Posted on 04/01/2013 9:01:32 PM PDT by Pinkbell
There are various ways to describe the civil war rising inside the Republican Party: insiders versus outsiders, pragmatists versus true-believers, establishment versus Tea Party. Here’s another: Bill O’Reilly conservatives versus Rush Limbaugh conservatives.
Last week, the two media titans clashed after O’Reilly accused opponents of gay marriage of lacking “compelling argument[s]” and merely “thump[ing] the Bible.” Limbaugh responded by saying that conservative Christians “were sort of marginalized” on O’Reilly’s show. On the surface, the scuffle merely reflected differing opinions about the arguments deployed last week at the Supreme Court. But in reality, it reflected a different view of conservatism itself.
O’Reilly is a conservative populist, which is to say, he only champions those conservative viewpoints that he believes enjoy mass appeal. His evolution on gay marriage—as helpfully chronicled by New York magazine’s Dan Amira—illustrates the point. While O’Reilly’s own views have shifted, what has remained constant is his tendency to justify those views by reference to the popular will. In 2006 O’Reilly said he opposed gay marriage because “it is clear that most Americans want heterosexual marriage to maintain its special place … Traditional marriage is widely seen as a social stabilizer.” In 2009 he again phrased his opposition in terms of public opinion: “You don’t do it [pass gay marriage] particularly if people in California … don’t want it, they think that the heterosexuality is a societal stabilizer.” But by linking his own notions of social stability to those of the public at large, O’Reilly gave himself room to shift. By May of last year he was declaring that “individual states should decide the question.” And last week he said he supported civil unions, while on gay marriage, “I don’t feel that strongly about it one way or another. I think the states should do it.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Ditto all that........
O’Reilly is not a Republican and certainly no conservative. He holds as many liberal and flat-out conspiratorial ideas as he does conservative view.
He believes in global warmng, for instance and thinks the government should control “big oil”, for the folks, of course.
The author, Peter Beinart, is a nasty little left-wing faggot.
Only the Daily Beast would try to equate Ted Baxter with El Rushbo. Come on!
You think that your question is rhetorical ... I think you are unwilling to seriously ponder: "Is Obozo better than Romney?" I pondered it LONG and HARD in the days before Nov. and I can tell you that many lifelong Republicans did the same, and declined to vote for Romney for EXACTLY the same reason they declined to vote for Obozo. For one, it was the first time she had declined to vote for any Republican on the ticket in her life -- she'd been a straight-party-ticket voter for more than SIXTY YEARS. Another -- that would be me -- was the same except that I'd been a straight-party-ticket voter for only about 35 years. I have since come upon many other Republicans and conservatives for whom Romney was a bridge too far, and who FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THEIR LIVES, declined to vote for a Republican on the ticket. Their decisions to decline Romney were not emotional, spur-of-the-moment angry reactions, but long-though, much pondered decisions made with care, conscience, and WISDOM.
Romney would have been as bad as Obozo, worse in the long run. Emotional people (like Rush Limbaugh, who in spite of what he self-proclaims, is often guided by emotion in politics) knee-jerk in anger at that truth. Too bad.
But PONDER THIS: Limbaugh urged thee and me to vote for a guy who pioneered a government system (RomneyCare) whereby abortion ended up being on-demand for only $50, the rest of the dollar amount funded by taxpayers. Limbaugh urged thee and me to vote for a guy who endorsed and supported the "right" of homosexuals to expand their "Gay Pride" outreach to school children, and who created a "gay rights" legal arena wherein adoption agencies that refused to cooperate with gay "parents" wanting to adopt children, were punished for being, essentially, so "immoral" as to discriminate against these poor homosexual men!
I like that God is looking at Americans moral enough to have refused, even at the price of having to face another four years of Obama, to vote FOR a person who'd willfully empowered such depravity . I think God would have frowned upon "moral" folks knowingly electing an agent of the very evils they rightly rail against. Personally, I think the fact that Romney lost is a good sign for America.
O’Reilly is no conservative. But he does raise topics that you will not hear about elsewhere, and gets them discussed. That is a good thing.
Al notsoSharpton, projected answer: "Pythagoras, he one o' them Greek homos, right?"
” - - - For O’Reilly, traditional morality is not an abstract, coherent set of beliefs; it’s the folk wisdom of ordinary people at any given moment, and it can change.
Like Reagan, O’Reilly has a gift for quietly making peace with progressive advances he formerly opposed while excoriating (and often caricaturing) those leftist innovations that can still be dismissed as fringe. If I were a GOP presidential aspirant, I’d watch O’Reilly closely over the next few years, because the Republican candidate who best articulates his brand of conservatism will be the candidate best able to regain the White House in 2016. - - - “
__________
Peter Beinart, the author of this article, reveals himself to be the following:
A.) in favor of poll-based principles (see sentence # 1 above);
B.) convinced that poll-based principles will get a Republican Candidate elected to the WH (sentence # 3);
and C.) failed to recognize that Reagan spoke of historic, not poll-based principles.
Thus, Mr. Beinart is just another true believer in the wasteful folly of elections, and the magnificent virtues of the shifting sands of the Liberal Media-fed public opinion vomiting forth, on command, what the Obamanation Journalists have repeatedly told them.
IOW, Peter Beinart is an Obamanation Journalist.
Two comments...I thought I knew all the show on radio and boy Have I heard a lot of ones people at FR don’t. But Who the Heck is Kook to Kook? I find no info on it. Sounds like it might be appropriate the name of the show based on your rant.
I have big problems with some who are either for Ron Paul and his son and some liberarians who just want to force on us conservatives their view of defense and social issues. Theyr esulted in confusing S.E. Cupp and Glenn Beck on some issues. markl levin doesn’t have to agree and that is why he has called out liberaruians before on his show who are hijacking the real attempt by the conservative movement to take back America.
We are trying to coexist but it opens up a dialog where it is very much a situation where we are too far a aprt on some issues. I am tried of Libertarians attacking conservatives and especially conservative candidates as fraud. Just as much against us as the left every election.
Sorry about typos. I type fast and make errors. I often try to proofread, But sometimes I do not.
DAR.FM: Nothing was found matching the search term(s): “Kook to Kook”
To tell you the truth, I stopped listening to any of them awhile ago. I've been listening to Mexican radio since Republican went Romney, and it's been great for my mood (the music is wonderful) and my Spanish. The voices of conservative talk radio were dogs barking at the mailman out front -- Obama -- while robbers -- liberals and statists -- proceed to come in the back door and ransack the house.
As for libertarian versus Libertarian -- Thomas Sowell considers himself a libertarian. Walter Williams is, I believe, a Libertarian, and Reagan acknowled that libertarianism (small l) is at the foundation of conservatism. Christian values and morality, Judeo-Christian ethics of "do unto others what you would have them do unto you" (such as respect peoples' dignity and privacy) and of frowning on envy, lust, covetousness, anger, and vengeance, are the very simple things that can only function in a small-l libertarian nation. It's a code that leads to success, and likewise, ignoring it leads to strife and suffering, as we are seeing first-hand.
Demography is pretense. Morality is destiny. Ultimately, the ONLY reason there isn't slavery in the Western World is because the Judeo-Christian ethic in morality forced it out of existence.
The libertarian ethic of insisting only on being able to exercise one's own right to discriminate peacefully in self direction, protects morality by ensuring that no government can punish you for refusing to let gay men get involved in your kids' youth group. It protects morality by stopping goverment from using your money to fund and reward sloth and promiscuity via welfare. The libertarian foundation protects your morality by preventing Federal overtakes like Roe v. Wade. The libertarian ethic, its fundamental premise, would be that MORALLY, people have the right to control their kids' schools and prevent crap like Lesbians in History being taught to teenagers. If they do that now, they're punished because its immoral to criticize what the Christian ethic says is immoral. Anti-discrimination laws forcing social acceptance of behaviors (sexual deviancy, obesity, drug and alcohol addictions) forbid regular, moral Americans from saying to folks whose behavior they despise, "Go some place else or adapt." And that's just the tip of the iceberg of the government frustrating morality.
Government, especially the Federal government, is far more responsible for the moral malaise in this country than pop culture and video games put together.
Exactly. There’s an especially hot corner of Hell reserved for hypocritical Catholics like Bill O’Reilly, Senator Bob Casey, Joe Biden, and all the Kennedys and Cuomos.
Don’t forget Kerry, Pelosi, and Sebelius on that list.
O'Reily is what is found in Rush's catbox
Leni
I couldn’t believe how O’Reilly was browbeating and demeaning Laura Ingraham over this last evening. Laura should have stood up and walked out onthat pompous bully.
O’Reilly insulted millons of Americans with that “Bible-thumping” remark. I guess he just doesn’t care now that he’s a gazillionaire from selling his ghost-written history books.
For those who missed it:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/04/bill-oreilly-blows-up-at-laura-ingraham-160728.html
Ok Sorry for the confusion. I should have realized it was another name for the show.
Well, in response to the rest of your reply, the current government is very much against morality and traditional values. And they also dislike Christianity and the teachings. They want social decay and a moral less society where anything goes. They want people to get high, have unchecked sex without people caring about consequences. They favor depopulation and eugenics so they want a society with rampant abortion. They want to legalize homosexuality to destroy the country. It’s all about transforming the country. Destroying the long held christian views. Then the gay marriage cause will start being advocated in schools and in church against the teachings of the church to radicalize people.
So the problem I have is that the government is dictating to people how to live their lives to the progressive-liberal extreme. They are trying to destroy the religious foundation of this nation thru social issues among other things. This is a slippery slope.
But with all that in mind, then society is just a reflection of what is happening. And many people in pop culture are trying to change minds to the progressive way of thinking. They use whatever pulpit they are given to meld minds into believing that amorality is good. Things ranging from taking illegal drugs to having unrestricted and unprotected sex with many people.
They want a dirty rotten culture. Legalizing pedophilia is next then polygamy and bestiality.
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.