PDA

View Full Version : Is it me or is this just way off base?



VWkid06
05-05-2009, 01:29 PM
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/who-will-sister-souljah-them.html


It's time to reclaim conservatism from Coulter and O'Reilly and Limbaugh and Hannity. Reihan:

Conservatives don't need higher volume. Conservatism at its best is a tough and demanding creed. To sell it, you can't call people who've lost their jobs and their homes "losers." You need to sell the virtues of a growing and flourishing economy and the free-market policies that will make it happen. Because conservatives aren't a majority, hard-edged accusations of socialism wind up alienating millions of potential allies -- voters who are a little uncomfortable with Obama's spending, particularly if it threatens to saddle their children with debt, but who recognize that the government needs to act to stave off an economic collapse.

Take yours truly. I'm not a Democrat and if pushed, I'd have to say right now I'm a libertarian independent. I'm uneasy about Obama's long-term debt, to say the least, but I'm intelligent enough to know it's not Obama's as such, but mainly Bush's, and I'm also cognizant that the time to cut back may not be in the middle (or beginning) of a brutal depression. On most issues, I side with what used to be the center-right, but the GOP is poison to me and many others. Why?

Their abandonment of limited government, their absurd spending under Bush, their contempt for civil liberties, their rigid mindset, their hostility to others, their worship of the executive branch, their contempt for judicial checks, their cluelessness with racial minorities and immigrants, their endorsement of torture as an American value, their homophobia, their know-nothing Christianism, and the sheer vileness of their leaders - from the dumb-as-a-post Steele to the brittle, money-grubbing cynic, Coulter and hollow, partisan neo-fascist Hannity.

Now i agree with the beginning opf paragraph #3 about abandoning smaller gov't and what not. but sean hannity a neo fascist? endorsing torture? know nothing christianism? libertarian independent my ass.

Lager
05-05-2009, 01:33 PM
I can think of one or two posters here who might have written that word for word.

lacarnut
05-05-2009, 01:41 PM
I can think of one or two posters here who might have written that word for word.

Me thinks the poseur is a liar and a hack.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 01:46 PM
I can think of one or two posters here who might have written that word for word.

You rang? :D

Seriously, Sullivan frames in a very negative way the same issue that Bush, Romney, and Cantor are putting a positive spin on and being discussed here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=14063). Taxes and the economy, smaller government, less government intervention are the winning issues, not social issues.

The demographics are killing the Republicans right now. The only age group solidly in the Republican camp are the Over 65s! :eek:

Gingersnap
05-05-2009, 02:03 PM
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/who-will-sister-souljah-them.html

Now i agree with the beginning opf paragraph #3 about abandoning smaller gov't and what not. but sean hannity a neo fascist? endorsing torture? know nothing christianism? libertarian independent my ass.

Consider the source. Sullivan is no real friend to conservatives and isn't one himself on most issues. Heck! He doesn't even play one on TV these days. ;)

noonwitch
05-05-2009, 02:07 PM
Andrew Sullivan is frequently the sole conservative panelist on Bill Maher's show. He's not a social conservative, and he's not an evangelical christian. He's gay, which is probably a good part of why he doesn't like the evangelical influence over the GOP.


He has a point about conservative commentators like Rush, Coulter and Hannity-they are not going to win people over to the cause, they are for preaching to the choir. The average, non-political american may not be comfortable with the level of debt being created, but they also don't like things like Hannity's end of the world mentality or Coulter's insulting prose and speech.

I don't lump O'Reilly in with the other three for a reason-he's a showman, and he is more of a conservative-leaning commentator than an all-out conservative one.

lacarnut
05-05-2009, 02:11 PM
You rang? :D

Seriously, Sullivan frames in a very negative way the same issue that Bush, Romney, and Cantor are putting a positive spin on and being discussed here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=14063). Taxes and the economy, smaller government, less government intervention are the winning issues, not social issues.

The demographics are killing the Republicans right now. The only age group solidly in the Republican camp are the Over 65s! :eek:

I consider Bush, Romney and Cantor RINO's. We went down that road with McCain and got our ass kicked. Although fiscal issues are more important to the average Joe, it is my opinion that social issues are also important. I don't want a fire breathing religious fanatic but I sure as hell do not want someone that has little moral fiber who is for legalizing drugs and prostitution along with allowing open borders. Would have a difficult time voting for either extreme candidate.

You are not too far from that 60 year old mark old man.:) The Repub party's popularity will increase not because what they are doing but what Obama is going to do to screw things up. Mid term elections will be telling.

wilbur
05-05-2009, 02:49 PM
Andrew Sullivan is frequently the sole conservative panelist on Bill Maher's show. He's not a social conservative, and he's not an evangelical christian. He's gay, which is probably a good part of why he doesn't like the evangelical influence over the GOP.


He has a point about conservative commentators like Rush, Coulter and Hannity-they are not going to win people over to the cause, they are for preaching to the choir. The average, non-political american may not be comfortable with the level of debt being created, but they also don't like things like Hannity's end of the world mentality or Coulter's insulting prose and speech.


Well, I would disagree, in that piss-ants like Rush, Hannity and Coulter do fire up a certain demographic, and even win people over.. people that generally makes social issues the number one priority. The mentality is that social issues are the foundation from where all good things (or bad) flow... and if they can just manage to get those social problems handled their way, everything else will fix itself

The aftermath is that we have a whole gaggle of militant "social conservatives" giving aid, comfort and encouragement to economically liberal "republican" politicians, like Bush, who simply give them enough bones on social issues to make them accept and sometimes even defend socialist policies so long as they come from a republican.

The message is clear... opposing stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage is enough. Anything else goes.

Rockntractor
05-05-2009, 02:59 PM
Well, I would disagree, in that piss-ants like Rush, Hannity and Coulter do fire up a certain demographic, and even win people over.. people that generally makes social issues the number one priority. The mentality is that social issues are the foundation from where all good things (or bad) flow... and if they can just manage to get those social problems handled their way, everything else will fix itself

The aftermath is that we have a whole gaggle of militant "social conservatives" giving aid, comfort and encouragement to economically liberal "republican" politicians, like Bush, who simply give them enough bones on social issues to make them accept and sometimes even defend socialist policies so long as they come from a republican.

The message is clear... opposing stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage is enough. Anything else goes.
Embryonic stem cell research. Get your facts straight!

Jfor
05-05-2009, 03:27 PM
The message is clear... opposing stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage is enough. Anything else goes.


Opposing FEDERALLY funded embyronic stem cell research is what conservatives are against. I.E. government funded. Private companies are able to use their own money if they so choose.

Abortion is just plain wrong. Do I believe it is the feds responsibility to tell everyone else whether it is right or wrong? No I don't. It is a states rights issue.

Gay marriage. Again, I believe it is wrong but again believe that it is a states rights issue.

lacarnut
05-05-2009, 04:19 PM
Opposing FEDERALLY funded embyronic stem cell research is what conservatives are against. I.E. government funded. Private companies are able to use their own money if they so choose.

.

Wilbur has his liberal talking points down pat. He does not realize that this type of research and others have been going on for years with private companies such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute along with many others. DUH

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 04:23 PM
Opposing FEDERALLY funded embyronic stem cell research is what conservatives are against. I.E. government funded. Private companies are able to use their own money if they so choose.
...

The problem with that argument is that any lab that was performing embyonic stem cell research was prohibited from all federal funds, not just funds directed for that particular research.

Jfor
05-05-2009, 04:36 PM
The problem with that argument is that any lab that was performing embyonic stem cell research was prohibited from all federal funds, not just funds directed for that particular research.

OK... What is the problem there?

Odysseus
05-05-2009, 04:37 PM
Well, I would disagree, in that piss-ants like Rush, Hannity and Coulter do fire up a certain demographic, and even win people over.. people that generally makes social issues the number one priority. The mentality is that social issues are the foundation from where all good things (or bad) flow... and if they can just manage to get those social problems handled their way, everything else will fix itself.
That's absolute BS. Most of Rush, Hannity and Coulter's arguments are based in constitutional principles and conservative economics. Today's Rush and Hannity shows were entirely about the economy and the destructive aspect of Obamanomics. They had nothing to do with social issues, except for the fact that this level of intrusion by the federal government will end up having disastrous consequences for social, as well as political and economic institutions.

The aftermath is that we have a whole gaggle of militant "social conservatives" giving aid, comfort and encouragement to economically liberal "republican" politicians, like Bush, who simply give them enough bones on social issues to make them accept and sometimes even defend socialist policies so long as they come from a republican.
The message is clear... opposing stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage is enough. Anything else goes.
Again, you've got it wrong. The RINOs usually get their way by either masquerading as conservatives until elected (Bush, for example, although compared to Obama, he's practically Margaret Thatcher) or by having the support of the country club set and defeating insurgent candidates (Spector). Usually, the social conservatives hold their noses in the general election and vote for the lesser evil, but the country clubbers invariably go out of their way to insult or denigrate them in order to generate good media coverage (McCain).

Opposing FEDERALLY funded embyronic stem cell research is what conservatives are against. I.E. government funded. Private companies are able to use their own money if they so choose.

Abortion is just plain wrong. Do I believe it is the feds responsibility to tell everyone else whether it is right or wrong? No I don't. It is a states rights issue.
You mean a federalism issue. The states traditionally license medical practitioners and practices, not the federal government. The federal usurpation of this authority began with Prohibition, which made the simple possession of a stubstance a federal crime, even if it involved no interstate commerce passage of state lines. From there, we got the war on drugs, which took the same approach and applied it to less popular substances, but which also usurped the states' authority to regulate what doctors could and could not prescribe. This precedent is why the feds can prosecute medical marijuana users who are genuinely acting on the orders of competent medical authority (unfortunately, California's law was so vague in what it defined as a medical practitioner/distributor that it virtually demanded federal reaction). Now, we see it in terms of abortion, gun control and a host of other issues which the states used to regulate, but which are now under federal jurisdiction. The Matthew Shepard bill is another example, as the feds seek jurisdiction over assault, homicide and vandalism.

Gay marriage. Again, I believe it is wrong but again believe that it is a states rights issue.
Except that because of the "Full faith and credit" clause, marriages recognized in one jurisdiction are valid in another. Thus, if gay marriage stands in one state, all other states will have to recognize those marriages, just as Nevada divorces used to be desired because they required far less documentation than those of other states, but other states had to accept them. If one state is going to impose its standard of conduct on all other states, then the federal government has a consitutional duty to regulate the conflict between the states.

hazlnut
05-05-2009, 04:47 PM
I can think of one or two posters here who might have written that word for word.

I would never be that hard on Sean Hannity. He makes me smile... as do rappers talking about their 'music'.

wilbur
05-05-2009, 04:47 PM
Wilbur has his liberal talking points down pat. He does not realize that this type of research and others have been going on for years with private companies such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute along with many others. DUH

It doesn't stop at mere questions of federal funding. If it appears that many of those people arent, at preset, as vocally or dogmatically opposed to the legality of /all/ ESC research as they are with abortion (which they view as equivalent), its only because of ignorance, cognitive dissonance and/or some short term pragmatism on their part.

wilbur
05-05-2009, 04:53 PM
That's absolute BS. Most of Rush, Hannity and Coulter's arguments are based in constitutional principles and conservative economics. Today's Rush and Hannity shows were entirely about the economy and the destructive aspect of Obamanomics. They had nothing to do with social issues, except for the fact that this level of intrusion by the federal government will end up having disastrous consequences for social, as well as political and economic institutions.

Again, you've got it wrong. The RINOs usually get their way by either masquerading as conservatives until elected (Bush, for example, although compared to Obama, he's practically Margaret Thatcher) or by having the support of the country club set and defeating insurgent candidates (Spector). Usually, the social conservatives hold their noses in the general election and vote for the lesser evil, but the country clubbers invariably go out of their way to insult or denigrate them in order to generate good media coverage (McCain).


Rush bases most of his arguments on conservative economics? Thats a laugh... more like rhetorical hyperbole and ridiculous loudmouth rabble rousing.

But once a democrat is installed in office, then the economic fear mongering returns... but when Obama lite's like Bush are in office, any bad mouthing of the economy is just the left "wishing for our country to fail", "doom and gloom hysteria" etc etc.

The family values and other social issue schticks tend to surface the strongest during election season.

Odysseus
05-05-2009, 05:08 PM
Rush bases most of his arguments on conservative economics? Thats a laugh... more like rhetorical hyperbole and ridiculous loudmouth rabble rousing.
Spoken like someone who claims to listen to the show, but doesn't.


But once a democrat is installed in office, then the economic fear mongering returns... but when Obama lite's like Bush are in office, any bad mouthing of the economy is just the left "wishing for our country to fail", "doom and gloom hysteria" etc etc.
You mean like when the media was trumpeting every tenth of a point uptick in the unemployment rate under Bush, or announcing that a recession was just around the corner, for eight years, but now ignores double-digit unemployment in major US cities and an overall rate that's almost 9%? BTW, Rush and Hannity were harder on Bush during the immigration bill debate than any other media outlet, and they excoriated him over TARP. Frankly, I consider them much better sources for economic news than anything on the networks, CNN or MSNBC.

The family values and other social issue schticks tend to surface the strongest during election season.
Wow, political issues tend to come to the forefront during election season, when people focus on... politics! What an insight! You should write OPEDs for the NY Times.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 05:25 PM
I would never be that hard on Sean Hannity. He makes me smile... as do rappers talking about their 'music'.

It's sort of like when I used to watch Jim and Tammy for the sheer fun of it!

lacarnut
05-05-2009, 05:46 PM
It doesn't stop at mere questions of federal funding. If it appears that many of those people arent, at preset, as vocally or dogmatically opposed to the legality of /all/ ESC research as they are with abortion (which they view as equivalent), its only because of ignorance, cognitive dissonance and/or some short term pragmatism on their part.

The private sector can do practically anything more efficiently and more cost effective than the Fed. government. So less government intervention means better results unless you are a die hard liberal. Wasteful spending is what the government is good at.

VWkid06
05-05-2009, 08:30 PM
wow this is a far better response than i expected....two pages already!

megimoo
05-05-2009, 09:07 PM
Andrew Sullivan is frequently the sole conservative panelist on Bill Maher's show. He's not a social conservative, and he's not an evangelical christian. He's gay, which is probably a good part of why he doesn't like the evangelical influence over the GOP.


He has a point about conservative commentators like Rush, Coulter and Hannity-they are not going to win people over to the cause, they are for preaching to the choir. The average, non-political american may not be comfortable with the level of debt being created, but they also don't like things like Hannity's end of the world mentality or Coulter's insulting prose and speech.

I don't lump O'Reilly in with the other three for a reason-he's a showman, and he is more of a conservative-leaning commentator than an all-out conservative one.Not only is he gay he is also an HIV positive in remission and still an active homosexual !He is hard core liberal and if that idiot Bill Maher's poses Sullivan as a conservative and you fall for it shame on you !

wilbur
05-06-2009, 12:15 AM
Spoken like someone who claims to listen to the show, but doesn't.


I've listened to Rush off and on since he's been on the air. The reply you just gave is the proper ditto-head reply to any criticism levied against him or his show, straight from the manual... I know this because I have listened to him for a long time.

Odysseus
05-06-2009, 09:47 AM
It doesn't stop at mere questions of federal funding. If it appears that many of those people arent, at preset, as vocally or dogmatically opposed to the legality of /all/ ESC research as they are with abortion (which they view as equivalent), its only because of ignorance, cognitive dissonance and/or some short term pragmatism on their part.
Or, they could just object to people using their taxes for something that they find morally objectionable and which has yielded almost nothing compared to the work done with adult stem cells. Frankly, I don't like federal funding being used for this, but only because I don't see a constitutional provision for funding everybody's pet projects. Also note that a number of states have allocated funds to ESC research. Why is it that you're outraged at those who have a moral qualm about it, but not at those who are opening up the public coffers to yet another boondoggle? By focusing the debate on the religious aspect of the opponents, the advocates frame this as a debate between science and superstition, instead of it being scrutinized for what it really is, which is just another means of turning public money into graft.

I've listened to Rush off and on since he's been on the air. The reply you just gave is the proper ditto-head reply to any criticism levied against him or his show, straight from the manual... I know this because I have listened to him for a long time.
I've been listening to Rush since the early 90s and I wasn't aware of a manual. I'll have to check the website. What I do know is that your criticisms match the left's talking points about Rush, but have nothing to do with the content of his show, which includes the assertion that he somehow holds the Republican Party in thrall. Frankly, I wish that the party higher ups would listen to him and Hannity, as both of them have been staunch defenders of fiscal responsibility, strong national defense and most importantly, not sucking up to Democrats who are more concerned with being in power than anything else. The Republicans who are trying to ingratiate themselves to a media that loathes them and a political party that wants them eradicated as a political opposition are the problem, and principled, cogent spokesmen who rally the base against the excesses of the elite are a major part of the solution, hence the deliberate smear campaign.

noonwitch
05-06-2009, 11:10 AM
Not only is he gay he is also an HIV positive in remission and still an active homosexual !He is hard core liberal and if that idiot Bill Maher's poses Sullivan as a conservative and you fall for it shame on you !



Sullivan is not a liberal. He's just not a hard right conservative. He was a strong Bush supporter in 2000. The DUers despise him.

I think when you say someone is gay, you don't really need to restate that he is "still an active homosexual", unless his sexual orientation is something that you really feel the need to emphasize.

I didn't know he was HIV positive, but if he is and he is in remission, it gives me hope for others who also are HIV positive.

Rebel Yell
05-06-2009, 11:19 AM
Sullivan is not a liberal. He's just not a hard right conservative. He was a strong Bush supporter in 2000. The DUers despise him.

I think when you say someone is gay, you don't really need to restate that he is "still an active homosexual", unless his sexual orientation is something that you really feel the need to emphasize.

I didn't know he was HIV positive, but if he is and he is in remission, it gives me hope for others who also are HIV positive.

I think to get what he was saying you have to emphasize HIV and "still active". A person who is HIV positive, but still sexually active (straight or gay) with anyone NOT HIV positive is not acting responsibly.



Not so much for anyone HIV positive because they had sex with him. He pretty much takes away all their hope.



He's not just sure, he's HIV positive.

noonwitch
05-06-2009, 01:25 PM
I think to get what he was saying you have to emphasize HIV and "still active". A person who is HIV positive, but still sexually active (straight or gay) with anyone NOT HIV positive is not acting responsibly.



Not so much for anyone HIV positive because they had sex with him. He pretty much takes away all their hope.



He's not just sure, he's HIV positive.


I think I got what he was saying, just fine. You make a good point about sexual responsibility, but I really don't think that's what meg's post was about. It was about Andrew Sullivan being gay and an active homosexual, terms that have the same meaning in today's language.

There is such a thing as responsible sex for HIV positive partners. I had a friend who died of AIDS in the 90s, but his long term partner never even developed HIV, due to the proper use of condoms. My friend got the disease when he came out in his 40s and went wild.

Odysseus
05-06-2009, 06:00 PM
Sullivan is not a liberal. He's just not a hard right conservative. He was a strong Bush supporter in 2000. The DUers despise him.

I think when you say someone is gay, you don't really need to restate that he is "still an active homosexual", unless his sexual orientation is something that you really feel the need to emphasize.

I didn't know he was HIV positive, but if he is and he is in remission, it gives me hope for others who also are HIV positive.

Sullivan is a social liberal with a few conservative positions on national defense and spending. At best, that makes him a RINO, somewhere around Alen Specter in terms of overall positions, and about as reliable an indicator on the value of conservative principles to the Republican Party.

megimoo
05-06-2009, 11:09 PM
Sullivan is not a liberal. He's just not a hard right conservative. He was a strong Bush supporter in 2000. The DUers despise him.

I think when you say someone is gay, you don't really need to restate that he is "still an active homosexual", unless his sexual orientation is something that you really feel the need to emphasize.

I didn't know he was HIV positive, but if he is and he is in remission, it gives me hope for others who also are HIV positive.As usual your liberal head is far up your liberal butt.Sullivan is a closet liberal and if you would take the time you would find that he also has a PHD from the uber liberal K school at Harvard don't you know ?

And for your information AIDS is forever, The word remission doesn't mean cured ,it's only temporary .
Sullivan has been many things .

"Andrew Sullivan was born in August 1963 in a small town in Southern England, South Godstone, and grew up in a neighboring town, East Grinstead, in West Sussex.

He attended Reigate Grammar School, and Magdalen College, Oxford, where he took a First in Modern History and Modern Languages.

He was also President of the Oxford Union in his Second Year at college, and spent his summer vacations as an actor in the National Youth Theatre of Great Britain. "

He sounds a little like Rahm !