Posted on 02/21/2010 1:14:06 PM PST by Sergeant Tim
I was invited to be the opening speaker at Saturday's CPAC session. I had accepted but then, to my amazement, I learned that the John Birch Society would be one of many co-sponsors. This takes the big-tent idea many steps too far for me. So, I withdrew. Apparently, others were not so moved. That's fine. But it wasn't for me. Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater, among others, chased the Birchers from the movement decades ago. And they're not a part of the movement. So, to give them a booth at CPAC was boneheaded.
I want to commend Bill Bennett for his wise piece this morning on the Corner. I agree with him.
I have no idea what philosophy Glenn Beck is promoting. And neither does he. It's incoherent. One day it's populist, the next it's libertarian bordering on anarchy, next it's conservative but not really, etc. And to what end? I believe he has announced that he is no longer going to endorse candidates because our problems are bigger than politics. Well, of course, our problems are not easily dissected into categories, but to reject politics is to reject the manner in which we try to organize ourselves. This is as old as Plato and Aristotle. Why would conservatives choose to surrender the political battlefield to our adversaries -- who are trashing this society -- when we must retake it in order to preserve our society? Philosophy, politics, culture, family, etc., are all of one. Edmund Burke, among others, wrote about it extensively, and far better that I possibly can. But all elements of the civil society require our defense. Besides, why preach such a strategy when conservatism is on the rise and the GOP is acting more responsibly?
Moreover, when he does discuss politics, which, ironically, is often, how can he claim today that there is no difference between the two parties when, but for the Republicans in Congress, government-run health care, cap-and-trade, card check, and a long list of other disastrous policies would already be law? The GOP is becoming more conservative thanks to the grass-roots movement and a political uprising across the country, which has even reached into New Jersey and Massachusetts. Why keep pretending otherwise? My only conclusion is that he is promoting a third party or some third way, which is counter-productive to defeating Obama and the Democrat Congress. These are perilous times and this kind of an approach will keep the statists in power for decades.
And what of his flirtations with Ron Paul's lunacy respecting America's supposed provocations with her enemies, including al-Qaeda? Why should such a fatal defect in thinking be ignored? Do we conservatives agree with this?
Finally, Beck is fond of congratulating himself for being the only or the first host to criticize George Bush's spending. This is demonstrably false. I not only attacked his spending, but the creation of the Homeland Security Department, the prescription drug add-on for Medicare, his "moderate" tax cuts, as well as his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, "comprehensive immigration reform," and so forth. And I was not alone -- Rush and Sean did the same, for example. And as someone who fought liberal Republicans in the trenches when campaigning for Reagan in 1976 and 1980, I don't need lectures from Beck, who was nowhere to be found, about big-spending Republicans. But this is not about me, or Beck, or Beck's past drunkenness (which he endlessly wears as some kind of badge of honor). It is about preserving our society for our children and grandchildren. Beck spent precious little time aiming fire at Obama-Pelosi-Reid in his speech, and it is they who are destroying our country.
On as a positive note, I am personally happy to see that Beck has cleaned up his public act -- as best I can tell, no more boiling fake frogs on TV or pretending to pour gasoline on someone -- and the rest of it. But I do think his speech, which contained nuggets of truth heard before and read elsewhere, including on Rush's show and in my book and many other books, may have distracted from some of the more compelling and coherent speeches at the event, including Marco Rubio's superb speech. I fear the media will see to this. I hope not.
>> The Birchers also think the Queen of England runs drugs with Castro or some such bizarreness. <<
That’s one of Lyndon LaRouche’s favorite theories. I don’t think the JBS has endorsed it.
>> They believe that a secret Trilateral Commission runs the whole world with a shadow government, and are huge conspiracy theorists.<<
Now you’re talkin’ good ole Birchese!
>> Tri-lateral killed JFK, etc. <<
Haven’t heard that one from the Birchers. But really not sure where they stand on the issue.
Agreed.
My only problem with Beck, recognizing that he is a goofball as part of his image, is that he needs to vary the “heaviness” of his Fox show at least a little bit. Nobody can handle doomsday five days a week for months even when it’s true.
Change the mood every once in awhile and people won’t start grumbling about “used to like him but...”
If you haven’t already seen it you MUST see his speech from yesterday. He *did* change the mood from his show and it was a stupendous hour-long speech. Very well worth watching.
As for the jerk-attacks we just have to be vigilant, polite and, ultimately, firm. All of us.
“I like Mark because he can keep his tears in check.”
Is that a virtue?
Magical thinking: The sense that the alcoholic individual can use his or her thoughts to influence other people’s thoughts and actions.
Yes, but he had help.
They nearly destroyed us, but electing O is a continuation of that attack.
He was discussing spending... and you may not like hearing the message, but what was incorrect about that message? Look at the bills he pushed with his whole heart like Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, etc...
I would not take what happened at C-pac to be a bad omen. Based on the fact that better than 50% of the participants were 25 years of age or under is what made the straw poll what it was. It is a good thing, not a bad thing.
The road from having a skull full of mush and liberal brain wash usually finds it's way to Libertarian views as the first stop to Conservatism. The fact that so many young were interested enough to go to CPAC is a great sign.
I find myself in utter shock from some of the commets here that I have read regarding CPAC. It seems to me that there were some elements like the Birchers that were indeed worrisome to me but the straw poll was not a indicator and Romney's second place only rewards him for his hard work and for the help of his PAC in recent elections. Palin's third only shows what is the current reality. The move is to new and exciting people who have never run before by the younger players and it says nothing, nada, zip, about the 2012 elections. It just shows us that there will be a very interesting primary.
My only concern about CPAC was the Bircher presence, and I suppose it is my age that makes me leary of them as we ran them off many years ago because they are crackpots. The gay thing I could care less about as it is social crap and the Ron Paul vote was more of a equal and opposite reaction to the political move to the left by our current leadership. The left has caused more than a ripple in the political pond and it's natural to respond with equal force to the libertine, no government or minimalist views as a response.
As to immigration, I don't think it will be a issue that is very high on the mountain in 2010, so it is not a issue yet. Maybe in 2012.
CPAC is representation of the current activist temperature and not a representation of the public voting intentions. I would simply take it as that and nothing more.
From here to 2012, we do need to look at our associations, because movements are often judged by the people in them. Immigration was a self destructive exercise largely because of associations with the wrong people. Unless something has radically changed in the Bircher camps, we don't want them speaking for us. or at least I damn sure don't. As I said, that is my only concern with what I saw at CPAC. It is not a big thing now, but we should not let it become one.
The point isn’t George Bush per se. Yes, George Bush on balance was a good president. In answer to the question “Miss me yet?” I say: YES!
But the point is the TENDENCY of the Republican Party towards BIPARTISANSHIP... and you cannot in all honesty (and you’re the one who brought up honesty) say that that evil tendency is behind us or that George Bush wasn’t a HUGE participant in it.
You can’t say either of those things. And not be honest.
So yes, it is important to understand what went wrong so they won’t be repeated. Which is exactly why the Tea Party meetings are not simply Republican Party auxiliary events.
Just love all this petty bickering among ‘conservatives’ incapable of putting their egos aside to present a united front...no wonder the progressive Democrats AND Republicans kick our behinds...
You can like a man without liking his political agenda.
I don’t disagree... I also question why McCain was so meek in his run against Obama and is using the same team to go scorched earth here against JD, a fellow Republican? does that make sense?
Honestly after digging through several websites, including their own, they seem to have turned into hardcore libertarians....from their website.
"One thing neo-conservatives might learn by cracking the binding on their copy of the U.S. Constitution is that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee that everyone in U.S. custody — even foreigners — a right to trial and due process of law, and that this right has been protected by the courts since at least the Amistad case in 1841:
Bill O isn't a conservative, he's a statist.
I have heard both Glenn and Rush credit others when due...others; not so much.
>> he equates the two parties he is talking about spending <<
Let me try to figure this out:
President Bush ran up the deficit to about 170 billion.
The Big Ø is in the process of running up the deficit to a trillion or so.
Therefore, the Pubs are just as bad as the Dhimmis.
OK, now I finally get Glen’s point!
I was just like he was reading it from Rush's book, and he never gave credit.
Conservapedia info: http://conservapedia.com/John_Birch_Society
I have read of few issues of their New American magazine. Their theories are paranoid in a crazy way.
Beck is doing that just fine, we are all the same. FReepers, DUers, all alike.
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.