like the original one where the ruling class actually ran the revolution. This time the party apparatchiks and their supporters will be the target. It will not be pretty.""
================================================
Thanks for your informed and authentic appraisal.


Obama, Conservatives Best Hope
Obama is very inexperienced, nieve and as dumb as a bag of hammers.

He will make so many blunders that Jimmy Carter will look like a genius in comparrison.

Obama will be the easiest to filibuster and deride as stupid. We must fight a scourched earth defensive battle for four years. Obama is the easiest target.

This will also position Republicans nicely in 2012.

The real good news is if Obama's the man then Hillary AND McCain are the big losers! Yippey!

How We Got Here
Both the DNC and the RNC are bad for America. Like the US Senate, both are populated with power-mad, entrenched elitists who care not a whit about the will of the American electorate.

The Dems have it half right; if there were no Super Delegates, they would get the right candidate. Period. For the candidates to have to suffer through this process is not a bad thing. It is good to have the discussion during the engagement period. After the marriage, you are screwed.

As for the Reps, the cobbled together winner take all states vs. proportional allocation of delegates means that McCain's delegate lead does not reflect what the voters want.

As an American, I am interested in getting at what the American people want. If the American people want a socialist President, so be it. I don't like that scenario, but as an American, I am in a compact with my fellow citizens to swear allegiance to a DULY AND FAIRLY elected government.

A government of, for and by the people is not being delivered by either party.

It is time for all freedom loving Americans, regardless of political bent to follow Lieberman's example and become Independents. Maybe then, the DNC and the RNC will stop using and abusing us.

Ma$terbation
In a nutshell, Obama supporters don't want "change", they want strokes.
They all keep saying so.
They're just too lazy to do it themselves.
I gain no small amount of saticefaction when I think that they'll get as much substance from BO as an excersize of that nature produces.

How? not hope
Obama: It is not "hope" but "how" if hope is to be realized. And the "how" must be of substance. Otherwise, hope becomes a "fairy tale"!

Hope vs How?
Obama: It is not "hope" but "how" if hope is to be realized. And the "how" must be of substance. Otherwise, hope becomes a "fairy tale"!

New Ed:
Actually Mitt Romney sacrificed himself for the good of the whole. He doesn't have to fight for money or power because he already has it and is using his own money to advance the cause. Many of the founding fathers sacrificed their wealth for the country. Sometimes their lives and family, too. He is on no one's puppet strings, like McCain is on George Soros the evil mans, puppet strings.

response to Mike
I don't think we're as far apart as it may first appear. Space limits how much (and how deep) of a response can be written. The enlightenment was a modification of Christendom's view of (and interactions with) the world at large.

The desire to allow the citizens to pursue Life Liberty and Happiness isn't enough: the guarantees that need to be put in place that allow the individual to do so are predicated on the idea that the leaders or officials who come into positions of power will use that power in a certain way. My view is that recognizing the fallen nature of all of us, including leaders, means that those in leadership positions will inevitably try to take choices away from the individuals (often "for their own good", as in the "best and brightest know better than us, so let's let them lead"). It is this impulse that the founders had to limit by division of powers.

In the larger picture, a society of angels would work well under anarchy, communism, (benevolent) dictatorship, a republic, an oligarchy, indeed any system at all. But we're not dealing with angels who put the public good first. We're dealing with (fallen) men, and must chose systems accordingly.

Hugh said,
"The American experience was different of course, with the original patriots mostly revered in their days and down the decades since. But things miscarried badly in France, Russia, China, Cuba and Cambodia as risings from the left saw the vanguard first kill off the enemies and then each other."

This is a great comparison. Have you ever wondered why the American Revolution fared so well and all the others fared so bad?

Could it be that the American population was more Christian than not and brought that faith to the battle and then to congress?

Look at all the other revolutions mentioned. The unifying factor in all the failures was atheism.

What does that tell you?

Hugh, the audacity of change includes
leadership skills that B. Hussein is lacking in. So far, democrats have not asked B. Hussein to discuss specifics of his promises but when he is done duelling with H. Rodham, and he runs against the old guard McCain who has specific leadership experience in legislature and military service/strategy. Americans will realize that while Obama's candidacy is historic, he is on the wrong side of history because his desire to negotiate and have a "sit down" session with Iran among other jihadist-supporting regimes undermines our credibility and future as a global leader in the war against terror. He also lacks any major achievements at the state or federal level. Finally, his indecisive "present" votes in the IL senate make proove that he lacks the audacity of leadership when under pressure and when unsure how the issue at hand will play into the political wind. Finally, any man who votes against funding troops when they are in battle against Jihadists and defends Hussein's regime by claiming the war in Iraq needs to be concluded right now regardless of the impact it has on the broader war against terror lacks the experience and judgement necessary to become commander in Chief. One more bonus, the girlfriends will remember that Obama beat Hillary because blacks overwhelmingly voted along racial lines - ask Mitt how having his LDS friends voting overwhelmingly cost him his nomination. Americans frown at people who appear to support a candidate along racial or religious lines and when that happens - the opponent gets the protest vote necessary to guarantee victory. Mc wins 45% to 40% Obama because 15% of the conservatives and racist who hate Mc and Obama, respectively will stay home.

Hi religiouslib
Yes, I have listened to his speeches. I always end up interjeting as an arm chair warrior, "And just how will you do that?"

He never says.

shells
check this out

Why Republicans Like Obama


By Peter Wehner
Sunday, February 3, 2008; Page B07

Barack Obama is not only popular among Democrats, he's also an appealing figure to many Republicans. Former GOP House member Joe Scarborough, now a host on MSNBC, reports that after every important Obama speech, he is inundated with e-mails praising the speech -- with most of them coming from Republicans. William Bennett, an influential conservative intellectual, has said favorable things about Obama. So have Rich Lowry of National Review and Peggy Noonan. And so have I.

A number of prominent Republicans I know, who would wage a pitched battle against Hillary Clinton, like Obama and would find it hard to generate much enthusiasm in opposing him.

What is at the core of Obama's appeal?

Part of it is the eloquence and uplift of his speeches, combined with his personal grace and dignity. By all accounts, Obama is a well-grounded, decent, thoughtful man. He comes across, in his person and manner, as nonpartisan. He has an unsurpassed ability to (seemingly) transcend politics. Even when he disagrees with people, he doesn't seem disagreeable. "You know what charm is," Albert Camus wrote in "The Fall," "a way of getting the answer yes without having asked any clear question." Obama has such charm, and its appeal is not restricted to Democrats.


here is the full article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/0 2/01/AR2008020102663.html



shells
how are you doing?

have you sat down and listened to one of his speeches?

just give him a listen once.

shells, from my perspective your reaction to obama is similiar to many conservatives reaction to mccain, when they accuse him of being liberal.

one of the best articles i have read on him pointed out that his main attractiveness is the ability to reach out to those who oppose his policies.

for the pastt 16 years we had two presidents who were polarizing and this allowed the other side to demonize not just the men but the entire party.

obama is a break from that vicious cycle.
he is saying there is a better way of governing than just using your base as your governing philosphy.

obama will be the nominee and you will have plenty of time to judge if he is the horrible person you think he is.

when we get to the obama-mccain debates than we can both have a better idea of what future they both see.


jdw: Thanks
for putting Akagai in his place. He is quite the bore, isn't he? All that verbiage--for what? He says nothing.

Will and Religiouslib
Do you find high taxes inspiring? Do you find having your take home pay cut in half a beacon of hope?

I don't know about you fellas, but there are other ways of making me inspired and happy, and having my money stolen is not one of them.

Honestly guys, if Obama were a white guy, would you even listen to him? Really answer this truthfully to yourself. I know the MSM wouldn't care about who he is or what he says, nor would Oprah, nor would Hollywood elitists. You wouldn't know Obama existed if he were white, the MSM would see to that.

So what's so inspiring?

I feel like I'm seeing so many people, including you as my friends, being sucked up into this mechanized trolly that's leading you into a furnace, and you don't even see this.

We all will be broke from over taxation, we all will lose our freedoms we take for granted, we all will lose our ability to chose for ourselves, our business's will be taxed up the wazoo so more people will be losing more jobs to compensate for corporate losses...do these things not matter to you?

religious lib
"some conservatives want to run on an anti-hope and anti-optimism platform."

Nope.

Take your strawman back to school.

Akagi
I have to say, you know less about more than anyone I've encountered recently.

"Mao would no doubt be horrified at what China had become,"

"they would be as horrified at what the US has become as Mao would be of modern China."

China got better, America got worse. There's the difference. And the two societies are becoming more and more alike.

"Now for the losers of the 1949 revolution--not too well thought of in China and not too well thought of in Taiwan where Chiang fled to."

Go figure. The commies still think poorly of their former enemies.

"P.S. The real revolutions that changed America were the Industrial Revolution (which allowed poor people to have nice things and live in comfort, as well as -- when the men went Over There -- allowing women to enter the work force and discover that Yes, We Can!)"

The Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century. Our soldiers went "Over There" in WWI, not WWII, and we didn't have to put women in factories until WWII. The amusing thing is, you say, "let them". Yeah, I always feel privileged when I'm taken down from a pedestal of respect and refinement and allowed to wallow in pigsh*t.

After the Confederate War, the worst thing that could have happened to the U.S. was WWII. It prematurely launched us into our imperial period, it gave excuse to put females in the workplace, producing far, far, far more material than we needed for the war effort, while people on the homefront were encouraged to sacrifice when they didn't need to. Gotta love that commie S.O.B. Roosevelt.


HOLD IT - GET YOUR LANGUAGE STRAIGHT
The only American revolution was an unmitigated disaster for the revolutionaries. They failed to win their independence, they failed to defeat the government, and subsequently had their entire society destroyed.

What the COLONIALS fought for was not to remove George III from his throne. It was to make the colonies INDEPENDENT of England. Notice how all their venom was aimed at fat George rather than Parliament.

The war to which Hewett refers was the war of American Independence.

Other than the Confederate War, there has been no American Revolution.

So, Hewett is right in saying that revolutions don't go well.

What do the Revolutions in France, Russia, China Cuba and Cambodia have in common with each other, and NOT with the American War of Independence?

They were all socialist/communist in nature. They were all based in class warfare and envy. None of them were about creating the good life for oneself, they were all about how unfair it was the other guy had a good life, regardless of how he acquired it.

That's why the War of Independence was a success (well, for 84 years anyway.)

Actually
Mao and Chou Enlai and the rest of the PRC revolutionaries are pretty much still looked on in China in a very positive light--been to Tienanmen lately? Now China has abandoned most of Mao's project and Mao would no doubt be horrified at what China had become, but in that regard the US has junked most of its founders' project as well and they would be as horrified at what the US has become as Mao would be of modern China.

It also depends what revolution you are talking about. The Xinyi Revolution in 1911 for example, its leader Sun Yat-sen (Sun Zhong Shan) is still revered in China as well. Now for the losers of the 1949 revolution--not too well thought of in China and not too well thought of in Taiwan where Chiang fled to.

Why the new "they" are such a laugh
"Linen’s useful idiots anymore"

LINEN? You mean, like, bedsheets and tablecloths? Or were you talking about, perchance, LENIN?

Won't it be fun when we are all ruled by people who cannot read, write, spell, punctuate, reason -- and who don't have adult secretaries to save them from themselves?

Yes, boys and girls, the next Revolution will be made up of boys and girls frantically googling "Linen" and "Marks" while they try to figure out why in the Hades the old people keep talking about tablecloths and, like, the alligators on their tee shirts er sumfin.

Revolutions only work when the people revolting are actually smarter than the ones against whom they rebel.

P.S. The real revolutions that changed America were the Industrial Revolution (which allowed poor people to have nice things and live in comfort, as well as -- when the men went Over There -- allowing women to enter the work force and discover that Yes, We Can!) and the Automobile Revolution which among other things allowed people to meet and marry outside their home towns (also World War II fallout), have a cheap private place for nookie thus inspiring the Social Revolution, and the Cyber Revolution, allowing people to gather from all over the world on Instant Messenger to watch the 24 Hours of Le Mans together. Even people who couldn't find France on a map.

Why the new "they" are such a laugh
"Linen’s useful idiots anymore"

LINEN? You mean, like, bedsheets and tablecloths? Or were you talking about, perchance, LENIN?

Won't it be fun when we are all ruled by people who cannot read, write, spell, punctuate, reason -- and who don't have adult secretaries to save them from themselves?

Yes, boys and girls, the next Revolution will be made up of boys and girls frantically googling "Linen" and "Marks" while they try to figure out why in the Hades the old people keep talking about tablecloths and, like, the alligators on their tee shirts er sumfin.

Revolutions only work when the people revolting are actually smarter than the ones against whom they rebel.

P.S. The real revolutions that changed America were the Industrial Revolution (which allowed poor people to have nice things and live in comfort, as well as -- when the men went Over There -- allowing women to enter the work force and discover that Yes, We Can!) and the Automobile Revolution which among other things allowed people to meet and marry outside their home towns (also World War II fallout), have a cheap private place for nookie thus inspiring the Social Revolution, and the Cyber Revolution, allowing people to gather from all over the world on Instant Messenger to watch the 24 Hours of Le Mans together. Even people who couldn't find France on a map.

I think it is called...
scrambling to stay relavent.

Ron ROTFLMAO

Will writes: Thursday, February, 14, 2008 1:32 PM
Caroline
I noticed the same thing.

I wonder how Hugh's going to finesse the fact that he has to "climb aboard" & finally support John McCain now. After over 3 months of consistently bashing him (I remember a day last month where during a full 3 hours of telephone calls, Hewitt only acceptd pro-Romney & anti-McCain calls...the entire show. Any listener knew this was intensely rigged. And then, he plugs his book "A Mormon in the White House"...)

Uncle Max
So you aren't really a Viet Nam veteran? Maybe you should walk Kerry's walk before you do the talk.

Ron ROTFLMAO

When there are multiple
assassinations of current leadership, we will know the revolution is underway.

With today's enormous beaucracy, assassinations will be the only way to produce a revolution. Cutting off the head is the best way to kill someone so that they won't make a comeback.

Luckily for all of us, the unrest has not yet reached that point.

Caroline
I noticed the same thing.

I wonder how Hugh's going to finesse the fact that he has to "climb aboard" & finally support John McCain now. After over 3 months of consistently bashing him (I remember a day last month where during a full 3 hours of telephone calls, Hewitt only acceptd pro-Romney & anti-McCain calls...the entire show. Any listener knew this was intensely rigged. And then, he plugs his book "A Mormon in the White House"...)

Candidate Fantasy a Bad Idea
When Hugh said "most modern revolutions have not turned out well for their early enthusiasts," I thought he was referring to his unstoppable shilling for Mitt. After months of using his own show as a platform to push the illusion of an inevitable, unstoppable candidate on a disbelieving Republican base, Hugh ran off to Europe for a few days to escape the humiliating confrontation with his audience about Mitt's implosion, and then used his return show as a three-hour evasion of the issue by talking to a couple of authors. Not only was Hugh unable to face the collapse of his fantasy victory in Mitt, but he could not step outside the situation to discuss why Republicans just did not take to the man. No doubt he'll soon be pushing for Mitt in 2012.

A note from the sidelines
(from a proud dem): You know, sometimes it is refreshing & cleansing & honestly intoxicating to be able to sing "kum-ba-yah" & to joyously shout & hoot & holler for a candidate you can connect with.

I know you cons will see things differently; but that's a partisan matter of necessity: You guys don't have an inspiring candidate. You guys must, in a sense, work YOURSELVES up to inspriration & support for a candidate who's main qualification is it's "his turn"; that he's "next in line".

By the way, I know PRECISELY you're level of enthusiasm for John McCain. I like him. If you take away his hawkishness on the war on terror, he is every bit as much a democrat as he is a republican. We all know this. Without the Iraq baggage I could support McCain, though not very enthusiastially (he doesn't inspire one to hope & dream like JFK & BHO).

It's just feels very freeing & patriotic to finally have somebody running for office that makes you feel GOOD about the country. And infuses you with POSSIBILITY.

Obama hit a nerve when he called out for
change, but I doubt that even he really understood the implications of that. It was simply the tool that every outsider uses in order to gain attention. Now he finds himself riding a spirited horse that bolted out of the gate, around the first turn and down the back stretch at the head of the pack. If he makes it around the second turn (gets the nomination)still in the lead, its over.

The question is, does Obama really know what to do with the trophy he might win? The answer is yet to be decided, but this much is clear. Barrack Obama will not be an agent for change if he allows the Democrat Party to control him, the powers that put him in office will demand their piece. What will Obama say to Ted Kennedy when he sits in the Oval Office and the old drunk comes knocking with his wish list in hand?

Our problem in Washington is that far too much power is concentrated in the hands of the elites who run the show, and they will not voluntarily give up that power. In fact, that are convinced that they are invulnerable to the will of the people and the fight is between the two majors as to who sits on top.

If we want change in Washington, we must attack the source of that elite power by breaking up the power structure and denying the elites of the Presidency! If we once again do the same thing, voting the lesser of two evils, and electing another elite as President, we will continue to see more big government and less personal freedoms. That will be true whether it is Pres. Obama or Pres. McCain, guaranteed!

If you want to see a more complete discussion of how the elites have duped the American people with the greatest scam ever perpetrated upon a nation, I urge you to visit my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG. I guarantee you a fresh look at how we arrived at this sorry state of affairs for our great nation.

Check out the site, why not? The elites have stolen our birthright and we should take real steps to reclaim it in 2008. Thanks, Joe

Sounds like....
Hugh is getting down on his knees and trying to sow some seeds of revolution within the GOP.

vic
"platitudes" is usually a positive noun.

the american people are more engaged in this election than any in along time.

they know the issues.

mitt romney brought his "to do" list to his campaign speeches and was rejected by your party.

some elections are about issues, some about grand ideas that transform.

reagan did not get elected twice on issues, because he did not govern that conservatively.

he got elected because of grand ideas.

the same thing will happen for obama.

there is a growing number of republicans for obama.

C_Miner
The United States was founded on the philosophy of the enlightenment, not on any "biblical" principles. The concept of man as an individual possessing the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness stands in stark contrast to the Christian view of man as a flawed, fundamentally sinful being that must spend its life in repentence according to God's commands.

The U.S. Constitution was not a result of a belief that man is "fallen" and "imperfect". If they truly believed that, they would have had to conclude that they, too, were "fallen" and "imperfect" and thus they could not have trusted themselves to create a new Constitution at all.


Revolution?
Not hardly, this is the same old, same old, happens every 4-8 years(see 1988 election). New platitudes, same results. Less Freedom, more regulation, bigger deficits, larger entitlements. Our founding Fathers are turning in their graves and wondering what they fought for. I will register as an Independant going forward, I've been lied to for the last time!

Obama Revolution
Yep, it looks like folks are ready for another revolution this year. Since the Ron Paul Revolutin didn't have legs, I suppose the Obama Revolution will have to do.

Just one problem
Daily Kos is like a headless horseman. The denizens were largely Edwards supporters at the outset, but have bolted for Obama in huge numbers. In fact, a poll (anyone can put one up) showed that literally half of Kossacks won't even support the Hildebeest.

Do Republicans really want to run on endless war? Is it Eastasia or Eurasia this time? I can never tell.

Religious Lib
Yes the cons want to run on a conservative latform that discusses issues and not stale platitudes that say NOTHING.

let me get this straight
some conservatives want to run on an anti-hope and anti-optimism platform.

i am sure that will gain alot of traction with the american people who are thirsting for a different kind of country and a different kind of politics.

isn't that the exact opposite of what reagan stood for. "a shining city on a hill" and making americans proud again.

that is exactly what obama is saying.

as far as hewitt, he has become a laughingstock of political pundits.
whenever he makes a prediction, the exact opposite happens.


I Will Lay Odds
If Obama wins the nomination, Shrillary, Billary and their Sycophants will toss a MAJOR Hissy Fit and employ a Scorched Earth Policy towards Osama Obama.

Revolution
I think that changes in BOTH parties are on the way. As I have stated in another column today the candidates left running are the absolute worse that I have ever seen in my lifetime. We are no longer even allowed an option of voting for the lesser of two evils because there is no “lesser”. We continue to get the same old dregs every election as both parties move incessantly to the left. Consider this for this election, the Republican anointed by the Party opposed tax cuts because it “benefited the wealthy” too much, he opposed drilling for oil in a desolated frozen tundra because he was “concerned” with the environment, not to mention he has signed onto the AGW bandwagon, and to top off all of that, he wants to erase the borders and allow free reign to migrants crossing the border at will.

As for the Lames; LOL the people looking for change there like the Kosites want a European style America. Yes, a socialist nation mired in government handouts and control that worships at the shrine of the U.N. and they want it without a wasteful military. After all, if only we would sign onto the “real” agenda at the U.N. and sing kum-ba-yah, the world would reach a new nirvana and all would be peaceness and light. LOL, they don’t even reach the level of Linen’s useful idiots anymore.

Yes, it is time for a revolution, hopefully in the form of a new conservative party. If not, then the revolution will not be like the original one where the ruling class actually ran the revolution. This time the party apparatchiks and their supporters will be the target. It will not be pretty.

new agenda ...
of Obama will actually be an old one. More taxes and less freedom.

The problem the Republicans have is that "compassionate conservatism" looks very similar.

I keep sayin'....
Obama's my man! :0)

At least the somewhat-awake members of Congress would probably put up a good fight. With McCain, it's more dysfunction and confusion.

Let's give the empty suit a chance!

McCain's ACU rating.
Sub-room-temperature Democrats-pretending-to-be-Republicans who scream that "MKAIN IS TEH CONSERVATIVEST PERSON IN DA HOLE WYDE WERLD!" often feebly quack about his "lifetime 82.3% ACU rating". They often brush off the FACT that the ONLY thing that means is that 200 years ago, back when he had only been in the Senate for 90 years, he USED to be conservative, and that his 2006 rating of 65% is "meaningless".

Well, let's talk about that 65% rating. Did you know that that is the 4th lowest rating of any Republican since 1998. (The only "Republicans" to score lower was Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snow.)

And did you also know that 65% rating was LOWER than even what "kooky leftist Republicans" Lindsey Graham and Chuck Hagel scored (83% and 75% respectively in 2006.)

In a year where the rest of the Republican Party were seeing some of their HIGHEST ACU ratings, so-called "conservative" McCain scored one of the lowest ever scored by a Republican. If that doesn't tell you all you need to know about McCain, then you are too stupid to cast a responsible ballot.

Choices
Power corrupts. Parties change. My interest in Obama has nothing to do with voting for him for President, the interest is in the fact that he signals a change in perceptions. He does not buy into the idea of blacks as victims - which marginalizes the sclerotic self claimed leadership of blacks. And that is a good thing. He equally leaves other issues of the 20th century behind. He is focussing people on the future, regonizing that the 20th century is gone, and it's challenges have little to do with those we have today. He does not have the solutions, but at this point in time, neither party is prepared to solve much of anything. Such problem solving will come downstream, when we can no longer avoid the consequences of unrestrained spending coupled with rising entitlement costs which in turn produce increasing deficits. To confront these issues, this country will need to find a common ground. However, the increasing rise of independents, and the systematic weakening of party loyalty, portends a different future as both parties will increasingly have to reinvent themselves. This year we see the GOP nominating a candidate that it believes can appeal to those very independents. Inevitably, the Democrats must move to the right to win national elections, and the GOP seems to have convinced itself that it needs to move to the left. Currently, entitlements consume 44% of the budget, and defense over 20% - figures which include projected deficits of over $400 B. In another decade, entitlements will rise to over 60%. Without increased taxes nor meaningful spending cuts, the deficits will start approaching $1 trillion. Neither party has ever been willing to cut spending. We will face choices. Obama talks about concensus - prematurely perhaps, but it is the opening round int he recognition that without, we will find ourselves unable to make those choices. And McCain, in turn, is more subtley, perhaps, also a concensus builder.

new_ed
Agreed. But you didn't mention the other revolution that happened at about the same time in France. The French figured that the best and brightest would inevitably become the leaders because they were the best and brightest, so best not to put any obstacles in their way (because, being brighter, the leaders would be best at figuring out what to do).

The U.S. constitution is based on the BIBLICAL idea that we are all fallen and imperfect. They chose the tact that individuals elected to serve within the government will inevitably try to grow beyond what was intended, and so they specifically limited powers and scope to prevent that. I think that they would have been shocked and appalled by the idea that someone in public service could become rich.

The American Revolution
One of the things that makes the American Revolution so much different from the other ones mentioned in the third paragraph, is the American Revolutionaries were not doing it for power nor profit. They were men of high moral principles that sacrificed themselves for the good of others.

How many current politicians (Clinton, McCain, Obama come to mind) that, instead of sacrificing other opportunities, are now wealthy BECAUSE of their tenure in public office?

my 2 cents
This is a good piece. The changes in the dem party are interesting to watch and it will be even more interesting to watch things as they evolve. At this point the dems seem to have a genius for picking the WRONG candidate for president when the republican candidate is eminently beatable. I myself would have been inclined to vote for Richard Gephart in 2004 but the dems nominated john Kerry, whom I, as a Vietnam era veteran, consider a liar a coward and a traitor.

Now Obama seems poised to garner the nomination, and he has the enthusiastic endorsement of Moveon.org, the fine folks who ran that ad in the NYT in September with the snappy title 'Petraeus or Betray Us?", the CLEAR implication being, of course, that General Petraeus is a traitor. And Obama, who has NO military experience, wants to be the commander of men like General Petraeus.

Hillary has so much baggage that they'll never let her on the plane.

I said this months ago and it looks like I was wrong, but I'm gonna say it again - Evan Bayh of Indiana. He got in the race at the beginning and pulled out about 5 minutes later when he realized he'd NEVER get any ink after BO & the Hill were done. But if the bloodletting in the democratic party continues and someone in the party has an attack of common sense, we still might hear his name.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.