The drug problem at the Washington Post
This is the headline of EJ Dionne’s column yesterday, and I’ve read three times and can’t see wtf he’s talking about
As near as I can tell, this is EJ’s “stop me before I write again” plea;
Obama will thus be the conservative in 2012, in the truest sense of that word. He is the candidate defending the modestly redistributive and regulatory government the country has relied on since the New Deal, and that neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush dismantled. The rhetoric of the 2012 Republicans suggests they want to go far beyond where Reagan or Bush ever went. And here’s the irony: By raising the stakes of 2012 so high, Republicans will be playing into Obama’s hands. The GOP might well win a referendum on the state of the economy.
Yeah, the only way Obama becomes the conservative is if you completely redefine what conservatism is, as Dionne has done with that last paragraph.
Category: Liberals suck, Media
Hah! Obama portrayed as a Conservative is delusion at it’s finest. Sadly the GOP isn’t mounting any candidate as one either.
I used to read Dionne’s columns until it dawned on me that fisking them was an exercise in futility. How that man holds down a position as an opinion columnist, I will never know. He has to have some compromising photos of WaPo editors squirreled away in a safe deposit box is all I can figure. He is thicker than 5 oak planks, dumber than a box of nails, and makes broccoli look intelligent in comparison.
It’s a word game, semantics. To the extent that conservativism means maintaining the status quo, he can pat himself on the back and tell himself how very clever he is. The problem is that conservatism in the sense that he is using it, is not the way it is understood by the rest of us. When all else fails, it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
Nobody can say “Obama” and “conservative” in the same sentence without laughing their asses off.
Even if Romney becomes the nominee.
without being able to actually evaluate the writer in person, I’d suggest he took a hit of LSD. The writing is disjointed and draws conslusions that only a person taking LSD could come to.
Other than that, it makes no sense.
Suffice to say, E.J. Dionne has never had any credibility.
He just parrots whatever the Democrats talking points are.
Confusing the definition of the word conservative is what the last five years have been about. “Conservatives” now believe all sorts of ridiculous tropes.
Even CI calls himself a conservative! That’s how stupid this is getting.
@7 – “Even CI calls himself a conservative! That’s how stupid this is getting.”
As do you….so stupid may indeed be appropriate. Imagine, the nerve of Conservatives actually believing in liberty for the individual!
Absolutely I believe in the liberty of the individual. And what would make you think that I didn’t?
CI, your type of “conservatism” simply didn’t exist until about the last ten years, more specifically the last five. That’s because it isn’t conservatism.
#1 – I disagree. Newt Gingrich has a distinguished record as such, and, in fact, he is now and he always has been a hardcore and articulate spokesman for Conservative values.
Rick Perry vascillates between being a Conservative and an, um, conservative moderate with a distinguished record, and both Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman keep telling us that they are Conservatives in lieu of having distinguished records to run on.
Forget the debates. Haven’t you bee paying any attention to the performances of those four candidates for the past several years? Your assertion was rash at best.
@10 – You seem to confuse Conservatism and Republican.
“Absolutely I believe in the liberty of the individual. And what would make you think that I didn’t?”
By all means, if I’m incorrect, I apologize. But in past remarks by my memory, you seemed unwilling in certain cases to ascribe liberties to others that you would have for yourself.
@11 – ‘Social conservatism’, yes. But that dynamic is at odds with the ideology of Conservatism. I see nothing beyond empty campaign promises that any of the slate of viable contenders are going to slash entitlements, promote individual freedom or reduce the size and scope of the federal government.
“Social conservatism’, yes. But that dynamic is at odds with the ideology of Conservatism. I see nothing beyond empty campaign promises that any of the slate of viable contenders are going to slash entitlements, promote individual freedom or reduce the size and scope of the federal government.” – CI
All nonsense. Clearly, you’re misinformed and uninformed.
You continue to make screwy assumptions, even screwier conjectures and [extremely] irresponsible assertions – [none] of which are supported by [any] facts. They’re just your opinions*. No substance. No facts.
*Stop stating opinions tainted by your paranoia and your, sexual proclivities. They make you appear to be a dense, [very] shallow, ditzy and clueless, selfish and self-centered, [one issue] voter, concerned only with your belief as to what constitutes gay rights.
BTW, whether you’re a conservative or not is irrelevant to me. Republicans are not monolithic. Oh wait, you said that you dropped out of the GOP, didn’t you? Why? Because we’re not monolithic, sharing all of your beliefs?
Nice screed of opinion and conjecture from someone accuses another citing opinion and conjecture. You probably don’t realize that it makes you look exactly like what you accuse.
Sexual proclivities? Are you projecting now?
You shouldn’t be so full of impotent anger….you should be full of sweetness and light. Your party will likely beat the opposition next year [even without inventing failures of the present]. Then you can conveniently ignore the failed promises and empty rhetoric, while leaning on lazy crutches for the failures of the GOP to stand for Conservatives.
Your post is the fodder for tools and shills.
#14 – You aren’t even rational
@15 – To someone like you…I’m sure not. After reading post 13, your assessment only strengthens mine.
Nuance Dammit, Nuance!
Frankly, I don’t give a flip what someone calls themselves. What we need are members of Congress who will reduce the size of government (thus reducing the cost of it instantly), reduce the amount of federal regulation of everything from what we eat to how we can talk with our friends, secure the borders, and stop increasing the debt with the idea of reducing it exponentially as quickly as possible. Supporting our allies (pesky contractual obligations) would be a big plus.
Pretty much getting the government out of the way of the people so that society can once again thrive without interferance.
Give us some candidates who understand those issues and I will vote for them.
Do what needs to be done, fools, and quit arguing over the “proper” name to call it. The game playing is a big part of what got us into this mess.
have you ever noticed more and more how Barry’s supporters live in la la land where he is above reproach (at least by the GOP)
CI:
“But in past remarks by my memory, you seemed unwilling in certain cases to ascribe liberties to others that you would have for yourself.”
Name one.
Brian,
CI is one of the least rational commenters on this blog. And he’s a superdooper internet liar.
ok I gotta ask cuz I’m slightly confused. Are CI and CI roller dude the same person?
Oh and here’s another question, in this electoral season, does anyone really think that Obama has been a good president? I mean the only campaign promise he’s come through on was to end the war in Iraq, and even that was bass ackwards. I’m sure the GOP could nominate a chimp (or Zombie Reagan as the Onion posits) and they’d win. Really its the GOP’s election to lose.
@21 – Name a lie. Not a difference of opinion….a lie. Sack up or piss off. We know which it will.
Doc….we are not the same person.
To get off the petty name calling and back to the original subject:
Mr EJD needs to pull his head out of his fourth point of contact and quit sniffing his recital fumes up his cranial vaccuum.
WTF is he smoking?!
From the Article- “For the first time since Barry Goldwater made the effort in 1964, the Republican Party is taking a run at overturning the consensus that has governed U.S. political life since the Progressive era.” Goldwater challenged but failed to overturn it, though he was the first to articulate the foundation of the future movement. Depending on when you date it, the progressive consensus died or was severly wounded by Reagan. It was Gingrich and the Republican revolution of 94 that nailed that vampire into its coffin. “Today’s Republicans cast the federal government as an oppressive force, a drag on the economy and an enemy of private initiative.” Thats because they are correct. Think about it, we have lived through over three years of Obama, are things worse now or when he came into office? Whether you agree with the Republicans or not, the President’s economic agenda has failed. Wouldn’t this at least pique your curiosity of the otherside’s critique? “The GOP is engaged in a wholesale effort to redefine the government help that Americans take for granted as an effort to create a radically new, statist society.” He has no idea what a statist is for starters. The budgetary Status quo is dead, we simply can no longer afford it. Our society will be redefined no matter what choice we make. The President’s avoidance of a decision is in fact a choice, with its own set of consequences for the nation. “Obama believes no such thing. If he did, why are so many continuing to make bundles on Wall Street?” A combination of extrme caution by some and the benefit of a few from crony capitalism. “Obama will thus be the conservative in 2012, in the truest sense of that word. He is the candidate defending the modestly redistributive and regulatory government the country has relied on since the New Deal, and that neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush dismantled.” No, that is where you are wrong. Obama’s spending has dramatically departed not from just Reagan and Bush but even Bill Clinton. Obama has racked up more… Read more »
Sorry CI if I am colored confused. But you see how I could make the mistake. As for Conservatism, at its very core, the simplest I can explain it, is Individualists trying to improve the collective. Liberalism is Collectivists trying to improve the individual. Now as for our (sadly poorly understood) history, the Progressive movement was actually necessary in the beginning, and sprang up from the fact that cities had grown so vast in a short period of time, such that civil services could not keep up. It tried to reform machine politics, which is rather ironic because after a short while, Progressives were the greatest practitioners of machine politics. The thought process is things like the Tennessee Valley Authority, which actually did do some good, well if it worked once it can, and will work again. The only problem is that TVA is the exception rather than the rule. The golden Gate bridge for example, great though it might be, is not by any stretch of the imagination the super duper job creator it was intended to be. The Hiways, however, by and large, WERE job creators, and strangely not in a Progressive way. They weren’t about providing Cheap transportation, for people, it was about making transcontinental travel (sold to the public as a way to get tanks from one end of the country to the other) easy, and available to the individual, and the businesses, thus increasing the productivity of the nation. It should be noted that the Hiway Creation Act was in the 30’s as far as pages long, and was one of the most massive construction projects in the history of man (think about that the next time you’re cursing rush hour traffic, you’re cursing a monument to human industriousness) The “Stimulus Plan” was in the thousands of pages long and has given us. . . well nothing we can really point to see or hold. In fact you might as well have thrown the cash in an incinerator for all the good its done. Furthermore the “new Deal” which was perhaps the progressive landmark action… Read more »
27# If Roosevelt had not constantly interfered, the economy most likely would have recovered in 36 or 37, like most of the other industrial powers. The country didn’t start to recover until FDR died.
“Here’s a question for the peanut Gallery. Its all about Progress right? Progress towards what?” I make the same point constantly, have not civilizations failed, economies faultered, knowledge been lost? What you call progress I might call devolution. By happenstance I actually heard justice Scalia speak this nearly verbotim.
@28: I thought I said that
#21 – 😉
I’m late to the party– because I primarily ignored this guy’s article because it’s based on relativism: that sliding scale of “he did this so its ok for me to do that” Or “I’m not that bad- I never killed anyone.” “He’s conservative compared to….” I live with 7 teenagers. I don’t need it.
re #27 the TVA was ‘progressive,’ to be sure, but it was a completely different animal than what is purported to be for the good of the community today. I giant undertaking, like an interstate road system or electrical expansion can be legitimately led by the federal government– as is the military and the VA.
But- instead of projects that are good for the US and good for the men and women doing the work, we give Americans money for staying home and even a check to make sure they’re getting their daily dose of Maurie.
The TVA and the CCC and the Federal Highway Act required people to work and supplied an access to it. If the money was taken from the welfare system (excluding those PHYSICALLY unable to work) and put into a public works program, I’d back it.
@31: the problem with most of the New Deal programs though is that they were centrally planned. Telling farmers to grow only so much (and actually seizing his land if he went over his allotment) or actually paying farmers to let their fields lie fallow. I would be on board with public Works projects so long as they had a very clear goal and did not in fact make any demands on the private citizen (or company) other than supplies.