LJWorld.com

justfornow (Anonymous) says…

“Where are the thoughtful conservatives”?…. I wonder that myself Leonard.

justfornow (Anonymous) says…

“smaller government, less-intrusive government, strong national defense, fiscal sobriety”
This is what were missing and until these are re-found I will look elsewhere and I Vote.

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

Folks we have just experienced 7+ years of a Compassionate Conservative! Heavy on the compassion and light on the conservative. Now Mr. Pitts wants a thoughtful one? How about a principled one for real, meaningful change!

Now as far as feelings go in politics, Obamination is for all the feelings one wishes politically to express which quickly will bring only a much bigger mess.

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…

Hey, Leonard, lighten up. At least the guy didn't identify Chamberlain as one of the great basketball players of all time.

acoupstick (Anonymous) says…

Having demonized intellectualism, science, diplomacy, compromise, discourse, conservation, compassion, and empathy, conservatives deserve what's coming to them. Too bad the liberal leadership vacuum will prevent them from taking advantage.

scott3460 (Anonymous) says…

“I do not understand why Obama thinks he was the one Bush was talking about. Frankly, if one has been paying attention, you could list most of the leaders of the democratic party as targets, a fair number of European political leaders, a number of Arab leaders, and, yes, even some Israelis. Perhaps Obama is so full of himself he thinks everything is about him?”

Maybe the fact, as reported on NBC, that bush's minions were very publically spreading word that the speech was targetted at Obama. It was only after they all realized they'd screwed up that they all started proclaiming that it was about Carter, or anyone else.

jonas (Anonymous) says…

This is what happens when your entire platform rests and revolves around a work of fiction written several millennium ago.

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…

Acoupstick, the second sentence of your post is quite accurate.

Jonas, it's “millennia.”

Finding_Uranus (Anonymous) says…

New York Times this morning finally decided to acknowledge some real progress in Iraq. A five year old can figure out they're setting the stage in case they can credit Obama with the success in a year or so.

Conservatives may be getting a bad name now, what will 2010 or 2011 be like for liberals?

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Here's the video in question, in case you haven't seen it yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99BY4IBZG…

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
http://www.americanplan.org

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

If you are looking for a thoughtful conservative look no further. Check out Ron Paul.

There are a lot of people claiming to be conservative today who are not truly conservative. If you want a conservative look for someone in favor of a humble foreign policy, no nation building, no policing the world, sound money (ie no federal reserve), reducing the size of government, against socialism, and not telling you how to run your life.

Finding_Uranus (Anonymous) says…

This time around, FOB's (Friends of Barack) will be a collection of radicals that will equal the headcount of the cast and crew of 'Ben-Hur'.

Just who “IS” Barack Obama. Anyone know? NBC doesn't even know, I fear.

jonas (Anonymous) says…

cato: Yeah, I know it's wrong. Firefox's spellcheck is seriously lacking in a number of things, I've had a bit to drink, and I just kind of gave up on it. Thanks though.

jafs (Anonymous) says…

Ron Paul is interesting, quite intelligent, and wants to get back to basic principles.

Even though I fear his ideas are not sufficient, I would like to see more of his kind of intelligence and discourse in politics.

anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…

Bondmen, I just read your first post and it's about as big a piece of garbage as I have ever seen. You really think that America will ever get another president anywhere near as close to Fascism as this current one did? Your lack of intelligence reveals your lower level thought processes. Please be quite until you can speak about a topic without foam running from the corners of your mouth.

bennyoates (Anonymous) says…

Thoughtful conservatives? You can find them in staggering numbers just about 24/7 on these message boards, sharing their wisdom about Obama bin Laden, murderer Ted Kennedy, the Stalinists who want to take away their hard-earned money to fund the T, and all the politically correct storm troopers who censor and victimize them for being hard-working patriotic Americans who've cornered the market on the truth! Yep, you used to have to lift up a rock to find these model citizens. Now they're just a mouse-click away, offering their insights from the think-tank of mom's basement!

situveux1 (Anonymous) says…

It's so obvious that liberals are superior in thought, I don't even know why the government allows conservatives to comment on the internet and elsewhere.

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

jafs (Anonymous) says…

“Ron Paul is interesting, quite intelligent, and wants to get back to basic principles.

“Even though I fear his ideas are not sufficient, I would like to see more of his kind of intelligence and discourse in politics.”
____________________________________________

The biggest problem with Ron Paul is that he had a lot of things going for him… and he chose to simply walk away.

I was *personally* ready to canvas my local neighborhood and get “ballot access” for him in Kansas, as an independent candidate. The Kansas deadline for that, as I recall, is sometime in August. It's really simple: Collect enough signatures, statewide, and his name appears on the ballot, right there with the Republican and Democrat nominees.

But Ron Paul told his folks at the national level, “I'm just a congressman from Texas, and my re-election is coming up.” I admire him for wanting to keep his promises to the folks in his district that re-elected him, but at the same time, does anyone really think that any of his constituents would begrudge him for trying to kick it up a notch?

Ron Paul wasn't willing to walk away from the party that **abandoned him**. And that disappointed a lot of people.

—Ag

Finding_Uranus (Anonymous) says…

“…I don't even know why the government allows conservatives to comment on the internet and elsewhere.”

You'll get your wish if Obama is elected. He'll take liberal values very seriously, up to and including censoring the right.

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Finding_Uranus:

Who is “Barack Obama?”

Can you tell us?

Tell us who “Barack Obama” really is, please.

—Ag

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

Ron Paul also thought that to help change the direction of the Republican party it was important to hold on to his congressional seat. But regardless of how he has handled the campaign. The Republican party needs to get back to being conservative. Bill Kristol and the Fox news neocons do not represent true conservatism.

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

bkgarner's comment is the best on here. I heartedly recommend it be the one you make certain to read.

Classic right wing spin - when confronted with the truth, start repeatedly saying something else until it becomes the new “truth.” Show complete ignorance to anything you said at an earlier time.

It made me laugh and cry at the same time.

anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…

Libertarianism is a dream, that's why Ron Paul is not a viable candidate. We are all in this together, we can't shun the need for government. I mean do you people really think we could survive as a country without paying taxes? Does “no gun control at all” seem like a very well thought out idea? “No man is an island”, this is the opposite of the libertarian view…

madmike (Anonymous) says…

Let's face it folks, Pitts is nothing more than a liberal propagandist.

bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…

Pitts is putting this rep up as a strawman. I'm conservative, never heard of the dude.

besides, asking pitts, who never deserved the pulitzer, about conservatives, is like asking agnostick about people of faith!

thoughtful conservatives do exist. unfortunately mccain won the nominiation primarily because our vote was split two or three ways in the primary.

try:
www.heritage.org
for one good example. also, this article fits in the continuing bias of the mainstream media. in '94, never saw articles about the “demise” of the left, “where are the thinking liberals?”

further, you lefties want teddy kennedy to represent you? really? or Reid/Pelosi? Reid/Pelosi easily could have been the targets of the president's comments. pelosi had lunch with the president of syria, a terrorist operator!

***
who is barry h. o'bama? first, examine his associations: his bigoted hate-filled preacher of twenty years; his church preaching marxist/black liberation theology; he has had his daughters and wife in this environment, soaking up the hate; his wife who hasn't been proud of america for most of her adult life; and his unrepentant terrorist bomber buddy. that domestic terrorist was in a new york times article on, of all days, 9-11-01 quoted saying he was proud of what they did, they didn't do enough; the weather underground bombed the pentagon and nypd hq. o'bama had a fundraiser in this guy's home, and met with him in starting his political career! finallly, o'bama's shady land deal with a known chicago area crook.

not good judgment, weak moral strength. that's o'bama.

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

First, examine the associations I choose: his Preacher, whose comments I choose to define by picking and choosing; and the “terrorist bomber buddy” who by all accounts Obama doesn't even know.

Good judgment is when you can do more in your life than parrot the things you see on Faux News or hear from Rush and Hannity.

You really want to get into “associations” as a character tool? Rev. Hagee? The House of Saud?

Thoughtful conservative, indeed. Squawk some more, little parrot, as you have just made Pitts' point for him. Well done.

anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…

“harderfaster”, “beardednumb”, “madmike”…

Leonard Pitts thanks you for proving his point. Is there no pitfall you people won't awkwardly walk into?

Finding_Uranus (Anonymous) says…

It seems hateful speech is only for the hard core left on dailykos, moveon and huffington…..not to be mocked or copied either. The left has it patented and trademarked for their use only and all other interlopers into their hateful enterprise is strictly forbidden.

bennyoates (Anonymous) says…

I wish I could remember the content of my posts that get removed.

Is there a deleted post file somewhere?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We feel your pain, too, but don't think about it too hard or fast. That could soil mom's basement.

storm (Anonymous) says…

Fine article by Pitts - which explains why traditional Republicans find hope the Republican party can be restored in McCain. This statement rings so true “There was once a day when conservatism was driven by principles: smaller government, less-intrusive government, strong national defense, fiscal sobriety. But in the years since that day, the putative heirs to Reagan have trampled not just those principles, but also principle itself.”

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

What is so great about McCain that makes him a thoughtful conservative?

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

Not a big blanket…

A big tent!!!

acoupstick (Anonymous) says…

“Not a big blanket…

A big tent!!!”

And a lot of people fit in it. Obviously the statement was not meant to apply to every conservative, just the neoconservative Rovian politics of the past decade. Until a few months ago, McCain was ostracized by the conservative establishment because he has exhibited some of those traits. He actually had the nerve to reach across the aisle, compromise, and accomplish governance. How conservatives must hate the fact that he's their only choice!

monkeyspunk (Anonymous) says…

“What is so great about McCain that makes him a thoughtful conservative?”

Perhaps it is because all of the people that have ran conservatism into the ground seem to dislike McCain?

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

Uranas: “Conservatives may be getting a bad name now, what will 2010 or 2011 be like for liberals?”

It is called “gearing up for re-election.”

Pitts has some good points. The problem I see for conservatives (and not considering myself a conservative my comments should obviously be taken with a grain of salt) is that they have allowed themselves to be identified by the actions of the neo-conservative movement. For the neo-cons, they will try to get their way by any means possible, even if it is ultimately bad for the country. They like to wrap everything in the flag and/or the Bible as they attempt to appease the lowest common denominator, they demonize their opponents, and they ignore the principles of the Goldwater conservative movement in favor of a much bigger and much more contolling government.

What amazes me is how much the neo-cons mucked everything up, and how quickly they did it! Just a few years back it looked like liberals were done as far as having a voice in politics. I wish the neo-cons hadn't been so terrible for our nation, but they have. Hopefully, we can get back to more of a balanced give and take, rather than this slash and burn we have experienced over the past 16 years. (Clearly, it isn't just coming from one side, but I do believe the neo-cons are much worse.)

When you read the posts here, it is amazing how many of the neo-cons in a nice place like Lawrence want to demonize their neighbors and fellow Americans. The constant name-calling (“o'bama” “obamination” “demonrats” etc…) from fully grown adults is simply amazing. When it is coupled with the exaggeration of how “liberals” hate America to the extent that “liberals” want to hand our nation over to the terrorists, it borders on pathological. Civility is lost.

Hopefully, this election will be such a sweep in favor of the Democrats that the true conservatives left in the Republican party will kick the neo-cons to the curb. We need to get back to the give and take of differing viewpoints to correct the real problems we face as a nation, without just trying to tear our fellow Americans down.

Because, lets face it, if half of the nation is made to feel defeated, what good will that do for the nation as a whole?

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

“What is so great about McCain that makes him a thoughtful conservative?”

Perhaps it is the fact that he is not a “conservative?”

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

Great post Beatrice! While I do not agree with most things liberal, at least they are not pretending to be conservatives like the neocons.

The neocons will tell you they want to lower your taxes. That is something I agree with. They don't tell you that when you spend like they do advancing the american empire you will pay your taxes one way or another.

Need some money to finance the next surge? Just have Bernake and the Fed fire up the money machines. They get to use the new money first before the effect of inflation has reduced its purchasing power. That is left for the average american to deal with. So you and I get to pay $3.80 for a gallon of gas because our federal reserve notes are fraud.

Restoring the value of our money would be a great undertaking for the next president, Republican or Democrat. What is the chance of that happening?

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

That would make him a thoughtful “not a conservative” instead of a thoughtful conservative.

McCain is not a conservative.
Neocons are not conservative.

Don't believe them just because they tell you they are conservative. If that is the way it works then I am the fastest man in the world. I just told you I was.

anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…

The philosophy of conservatism is essentially a backward looking philosophy. There are no original ideas to be gained from it, is essentially a desire to return to yesteryear. It simply slows down progress, (aka liberalism). Dictatorship is a form of conservatism, so is fascism, (no matter what Jonas goldberg says). You cannot run a country based on the ideas of yesterday, this is why Liberalism wins out each and every time.

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

When I say conservative I am thinking of someone who advocates.

Free Market Economy
Sound Money
Balanced Federal Budget
Individual Rights
Private Property Rights
The Constitution
Limited Government
Non Interventionist Foreign Policy
Low Taxes
Strong National Defense (not offense)

When I think of a liberal I think of someone who advocates

Big Government
Welfare
Debt based economy (Keynesian)
High Taxes
Interventionist Foreign Policy
Socialism

I am not saying that is how conservatism and liberalism are actually defined.

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

The Constituion is on your conservative list?

Puh-lease. Your comments are hard to take when you try to brand conservatism as the only political ideology where advocacy of the Constitution has a place.

anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…

Here's my liberal vs. conservative list…

Liberal-
educated
concerned with equality
open-minded
creative

Conservative-
money hungry
self-concerened
addicted to religion
enjoy controlling others

That seems fair…

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

anxiousatheist, I think I would amend in your list in one tiny, but highly-significant way:

Right at the beginning of the word “conservative,” add the letters

n…

e…

o…

I think a true “conservative” (closer to Goldwater, Reagan) would be “fiscally-responsible,” rather than “money-hungry.”

“self-reliable,” rather than “self-centered”

“respectful of faith,” rather than “addicted to religion”

“strive for self-control,” rather than “strive to control others.”

Most of the hate-spewers on this board that call themselves “conservatives”… actually aren't.

That's just my opinion… I could be wrong.

—Ag

VTHawk (Anonymous) says…

The speech was targeted at Carter, not Obama. The Israeli government did the United States a favor out of respect by not criticizing him directly, and President Bush wanted to send a signal that the US does not condone an inevetably fruitless dialogue with Hamas (the comments were about Hamas, not Iran as widely commented). The Israeli PM is in deep trouble at home, and Bush was just trying to reaffirm his support for Israel. I don't agree with his comments, but the speech was delivered to the Knesset to affirm the US's support for Israeli policy, not to influence the elections in the US.

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

Gogo clearly does not see the current administration as “conservative.” If you are a Republican, gogo, than you are one of the few who is openly admitting that your party has been hijacked by the fiscally irresponsible neocons. If so, then good for you. Good luck taking your party back.

But just so you know, liberals are not for Socialism, but if a social program works then we feel it should be considered. Think of the “Socialist” programs such as the GI Bill, or Medicare and Medicaid. Do conservatives really want to abolish these because they are socialist programs? Liberals also don't “believe” in Welfare per say, but we do believe in not allowing people to starve to death. We also don't believe in corporate welfare, while neo-cons do.

Finally, liberals absolutely don't believe in high taxes. That is a lie propogated by politicians. Rather, we feel that our taxes should actually cover our expenses and that our lifestyle today should not be lived at the expense of future generations. It is much better than the current “cut taxes for the rich and spend even more”. Neo-cons believe in high tax bills being given to future generations.

AG, Reagan was very far from being fiscally responsible. He was the beginning of the neo-con movement.

BigPrune (Anonymous) says…

Vote for Hamas' candidate, vote Barack Hussein Obama!

toe (Anonymous) says…

I am neither conservative nor liberal. I am free to think.

anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…

“I am neither conservative nor liberal. I am free to think.” - Toe

Yes, we are all individuals…(Monty Python)

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

“Where are the thoughtful conservatives”? Simple answer, they don't exist.

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Finding_Uranus (Anonymous) says…

“It seems hateful speech is only for the hard core left on dailykos, moveon and huffington…..not to be mocked or copied either. The left has it patented and trademarked for their use only and all other interlopers into their hateful enterprise is strictly forbidden.”

You don't, errr… . actually believe this BS, do you? Try reading some Ann Coulter sometimes.

uhadmeatsmellthis (Anonymous) says…

Lucky man told be to tell Agnostick and Beobachter he is going to get you…..soon. He said he is going to get you both. Be careful, he is coming….he is nuts.

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

One need only ask the same question of liberals and look at the comments on this site to acquire a correct summation of the intellectual landscape—how about Al Franken, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Barack Obama, and on and on? What Pitts does, cleverly, but, nevertheless dishonestly, is to say that one inarticulate person who happens to espouse conservative beliefs demonstrates that the tenants of conservatism are inferior. The only superiority liberalism can claim over conservatism is form. Such form has evolved as an adaption to the inferiority of liberal philosophy itself and a natural survival mechanism. As Reagan aptly stated: “The difference between a communist and anti-communist is that a communist reads Marx and agrees with him, an anti-communist reads Marx and understands what he is saying.” There are those who can articulate conservatism. Sadly, America's media is saturated with unlimited doses of propoganda. In days where Americans had greater mental clarity, liberalism would be shunned, mocked and thrust to the trash bin of poor philosophy where it appropriately belongs.

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

rational, when you say liberalism would be shunned, are you talking about things like Civil Rights, women being allowed to vote, laws ending child labor, ending segregation and Jim Crow laws, the G.I. Bill, Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security (socialist programs after all), banning smoking in the work place, etc., etc., etc., … These are just a tiny sample of things that liberals have had to fight against conservatives to make a reality. Conservative means to stand for the status quo, and all of these things went against the status quo. Exactly which of these ideas belong in the trash bin?

cowgomoo (Anonymous) says…

HAHA! This is pretty darn funny. Pitts goes out of his way to confer sainthood on Reagan. I would bet a paycheck that in the 80's (probably last week for that matter) he was frothing at the mouth to demonize the man. All to make a specious point.

I never heard of James either. I guess that means Sharpton represents all liberals.

standuporget (Anonymous) says…

beatrice - - Do you ever know what your talking about ? Democrats were responsible for one of these which one, go ahead and guess - civil rights, jim crow, three fifths human.

jonas (Anonymous) says…

standuporgetout: Do you honestly think that the current political parties can be drawn as parallels just by name with those in the past?

standuporget (Anonymous) says…

She was giving a history lesson and civil rights was only about
forty years ago. Beatrice stills thinks I'm not all human I still need her to think for me we can't do that ourselves

standuporget (Anonymous) says…

My 1:07 post should have said weren't responsible for one of
these civil rights laws, jim crow laws, blacks are three fifths human

standuporget (Anonymous) says…

Jonas if you're still up I still can't sleep, read this - - http://multiracial.com/site/content/view…
Beatrice won't get it maybe you will

jonas (Anonymous) says…

standuporget: (fixed the name) Oh, I'm still up. It's 5:30 in the evening where I'm sitting right now. I also read your post as what you meant it to say, so no worries there. I'm not particularly interested in or responsible for what Bea said to you to make you post what I was commenting on. As I understand it, and my understanding may certainly have flaws in it, there has been a defined shift within just the last few decades in terms of political affiliation, as the republicans to bring themselves back into relevance made a concerted attempt to grab the “heartland” and that has made the parties what they are today. Thus, in my minds, the existing political parties can not take credit for whatever the parties of the same name did or did not past the recent few decades. Further, it's sad that they would do so. It shows to me that they have so little to talk about in terms of current success that they must leech off of the past to make themselves seem good. And that is NOT limited to Republicans. I'm going with Lewis Black, you have two parties, one, the Democrats, a party of no ideas, and the Republicans, a party of bad ideas. That's why I vote for gridlock. I'd prefer a useless government right now to one that can accomplish a great deal, and I think the first six years of Bush's administration justifies that viewpoint quite effectively.

As for the article, well, it says a lot but proposes nothing. Not just nothing feasible, but simply nothing.

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

“Civil Rights, women being allowed to vote, laws ending child labor, ending segregation and Jim Crow laws, thGI Bill, Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, banning smoking in the work place, etc., etc., etc., … These are just a tiny sample of things that liberals have had to fight against conservatives.”
+++++
Beatrice, I’ll try to keep up with the rate you embarrass yourself, but, it is an impressive rate. The great emancipator, and real originator of conservativism was none other than Abraham Lincoln – who was a Republican. Recall he liberated the slaves in a minor skirmish. Democrats probably called him a war monger. Second, have you ever heard the term “Southern Democrat”? Ask Senator Robert KKK Byrd about what that means. If he is not lucid, you might ask William Fulbright, Bill Clinton’s segregationist mentor. Jim Crow laws were passed by Southern white Democrats. The era of “Segregation” as to the federal government was put in full throttle by none other than your progressive Democrat man, Woodrow Wilson. So, I’m glad white Democrat liberals are now on board with civil rights. Conservatives started and have kept the movement going.

You forget the fact that it was Republicans who got the Civil Rights Act passed while Democrats like Howard Smith and Robert Byrd did everything possible to thwart its passage. Your man LBJ said when he signed the Civil Rights Act that the South would be lost for a generation. Fortunately, your party was quick to figure out if you get a class of minority people dependent on welfare, they have no choice but to vote for the party offering to hand out the most money.

A conservative (Reagan) put the first female Supreme Court justice on the bench, Sandra Day O’Connor. A “neo-con” (Bush 1) put the first black on the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas—who was trashed, slandered, opposed and destroyed by who? Liberals—and the first black Secretary of State, Collin Powell. A conservative (Bush 2) had the first black female Secretary of State, Condelleza Rice. A conservative (Bush 2) had the first hispanic Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales—which again, was opposed and trashed by Democrats. Under a conservative President (Reagan), the top marginal income tax rates dropped from 70% to 28%—a figure any good liberal finds appalling.

If there is a party of race and divisiveness, it is the Democrat party as demonstrated by your primary election. Your white voters overwhelmingly vote for the white candidate and your black voters overwhelmingly vote for the black candidate.

What liberals are good at is form. The form here that beatrice, and other liberals like beatrice, use is to take credit for what conservatives do and then accuse them of exactly what liberals are: racist, sexist, oppressive and willfully ignorant of history.

Tell me more beatrice about the days of Jim Crow, racism, sexism and economic oppression. Your stories are so good.

rrussell (Anonymous) says…

Beatrice is my new favorite poster. Multiple sentences without foaming from the mouth. Nearly two paragraphs of insight about the “other side” sans venom. I am a moderate conservative Republican, and the post was right on the head. When real conservatives take back the party, I will return also. Let me offer another observation. Neo-conservatism is like good conservatism on crack. It ignores everything else but the money high. Screw all else. Conservatism still considered every hard working American, an American. Neo-conservatism considers it's small group of rich,powerful and connected the Americans. Screw everyone else. Fend for yourself. Perfect recipe for a disadvantaged revolt. Let me offer a polite observation for the liberal idealogues. At times good ipolitical ideas arrise. I compare the Democratic pary to the guy who has 63 unfinished projects in his basement. All great ideas and plans. The Republican project may be inferior (often can be), but it is workable and sitting in front of me. The greatest critique of the the Democratic party as a whole is lack of follow through and testicular fortitude.

BrianR (Anonymous) says…

“…guy who has 63 unfinished projects in his basement.”

Does the garage count?

max1 (Anonymous) says…

He kept crying, “appeasement! appeasement!” clinging to the words like a drowning man to a raft.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/poli…
A week ago, President Bush gave a speech in Israel criticizing those who advocate negotiating “with the terrorists and radicals,” saying that Jews and Americans learned during World War II of the dangers of “appeasing” rather than confronting such villains.
But in the six days since Bush delivered his speech, negotiations with such radicals and terrorists have become the order of the day.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced today that he has restarted peace negotiations with Syria — a key backer of Hamas and Hezbollah, two militant groups that the United States considers terrorist organizations — for the first time in eight years.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that perhaps the talks would produce results rather than policies of appeasement — reasoning that sounded an awful lot like Obama's.

May 16, 2008
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/may/16…
On an emotional visit to mark Israel’s 60th anniversary, President Bush on Thursday compared people seeking talks with Iran and radical Islamic groups to the Nazis’ appeasers … Democratic leaders demanded that McCain repudiate Bush’s comments, but he took Bush’s side. “Why does Senator Obama want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism? What does Senator Obama want to talk about with (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad?” McCain asked

May 22, 2008
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…
Petraeus: Diplomacy, Not Force, With Iran
Petraeus's views echoed those expressed by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who this month said that talks with Iran could be useful if the right combination of incentives and pressures could be developed.

costello (Anonymous) says…

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says… “A “neo-con” (Bush 1) put the first black on the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas”

The first African American on the U.S. Supreme Court was Thurgood Marshall, appointed by President Johnson in 1967.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Ma…

max1 (Anonymous) says…

“Beatrice, I’ll try to keep up with the rate you embarrass yourself, but, it is an impressive rate. The great emancipator, and real originator of conservativism was none other than Abraham Lincoln – who was a Republican.” -rationalanimal

So, I guess you are saying Obama is not fit to hold office because he is black.

http://www.learner.org/channel/workshops…
Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
“I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people” -Abraham Lincoln

“A “neo-con” (Bush 1) put the first black on the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas” —rationalanimal

http://www.reason.com/news/show/33217.ht…
Clarence Thomas, . . He is not your typical Reagan appointee: he flirted with the Black Panthers; he still respects Malcolm X
Reason: In retrospect was there something good about the Panthers?
Thomas: I really don't know. At the time, l9, 20 years old, we thought there was a lot… But I was also partial to the Black Muslims, primarily because of their belief in self-help.
Reason: It's odd that Malcolm X isn't a conservative hero, isn't it? He was very good on self-help.
Thomas: Yes … I've been very partial to Malcolm X, particularly his self-help teachings. I have virtually all of the recorded speeches of Malcolm X.
Reason: Then you still see him as hero.
Thomas: Let's say I'm a little bit more discriminating in what I accept and what I reject. There is too much sometimes of the antiwhite rhetoric. There is a lot of good in what he says, and I go through it for the good

booyalab (Anonymous) says…

anxiousathiest, we didn't even have to pay federal income taxes for the first 100+ years of our country's existence. So yes, I do think we can survive without paying them.

booyalab (Anonymous) says…

beatrice, conservatism does not simply mean to stand for the status quo. In fact, every single “liberal” policy you mentioned is now part of that status quo. Furthermore, the modern definition of an American liberal does not bode with the original meaning of it's terms. At one point in time, liberalism meant liberty, to make people as free as possible from the control of the elite, and especially free of excessive control from government. Nowadays, liberals are for preserving the status quo in the welfare state, obstructing the building of new housing (see: zoning, open-space policy, preserving historical landmarks, etc.), increasing regulation of ever more details of people's homes and businesses. In some areas where liberals have dominated politically for years, you don't dare cut down a tree on your own property, even if it is about to fall over and smash your house or smash you.

On the other end of the spectrum, Milton Friedman is widely regarded as the epitome of conservatism, yet for 50 years he has been arguing for radical changes in the schools by providing vouchers to let parents choose which public or private school to send their kids to. He's also pushed for sweeping changes in the Fed and the international monetary system. Those views really aren't that unusual in the conservative movement, either. There's a reason that Ron Paul decided to run with the GOP, not the DFL. In today's backwards world, “conservatives” are usually more progressive than “progressives”.

acoupstick (Anonymous) says…

“In today's backwards world, “conservatives” are usually more progressive than “progressives”.”

Right! The last 7 years have been a watershed of progressivism by conservatives. I have been so impressed with proactive policies enacted by conservative executive, judicial, and legislative branches. They have accomplished so much!

Please.

jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…

How about thoughtful humans! Seems the writer is attempting to blame conservatives of being unstudied, loud mouthed, Bush lovin', red neck fools. Well, check the other side of that coin (liberal side) and you get pretty much the same thing minus Bush lovin' thing. There are as many well schooled conservatives as there are liberals. James is an idiot so let's paint all conservative with that brush because it's so easy and thoughtless.

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

booyalab, are you saying you want the country to return to the standard of living its citizens enjoyed in the first 100 years of its existence?

acoupstick (Anonymous) says…

Yes, booya would have us return to pre-industrial rural-agrarian society with no need for federal oversight of safety, travel, education, and health. Hey, it works for the Amish!