'Ssssshhhhhhhh'

WSJ Opinion Journal ^ | November 18, 2004 | Peggy Noonan

[counterpunch]

IMO... a lot of/many republicans are neocons or ex-democrats and are donkeys with horns rubberbanded to their noses acting like RINOS and are groupies to elephants.. Noonan and Specter are two of them..

Noonan has been a Republican her whole life, joining Ronald Regan's speechwriting team fresh out of college. And Arlen Specter has been a senate Republican since probably before you were born. These are not very good examples to be labeling "RINOS". My complaint with both of them has nothing to do with something of so little substance.

I don't particularly like the term "RINO", and I would only use it extremely sparingly, reserving it only for the likes of Jim Jeffords in days past, who is no longer even a Republican in name.

But that is what you get when you start calling people "RINOS" and eating your own. You may remember that those were not easy days for Republicans after Jeffords split. So maybe people should rethink this foolish canabalism.

[mudblood]

Absolutely wonderful read - she's a great writer.

[Max Combined]

"a 'man worshiper"

Did you catch her comments about Tom Cruise?

Anyway, he struck me as a beautiful palomino with alert eyes and a conscious intelligence.

http://www.peggynoonan.com/article.php?article=57

Cruise must have had his hair dyed blond at the time.

[Stringfellow Hawke]

Yeah, I caught those comments right after I posted my stuff. Kinda interesting how coincidences happen, huh?
=o
:) Be seeing you!

[theFIRMbss]

>He--it was Arlen Specter--understood the room. He took the podium, readjusted the mike, smiled and said, "Ssssshhhhhhhh."

Well, sure they shut up.
The guy's got magic bullets
for all his henchmen . . .

[St. Johann Tetzel]

Reading what little I could stand of her article, she sounded so elitist, trying to tell us peasants to keep quiet.

Bingo!

[Redleg Duke]

Is that you, Slick? I didn't know you were lurking on FR! Still bitter, eh?

Hey everybody, it's X42, aka Slick Willy!

[counterpunch]

Sycophant.

[hosepipe]

[ I don't particularly like the term "RINO", and I would only use it extremely sparingly, reserving it only for the likes of Jim Jeffords in days past, who is no longer even a Republican in name. But that is what you get when you start calling people "RINOS" and eating your own. You may remember that those were not easy days for Republicans after Jeffords split. So maybe people should rethink this foolish canabalism. ]

I'm nearing the age of Spectre, love the term RINO (cause its so accurate), Bush acts like a RINO.., was a republican when we were conservative, and would disown ny mother if she were a traitor.. Whether you know it or not the republican party today occupies space owned by the democrats a few years ago.. and they were TRAITORS EVEN THEN(the democrats)... I'm worse than a cannibal. I despise turncoats and shills wish them dead and will let them rot where they lay.. Noonan is merely an apparatchik chick and Spectre is a democrat shill and Not knowing what a RINO IS makes you yourself suspect.. Have a nice day -or- NOT...

[Celtman]

Who said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"?

      I've heard this before, but I still like it.  Kind of like, "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."
      Apparently a lot of conservatives will never learn.

[counterpunch]

When were Republicans more conservative than today?
Conservativism is a recent movement, starting under Reagan, when he had to fight his own party to be heard, sometimes even literally. Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford ran from the label "conservative", opting instead to embrace liberalism.

When Reagan took office, Republicans were not bound by a common conservative ideology. They didn't even embrace "limited government" at the time, which is what Reagan touted, not "conservativism."

And when Specter joined the Republican party in the mid 60s, he very much was in the mainstream of the party. Specter has not changed, it is the party that has.

Do not forget this, and do not try to rewrite history.

[hosepipe]

[ Do not forget this, and do not try to rewrite history. ]

Goldwater was a radical, like me..
The very word conservative means not left or right..
After Goldwater the republican party moved left as have the democrats. The more leftward the demos go, republicans follow.. except for the Contract with America, Newt tried to move republicans back to the center.. and almost suceeded too.. until the RINOS "Borked" him..

Most republicans are ex-democrats and its hard to remove the democrat from the democrat.. so they remain republicrats.. The current republican party is a party of republicrats not republicans.. Republicans in the party are looked on as the "right wing". And they "ARE".. considering what the terms right wing and left wing means.. Both partys are defacto left wing organizations, except the democrats have no right wing. NONE. No not even Zell Miller..

Who's rewriteing history your "Barny Fifeness"..
ONLY a radical move to the right can restore America to its roots.. America began as a republic but has become a democracy.. pure and simple.. A sharp move to the right can restore the word conservative to mean centrist. Continuing on the way we are is only advocated by leftists, Republican leftists(like Spectre). A centrist is one who appreciates the Constitution as its was written sans all the leftist bull sperm ammendments that have been passed.. A honest Constitutionalist these days is a proud radical.. other than THAT you are a leftist.. Why ?.. because a RADICAL change is whats NEEDED to restore the republic to the original design. Which is what the Supremes are supposed to do i.e. Guard the country against un-constitutional issues.. which they have failed to do for a hundred plus years.

[counterpunch]

Goldwater was a radical, like me..

Yes Goldwater was a radical, but in what way are you?
Goldwater was not a conservative by most measurements. He was much more of a libertarian with a strong rightward tilt.

In my initial response I had discussed Goldwater's role as an important figure who planted the seeds, but he was premature and his movement never materialized, amounting to about the same as Howard Dean's "juggernaut".
Goldwater was an exception to the rule, an anomaly of his time, and for this reason I stripped out mention of him since it would have needlessly convoluted my point.

The very word conservative means not left or right..

That's half right. What perhaps you mean is that conservatism is not exclusive to either the left or the right, but it certainly is not the the exclusion of both.

After Goldwater the republican party moved left as have the democrats. The more leftward the demos go, republicans follow.. except for the Contract with America, Newt tried to move republicans back to the center.. and almost suceeded too.. until the RINOS "Borked" him..

I wouldn't say that the Republicans were much affected by Goldwater at the time at all. That is just my point.
They didn't "move left" after him, they just never convincingly moved right during his short, disastrous time in the spotlight. And why would they? He went down in flames.

I disagree with your point on Newt. I think Newt was the first pangs of the Reagan Revolution and Limbaugh Doctrine coming to Congress.

Newt's policies were an experimental mixed bag. His important legislative reforms revolutionized government and the political culture. His congressional reforms were quirky and were mostly rejected, ultimately leading to his undoing. The fact that Specter is up for the Judiciary Chair is the result of some of Newt's ill advised congressional procedure reforms.

Most republicans are ex-democrats and its hard to remove the democrat from the democrat.. so they remain republicrats.. The current republican party is a party of republicrats not republicans.. Republicans in the party are looked on as the "right wing". And they "ARE".. considering what the terms right wing and left wing means.. Both partys are defacto left wing organizations, except the democrats have no right wing. NONE. No not even Zell Miller..

I think that's a pretty broad brush. There is nothing wrong with Democrats-cum-Republican. Reagan was one. Many of the so-called "neo-cons" are. They brought with them important philosophies which the Democrats always claimed they stood for but never truly believed in. Things like American exceptionalism, and a humanitarian mission of bringing freedom to the oppressed corners of the world. These Republicans are the reformers. They are the ones who have seen what is wrong with the status quo and know what needs to be done to change it. They, like Goldwater and yourself are the new radicals.

Who's rewriteing history your "Barny Fifeness"..

I'm not even going to attempt to decipher that...

ONLY a radical move to the right can restore America to its roots.. America began as a republic but has become a democracy.. pure and simple.. A sharp move to the right can restore the word conservative to mean centrist.

I thought we were in agreement that "conservative" has no bearing on left or right positioning...
"Right" means free market capitalism and deregulation. It has nothing to do with republicanism in the true sense of the word.

Continuing on the way we are is only advocated by leftists, Republican leftists(like Spectre). A centrist is one who appreciates the Constitution as its was written sans all the leftist bull sperm ammendments that have been passed..

I'm not sure that Specter is a leftist. The main complaint about him is that he is not a "conservative", which as we have already discussed is not tied to economic philosophy.

A honest Constitutionalist these days is a proud radical.. other than THAT you are a leftist..

I am?
I certainly gave you no reason to think that. I am a limited government Reaganite. I reject the notion of "RINOS" as I am less interested in the social conservatism that the self-righteous preach about, and more interested in supply-side economics, deconstructionism, honesty and transparency in government, and constitutional textualism. I suppose that makes me a "radical" too.

Why ?.. because a RADICAL change is whats NEEDED to restore the republic to the original design. Which is what the Supremes are supposed to do i.e. Guard the country against un-constitutional issues.. which they have failed to do for a hundred plus years.

Ok, but that is perhaps a different discussion altogether. It still doesn't illustrate that you know the difference between "conservatism" and right-wing, or explain your definition of a "RINO."

[Celtman]

and do not try to rewrite history

      Take your own advice.  Conservatism did not begin with Ronald Reagan.  Do you remember the Rockefeller/Goldwater wings of the Republican Party?  Or have you read anything about it?  At the time Reagan was nominated, I knew many conservatives who were very skeptical of Reagan's conservatism. 
      By no means is conservativism a recent movement. 

[counterpunch]

By no means is conservativism a recent movement.

As far as being the mainstream of the party it is.

[AFPhys]

You honestly think that about Peggy's columns? I can't imagine what you consider good writing then. You're opinion is not shared by everyone, but you're entitled to it. Don't bother even looking at her work in the future and you won't be bothered by it, and you won't waste your time, and ours.

As for me, I enjoy every word she writes.

[BibChr]

If you find anything to admire about Tetzel, you and I probably don't agree on much of importance.

But apparently we do agree on this!

A friend expressed admiration for Noonan's article, and without having read yoiur friend's response, it's surprising how similar mine was.

Quoting myself:

I normally like Peggy Noonan. Not this time. The article strikes me as elitist, condescending, and hypocritical. After "dissing" Bob Jones, she says she tells him and herself (humble touch, I suppose) to "Shhhhh" -- and then writes another 946 words telling everyone else what to think, and then that they should shut up about the subject. So it amounts to, "I get to tell you what to think one more time; now you SHHHH!"

Me, I'll "shhh" when our enemies "shh." When they stop ranting racist, frothing, appalling hatred towards excellent individuals like Dr. Rice, merely for the High Crime of Daring to Exist While Being Black And Republican. When they stop likening Christians to Jihadists. When they stop denigrating our troops, while excusing the monstrosities of our enemies. When they stop hinting that violence against President Bush is a permissible option. When they stop lying about God, Christ, the Bible, and anyone who dare to take such realities seriously.

Otherwise, I hear Ms. Noonan saying the same thing that the most harmful and hateful in our country are saying, and to the same people. Christians, shut up. Conservatives, shut up. Red staters, shut up.

Well, I won't.

End quote.

Dan
Biblical Christianity web site
Biblical Christianity message board
What Is Biblical Christianity?

[Dataman]

Me, I'll "shhh" when our enemies "shh." When they stop ranting racist, frothing, appalling hatred towards excellent individuals like Dr. Rice, merely for the High Crime of Daring to Exist While Being Black And Republican. When they stop likening Christians to Jihadists. When they stop denigrating our troops, while excusing the monstrosities of our enemies. When they stop hinting that violence against President Bush is a permissible option. When they stop lying about God, Christ, the Bible, and anyone who dare to take such realities seriously.

I can tell you appreciate the immorally upright Left telling us not to force our morality on the country by supporting Bush while they continue to force their immorality on the public.