May 25 2010

Insipid Arrogance Abounds In Today’s Politics

It has become very tough to blog these last few weeks as two forces of arrogance collide in our political national theatre. The one which is most troubling is the group who which has to be deemed as the better of two lousy choices. This group is the far right. You can identify them as the ones who have never learned the lesson about democracy and respect. They claim to be the only ‘true’ conservatives, and endlessly bash those who don’t toe their small minded ways. Anyone who uses the terms ‘RINO’ or ‘faux conservative’ is not only compensating but is also turning off potential political allies. There are no ‘true’ conservatives, any more than there are ‘true’ Americans. We are all flawed and imperfect, and we need the help and support of our fellow citizens to achieve great things. Self aggrandizing is not the sign of strength or wisdom.

Our democracy was built on finding common-ground solutions to enormous challenges. We are libertarians at our core, not lemmings. We respect diversity and abhor the idea of political correctness. The Mark Levins of the world, while they claim loudly they are ‘great Americans’ and the such, don’t even understand what makes America great. It used to be the banding of brothers, the collective will to take on humanity’s challenges large and small. And to do so in a free markets, where ideas and solutions come from any and all corners. It never was about cliques who claim superiority over all others.

Those who demand fealty to their world view are anti-American, whether they demand it from a perch the far left or on the far right. I have no interest in championing the causes of these people. None. But sadly we are faced with an even more insipid arrogance on the other side of the aisle. One of even greater proportion and danger. We as a nation need to oust the Democrats from power before they destroy this country (and this world economy) any more. They, on the other hand, have other plans.

For instance, how about a $165 billion dollar payout to unions:

A Democratic senator is introducing legislation for a bailout of troubled union pension funds.  If passed, the bill could put another $165 billion in liabilities on the shoulders of American taxpayers.

Does anyone think those who mismanaged the pension funds into trouble should now be handed another large some of OUR money to manage? How did the tool Rep Grayson put it – isn’t that like letting al Qaeda fly the plane?? We are running annual deficits over a trillion dollars a year, people are barely getting by and the Democrats plan to send the unions a huge slush fund? Funds which will free up cash for unions to use in political races – Doh!

Or how about quadrupling the tax on oil so every single form of transportation costs more, driving up the cost of everything people purchase:

Responding to the massive BP oil spill, Congress is getting ready to quadruple—to 32 cents a barrel—a tax on oil used to help finance cleanups. The increase would raise nearly $11 billion over the next decade.

The tax is levied on oil produced in the U.S. or imported from foreign countries.

I did not make this mistake, why the hell should I pay for it? Or how about a government full of crooks who bailout one company in order to hurt their competition:

How many golden parachutes will this quid pro quo create?

The thieves are running the bank with all our money, investments and futures in it. They are so arrogant they not only demand we accept their vision of a new world order, but they demand (under the punishment of law) we fund it.

Which makes the left the worse of two evils. I am not supporting the holier-than-everyone-else uber conservatives in the country. But we can put up with them as long as a new governing coalition can roll back Obamanomics and Obamacare. As long as its not costing me and family I can put up with arrogance. Its a free country after all.

Update: Examples of our future without repealing the Democrat madness are on display all over. Here is the future of Obamacare:

The future of US medicine under ObamaCare is already on display in Massachusetts. The top four health insurers there just posted first-quarter losses of more than $150 million. Most of them blamed the state’s decision to keep premiums at last year’s levels for individual and small-business policies, when they’d proposed double-digit hikes to match the soaring costs they’ve seen under the state’s universal-coverage law.

The companies have gone to court to challenge the state’s action — it apparently had no basis for its ruling beyond the political needs of Gov. Deval Patrick. If they win, Bay State health premiums will continue their rapid rise; if they lose, they’ll eventually have to stop doing business in Massachusetts — and the state will be that much closer to a “single payer” system of socialized medicine.

And here is the future of Obamanomics:

World stock markets tumbled Tuesday, extending Wall Street’s sell-off as the sliding euro fueled a new wave of pessimism about the global economy’s health.
Renewed worries about Europe’s debt problems rattled already anxious investors, who grew more uncertain about the outlook for the U.S. and global economies.

How’s that “Hope & Change” working for you all?

35 responses so far

35 Responses to “Insipid Arrogance Abounds In Today’s Politics”

  1. Alert1201 says:

    It would help if you read the post a little more carefully. Neither Colin nor I mentioned Malkin or Beck. The point was whether NRs attacks were considered hissy-fits. Yes, Malkin writes for them occasionally but she only has a small foot-print on the site.

    Keep in mind as well Bush did do some dumb things and reasonably pointing them out as NR did,as WSJ did, as and Rick Moran did, the writers at PJM and many others did, should not be considered a hissy-fit.

    Whenever criticism of Bush is mentioned the center instinctively starts screaming Rush, Levin, Beck and Malkin. Remember there were many others who offered reasonable rational non-hyperbolic criticism of Bush.

  2. Alert1201 says:

    So what Colin. This is a hissy-fit? Really? He disagrees with Bush, so what? The question is were Bush’s views of spreading democracy in the Arab world grossly simplistic? We’ve, been there 6 or 7 years now, lost thousands of soldiers, spend 100s of billions of dollars and and there are still no stable viable democracies in the two countries we’ve attempted to establish them? Hmmmm! Maybe it was somewhat simplistic. I wonder if Bush and Rumsfield would have thought in 2002 we would be where we are now in Iraq and Afghanistan!

    Read the article, weigh his arguments against the facts. What evidence did he give to show Bush’s view was overly simplistic? State why you think he is wrong? What weaknesses are in his reasoning? He may be right or wrong but do not throw a quote out and say this is a hissy fit. My 14 year old son can reason better then that.

    Also, do a search on Moran’s site and see how a self-professed centrist/moderate can speak about conservatives.

    I agree with what Bush did but to question him is not a hissy fit.

  3. Terrye says:


    I know you did not mention them, I was talking about rightie pundits in general…and yes they were worse than hissy fits at the NRO, they went after blood. It was not just that they disagreed, it was that they could not let Bush disagree with them.

  4. Terrye says:

    And what dumb things did Bush do, and who are these people to assume such a standard of perfection that they can constantly harp on his failures? They helped strengthen the Democrats and hurt the Republicans…and that helped Obama get elected. Of course their attitude is that if only Bush had said how high when they said jump everything would have been okay fine. After all, they know everything about everything.

  5. Alert1201 says:

    I’ve been reading NR for 25 years and I read every issue cover to cover. Over the years there was plenty of praise for Bush, it was not all blood. But when that is all your looking for, that is all you will find.

  6. Alert1201 says:

    Sorry Terry, Bush, his policies, (No child left behind, immigration, campaign finance reform, his absolute refusal to stand up for himself against the onslaught of the media, Harriet Myers, ect….) are what helped strengthen the Democrats and hurt the Republicans. As well as the Republicans themselves.

    I loved Bush, I think eventually he will be seen as a great president for many of his policies, but he deserved much of the criticism he received.

  7. Terrye says:


    I did not say that was all that there was…I am talking about the attitude so often found on the right and at NR as well. It is the same sort of attitude that makes a deity of Reagan and trashes anyone whose name is Bush..and that goes for the HW and Jeb too.

    For instance, Obama has said he would send 1,200 troops to the border. And how did Allah over at Hot Air respond? Like this:

    “We’ve seen this movie before and it was dismal enough that I’m not real excited about the sequel. As with so many things, it’s a case of The One following Bush’s lead, making a show of border security in hopes of softening opposition to a comprehensive immigration bill in Congress. It almost certainly ain’t happening this year, but half a bil for enforcement at least gives purple-district House Dems a talking point ahead of November.”


    Never mind the fact that Bush put more resources and people on that border than any president in history. Never mind the fact that he started the use of drones, or increased the number of detention centers so that deportations could be tripled. He also signed on for the fence and doubled the border patrol. Is that enough? Well, no, but it is more than Ronald fact Reagan refused to even consider a wall and he signed an honest to God amnesty bill.

    But here we have the cavalier attitude, that Bush suckered us so that he could get something from us by pretending he gave a damn. It is typical among pundits, none of whom said boo about immigration during the campaign in 2000 or 2004 for that matter. No, it was all Bush’s fault. Bad man.

  8. colin says:


    I think you’re right in regards to NR (with the exception of Derb and Krikorian, who I do believe cross into the “hissy-fit” category). When I was talking about “the hissy-fits” the right threw, I was actually thinking more about Malkin or Beck, but I didn’t point them out specifically, I only mentioned NR, which led to the perception that the hissy-fits were coming from NRO. That was imprecise on my part.

    Still, a lot of the criticisms made at NR have been very serious, to the point that if one accepts those criticisms, I don’t really think one could stand by the opinion that Bush is a good president or leader. It also seems that the Bush criticism at National Review have become canonical. That’s why I mentioned them specifically. They are the heart of the right in America. They’ve written a whole bunch of critical articles and editorials about Bush, and if you stand four-square behind Bush (as I do), it just seems that you would have to at least address the serious criticisms from the right.

    For the record, I agree with Bush’s stances on all of the issues you mentioned except CFR.

  9. owl says:

    No need for me to repeat…………….just let me say ‘ditto’ to all that Terrye wrote with a special mention for Malkin for her constant hateful Bushbashing. If Bush was not good enough for these perfectionists, they need to keep dreaming. It still makes me mad to know I have to vote with them. I resented the constant bashing and they all know who they are. It never stopped, as if having the 24/7 nasty MSM, a special prosecuter, every loud mouthing DIM, and such internationals as the UN on his back were not enough? They really needed God to come down to be happy. They sure didn’t help Bush or my causes.

  10. Terrye says:


    You are a peach. Now, you don’t hear that every day do you?

  11. WWS says:

    If “centrism” is a viable electoral policy, why has everyone with any hope of getting elected abandoned it? O’Neal asked for some names, so here are some people who I think qualify as centrists, and what they’re doing now:

    John McCain now sounds more conservative than he ever has in his life, and has flatly repudiated a lot of stands he took in the past, including almost completely reversing his previous stands on immigration and climate change. This is almost certainly why he is going to get re-elected – he knows that old centrist, maverick stuff wasn’t going to fly with the voters anymore.

    Lindsey Graham saw the handwriting on the wall and abandoned (at the last minute) his support for the climate bill and an immigration bill. Ironically, by holding on and trying to play the centrist game so long he did more damage to both of those bills when he backed out than he ever could have done if he’d held a more consistent and principled stand. But I doubt anyone in Washington is going to ever trust him again. Credit him for knowing who he needs to stab in the back and when he needs to do it to save himself. (pols do have good instincts for that kind of thing)

    Snowe and Collins of Maine seem well suited for their state, and even they decided that they couldn’t go along with Obama on health care, immigration, or the climate bill. Same applies to Scott Brown. Give them all credit for being as conservative as anyone from their states could get away with and stay in office. All 3 of them never make any claims to be anything they’re not, so they got that in their favor as well. They’ve given McConnell all the support he could have hoped for from them.

    Other centrists of note:
    Arlen Specter, who ran on a proclaimed Centrist theme – hated by the entire State of Pennsylvania. Career: Dead
    Charlie Crist, now running as a Centrist: Career: About to be Dead.
    Bart Stupak: Career, Dead
    Blue Dog Democrats: Careers: Dead
    Lincoln Chafee: lost his primary, Career: Dead

    The “Centrist” theme attracted a lot of people from 2000 – 2008. That phase in our political history is now over, and the attraction of “centrist” views is but a fading dream. Every candidate with any hope of political success is running away from it as fast as they can, because the two sides are now too far apart for their to ever be a working compromise between them. As in all great wars, one side is going to win and one is going to have to lose – and those who refuse to fight have already lost.

    One of the great ironies in this thread is that AJ himself is no “centrist”, not by a long shot. The next “Obama has Failed” thread proves it – no centrist could say that just as no true centrist could be a fan of Sarah Palin. He just wishes he was one, and gets mad at the people (like me) who remind him that he isn’t.

    I’ll say again – let it go, AJ! It’s an affectation that you don’t need anymore, and you really will be much happier without it.

  12. Terrye says:


    I think it is a question of who decides what centrism is. Scott Brown was elected in Mass, and already conservatives are whining that he is not a true blue conservative..well it is Mass, he is about as conservative as you get there. Conservative in Oklahoma and conservative in Maine may not be the same thing. The problem is the constant feuding and finger pointing and grandstanding by people trying to prove credentials. Who gets to decide?

    I think when someone becomes President and they have to make real decisions there are times when ideology has to take a back seat to finding solutions. The problem with ideologues is that many of them never have to make a real decision.

    Hence, they are in a constant rhetorical battle. I do think the country is going right, I really do…I just do not think that people like Malkin and the guys at NR or even Rush get to decide exactly what that means.

    In many ways, Reagan was a centrist. He made the remark once that it was more important to get half a loaf than it was to starve. That is the difference.

  13. WWS says:

    Reagan always understood the difference between operating from a position of strength and a position of weakness. When operating from a position of weakness, of course you go for the compromise. But Reagan knew better than anyone – just look at his dealings with the Russians – that when you have the upper hand, and you are operating from a position of strength, then you *never* settle for half a loaf when one ounce of backbone gives you the whole game!

    Going into this election, liberals are on the ropes. Their ideas are discredited. They are hated nationally. This is the time to go for the killshot – not sit around and try to cook up compromise positions, and by doing so allow this once in a lifetime window of opportunity slide by forever.

    As Rahm Emmanuel famously said, A Crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

    Better yet, hark back to the Bard: “There is a tide in the affairs of men, which when taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; ommitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat; And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.”

  14. Terrye says:


    I think Reagan was a conservative in terms of philosophy, but he was more pragmatic when it came to governing. He was not an ideologue, so yes, like you said he understand about operating from a position of power.

    I also agree that liberals are on the ropes, but the right has to remember that not everyone in left or right..a lot of people can be swayed by events. And a lot of people might be conservative about fiscal issues, but moderate when it comes to social issues, etc. My larger point is that the right does not need to go so far right that they alienate the people who really are disgusted with the left. See what I mean?

    The truth is extremes meet. That is why Rand Paul’s foreign policy is not a lot different from that held by your typical liberal.

  15. WWS says:

    I thought it was pretty amusing to watch Rand get his head handed to him last week. (btw, I do believe he was named for Ayn Rand) He is such a noob at this game! He walked into that buzzsaw with “SUCKER!” stamped right on his forehead.

    It’s also amusing/exasperating to see him trotted out as the Great New Conservative Hope. I’ve been critical of Ron Paul’s politics since he was criticizing Reagan during his second term, so I’ve been opposed to him and his ideas for something like 23 or 24 years now. But I think/hope that Junior isn’t quite as rigid and goofy as the old man is, and in that light, getting taken to the cleaners right off the bat was probably a real good thing to happen to him.