Posted on 04/03/2009 6:40:17 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
Kathleen Parker, a "conservative" columnist who has discovered that slamming real conservatives was an easy way to lift herself from her earlier state of relative anonymity, has now turned herself into an inadvertent comedienne. I mean, how can you beat this comedy line on the title of her latest column appearing in the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel: "Is Meghan McCain the GOP's answer to Rush Limbaugh?" Yes, Parker is seriously proposing that "Valley Girl McCain" can save the Republicans from that "nasty" Rush Limbaugh:
The GOP's identity crisis just got more interesting with the recent media splash of Meghan McCain, eldest daughter of the senator who did not become president.
Young McCain, who began blogging during her father's presidential campaign, recently made waves at The Daily Beast when she picked a fight with conservative media mavens Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. This is enough sport to make the little dog laugh, to say nothing of the dish and the spoon.
McCain, just 24, is one smart cookie. In a matter of weeks, she has created a brand, presenting herself as a fresh face of her daddy's party and a voice for young conservatives. Strategically speaking, what better way to launch herself than to challenge the reigning diva herself, Miz Coulter?
Madonna, meet Britney.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
If you want to whistle past the ideological graveyard, that’s your business. Me, I’m not so sanguine (that means optimistic for you folks in Rio Linda).
This dope—whom I’d never heard of before the media decided to make her a celebrity—counts for nothing.
Really, this feels like the days of the old Soviet Union, when some previously obscure writer would be suddenly celebrated as the greatest literary genius in the land because he’d written some debased ode to Stalin. That’s what it feels like every time the media trots out some nonentity with zero following as a “noted conservative commentator,” who then proceeds to say what the media wants to hear.
Your lack of curiosity (or perhaps it’s called “memory”) troubles me. We’ve been hearing this “conservativism is on it’s death bed” just like “Christianity is on it’s death bed” for decades. In the case of Christianity, we’ve been hearing is since 90 A.D. so there is quite nothing new under the Sun. Non-critical thinking people like you will see the weather for today and think it’s all over.
I mean really, if you remember the Woodstock years, what are you thinking now to say that we need to somehow engage the “under 30” crowd???? Where is your memory, sir? Early alzheimers or something?
If you think we ought to talk more tot he younger crowd, fine! But please spare me the Kathleen Parker nonsense (unless you are her logging in here under an alias - in that case, keep writing silly stuff because I like you better when you’re mocking conservatives) because we tried her way and it always ended in a loss.
Now, if you are talking demographics, we done did ain’t never going to appeal to hispanics or a sizable number of African-Americans so say “demographics” and not “youth”.
I like the way you said “drive by” as a pejorative. Where did you get off being so dismissive? You’re not angry at the absolute fawning of the press toward democrats and the open sneer toward anyone who thinks smaller govt is a good idea?
“Is Meghan McCain the GOP’s answer to Rush Limbaugh?”
If so, the GOP can just pack it in right now.
“In a matter of weeks, she has created a brand, presenting herself as a fresh face of her daddy’s party and a voice for young conservatives.”
In whose logic is either McCain a “conservative” except as compared to the Marxist-in-Chief?
Where do I begin:
—We’ve been hearing this “conservativism is on it’s death bed”—
No, actually since at least 1978 (when the GOP made big inroads in Congress) to 2004 or so, things looked pretty rosy for conservatism. Weren’t too many eulogies for the movement during that period.
— mean really, if you remember the Woodstock years—
Now, you know most young people in that era were NOT hippies; they were not tuning in, dropping out etc. A lot of them did not want to be used as cannon fodder for a war we should never have sent US ground troops to fight, that much is true.
—If you think we ought to talk more tot he younger crowd, fine!—
It’s not a question of talking to them. It’s just not selling to them. A lot of young people got on board conservatism in the 1970s and 1980s; even in the 1990s, due to anti-Clinton backlash. Now, it’s just not selling. There is a small hard core, true, but that’s not enough of a critical mass to ensure a future. How we do that, I don’t know, but it if we just keep doing what we are doing, then conservatism will become like libertarianism, that is, more of a disaffected social movement than a vibrant ideology.
—we done did ain’t never going to appeal to hispanics or a sizable number of African-Americans so say “demographics” and not “youth”.—
Blacks are by and large hopless when it comes to traditional conservatism appealing to them. On certain social issues (i.e. queer “marriage”) they are with us, but they are in love with big government; indeed they are major beneficiaries of it! There is more hope for hispanics, I believe.
—I like the way you said “drive by” as a pejorative—
Rush uses this phrase to ensure the “cultification” of his message. Cult leaders are notorious for convincing their followers that no one on the “outside” is to be believed. Rush dismisses ordinary news media with terms like “drive by” to convince his listeners that only HE should be believed; all the while he cites the “drive bys” when he wants to make a point. Oh, the irony.
Where do I start is the real question?
You mentioned 1978-2004 and then, in Kathleen Parker style, said “weren’t too many eulogies then” - why are you not paying attention? The D’s dominated Congress in the 1970s up until 1994 when we gained a significant majority. Even then, with that majority, we gained nothing. Gay marriage gained momentum and abortion never took a step back except for the banning of infanticide.
The pop culture was always liberal or, more likely, lefty sloppy throughout those years.
The D’s dominated from the 1930’s until the 1990’s with very short terms of R majority but never a large majority so politically the concept of individuality hasn’t been as strong as it should in the U.S. and there was that book you read as the bible if you really are older, that is, “The Greening of America” by Charles Reich.
Conservatives have been the butt of jokes since the 1960’s.
Are you sure you’re an older person? You speak like a youngster still cutting his eye teeth! I shouldn’t have to spell any of this out to you.
As for Hispanics, it may sound rude but they come here for two reasons. (1) Free goodies, all those benefits from the govt (2) Reconquista - some day the states west of the Mississippi will be part of Mexico again (and who’s to say that’s a bad idea?)
As for the 1960’s and the Woodstock generation, the new left was simply pampered rich kids regurgitating ideas from the old left (1930’s and Trotsky and the charmers).
One good thing about the Vietnam War is that is hastened the end of the draft and that is a very good thing.
You’re mixing “conservative” with “republican” and I think that may no longer be a workable idea. The Republicans have been backstabbing conservatives for decades and they deserve their place in Congress. My personal viewpoint is leaning toward libertarian and seccession. But I do like conservatism in it’s “Rush Limbaugh” format and have never mistook Rush for a cultist. Rush never discourages his listeners from checking out other sources and, if you ever lesten to his show, you know this to be true.
The Republican party today is in trouble because it abandoned the conservatives, refused to address the troubles of the Iraq War and refused to secure the border. It also refused to even slow the growth of government so, by doing all this, the conservatives stayed home and the Big D’s won big.
Seatrout, are you Kathleen Parker? I’m flattered if you are.
—Even then, with that majority, we gained nothing. Gay marriage gained momentum and abortion never took a step back except for the banning of infanticide.—
Well then, that just proves how ineffectual conservatism has been on the American domestic scene. If something is not working, and has proven itself not to work, it’s crazy to keep applying it anyhow. Maybe a more disciplined rightist movement, rather than “Buckleyism”, is the way to go. And I don’t like your tone. Show a bit more courtesy (i.e. don’t be such a wiseass), and I’ll respond to your future posts.
You’re concerned about etiquette?
Conservatism was never tried, that’s my point. It didn’t fail, we were betrayed by a party of people pretending to be something they aren’t. Why is that so hard for you to grasp??? We have a thief in our midst, does that me we should surrender our ideals? You seem to be implying that.
However, one idea worth pursuing is to be more aggressive and not just hold on to something but pursue an agenda. We should act to dismantle the Dept of Education first and foremost because they poison the minds of our youngsters and because they constantly attempt to usurp parental rights.
Post-1993, WFB became a punk.
Sanguine does not mean optimistic.
Maybe parliamentary democracy would be a way to go. The two-party system should be one of our main targets. It doesn’t allow all viewpoints to be represented. It’s corrupt, it’s a de facto one party system and it has to go.
Sounds like Ms. Unknown Parker is trying to turn two unknown wannabe's into somebodys by attaching their names to Rush.
Franken did the same thing with his book, which shall remain unnamed, simply by inserting a couple paragraphs relevant to Rush........
I've noticed a lot of unknown writers lately writing about Rush when they should have been covering their local swap meets. All in the attempt to garner Google hits on their articles in the hopes that they might be elevated to the Journalist status.......LOL!
Well, to be fair to Meghan, every girl needs a best friend her size that she can swap clothes with . . . .
They were living in a very liberal era. Some of them, like Rockefeller, were quite liberal. The others were doing what they could to counter the Democrats.
More recently the GOP had a much higher percentage of "conservatives" in Washington and ignored most of what conservatives had been talking about for years.
Get rid of the RINOs or the whole GOP and in a few years things will be pretty much as they were. Voters more or less get what they want.
Hello Kathlee...uh, I mean seatrout.
What’s with the really dumb joke there, PJ? Just because I know what the definition of “sanguine” is? If I were Kathleen Parker, I sure as hell would not write a book with the title “Save the Males.” That’s just beyond gay.
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.