Once again, the day I see a Limbaugh or Beck sitting with a former Republican president at a GOP convention, as Michael Moore did with Carter at the Democratic Convention, I will find merit in your argument. The day I hear leftists or liberals bemoaning a raving lunatic like Olbermann, I will find merit in your argument (not really the latter, because it will be done for some other motive such as the one below).
Until then, I will just abscribe such nonsense to "Sullivanization" or "Frum Disease," the need for a minor player to try to draw attention by attacking major pop culture/entertainment figures.
What does how the left acts have anything to do with how the right acts? Are you saying because the left doesn't call out its kooks and loons, it's ok for irrational, bombastic, loons to be accepted on the right? How idiotic is that? Shouldn't we reach a little bit higher?
And the next time you insult my integrity you're gone.
ed.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 7.10.2009 @ 14:21
At least you recognize you aren't an intellectual. Frum is bereft of such introspection and has marginalized himself more than most populists have. When the self-proclaimed intellectuals offer up something that doesn't echo DNC talking points, they will have something to bring to the table. Thus far they have not. So when you write that your intent is to reduce the influence of the populists rather than to purge them, you are in effect saying that you don't want any influential voices on the Right--whether inadvertently or not, it doesn't matter.
These rank-and-file conservatives are not going away and represent roughly a third to 40 percent of the nation. I'd much rather have them in the tent saying crazy shit at times as opposed to, say, the ten or 12 pundits who don't like them voicing Me-tooism banalities. When this tiny group can actually lay out positions, as the House GOP actually has done with health care, they can expect to be taken seriously.
Otherwise they can be David Frum.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 5.10.2009 @ 12:47
Inevitably, Obama will have to make a tough choice. It is that moment I fear, based on his populist approach to international relations.
It is a good thing to be liked, and quite another to be manipulated. As you point out, our friends like Obama. But even that may change when the inevitable happens and our interests diverge. Our enemies have sized him up as Jimmy Carter's Mini-Me, and have been emboldened to act recklessly. Right now, Russia is letting China take the lead to block sanctions of Iran. Medevev, of course, whispers sweet nothings to the president about his fantastic decision not to place a tripwire in Poland and the Czech Republic. So as a modus vivendi China will do the heavy lifting for Iran.
There isn't anything wrong with being liked. But when a president is the object of ridicule, and I strongly suspect this one is among our adversaries, it is quite dangerous. Yes, Bush alienated our Allies. But our enemies feared him. Which of the two is more likely to cause problems and lead to a widened war?
Intelligent and constructive foreign policy is tough. This president and those around him have displayed little talent for it.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 24.09.2009 @ 10:22
Despite the grief I just gave you below, congrats.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 23.09.2009 @ 10:27
As someone who claims reason and rationality as the basis for opinion, what do you have other than the squeaking of an ever-impotent left-wing noise machine and your own raw emotions to back up the following:
"The 30% of you who don’t believe this or reject it because you think it doesn’t matter are kidding yourselves. And you’re dragging conservatism down with your blindness."
First, you present nothing to support that only thirty percent "don't believe this" or "reject it because you think it doesn't matter..." My guess--the same way you devined your percentage--is the percentage is closer to 100 and absolutely correct in its opinion. Now if you want to Sullivanize yourself, it is your blog and have at it. But if you want to be taken seriously rather than read by dwindling freak show fans, you might want to take stock of such breathless, unsupported and rather off-the-wall assertions.
I won't even ask how you have concluded Beck hurts conservatism since he isn't one or even a Republican, has become a Brooks-like useful idiot and embraced Obama over McCain, and so forth. You are heavy on rhetoric and regurgitation of legacy media tripe but just as light on substance to back up your claims.
And even if you were right, and you aren't and present nothing to show you are, to what effect? Will you launch a one-man campaign to end Beck's career? Would that be worth a good goddamned? Hell, Soros-funded Media Matter did and Beck came out ahead. Would an obscure, increasingly erratic blog slay a pop culture giant? And why would it?
I also would nit about your description of the nation as "getting younger" since it is just the opposite per the census and hence the SS and Medicare crises, but demographics can be skewed like any statistical-based science. And poll after poll shows that the nation has become more conservative and wants less government contrary to what you wrote above. Maybe MSNBC or a hot Ouija Board reached another conclusion but objective numbers aren't your friend here.
I'm not being a son of a bitch. But, really, Rick.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 23.09.2009 @ 09:08
I fairly well agree with this blog except for a few minor nits.
The first is that the newspaper industry, in which I worked in management up until the late Eighties, pretty well knew the dangers it faced early on. In fact, given it took another two decades to hit full force, top management was pretty much on the mark. This is ironic since absolutely nothing was done to adjust the business model.
The second point is that while I agree political bias as such has not been that much of a factor, something has changed recently. Print (and increasingly broadcast, which also is on the ropes for similar reasons to newspapers) ignores stories such as the ACORN scandal and Van Jones and it drives readers and viewers to sources that report these items. Spiking stories to promote bias has started to hurt, and badly.
Finally, I agree right-of-center readers originally gravitated to right-of-center on line sources. That has diminished with the proliferation of other conservative outlets, which have started to reach parity with their liberal counterparts in broadcast.
Again, good analysis.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 22.09.2009 @ 09:58
I fully expect to see a living and breathing Bigfoot before Patriots are placed on the ground in the Czech Republic and Poland.
I hear and read constant comparisons of Obama to Carter. That may be unfair to Carter. Even he respected the suffering of Eastern Europe at the hands of the Russians and later the communists. I can't even describe Obama's foreign policy as "leftist," which would have been applicable to Carter. "Nihilist" is more appropriate. There are even a few left-of-center Democrats who won't take this betrayal of Eastern Europe lightly.
What should frighten us most is not that this happened on the 70th anniversary of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but that no one in the Obama Administration seemingly cared. This really is a sad day for American diplomacy. What wasn't mentioned in your blog and the comments is that there are Marxist--"neo-communist", if you will--parties throughout Eastern Europe. Voters who live in the shadow of the Bear may turn to them in upcoming elections since Russia will dominate those nations regardless of what democratic forces claim. That was the lesson learned today. Memories of the Prague Spring, Hungarian Uprising, and the Gdansk Invasion mean nothing to Obama, but to those who lived through those horrors, the West's past betrayals are fresh insults compounded by Washington's signal to Moscow today.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 18.09.2009 @ 14:34
In other news, the deficit tops $10,000,000,000.00.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 16.09.2009 @ 14:49
I believe a Georgia governor was the last to lament dueling's demise.
Perhaps the question can be framed as follows:
Is it more likely that President Obama (a)was elected because of his race, or (b)opposition to President Obama is based on his race? The probabilities, facts, and circumstances indicate the answer is (a), although both could be wrong.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 16.09.2009 @ 10:27
"An editor of the Harvard Law Review compared to a guy who couldn’t get into law school in Texas."
Bush released his transcripts. Obama's remain sealed. My guess is because like Bush he was a second-rate, "C" student of limited capacity. As for editing the Harvard Law Review, it is one of the few that allows that post to be filled by a popular election rather than academic merit. I'm sorry, but my point stands. An incompetent has been followed by an unqualified incompetent. Spin all you want, but as I wrote above this country is in deep shit.
As for the economics of Bush vs. Obama, the former has the edge since the latter basically is illiterate on the matter. To be fair, Obama was elected to end the war rather than fix the economy. The fact he has done neither and made both worse makes me debate whether he will edge out Bush, or the reverse, in rankings of pathetic, failed presidents.
From a partisan standpoint, I should fall on my knees and thank whatever powers there are that such an unqualified and ineffectual president of the other party followed Bush. As an American, I simply see a continuation of incompetence and cronyism on steroids.Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 16.09.2009 @ 09:17