I am very concerned, however, that this merely foreshadows the serious threat to religious liberty that would result from repeal of the current military eligibility law. Such legislation would not merely open the military to homosexuals. It would result in a zero-tolerance policy toward those who disapprove of homosexual conduct.
Military chaplains would bear the heaviest burden. Would their sermons be censored to prevent them from preaching on biblical passages which describe homosexual conduct as a sin? Would they remain free to counsel soldiers troubled by same-sex attractions about the spiritual and psychological resources available to overcome those attractions?
There are two types of Republicans right now and Glenn Beck’s C-PAC speech separated them neatly into opposing camps. While Sarah Palin tweeted her applause, over at NRO William Bennett scorned what he called dangerous.
And I suspect that Jeb Bush’s petty what’s-her-deal comments, against the one contender for 2012 who repeatedly shows her spine by giving credit to Bush for what he did right, is more about Jeb’s shock at hearing Beck’s contempt for the Bush legacy and his deflected outrage at Sarah’s cheerleading Beck’s tack. At C-PAC Beck rightly observed that anybody who supported George Bush’s spending was “a madman” and compared our current era to the morning after—an alcoholic’s vomit-filled hangover. All the Bushies I’m sure got the hint.
I don’t agree with Beck on everything (see Commentary on Teddy Roosevelt) but he’s right on the George Bush legacy as the elephant that is still in the living room. Unlike Reagan’s, Bush’s spending was indefensible. Glenn Beck’s broad stroke rejection of it was shrewdly right on.
Sarah Palin’s refusal to take the if-you-look-closely-enough-at-the-details-it-was-all-the-Democrats-fault and George Bush was just an innocent bystander line is exactly right. Jeb’s lack of intellectual curiosity line is a euphemism for her repeated willingness, with Beck, to blurt out the accurate generalization that classic spending spree bipartisanship is what defined his brother’s administration. Spending spree bipartisanship will be the death of the GOP if they don’t snap out of it.
In total contrast with the Bush narrative pushed in the media, the Bush family’s biggest mistake may be their obsession with appearances—in “Being Presidential” over all else. Bush lost all sense of scale regarding Congressional fiscal irresponsibility because of his obsession with the dignity of the office. What would have been the cost had Bush thrown a public tantrum about the dangers of Fannie Mae as a domestic threat? My children will be paying the real cost for his above-it-all presidential style. Laying all his bets on a light touch CEO style of leadership of the Federal Leviathan was a disaster. A light touch as it turned out didn’t cut it. It put America at peril.
Begging to differ with Beck’s thing about the Progressives being the Big Problem, it is simpler than that. Forsaking spending-spree bipartisanship is our country's only hope.
Congratulations to John Ziegler on the one year anniversary of his conservative documetnary of the campaign of 2008: Media Malpractice! Ziegler is an amazing representative for decency and fairness. In The DC (The Daily Caller) Ziegler analyzes the effect the documentary has had on the media discourse, what he has learned about right wing documentaries and most depressingly, the reality of the conservative movement. (ca-chink.)
Here are the 10 things John has learned:
• For all their many faults, give the left this… they understand that this is war. We seem to still think this is a picnic. We tend to bring butter knives to gun fights. It is no wonder we tend to lose all sorts of battles where the facts are clearly on our side.
• We do a really lousy job of protecting our “warriors” and punishing our “traitors.” In fact, it seems we sometimes treat our traitors better than our warriors, as long as they are big enough celebrities.
• The only real difference between the political media world and Hollywood is level of attractiveness. Both arenas are almost completely dictated by a celebrity-driven caste system that forces the participants to be far more concerned with their position on the totem pole than what is good for the movement.
• A whole lot of our “stars,” are frauds who really don’t act like they care at all about the movement and who actually often have a profound self interest to betray the cause and frequently act on that impulse.
• Ratings considerations and personal agendas are far more important factors in determining what stories get covered, even in the conservative media, than the truth or what might be good for the cause.
• The “business” of creating political content is far more difficult than anyone seems willing to admit. Some of the most ”successful” people in the movement are struggling to make the model work financially and this is during a relatively boon time for conservatism.
• The truth doesn’t really matter much at all. Everything is perception. Whether the truth ever really mattered is an open question, but what seems clear is that if the truth’s power to influence the national debate and the events within it is both feeble and weakening.
• This conservative resurgence of the past year is likely vastly overrated. The movement still faces enormous fundamental challenges, including the increasing liberal dominance over the vast majority of media, which independent voters tend to consume. While the media’s credibility to carry President Obama to re-election has been currently diminished, if the economy improves significantly at all they will still have plenty enough juice to pull it off, possibly with ease.
Rush is perfect in his impression of Bill O'Reilly...
RUSH: Let's pretend that you're talking to Bill O'Reilly. I'll be Bill O'Reilly.
CALLER: Okay.
RUSH: All right. What do you think of me? Where have I gone wrong today?
CALLER: Oh, you're asking me what I think of Bill O'Reilly?
RUSH: No. I am Bill O'Reilly. What do you think of me? Tell me where I've gone wrong today.
CALLER: Oh, he does say that a lot.
RUSH: Look, all I'm telling you is that we've gotta give socialism a fair shake for the folks, I'm not going to sit here and condemn it like these right-wingers are. We've gotta give socialism a fair shake, and we hear at The Factor are going to give socialism, even communism, a fair shake. We'll do an in-depth investigation, and we'll report back because we're not knee-jerking, and we are looking out for you, the folks.
CALLER: I hear what you're saying, and when it comes to getting actual news, I don't get that from Bill O'Reilly, I get that from, well, it used to be Brit Hume, now Bret Baier --
RUSH: Well, we just don't like all this Obama bashing here at The Factor, that's for these extreme right-wingers, this Obama bashing, it's not productive, the Bush-bashing wasn't productive. We're going to give socialism and the destruction of the country a fair examination, and if we determine that Obama's destroying the country, we'll report it fairly.
CALLER: What I would have to say -- Bill O'Reilly, sir, with all due respect, I think Barack Obama is the most arrogant, egotistical man that I have ever known.
RUSH: I don't care about that. What do you think of me? Am I arrogant, too? If Obama's arrogant, nobody can be more arrogant than I am, what do you think of me, where have I gone wrong here?
CALLER: (laughing) Bill O'Reilly. Oh, my goodness.
Bill, God love 'em, is hillarious as he tries to explain his response to Rush's SPOT ON parody of him!!
Rush has been talking lately about how Scott Brown and Sarah Palin owe John McCain loyalty because of the role he played in their coming to national attention. Rush seems to be suggesting the kind of loyalty that is political, and behind the scenes at least, insincere. And specifically that Palin may be leery of getting criticism from the media if she were to not support John McCain in his reelection campaign.
There are a few flies in the ointment with this line of reasoning.
#1 Regarding Scott Brown, who says he isn't a McCain-like Republican? Who says he's a die-hard conservative? Yes, of course he will show himself to have some RINO leanings. Like it or not, pro-choice Republicans tend to be wobbly fiscal conservatives. And after all, he's a pol from Massachusetts! The bright side will probably be that he's not Teddy Kennedy.
#2 Long before McCain plucked her out of her Governor's mansion, Governor Palin was a solid backer of his during the 2008 primary season. She was not a backer of Fred Thompson or Tom Tancredo, but John McCain. Let's not kid ourselves. In my view it is things like her guts and fighting spirit and her vision for where America should be heading and not her every impulse that I believe America needs.
#3 When Sarah Palin states something, I always take her at face value. She loves John McCain as a true American hero. End of story. She loves him for representing American grit under pressure and yes for not always siding with the GOP machine. God bless her even if I don't always agree with her. She's loyal to McCain because of his status as an American hero not as an IOU for the 2008 trial by fire.
As Rush himself hinted at last week, true loyalty is a conservative value. Sarah Palin is a rock star because of her sincerity, integrity and character, not because she is a meet and greet, networking, you scratch my back I'll scratch yours kind of Republican.
The Mount Vernon Statement, released on Wednesday, just before CPAC got rolling, claims to be rallying point around which “all conservatives” can unify. Really. I find that a stretch despite quality signers from Heritage and the Old Guard Conservative Movement.
If it was really about unifying the conservative movement, something tells me one of its main drafters wouldn’t have cracked into Sarah Palin on the very day of its release. Grover Norquist let loose, “Is Palin running for president? The answer is no. She could have spoken to 10,000 people, but instead she chose to speak to 600 and get paid $100,000. That’s being a spokesperson and making a living, not running for president.”
Rats! Norquist’s statement was so close to being profoundly unifying. He just missed!
Actually his non sequitur was a very non-subtle indicator of what the statement is really about.
Circling the wagons is the essence of the old boy network. If the swagger of grassroots women of integrity has got you down, no worry, just coalesce around the jerks. High profile leaders like Michelle Malkin and Sarah Palin have done a nifty job of refusing to buy into the corruption of the Right that Grover Norquist and David Keene so flamboyantly represent. To normal people, the idea that our own house ought to be in order before we attack the values of the Left is uncontroversial. Not so for many of the old school leaders of the conservative movement.
And the audacity of trying to lock into George Washington’s legacy is intensely galling. The Mount Vernon Statement argues that “the Constitutional conservatism… reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government.” Great concept--tell it to Mr. Keene. Our first president was an integrity before all else kind of a leader, nothings like the brass knuckle, whatever it takes, CPAC loyalists.
The Mount Vernon Statement seems to be mostly a way of changing the subject from “the trouble with CPAC…” and making an “all is forgiven” step forward. Nice try. But Mr. Norquist has helpfully let the cat out of the bag on the latest self-congratulatory yelp of establishment conservatives.
Mancow (with shades) and Pat Cassidy (middle) defended the very sleuth-like reporter Amy Jacobson's right to call Ron Magers (top) arrogant this morning.
But soon Pat Cassidy was walked out of the building by security!
I think security walking people off the premises is a very unseemly use of corporate power unless their is a very, very, very urgent reason.
Then to add more drama,
WLS, began to advertise Cisco as the new 9AM jock.
Also, Cisco went to WLS from 560-WIND. Will Mancow go to WIND?
Interesting that both Cisco and Mancow are Evangelical Christians.
I think they both went to Moody Bible Institute! (Unconfirmed)
#1 How high is high enough, when it comes to the fair tax? There is no natural place to stop. With the income tax at least you can imagine approximately how much of your yearly income ought to be sent to the Feds. As in 50% is too high. 10% is probably too low. But what percentage of your yearly spending should you send the feds? Weird question. Hard to imagine. I fear that there is no natural place to stop and that is why it is already the tax of choice for the Euro-nanny states.
#2 It is not fair! The "Fair Tax" is not fair! Even slightly! One of the perks of being rich is that you simply don't have to spend that much of your income. The rich get to save and invest most of their pay. This means that the "fair tax" will cause the rich to send the Feds less of a percentage of their annual income than the Middle Class relative to their annual income. Much less!
#3 I also fear that the Fair Tax will come in to being very much not according to the plan of those who advocate it. As in, we'll still have the payroll tax and we'll get the fair tax too! Ouch! Obama dreams of this.
#4 It is a given that when you tax something you get less of it. And especially right now, American stores and manufacturers need more purchasing and spending, not less.
It's obvious that Palin has a perfectly honed knack for summing up political frustrations--just like she did in Alaska when she put the Governor's jet up for sale on e-bay. By scribbling on her hand she perfectly rendered the difference between Obama and herself. The Hawaiian Spend-aholic vs. the 'el Cheepo of vacation visor fame. The clunky, heavy and fragile teleprompter vs. a single black pen. It shows she's game to allow, and encourage, a partisan minority to grow in it's hate for her as she solidifies and delights the independent middle. Even if Gibbs and company see through her strategy they can't help themselves from piling on and at least keep the Obama base happy.
This is the issue on which inner-city Christians and down-state Tea Party Patriots should lock arms. The futures of real kids are being squandered and Illinois tax dollars are being wasted. The corrupt school system needs to be radically rearranged in Illinois.
Hi, I'm _____, and I'm calling for Adam Andzrejewski! There's a lot of excitement right now in the campaign, have you voted yet?
The Washington Times has endorsed him today and called him the young Ronald Reagan! Glenn Beck and Rush have been talking him up and the Teaparty movement of Illinois has rallied around him. Lech Walesa flew in from Poland to endorse him.
He s the real reformer and outsider who has got a very doable plan to cut 10 Billion in the Illinois Budget without sending it through Mike Madigan's Legislature. So pull the Republican ticket and vote for the real reformer Adam Andrzejewski for Governor of Illinois.
