Posted on 10/27/2006 8:29:35 AM PDT by Mr. Brightside
. . . happened to be spot-on. However, that doesn't mean he isn't a smut-writing loon who shouldn't be Senator.
"Any chance of you taking over your party???"
LOL! You wouldn't want me.
In the short term, no.
In the medium to long term, I think that conservatism has a very bright future. For reasons that have little to do with contemporary politics. In my view, socialism suffers from a very obvious problem. In order to have socialism, you have to have a class of wealthy people who will pay the bulk of the bill. Socialism assumes assumes as a premise those wealthy people will simply stand still while they're forced to pay ever increasing levels of "contributions." I think that's a false premise. People are increasingly able to work from anywhere. That's not good news for socialists who need the wealthy to stay put.
I think that 20-30 years from now, both political parties (if they even still exist) will offer varying levels of what we'd identify as political conservatism.
They were focusing on macaca and we're not supposed to say anything about his books because they're fiction??? I fail to see the logic.
I usually agree with Malkin. This time, I think she's wrong.
I agree with Malkin. The matter should be dropped.
It may have been tactically clever to toss it out, since it obliged Webb to waste more time dealing with it than it took to raise it, it might sway a few voters, esp. in rural VA away from Webb and direct quotations from an opponent's writings aren't likely to push voters away as a dirty trick.
Still it's not worth spending more time on.
The Washington Post sure wasted a lot of ink trying to take Allen down. I guess now they have to go after Steele, but that may be a little more touchy.
"Interesting -- I thought the conventional wisdom was that it's the other way around?"
I think the current political situation is looking a lot like the movie Casablanca, with the Democrats being shocked, shocked! at the horrible things that the Republicans are saying.
Sticking to this one problem I have with the Republican party (amongst several), I don't think that historically speaking, Republicans have had much of a stomach for the fight. Contemporary American politics is waged on several levels; in the newspapers, the courts, the legislatures, the elections, the alternative media, the churches, etc. etc. Until the past few years, you've seen the GOP back away from those engagements, except perhaps in the alternative media and then again during the election cycle.
For example, how quickly do effective Republicans get thrown to the wolves when there's the first whiff of scandal? Contrast what happened with Gerry Studds versus what happened to Newt Gingrich. Do you honestly think that the Democratic party would be so hasty to pull a Newt Gingrich on one of their own? Especially one that was such an effective voice for the party?
No, the Republican Party (until very recently) has been the conscientious objectors of American politics. Shying away from from most political engagements, and essentially ceding the field to their opposition.
As I've noted, this election might force me to reconsider. But until I see some sustained intestinal fortitude out of the GOP, I'm going to prefer to have a Democratic division in front of me than a Republican division behind me.
What did he have to say about that?
Lynne Cheney and Scooter Libby were not running for the US Senate.
I am a voracious reader and certainly not a prude,but, I find Webb's gratuitous smut very troubling.
How is a father sucking his baby son's penis germane to the story ?
Doesn't anyone in the Democrat party understand due diligence ?
And how grotesque this stuff is ?
Nothing Foley wrote comes close to the perversion of Webb's words.
Webb is either so arrogant or so out of touch that he thought his paper trail would be ignored.
She's right that such perverse obscenity is unremarkable these days, but "everybody does it" is hardly the best rejoinder. Mrs. Cheney and Libby should have faced more heat.
It's not as if nobody's ever written about pedophilia without discussing the exact mechanics before.
What's up with these Warshington types and kinky sex writing?
Apparantly it's a "normal" practice in that part of the world. I don't care if they smear him with it. That's politics. But he was depicting a real practice.
Yep. There are probably porn writers who have more respect for women and a better sense of where the line is.
I hate to say this about a Marine, but...
If he could control himself, he wouldn't have written that crap. He will screech until the voters hear him, and then he will lose.
Yummy! Michelle may be wrong on this rare occasion, But Michelle is always ALLLLLLLLLLLLRIGHT! Is that an under statement, or what?
Michelle's Naivete
Michelle Malkin posts Politics and pulp fiction stating Webb's books containing extremely raunchy bordering pornographic passages as just sexual fiction and we should just move on.
This "above the fray" attitude is as naive as it is self righteous in it's concept. I've read these passages in the context in which they were written. Believe you me it offers some keen insights into the person who authored them. They for the most part are gratuitous, offering little to the narrative other than titillation and shock induced disgust. The people performing these "acts" are neither villains nor anti-hero's but rather average joes who behave deplorably. Creepy is the best way to desribe much of what I read.
Is Webb a pedophile, women hater etc. because of the behavior of fictional characters he created? Of course not. But one must also be aware that a real flesh and bone person created these images in their not so fictional mind. Do the voters have a right to know these things about the man who would be their United States Senator? I think they do. If this doesn't mean anything to a perspective voter, fine, no harm done. If voting for Stephen King for the US Senate makes you a tad bit hinky, fine also.
Malkins argues that both Lynn Cheney and Scooter Libby wrote "pulpy" passages in their books. That may very well be but the fact that they are not running for high office makes this point irrelevent Michelle would be well advised to remember that the Democrats along with the co-dependent MSM attempted to change the course of an election using a hyped homosexual flirtation without the slightest regret. This is not a T-ball game, it's not how you play the game that counts.
Reluctance of Republicans to get down in the ditch and fight their advisary on whatever terms neccessary has lost them elections. The Democrats know this well and whether it was GWBs DWI bomb three days before the election or the mark Foley brewhaha they will do anything it takes to win.
If Michelle wishes to remain holier than thou fine but she also better hope that the RNC does not heed her advice as we will enjoy are warm fuzzy feelings in the minority.
http://exposingtheleft.blogspot.com/2006/10/michelles-naivete.html
That's nice, Michelle.
So when a Dem pulls something against a Republican, is some "enlightened" liberal columnist going to write a similar article about moving on as you seem all to quick to do in this case?
Or are they going to push the story and you write some whiny article about how unfair the MSM is?
Dont want to fight? Then get off the field.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.