Free Republic

They have a disagreement about basic principles: classic libertarian vs. neocon. Some of what Beck does on Fox calls attention to the socialist and progressive ideology in the White House. But heresy leads to problems. The populist movement only appeals to a certain part of the electorate. What the conservatives have going for them is Obama's growing unpopularity and the failure of his policies, the hypocrisy of too many vacations, the Ground Zero controversy. With unemployment rising, the Dems are in real trouble for November.

The other thing Beck does is increase the Beck Derangement Syndrome over at MSNBC. But conservatives still need a leader who can explain the alternative to Obama without the negatives. Obama and Gibbs will keep trying to blame Bush for their economic failures.

It's because they get to be for "religious freedom" and anti-Christian at the same time. A non-Christian and anti-Christian religion arouses sympathy for liberals. They would be the first ones in line to complain about a Christmas Nativity display in New York. But there is no sense that Christian civilization is something to defend or what a post-Christian, post-American would would be like. How many liberals have spoken out for the right of St. Nicholas Orthodox Church to rebuild? Who on MSNBC has covered that? There is the suspicion that they only get interested in "freedom of religion" when there is an anti-Christian spin to the story. Perhaps MSNBC will present commentary on the persecution of Christians in Middle Eastern countries. Maybe the Obamas could look into it when they get back from vacation.

They will certainly do their best to try, even staging events for a fake revival, trying to make him look presidential. Watch for some foreign state visits, an address to the UN, maybe another Nobel, etc.

Maybe it's time for another luxury vacation in Spain...
Get some time away from the "bitter" rednecks in small towns
clinging to guns and religion that annoy him so much.
They just don't get away on vacation enough.

What is even sadder is, thanks to the NEA, secular humanists, and liberals in the educational system, most Americans would not even know what the significance of "Constantinople" was, what Hagia Sophia was, or the general trends of civilization in Western history from the 7th century to 1453 A.D.

With liberalism, the naked public square becomes not just a confusion about values, first principles, religion, and cultural identity, but through Separation of Church and State and the kowtowing, bowing, appeasement, anti-Americanism, anti-Christianity, and silliness of this White House, almost a suicide pact. They would be the first ones to ban a Christmas Nativity display in Manhattan.
"John Gibson, call your office..."

Keith was off his medicine again on this on The Countdown, even getting the history of Spain and medieval Europe ass backwards - with the Christians as the aggressors, the usual spin about freedom of religion (denied by the party in question in all other matters), and, presumably, a confidence that all cultures and values are equal, with Western Christianity deserving no prominence or praise from liberals, as he sneered at the churches in Manhattan near Ground Zero. The naked public square has not only taken away moral values, but left them moronized by lack of education on the history of the struggle between civilization and barbarism. Or on any sense of what a truly post-Christian, post-American world would be like on a day-to-day basis.

No liberal yells about "freedom of religion" when a zoning board denies a building permit to a Christian congregation or when a group of secular humanist cranks with genital issues stage a public riot against a Christmas Nativity display. They shift to "free speech" on those days. Some issues, it seems, are more equal than others.

What a shame.
He was actually good at carnival barking through football bloopers.
It seemed like a good outlet for his OCD and speed demon Tourette's.
The "roughing the Brady" penalties won't be quite the same without Keith's neurons sputtering and overdriving on Dexedrine cocktails.

"Keith, we hardly knew ye. Farewell."

re: "liberals thinking Americans are stupid"

Well, you know, the losers in small towns, "they get bitter and cling to guns and religion."
Limousine liberals from Harvard and Chicago political machines?
They go to Spain and luxury hotels, stiffing the losers with the tab. "Everybody does it."

This should make her a great spokesman for living more frugally, cutting back, clipping coupons, turning the AC back, saving energy to cut down on those carbon footprints. People should really carpool more and "live within their means" to fight global warming.

It's not that hard to figure out.
The anguish, guilt, horror, and emptiness she felt afterwards clued her in as to what she had lost.
It's very common actually.
Some turn to bitterness, anger, and denial.
Others search for healing and forgiveness.
When they realize they have lost a human child, all that that means and could have been. Those that have courage speak out about it. Some become pro-life activists because they don't want others to go through that trauma.

She should be able to recognize prestige and manic spending and consumption that springs from a need for self-esteem, very common among nouveau riche liberals, pathological narcissists, and yuppies with emotional needs and a sense of entitlement. This is what she thinks wealthy and powerful people do. And apparently this need overrides any sense of inappropriateness, given the economic woes afflicting many Americans, the gulf oil diaster, etc. For similar reasons Barry's mother-in-law stays busy eyeing the White House silverware, china, and tea services, tucking away spoons and forks for a rainy day. Those who had traumatic childhoods or who feel they were wronged earlier in life have more trouble with self-esteem spending.

The inappropriate affect and disconnection from reality should be a little alarming for any liberals still worried about trying to salvage this presidency.

Another fantasy shopping spree in Paris should come next. She seems to have an endless need for conspicuous consumption and manic spending driven by a need for self-esteem.

Had Nancy Reagan or Laura Bush gone off running up vacation tabs like this, liberals in the mainstream media would never have stopped whining about how many starving children in Third World countries could have been clothed and fed by the funds for the tab. Or the carbon footprint of such a frivolous and unctuously lavish and luxurious manic episode. Borderline psychotic behavior disconnected from any concern for appearances or what is appropriate expenditure should be a matter of concern when afflicting those in the White House during times of national crisis.

How's Obama's virtually homeless brother, living in the hut in Kenya, doing, by the way? That $75K from just one day of this vacation would probably go a long way for him in Kenya. Any "normal" person would weigh those priorities and be embarrassed by the inappropriate spending.

She should be able to recognize prestige and manic spending and consumption that springs from a need for self-esteem, very common among nouveau riche liberals and yuppies with emotional needs and a sense of entitlement. This is what she thinks wealthy and powerful people do. And apparently this need overrides any sense of inappropriateness, given the economic woes afflicting many Americans, the gulf oil diaster, etc. For similar reasons Barry's mother-in-law stays busy eyeing the White House silverware, china, and tea services, tucking away spoons and forks for a rainy day. Those who had traumatic childhoods or who feel they were wronged earlier in life have more trouble with self-esteem spending.

A shopping spree in Paris should come next. Maybe she could travel around France telling school kids which food groups to eat in order to avoid getting fat....

It's an important point.

Buckley (and National Review) were able to bring together forces and people which had previously not been allied. For Buckley, as a Catholic and based on the east coast, but also connected with conservative intellectuals in academia, southern Protestants, and conservatives from the West, like Goldwater.

Critics should not overlook what was achieved in that. Catholics who had previously been supporters of JFK or in the FDR camp became conservatives in the conservative movement. The rhetorical side, in publishing, in National Review and other journals, and on television on Firing Line, all of this helped to create the infrastructure of the conservative movement.

You can't compare Palin to that, although some of the populism is related to Reagan's popularity in the '80s. Reagan closed the gap which Buckley never would have been able to, by appealing to all of those Reagan Democrats. Now, to get conservative and pro-life Catholics and Protestants together with fiscal conservatives, intellectual conservatives, Reagan Democrats, and even some of a libertarian mindset on taxes (Kemp, etc.), focused on a common political agenda as a coalition with a media presence and direct-mail grassroots networks (Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich)- behind a charismatic candidate like Reagan - that was a real achievement in U.S. politics.

But at the moment at least, it doesn't look like there is a Catholic conservative figure providing similar leadership, or even a Reaganesque figure who could provide similar leadership. Despite the establishment chatter and cheerleading, Romney is not going to do that and the people talking this up are deceiving themselves.

So it's not true that nostalgia for Reagan, Buckley, and the good old days is pointless. Conservatives are lacking in leadership these days and the "conservative demonstration" is in need of intelligent voices that can make the case to the American people without some of the silliness or weaknesses that make political figures open to being dismissed as kooks, extremists, or unqualified and inexperienced populists. But in 1980 the liberal media wanted people to dismiss Reagan as a kook - remember the bit about plants and trees causing pollution, that he was a "warmonger" who would start a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, and a religious nut who believed in a literal Armageddon. They tried all of that.

The Firing Line style of debates was also a little different than talk radio which can get a little on the lowbrow side and turn some people off. That is one of the liberal talking points - how bad and how mean conservative talk radio is. There are things that can be learned from discussions about what was good about the conservative movement from the 1950s through the 1980s. Some of that just has to do with what was good about American Christians during that period, the values being defended and preserved, etc. For Reagan and Buckley, the values of American Catholics and Protestants during the 1920s, '30s, and '40s. A lot of conservatism just has to do with restating those values in different ways. How do you explain self-control, conventional morality, or personal responsibility to a liberal? Someone should put together an anthology of Reagan and Buckley quotes which tried to do that. That might prove interesting.

Reagan could be great at that. Wise cracks. One time he said something like, "Having sex is not the same as having a ham sandwich." Having both worked in Hollywood (with Errol Flynn) and taught Sunday School, maybe he was a little unique.

There is a lot that can be learned by studying the conservative movement.
The Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk. Not just nostalgia. Some of what they are talking about is not just conservatism but educated and intelligent discussion in general. We shouldn't downplay the role of the conservative movement in that.

1) There is nothing wrong with nostalgia every now and then.

2)Conservatives are genuinely lacking strong leadership right now.

3) The period of the "conservative movement" from the late 1950s into the 1980s was a special time in which the genius of figures like Buckley and Reagan had an impact on American culture in a way which you do not exactly see repeated by certain so-called "conservatives" right now.

4) Some would argue (and have argued) that the old National Review had a conservative edge which has been tamed to some degree. American society has also changed, so the culture that produced Buckley and Reagan has also been disappearing. That is more obviously the case for the Catholic Buckley as the Church has changed even more dramatically. It would be an understatement to say that, at least as far as conservative matters go, things have gotten a little less coherent and a little strange on the Right in church circles. Leadership is lacking there as well. If there is a voice one could point to there who immediately generates an audience, it would be interesting to know the name.

The next conservative will need the Catholic vote.
Will he get it?

"While you were working to provide for your family, your children were indoctrinated by government schools."

Not if you never bought into the scam of secular humanism and sent your children to private religious schools. If more did that, the NEA's monopoly would come to an end.

With the progressive income tax, property taxes, inventory and licensing fees & regulations to make sure VERY FEW ever rise out of wage labor. Statism keeps people down and under control.

Fabian Socialism.

"Most of us believe socialism is what the socialists want us to believe it is - a share-the-wealth program. That is the theory. But is that how it works?... If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes the logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite." - Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy

"13% Believe Obama's Policies Have Helped Them"

That's about the learning curve. 87% have figured it out.

Baptism and Confirmation are sufficient
(i.e., to be born “from above” according to the metaphor on St. John). All of the grace needed is there. How the person acts upon the grace and gifts of the Holy Spirit will vary from person to person as they mature. Since not everyone has mystical experiences or private revelations there is no requirement of that. A baptized infant goes to God in Heaven
regardless of any additional “born again” experience. To deny that would be heresy.

"Most Americans [liberals] are not quite sure what to make of the sprawling right-wing Tea Party..."

Many urban liberals view normal Americans as strange.
Freedom is strange, private property is strange, Christianity is strange, having children is strange, etc.

By contrast, for them, Fabian Socialism is normal, Frankfurt School ideology is normal, anti-Christian foreign billionaires funding depopulation are normal, a dorky science nerd who wants to dope the water supply with sterilization drugs is normal.

"Well, isn't that...special?"

And he still doesn't have time to go to church.

"She Doesn’t Know Anything"

Translation: She's not up to speed on the Frankfurt School ideology and Manhattan cocktail party chatter that MSNBC talking heads and liberal New York Times writers, served by undocumented Guatemalan house slaves on Long Island, are obsessed with. She hasn't read many Doris Kearns Goodwin, Toni Morrison, or Saul Alinsky books. And she hasn't used secret handshakes to get a fruitcake at Notre Dame to give her an honorary doctorate while carrying out policies opposed to everything such a degree should symbolize.