Republican rift may signal power shift / LJWorld.com

Archive for Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Shawnee race latest to feature party shake-up

By Caroline Boyer and Sophia Maines

September 13, 2006

In a state long known as rock-ribbed Republican, something big might be happening.

Come the general election Nov. 7, the mighty GOP might be knocked to its knees.

"I think a lot of moderate Republicans look at the social conservative agenda and say: 'These people aren't speaking for me,'" said Kansas University political science professor Burdett Loomis.

And when the dust settles after the 2006 election, Loomis said, Kansans may wake up to a new political landscape - one that includes a Democratic attorney general and governor and a moderate state board of education.

"We may end up in a very different place than we were a year or two ago," he said.

Loomis was reacting Tuesday to news of the latest Republican defections.

Though not officially changing parties, two somewhat prominent Kansas Republicans joined an apparently growing trend by throwing their support to a Democratic candidate.

Retiring state Rep. Ray Cox, R-Bonner Springs, and Quentin Brewer, former Republican candidate for Cox's 39th House District seat, endorsed Democratic candidate Corey Mohn of Shawnee as Cox's replacement.

Election 2006 - Kansas races

More on the 2006 Elections in Kansas

Other moderate Republicans recently have gone further and actually changed parties. Among them: former GOP state party chairman Mark Parkinson, who is on the ticket as lieutenant governor with Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat seeking a second term; and Johnson County Dist. Atty. Paul Morrison, who became a Democrat to run against incumbent Atty. Gen. Phill Kline, a conservative Republican.

Be gone

Cox's support of a Democrat to replace himself drew blunt comment from John Altevogt of Bonner Springs, former Wyandotte County Republican chairman and conservative activist.

"It doesn't matter," Altevogt said. "I've never had any use for Ray Cox. It would please me greatly if he would become a Democrat. I didn't have any use for him when I was chair of the party up here. In fact, we tried to get him beat several times."

Altevogt said it also helped the party that Morrison and Parkinson became Democrats.

"The right people are leaving. I'm delighted that Democrats have Mark Parkinson," he said.

No surprise

Owen Donohoe, the Republican facing Mohn, also said it was no surprise that Cox and Brewer were backing a Democrat. That's just them showing their true political colors, he said.

"I feel that people are coming out and admitting to what they really were," Donohoe said. "I feel that the other two gentlemen rather misrepresented themselves to the constituents" by claiming to be Republicans.

Cox, who has represented the 39th District since 1993, is stepping down. He first endorsed Brewer, a moderate Republican, as his replacement. But in the April primary election Brewer lost to Donohoe, who also is from Shawnee.

Growing gap

Cox and Brewer said they endorsed Mohn because he works harder than Donohoe and is less partisan.

"You don't run the state on a few little social issues," Cox said. "This is what I've felt for 14 years, and Quentin felt the same way."

Cox said he had watched the gap between Democrats and Republicans grow since 1993 with moderate Republicans often having to work with Democrats to combat right-wing Republicans.

Brewer said when he campaigned for the seat he found many people were tired of bitter partisanship.

"It's not the Democrats, it's not the Republicans, it's the person and the ideas behind them that they'll vote for," Brewer said.

Donohoe said Mohn is trying to fool Cox, Brewer and the public by convincing them he is a moderate Democrat, though he actually is a "liberal."

"I want to tell the people where I stand, I want to tell the issues where I stand and I want the people to make a decision based on that," Donohoe said.

Good riddance

Political scientist Loomis, a former aide to Sebelius, said the GOP defections and possible electoral losses to Democrats ultimately could be good for the Republican Party, forcing it to put divisive social issues on a back burner and come together after long years of division between conservative and moderate camps.

Altevogt also said it could be beneficial for the GOP. But he said it differently: Republicans aren't split two ways, but three.

"I don't see it as a dual split," he said. "There's conservatives, moderates and then the 'green' party - guys in it for themselves and their own aggrandizement.

"Good riddance to bad rubbish. Sometimes you have to experience temporary losses to make long-term gains."

More like this

GOP's right feeling left out December 27, 2000
Conservative made postings public 60 comments / December 10, 2005
To stymie political group, opponents seize its name September 20, 2004
Precinct races tip GOP scale in favor of conservatives September 26, 2004
Ethical questions may haunt GOP race December 10, 2001

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

13 September 2006
at 6:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

My my Kansas republicans seem to be very bitter when a person looks to expand their horizons by leaving a neoconservative party NOT republican that which is also represented by Sam Brownback and Jim Ryun. Some moderate republicans have realized they are not respected and are rendered useless by their own party which is no longer republican. Republicans seeking to replace members who have a different point of view reek of Reagan,Bushes and Gingrich. If you disagree with lame leadership a person cannot possibly be republican.

I do not consider neoconservatives or the Christain Coalition as republicans. They hyjacked the party rather than work to become a third party. When you have one set of republicans claiming to be more christian than another republican indicates the republican party may be dead.
13 September 2006
at 6:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Maybe the worm has turned.
13 September 2006
at 7:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

christie (Anonymous) says…

If you want to move forward put your car in (D)emocrat.
If you want to go backwards put your car in (R)epublican.

The people of this country have figured this out, it's all over for the Republican Party.
13 September 2006
at 7:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

The difference between the two parties is simple. Republicans vote for whom they feel is the best candidate and are not crippled by superficial, idealistic party loyalty. Democrats can't think outside the party hypnosis. Democrats are so convinced that their brand of communism is infallable they can't be objective. now bring it on !!!
13 September 2006
at 7:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

consumer1: hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Man, that was good! Tell me another one!

Seriously, you can't truly believe what you just wrote, can you? Don't put yourself (as a party) on a pedestal, because you won't fit up there.
13 September 2006
at 7:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigAl (Anonymous) says…

In order to be a conservative republican, you must:
1. Blame the press
2. Blame Hollywood
3. Blame Clinton
4. Do not question
5. Follow blindly
13 September 2006
at 7:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

Gotcha. I just love baiting on this blog.

13 September 2006
at 8:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

“brand of communism”?

Perhaps you and your ilk should read history. Liberal Democrats routinely save capitalism (FDR, Clinton) after Republicans (Hoover, Reagan/Bush) screw it up.

Republicans worship money, period. Their only true constituency is the super-rich whom they seek so rabidly to emulate, the super-rich who mold the party to reflect their needs and wishes (Iraq, Halliburton), often to the disadvantage of the country at large, and the rest of us common folk.

Republicans are, by and large, racist elitists who are no better than scum. They are a curse on the country - past, present, but perhaps not the future if we can keep them out of power.
13 September 2006
at 8:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

Whew !! I found me some good bait this morning… Har har har. You guys are sooooo easy…
13 September 2006
at 8:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

Good things come to those who wait. Mighty GOP knocked to its knees? man that would be awesome!

The liberals are bringing sexyback! Haw haw haw.

Communism. Honestly, consumer. You cad.
13 September 2006
at 9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ControlFreak (Anonymous) says…

It will always be: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…

Apathy is the drug of choice for the country.
13 September 2006
at 9:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KsTwister (Anonymous) says…

Brewer almost quoted me exactly,except that I said it's the man they will vote for. I am truly enjoying the panic that has shifted from the people who put them in office to themselves. Of course, no doubt they have had plenty of time to resolve or partially address 8 years of issues which they are still trying to headline. It will not work this time, they will ALL go this election. This is just the whisper but the hard change is coming. Republicans and Democrats have hurt our country and we are cleaning house. It will not be about religion,abortion or gay marriage–it will be about a do nothing Congress and President.
13 September 2006
at 9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

prioress (Anonymous) says…

The two Republican parties need to split. The social “conservatives” need to found their own party of the sky god and see how they do. Hijacking a once proud party with deep roots and a pretty rational philosophy of governing was wrong.
13 September 2006
at 10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Ah, c'mon, Con1 (fits better than your full name if you're just “baiting”), I can't let something like that pass! If you want to get an easy catch when trolling, why don't you just make up something really racist? I'm sure you'll get a lot of bites then.
13 September 2006
at 10:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigAl (Anonymous) says…

“Gotcha. I just love baiting on this blog”

Typical conservative Republican. Change the subject when backed in a corner.

13 September 2006
at 10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

“Hey look ma, I say something really dumb, and people tell me that it's really dumb! Silly people!”

/wish I had a jpg of Opie to link to.

//don't know what that means.
13 September 2006
at 10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kontum1972 (Anonymous) says…

Rove and his rogues plan to make it a one party system…hmmm…chk out todays sound byte on Democracy Now concerning the game plan of the Neo-Cons….it is not Rep. or Democrats…we are Americans!
13 September 2006
at 11:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

prospector (Anonymous) says…

John Altevogt, what a peach? He was a regular poster here that made Arminius seem tame until someone(I think The-Original_Bob) outed John1945 as him. He may have bumped his head, hurrying back under the bridge.

He is the poster boy for:

“I did not leave the Republican party, it left me.”
13 September 2006
at 12:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

Way to go Mr. Altevogt with your insights! Thanks.
13 September 2006
at 12:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

drewdun (Anonymous) says…

“Way to go Mr. Altevogt with your insights! Thanks”

Yeah! Your obvious hatred is SO refreshing!
13 September 2006
at 1:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

This is too easy. I have effectively outraged and controlled many of your attitude and feelings this morning. This entire OTS blog is nothing more than simple mindedness targeted to let you psuedo intellectuals put your two cents into writing and pretend your changing the world. Get over yourselves. Your opinions are only important to yourselves. Your ego's can't stand criticizm. I have just sat back and watched you stumble over your over inflated egos all morning. Thanks for the laugh(s). We will meet again. and you will bite again. Such weakness. such fragility. I must say, I enjoy reading the post of those who aren't so easily frustrated by my comments and focus on the subject. However, I am entertained by those of you who choose to try and berate me. Good luck next time.
13 September 2006
at 1:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Esq2eB (Anonymous) says…

This same stuff about the GOP was being said two years ago. About how badly the Republicans were going to get beat by the libtards. And we all know how that turned out. See: Ex. Senator Tom Daschle.
13 September 2006
at 1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

prospector (Anonymous) says…

Did you say something consumer1?

13 September 2006
at 1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

Not a thing prospector. The people who let my diatribe bother them, are just showing how easily controlled they are. You win today's prize. congratulations on not allowing someone else to control your behavior.
13 September 2006
at 1:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

You see, these are just words. But, look how easily many of the folks who “needed to set me straight” fell under my control. It just amazes and humors me. Keep watching and see how many more will try to continue to try and berate me. They are doing this because my “words” made them feel insecure and their egos were upset. I just do this for fun, and because the people who respond to my bait are just … fragile.
13 September 2006
at 1:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tony88 (Anonymous) says…

You seem to be awfully easily controlled as well consumer1. It looks to me like your adolescent obsession with “controlling” others' reactions is determining your own actions. Congratulations on allowing those who have responded to your earlier posts control you to the extent that your wrote exactly what you wrote with your 1:08 p.m. post!
13 September 2006
at 1:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

logic sound04 you are possessed and obsessed. I must have you seething. Check your BP and calm down, this is just a game. Once again, look at the trouble you went to to try and make me feel bad???? Guess what? I don't. However, I can see you are about to bust a vein. Relax… take a deep breath…
13 September 2006
at 1:51 p.m.

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
13 September 2006
at 1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tony88 (Anonymous) says…

“They are doing this because my “words” made them feel insecure and their egos were upset. I just do this for fun, and because the people who respond to my bait are just … fragile.”

“I have just sat back and watched you stumble over your over inflated egos all morning.”

Who's ego is inflated here, the one who thinks he is the “controller”. You and Bush would make a good team:
The Decider and the Controller.
13 September 2006
at 1:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tony88 (Anonymous) says…

“look at the trouble you went to to try and make me feel bad????”

look at the trouble you went to to try and make me other people feel bad.
13 September 2006
at 2:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

Keep em coming, I am sure your blood pressure is rising. YOur choice !! I am just LMAO…(at you).

13 September 2006
at 2:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tony88 (Anonymous) says…

He's replying to himself, Mr. Cullusion. Thanks for the good post though. Gets to the heart of it.
13 September 2006
at 2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ksmoderate (Anonymous) says…

Mr_Collusion:

The wolves and lamb quote was awesome — who said it?
13 September 2006
at 2:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yme (Anonymous) says…

To Xeno: you wrote: Perhaps you and your ilk should read history. Liberal Democrats routinely save capitalism (FDR, Clinton) after Republicans (Hoover, Reagan/Bush) screw it up.

Of all the political buffoonery that gets posted on this board, this might be the blue-ribbon winner for the greatest twist of history every expoused. Clinton saved capitalism from Reagan/Bush? Give me a stinking break. For the record, the economy was in the tank thanks to Nixon (Republican), Ford (Republican), and Carter (Democrat). It never ceases to amaze me in political arguments how Carter always gets a pass. Probably because he was such a total waste that no one wants to point out he was ever really president. It was Reagan who established the tax cuts and set the programs in motion that revived the economy. There was a hiccup in the program under the first Bush because he listened to the Democrats who coaxed him into breaking his “no new taxes pledge.” We saw what good that did, got him labeled a flipper and the economy did what it always does after a tax increase, it receeded.

Clinton, to his credit, saw what was happening and the effect it was having and let it work. It was very shrewd and insightful and the country benefitted from it. So if you really want to talk about who saved “capitalism” (I believe you meant the economy, not capitalism) then you would have to credit Reagan and Clinton.

As to your comments about FDR, I was not alive at the time so I can't speak from experience. But there are two distinct schools of thought: one is that FDR saved people, put them to work and got us through hard times. I think that analysis is absolutely correct.
The second school of thought was that FDR ruined the US economic model with social programs and taxes, make-do work and established programs that totally devistated the economic model. I think that analysis has a lot of merit as well. Most agree that the catalyst that refired the economic engine was not FDR's policies, but World War II. The economy would have refired under a Hoover type policy just the same. But frankly, a lot of people would have suffered severly for a long time, so FDR deserves a lot of credit.

Both sides in all these political arguments have some real BS in their postings, but Xeno, have a smidgen of fact before reciting some party-line gibberish.
13 September 2006
at 2:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tony88 (Anonymous) says…

Now don't get too “Bodhisatvaish” on us Mr. Collusion. The quotes above suggest to me that democracy as a national institution is an inherently flawed concept. But you still encourage participation in said concept?
13 September 2006
at 3:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yme (Anonymous) says…

One final comment as I really didn't look to get into a flaming war, but Logic, I must disagree with your assessment. When talking about reviving an economy, Carter's administration has everything to do with the Clinton administration because it took the economy 12-plus years to recover from the damage in the Carter administration.
As for your comments about “break every defense-spending record in history” you are absolutely right and it is a fact that most Reagan supporters not only don't shy away from, but rally behind. Another of the fine messes left behind by Jimmy was a military so underfunded and out of date that it couldn't execute a rescue mission in a then third-rate Iran. Really we were quite lucky that Russia or China or someone stronger than Iran didn't try an attack or we would have probably had no choice but go nuclear because our military was in shambles and the nuclear threat was about all we really had. Amy Carter had every right in 1980 to fear nuclear proliferation.
I really am not trying to pick a fight, because I see merits in a lot of the arguments.

The difference Logic is if you really think “Reagan gets a pass” its because he had other accomplishments that earned him some credits. Carter neither earned nor receives any such credits.
13 September 2006
at 3:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

“The right people are leaving.”

Good plan, Altevogt. Alienate all the Republicans that voted for them too.

Christ, you would think the conservative wing of the party was a fraternity. “Well, maybe if we just act really cool and tell them we don't want them in our club, they will be stupid enough to want back in.”
13 September 2006
at 3:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tony88 (Anonymous) says…

Of course the elected officials are to be servents of the people. But it is a bit naive to think that by this November, we the people, acting as the electorate will achieve an understanding of true Virtue. The act of being able to vote from a virtuous standpoint requires first and foremost the rectification of the individual. In the event that all individuals had rectified their understanding of true Virtue, the need for government only exists on a utilitarian level. If this were the case, the government would be run with pure logic, as a finely tuned machine for providing services. And if this were the case, the need for an election of a government is nonexistent. If the individual has virtue and understands the nature of government, self-interest is set aside and all decisions about who runs what seem to decide themselves as a result of the course of events that leads one to a vocation.

I know this is a poorly reasoned analysis with many leaps from one concept to another. I hope you get something from it.
13 September 2006
at 4:36 p.m.

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

13 September 2006
at 5:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Now the question would be, why would someone devote actual time to the sole purpose of getting other peopled irritated at them.

Consumer1: I used to have some respect for you. There was a time when, I seem to recall, you actually contributed something of value to discussions. What you're doing now, self-admittedly, is the same as if I went up to someone at a party and spit on them, more or less. Doesn't that strike you as somewhat infantile? I could care less if you say intentionally rediculous, stereotypical things (though I will point out that they ARE, in fact, those things): and you don't, and won't, ever make me angry unless you decide to insult me as a person/poster, but I'm afraid I really can't understand why you would get enjoyment out of making many sensible (and admittedly, some not so) people angry or contemptuous by saying unsensible and mean-spirited things.

… . goda'mighty that was a long sentence, I have to catch my breath… .

You can choose to pay this any mind or not. If your intentions or simply to be a troll, as you say, then I will treat you as a troll. I will ignore you, and I won't respond to your posts. I preferred it, though, when you were an active part of interesting discussions, to be honest.
13 September 2006
at 6:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

yme:

Thank you for your insights into past presidential administrations and their economic records.

Anyone seeking an expanded understanding of the Depression might began with an analysis of the reaction to the stock market crash of October '29 by the national economic and political establishment, then as now largely Republican.

Follow their confusion, chagrin, and perplexed shock as the national economy convulsed and receded. Except in Kansas. The Depression didn't really hit here until agricultural prices plummeted in the spring of 1931, until wheat fell from eighty cents a bushel the year before to twenty-five cents in April 1931.

Focus on the reality that Republicans did not have a clue about what to do, what strategies or innovations might be implemented to restart the economy, to relieve the suffering of tens of millions of people. “Tens of millions of people” is just a number, statistics, but they suffered; quite a few of them starved, died of illnesses complicated by malnutrition.

Roosevelt used the power of the federal government - much as Lincoln did to wage the Civil War - to fight the Depression. He was not always right, and some of his innovations failed, but he was right and competent more often than not, and he succeeded in putting people back to work. The argument that WWII, not FDR, was responsible for lifting the country out of economic malaise is specious, for without his breathtaking vision and courage, the country would have been devastated worse than it was … and the confused anger of common people at the failure of Republican-supported capitalism might have flared into a conflagration that could have destroyed our economic heritage.

The only people who did well under Reagan were the well-to-do; incomes and living standards for the middle class and blue-collar people either stagnated, or fell. Reagan also set the pattern for unprecedented national debt that will soon come to haunt us, no matter who is in elective office.

As for William the Great, four simple words explain how he took a massive debt, and a massive annual interest payment on the debt, and turned it into a federal budget surplus. “Pay-as-you-go.”

The Present Occupant of the Oval Office bowed to his rich masters and did away with “pay-as-you-go” as official governmental budget policy as soon as he was inaugarated.

Hope this isn't too much political spin for you.
13 September 2006
at 7:24 p.m.

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
13 September 2006
at 9:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

to paraphrase the great Garrison Keillor:

“Equally, the fury of the right wing is quite remarkable - to maintain a sense of persecution after years of being in power is like Jessica Simpson feeling overlooked.”
13 September 2006
at 9:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Lepanto1571 (Anonymous) says…

Here's to liberalism Xenophon:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”— Norman Thomas, [Six-time Socialist Party presidential candidate and one of the founders of the ACLU].
13 September 2006
at 9:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Lepanto1571 (Anonymous) says…

More on liberalism:

“Somehow liberals have been unable to acquire from life what conservatives seem to be endowed with at birth: namely, a healthy skepticism of the powers of government agencies to do good.”— Daniel Patrick Moynihan, NY “Post,” May 14, 1969.
13 September 2006
at 9:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Lepanto1571 (Anonymous) says…

Two more on liberals and leftists from “the great” P.J. O'Rourke

“[W]ealth is, for most people, the only honest and likely path to liberty. With money comes power over the world. Men are freed from drudgery, women from exploitation. Businesses can be started, homes built, communities formed, religions practiced, educations pursued. But liberals aren't very interested in such real and material freedoms. They have a more innocent—not to say toddlerlike—idea of freedom. Liberals want the freedom to put anything into their mouths, to say bad words and to expose their private parts in art museums.”— P. J. O'Rourke

“I wonder how many of the people who profess to believe in the leveling ideas of collectivism and egalitarianism really just believe that they themselves are good for nothing. I mean, how many leftists are animated by a quite reasonable self-loathing? In their hearts they know that they are not going to become scholars or inventors or industrialists or even ordinary good kind people. So they need a way to achieve that smugness for which the left is so justifiably famous. They need a way to achieve self-esteem without merit. Well, there is politics. In an egalitarian world everything will be controlled by politics, and politics requires no merit.”— P.J. O'Rourke
13 September 2006
at 9:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

Anyone who needs “a healthy skepticism of the powers of government agencies to do good” should recall the televised images of tens of thousands of refugees crowded into the Super Dome - without food or water - days after Katrina.

I wonder how many champions of pure, unadulterated capitalism return their Social Security checks to the U.S. Treasury uncashed.

13 September 2006
at 9:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

I also wonder where conservatives get their images and impressions of “leftists” and “liberals.”

With due respect to P.J. O'Rourke, who hasn't written anything of note since republican party reptile in 1987, let us consider his words: “Neither conservatives or humorists believe man is good. But left-wingers do.”
13 September 2006
at 9:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Lepanto1571 (Anonymous) says…

Xenophon,

“I wonder how many champions of pure, unadulterated capitalism return their Social Security checks to the U.S. Treasury uncashed.”

I wonder how many rich liberals do.
13 September 2006
at 9:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Lepanto1571 (Anonymous) says…

xenophon,

“With due respect to P.J. O'Rourke, who hasn't written anything of note since republican party reptile in 1987,…”

Disagree.

“War will exist as long as there's a food chain.”— P.J. O'Rourke, Holidays in Hell, 1989

The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know.
P.J. O'Rourke, Holidays in Hell.
13 September 2006
at 10:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

I've yet to hear a credible defense by Republicans for their actions before, and more importantly during, the Great Depression.

They railed against Roosevelt, called him a communist, as some libertarians and their ilk assail liberals today, but what would they have done to rally the economy in 1933? How would they have defended capitalism then?

The conservative/libertarian approach to wide-spread disaster seems to be: “if they can't feed themselves and their kids, they deserve to starve.”