Interview with Bob Turner (R-CAND/NY-9)
The campaign of Bob Turner- who is running against Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) this year- was kind enough to schedule an interview with Mr. Turner. The interview was originally published at www.rightosphere.com, and is seen below.
Dustin Siggins: So I was reading National Review, the review you got, and I found it very interesting- especially because, on a personal level, I tried to interview Rep. Weiner some weeks ago
Bob Turner: *Chuckles*
DS: On his Politico piece about Social Security. I was going to do a bit of investigative journalism, getting his perspective; getting the perspective of someone else who disagrees with him; and his press secretary answered my phone calls, never responded to my e-mails, and blew me off. So it was very interesting how that worked, especially considering how much he’s on Fox, and how much he’s out there, that he wouldn’t want to talk to someone. I found that very interesting. So I will admit I have a bit of a personal vendetta in going to talk to you.
BT: *Chuckles* Okay.
DS: I have no shame in admitting that. Speaking of Politico, I’m sure you have an opinion on Social Security. Do you agree with the Congressman that Social Security is sound, and if not, how do you fix it?
BT: Weiner suggests that Social Security is sound. In reality, it is no more secure than any other U.S. debt obligations. Some people think the Social Security fund is like a secured savings account, but Social Security money has been spent. What’s left is an IOU, so this is no more secure than every one of our other debts, and all our debts are reliant on the state of the economy.
DS: Okay. How would you- what do you think are good policies to implement, to prevent this IOU from getting worse, which it’s only going to, at this rate?
BT: Well, to fix and to secure Social Security, we need to address the overall health of the economy. Obama’s economic policies- which Weiner supports- are a failure. The way to fix the economy is not through social stimulus spending, but we have to promote business growth. That is the tried-and-true way; it’s still tax cuts and tax credits for research and development; lower capital gains tax; incentives for venture capitalists; new business credits. These are the kind of programs and stimuli that create jobs and expand the economy.
We also have to keep an eye on prudent spending- spending cuts, reduction in government expansion, elimination of waste- you know, all of the tried-and-true methods to get this train back on track.
DS: Okay. I’ll take a little segue into social issues for just a moment.
BT: Okay.
DS: I didn’t see anything on your website regarding abortion. I was wondering what your opinion on it was.
BT: I’m an unabashed pro-lifer. I’m opposed to abortion on moral, religious, social grounds. Partial-birth abortion is particularly heinous, and Weiner has supported that. That would put me on the extreme other end of that position. This is not so much a legislative issue as judicial, except for federal fundings, which if- no, when I’m elected, I would certainly oppose all federal funding of abortion.
DS: You mentioned judicial issues. Can you explain that, just a little bit?
BT: Well, in Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court has said the states cannot legislate abortions as a personal right, so it would probably take a Constitutional amendment, and a major social issue I just don’t think is on the agenda for the next two or four years. The only practical opposition here will be funding- or defunding- of any abortion programs on the federal level.
DS: Fair enough. This has [inaudible] issue since Mitch Daniels- governor of Indiana- said we should have a truce, but obviously with President Obama in office we’re never gonna be able to get a pro-life-
BT: Well, exactly.
DS: – person on the Supreme Court. I guess my third question- I don’t know how much you’ve followed this- Rep. Weiner has targeted Goldline-
BT: Oh, yeah, I got a lot to say about this one.
DS: I was wondering two different questions (related). One, whether or not Goldline has done good or bad things, is this what a Congressman should be involved in? Should a Congressman be involved in targeting a company like this? And second of all- and related to that- if not, why do you think not? If so, why do you think so?
BT: There’s far more to this than meets the eye, and I’d like to give you a bit of my personal experience on this. I believe Representative Weiner is carrying the water for the Obama administration in his fight against Glenn Beck. In reality, it’s a diversion and a sideshow from many of the real issues that Beck is speaking about. You know, we have serious issues, and this ordinarily wouldn’t be worth too much attention, but what they- they: Weiner, Pelosi, Obama, and Company- are really doing is targeting this advertiser to chase the advertiser off the air. By so doing, they harm Beck. Get enough advertisers to do that, and he’s off the air.
Now, some years ago, I did a program, the TV program, with Rush Limbaugh. It lasted three or four years on the air. It was a half-hour television show. I don’t know if you remember it. It was in the mid-90s.
DS: Um, I was 10 at that time, so probably not.
BT: [Laughs} Oh, okay- so you don’t. You were not the target audience.
DS: No, I was not. [Laughs]
BT: At that time, it was a syndicated program, that means the company I was running produced, financed it, distributed it to the stations, and then sold the advertising time to recoup its investment. We found ourselves scrounging for advertisers because a lot of mainline advertisers had received letters. It didn’t take many, and through a little investigation we were reasonably sure those letters were generated by surrogates of the DNC. Most of the letters were from GLAAD, or NOW, accusing Rush of being homophobic, misogynistic, etc. What it did was make the advertisers hesitant. What ultimately happened is the rates we were charging were about half of what we would ordinarily get- which hindered the program. The program was still profitable, but instead of the ratings- which were a little under a 3, which might have generated $25 million a year- we were doing $15, $14 million per year, not making it that attractive for Rush to continue, or his executive producer- brilliant young guy names Roger Ailes.
DS: Roger Ailes? I’ve never heard that term applied to him, but maybe it’s all relative.
BT: That was in the mid-90s. [Laughs]
DS: [Laughs] I’m 24 years old, so I may be a little-
BT: So after that number of years we said, “This is not-“ It was profitable, but it was not profitable enough to be worth the effort, particularly when Rush was doing 10 times better or more in radio. So that effort against the advertisers turned out to be decisive. I see the same thing here, and I can tell you that from personal experience this is not about attacking Goldline- this is about attacking Beck’s advertisers to hinder or cripple the program.
DS: I think it’s a sign of success when he has-
BT: Oh, indeed. He has them scared.
DS: He’s got them scared. You know, they keep talking about all these advertisers that have dropped him, but the evidence just isn’t there that- I just read the most recent numbers; he got something like 2.54 million viewers on his Fox show. [DS: The actual ratings, according to Huffington Post(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/30/cable-news-ratings-top-30_n_630984.html#s108334) have Beck at 2.057 million viewers per day- third in cable behind O’Reilly and Hannity, respectively.] It’s something along those lines. I mean, he’s smoking everybody, except for Hannity and O’Reilly. So it’s really not working.
So I guess- one of my last questions- I looked at Real Clear Politics to see what they judge the race as, and they don’t even judge the race as competitive. According to the National Review piece, you got in because there was no one to write a check to.
BT: That is true.
DS: So how do you- I don’t know how long Rep. Weiner’s been in office for, but it’s been quite some time-
BT: He’s going for his seventh term.
DS: He’s articulate- I’ve seen him on TV- he’s articulate-
BT: Slick.
DS: Slick, okay. He has a lot of alleged facts at his control- how do you overcome this? I guess it’s an anti-incumbent year, but-
BT: True. I’m not sure how others may judge the competitiveness of this race, but I know something about the people of the 9th District and what they’re concerned about. This is a district of working middle-class homeowners, small business operators- these people work, they pay taxes, these are (dare I say) typical Americans in a very ethnically-diverse area. But these are the things they have in common, and they are worried. They are worried about jobs, about the economy, and they are extremely dissatisfied with the current administration and, I believe, they tie in the Democrats Pelosi and Weiner with as being architects of this problem. Now, the fact that Anthony Weiner has not run against anyone in the last few elections, to me, does not mean he is unbeatable. In the grassroots support, I just feel it. We have just begun, and my political career is three months old. We had our first meeting with volunteers, and we had about 70 people show up.
DS: Wow.
BT: The goal is to get a thousand to cover every one of the 512 EDs in this district, but it’s growing exponentially. I asked, with a show of hands, “How many of you have [n]ever been involved in a political campaign before?” [DS: The audio did not catch the “n” in “never”- which Mr. Turner did say.] And my hand was the first one up. But after that, about 90% of the people in that room have never been involved, and they cut across multiple ages and areas of this district. I found that a very encouraging sign.
If you talk to Karl Rove or Dick Morris, they’ll tell you you need a photogenic candidate. You need Slick slogans and political tricks, and you need a ton of campaign money. Well, how are we doing? Well, I’ve got a face for radio-
DS: [Laughs] I’m in the same boat you are.
BT: And as far as slick political slogans and all, we’re gonna run on principles. That should be unique.
DS: [Laughs]
BT: And for a ton of money, we got volunteers, and we have a lot of them. I can feel the ground moving, and the grass is swaying in our direction. I think this will be under the radar until September. We’re getting a reasonable response to the contribution effort, but a lot of this won’t be seen until later in the campaign, but I think people will kind of wake up around the beginning of September, and they’ll realize this will be a very competitive race.
There are a lot of things going on- a lot of changes in this district that are not apparent on the face of it, but I think this is going to be a very competitive race.
DS: Well, then, I guess I have one more question for you, before I let you go. You mentioned earlier the Obama social spending, and you just said you are going to run on principle. For me personally, I believe the biggest issue facing this nation is our debt- the debt crisis coming down the pike. According to the CBO it’s 2020, according to the IMF it’s 2015, that we hit 100% of debt-to-GDP ratio.
BT: Yes.
DS: So I was wondering two things: How do you think Americans (I don’t know if you will be able to answer this), how do you think Americans can trust Republicans, considering it was Bush who really started this spending, and Obama, who’s just made it worse. How can Americans trust Republicans, and secondly, as a Member of Congress, would you be willing to cut defense spending- which has at least doubled in the last decade- as a part of reigning in that spending?
BT: I’d be looking to cut spending. I’d be less inclined to cut defense spending when we’re in the midst of the long war, and in a very uncertain world. I believe America’s strength is in its strong military, and secondly, in its strong defense of the right and principles and human freedom, and not some wishy-washy diplomatic tactician’s-
DS: But it’s worked out so well.
BT: [Chuckles] Yeah. The money that can be cut- and there’s only so much real cutting that can be done- is in the redundancies and the wasteful government spending and a cap on spending. And digging into the administrative programs to cut out billions- hundreds of billions- in waste and unneeded programs. But the real way to manage the deficit is to increase the productivity of the nation as a whole. It may even have to be- and it will be- tax decreases in particular areas, particularly against business, that will help grow the economy, and bring that ratio of GDP to deficit down to what we can have manageable levels. It will take a long time before we can really attack this, and I think what we need is appropriations reform in the House- how bills are put together- how earmarks and riders can be attached to bills. We can change all that within the House rules, and a majority of Republicans can do that. Whether they have the political will, I think, in January, we’re gonna find out. We’ll be the majority, and we have [to] them to the test. I am more committed to the principles than to the party, and I hope there are enough others like that, but that remains to be seen. But you’ll get a fight from me, I can tell you that.
DS: Well, you got in because, as you said earlier, there was nobody to write a check to, so I doubt you’re going to be in for a 25-year career in the House.
BT: [Laughs] That would be most unlikely. I think an actuary would put my life expectancy at a little under that anyway, but-
DS: Well, I don’t know how old you are- 66?
BT: 69.
DS: Wow. Geez.
BT: [Laughs] Yeah, we don’t have to dwell on that-
DS: [Laughs] No, no, no- you have the experience, you have the…all the things Rep. Weiner does not, that’s your advantage, right?
BT: Well, yeah, that’s true to a degree. I’ve actually started businesses, and run them, and had real jobs, yes. Mr. Weiner, Mr. Obama, have never had a real job, have never in a business environment, never been at risk.
DS: Well, we definitely agree on this last point.
Harry’s Situation…
In the episode of the FX show It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia called “The Gang Goes Jihad,” the three guys who own the Philadelphia bar come face-to-face with a man who just moved from Israel and had bought land that included a portion of their establishment. Throughout the episode, the three characters banter over the proper use of the term Jew. At one point they T.P. the man’s building, during which this exchange occurs:
“That jew’s in for a hell of a lot of work.”
“Wow, wow, cool it man.”
“What? What are you talking about?”
“Dude, you just dropped a hard J.”
“No man, he is of Jewish descent and that is a lot of toilet paper. That is going to take a lot of time to clean up. I was thinking bout the context the whole time.”
Suffice to say, I love this show. But who needs to fork over the extra money to get FX Network when you can watch similar debates occur on the local news? It’s one thing to have three mentally unstable friends squabble over political correctness; how about a twenty three year Senator, and current Senate Majority leader demonstrating his inability to decide whether or not to use the out-dated term negro? In case you have been living with Patrick Star under a rock this past week, here is what Senator Reid is quoted in a new Mark Halperin book, Game Change:
“He (Reid) was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he later put it privately.”
The words could have come straight out of Archibald Bunker’s mouth. What is it that has the country so enveloped in this demonstration of ignorance? Ironically enough, Sen. Reid was attempting to compliment the future President of the United States. Instead people are up in arms. If we dissect the statement, we can see that there are distinct parts that probably incite more reaction than others. In what context is the term Negro acceptable? None (and the same goes for you Rush, even though you used it in a parody that ended up making fun of just this situation). Is it true that lighter-skinned African Americans tend to be more influential, more popular, and more electable in society than those who are darker? Sadly this seems to be the case in many situations, but I cannot pretend to be able to comment on the use of such racially charged language and how blacks feel about it truly, in their heart of hearts. Perhaps we should look at what he meant by “Negro dialect,” what does he mean there? Surely he demonstrated that he is out of touch with America because most people refer to ‘Ebonics’ or ‘street-talk’ when they are trying to make a similar point. Nobody is unaware of either of these terms, and his comment just shows his ignorance to popular culture as well as manners.
There is a lot to analyze there; but there seems to be something missing that is causing such turbulence in the souls of many Americans. For me, it’s not what was said on the surface, as much as it is what was said without being said. How can we use this black man to our advantage? He is black, which is useful; he ‘is articulate,’ which is useful; he can turn his ‘blackness on and off;’ which is useful; in the end, this black man is useful and will succeed for us because he is black how we want him to be, but not black when we need him to be. THAT my friends, is racism. There seems to be a disconnect between people who are viewing these comments and only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and those of us who see the rest of the iceberg plummeting miles into the ocean.
This was seen on Sunday, when I watched with gaping mouth, as Liz Cheney and George Will clashed over this point. Mr. Will seems to be looking at the comments on a surface level, Ms. Cheney on the deeper level. In order to be completely forthcoming, I must fess up to a deep admiration to both people (and NONE of the others around the table). I was sad to see the two fight, and sad to differ from George Will, again. However, I think those African Americans who are tired of feeling like pawns in a political game; whether it’s an effort to win voting blocks in cities with programs that have proven to be detrimental to the black family and communities, or putting up candidates that fit a litmus test for winning and avoiding the Bradley Effect. This is not a case of Republican versus Democrat, this is a demonstration of a disgusting ends justifies the means mentality for domestic politics, and should be condemned as such.
-rj
A Numbers Game
In a September 28 post on the American Enterprise Institute blog, scholar and author Charles Murray lamented about the loss of intellectualism in conservative politics. While, Murray is specifically disgruntled about the void left by three ?giants? of the Right: Milton Friedman, William F. Buckley, and Irving Kristol, one can conclude that he is referring to the conservative world in general. He begrudgingly contrasts the positive attributes of the ?giants? with the ?angry, mean-spirited, and often embarrassingly ignorant? voices of the Right today, naming Glenn Beck and implying others.
On a similar note, two days ago, David Brooks opined that the ?talk jocks? have no real power only ?illusionary power? yet Republican politicians fall for this ?media mythology? and ?preemptively surrender to armies that don?t exist.? Whether Brooks is correct with that assessment or not, is beside the point. These ?talk jocks? obviously do carry substantial weight or the issue of whether or not they are good for conservatism and the Republican Party wouldn?t be discussed everywhere from the opinion pages of The New York Times, to right here at thelobbyist.net
For a moment, Murray?s nostalgia for the intellectual ?apogee? of conservatism can?t help but make a young conservative, such as myself, wonder if men like this walk among us today especially when you listen to what?s being said on the airwaves. While seminal figures such as the three ?giants? are nearly impossible to replicate, there are certainly a number of intellectual conservatives today who are influential in their own right, yet they are often overshadowed by the loud and angry ?populist? style pundits. The problem today is not that there aren?t intellectuals to take up the standard left by the likes of Buckley, Friedman, and Kristol, it is that their predecessors are often slandered as ?elitists? and are not as well known and unfortunately, not as influential as the ?populist? wing of conservatism who rant and rave on the airwaves and on television. More high-brow outlets for conservative opinion such as Commentary, The Weekly Standard, the now defunct The Public Interest, and the newly minted National Affairs have circulations of 35,000-60,000, compared to the over 3 million Americans who tune in to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh every day. Though I share David Brook?s critique of the ?talk-jocks,? Rush Limbaugh did pose a valid question in response, ?how many Americans know who David Brooks is?? Unfortunately, not enough.
Intellectualism in the conservative movement is not dead, but it is overshadowed by the boorish, rude, and angry voices of ?populist? red-meat style pundits. For people who so regularly and fondly quote and cite President Reagan, they certainly don?t share his cheery disposition and optimistic attitude. Unfortunately, even if the ?talk jocks? yield only ?illusionary power,? they still influence the thinking of millions of conservatives and are counterproductive to those on the Right who are interested in the future success of the conservative movement and the Republican Party.
Sam K.? Theodosopoulos is an undergraduate at the George Washington University and is the Editor-at-Large of the GW Young Americas Foundation Blog.
Responding to David Brooks
Yesterday, David Brooks wrote a very interesting column?regarding the real political effectiveness of conservative talk radio. Brooks missed three points, however, in his analysis. I spell them out below.?
First, Brooks says this: ?Over the past few years the talk jocks have demonstrated their real-world weakness time and again. Back in 2006, they threatened to build a new majority on anti-immigration fervor. Republicans like J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, both of Arizona, built their House election campaigns under that banner. But these two didn?t march to glory. Both lost their campaigns.? However, in 2007, talk radio got a resounding victory in shutting down the immigration reform bill then-President Bush, then-Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Senator McCain (R-AZ) famously tried to pass. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi?(D-CA), the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Usnews.com, Senator Feinstein (D-CA),?the Seattle Times, HotAir.com & Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Al), The Heritage Foundation, and then-senator Trent Lott (R-MS), to name but a few sources, all blame talk radio for the defeat. Note there are several influential politicians in this group, and not just Republicans, somewhat opposed to the following statement in Brooks? column: ??I have asked many politicians what happens when Limbaugh and his colleagues attack?Hundreds of calls come in. The receptionists are miserable. But the numbers back home do not move?In the media world, he is a giant. In the real world, he?s not.? Yes, all of the?above have reasons to pick talk radio as a target of comment (Pelosi was in all likelihood trying to paint opposition as unintelligent, etc.), but these are just a few of the many sources boosting the claim that talk radio helped shut down the immigration reform bill.
Secondly, Brooks says, ?Yet somehow, despite the fervor of the great microphone giants, the Thompson campaign flops like a fish.? As a former fan of Thompson?s presidency?the former senator did himself in. I had barely heard of the guy until Spring 2007, when a variety of conservatives I knew- some in the military, some in the media, still others students at my university- began clamoring for him to run. I looked him up, and found myself quite impressed. By June 2007 I became a supporter, and was one of many who found his delayed announcement of a campaign to be brilliantly played.
?Unfortunately, my support for Thompson became strained as his delay became annoying, then irritating and then finally disrespectful. I was at the University of New Hampshire ?First in the Fall? primary debate, and was wondering if Thompson was going to show up to the debate or to Jay Leno?s show, as was rumored. Unfortunately for his campaign, Thompson went on Jay Leno?s show.?As a New Hampshire citizen until earlier this year, candidates for office who showboat as opposed to show up rank very low in my book. New Hampshireites are big on meeting people face-to-face in grassroots circumstances. (For example, without trying too hard I met or asked questions to the following Presidential candidates as a New Hampshire college student: President Obama; Secretary Clinton; Senator McCain; Representatives Paul, Tancredo, Hunter and Kucinich; and former Senator Edwards.) I think many people across America feel the same way.
?The death knell for Thompson?s campaign was his increasingly appearance of not caring. He was reported as saying, ?”I’m not sure in the world we live in today it’s a terribly good thing that a president has too much fire in his belly.”? Were this Thompson?s only transgression of this type, the rest of his comments in that speech would have gotten more attention, such as the one about serving the country. However, it was not. One example of this was when, in the second-to-last debate before the New Hampshire primary (Ron Paul fans will remember it as the one Fox News did not let Representative Paul appear in the debate), Thompson appeared to fall asleep. Watching it with my aunt?I actually thought he did. His remarks, when he was awake, were brilliant. However, you can?t fall asleep and expect to win. Even talk radio can?t overcome a bad campaign and bad campaign strategy.
?Lastly, Brooks talks about Romney?s failure to win the Republican primary despite talk radio?s fervent support for his candidacy. As NRO?s Ramesh Ponnuru said on ?The Corner? yesterday, many of the talk radio people entered the ?Go Romney? camp late. (Quotes mine.) According to HotAir.com, Limbaugh essentially endorsed Romney on February 5, 2008, after the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa caucus, on Super Tuesday. Sorry, Mr. Brooks; a same-day endorsement isn?t the same as supporting Romney for months. Most conservatives had made their mind up by that point. Even Ann Coulter (that bastion of intellectual conservatism) admitted she came out for Romney too late.
Brooks does have some great points- even combining all the top conservative talk radio hosts, they are only getting a few dozen million listeners, tops (that assumed little-to-no overlap of fans), which is a fraction of the country but a goodly percent of the voting-age Republican population (we can debate how many of those people actually vote another time, though Brooks claims political offices say that?there is no impact on polls or?changing public support due to talk radio). Secondly, Limbaugh’s Clinton strategy (against then-candidate Obama)?failed miserably, as Brooks states; however, I doubt I am the only one who was never certain if Limbaugh was being serious or facetious. Lastly, his point about going outside of the ?niche-building? of talk radio is extraordinarily poignant- after all, talk radio hosts and politicians generally have the same goal (the betterment of the country) but VERY different tactics in which to succeed, given the differences in chosen platforms.
?The fact, though, is that in the matters of day-to-day politics, Glenn Beck was largely responsible for the resignation of once-czar Anthony ?Van? Jones, and?popularized the 9/12 Project. While numbers are uncertain, with the Washington Post and New York Times claiming anywhere from thousands to tens of thousands and, as Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) said at the Americans for Prosperity ?Defending the American Dream? Summit, which I attended, Fox News said there were ?a billion.? (Pence claims to have seen a million attendees.) Whatever one may think of Beck, Limbaugh, Savage, Ingraham and the rest, they have a massive amount of influence on activism and politics in America. To dismiss them as Brooks does is to miss both the positive and negative effects they have on the political process through the millions of listeners who follow them.
Hearing Thunder at CPAC
I was there. Leaning against the side wall about seven rows from the stage, I witnessed Rush Limbaugh deliver his “first address to the nation” at CPAC on Saturday afternoon.
The ground was shaking, the walls were vibrating, the hall was rumbling.?Several thousand people entered a room in one mood, and left in another. The speaker perfectly channeled his audience’s anger, unease, confusion, frustration, and defensiveness with a?hot yet handled command beneath a healthy, vibrant superiority complex on full display for the entire?world. And I enjoyed every minute of it.
But I also remained deeply contemplative. During Rush’s entire speech, I couldn’t help but feel like I was given a sort of introduction or prologue to it about a full week beforehand. And then I remembered Matthew Continetti’s latest column in the newest issue of The Weekly Standard, titled “The Age of Irresponsibility.”
He tells, overall, of the degeneracy of our society–?although not?as?having come, as?usually suspected,?from the ground up (just the opposite). In other words, the powers that be have failed us morally, spiritually, and behaviorally, and as a result America has almost run out of heroes.?At that point in a society, very bad things always follow.?I will further analyze Continetti’s words in my next column, but until then, I’ll?leave a quote from the piece’s conclusion:
“Things can get a whole lot worse. A failure of accountability not only erodes the foundations of our culture. It also puts our country on unstable fiscal ground. A storm of moral and financial insolvency has been brewing for some time. The populist reaction is only the beginning. We’re hearing the thunder. Get ready for the deluge.”‘
(Hint: He’s not only talking about economics.)
- TQ
A Rush To Judgement…
After having watched the Sunday morning Squawking… Anyone may have come away thinking that Rush Limbaugh, during his speech to CPAC this past weekend, committed treason against our country.? Why is it so hard for the pragmatic left, the middle left, and the media to understand our fury? (I did not touch upon the malicious left, like Maddow and Olbermann because they are angry even when they have someone in power doing everything they wanted, so they should be very aware of anger).
There have always been several “parties” that make up the Conservative movement.? What our dear mentor, William F. Buckley did was create a broad philosophy that was inclusive of all these passions and beliefs.? Now we are splitting not so much by the fault lines between these smaller groups, but between our more passionate libertarian wing, and those who are a bit more mellow and pragmatic.? Every Conservative has felt the tug of both sides: especially when you are younger.? You want to fight for your beliefs, but as true Conservatives, we understand that there lies a difference between Reactionaries and Conservatives.
Rush touched a nerve because we want to fight for our beliefs, and apparently feeling passionately about your country makes you a rabid reactionary according to the media that I watch at least.? But unlike our President, we are not a “blank canvas” that people can paint whatever they want to see on.? Rush’s speech is worth a look through because he passionately says what we feel.? And until we start ‘tar and feathering’ people, I think we are within the parameters of civility, no matter what the media says… or Rahm Immanuel.
-rj
