Dishonesty Is A Mainstay Of The Media
Captain's Quarters has an interesting piece involving Vanity Fair and the writers at National Review Online. It appears that Vanity Fair had asked for interviews from the notables there like Michael Ledeen (who is one of my favorite writers at NRO), David Frum, Richard Perle, Eliot Cohen, and Michael Rubin, and they promised them that they wouldn't run this article before the election. In fact, they stated the interviews would run in the January issue.
But, as with much of the media nowadays, Vanity Fair reneged on their word, and printed the interviews this weekend--two days before the election.
The point of the article was that there are conservatvies that are unhappy with the conservative movement in America. Well, no duh, dipsticks. Of course there are conservatvies unhappy with the movement here. We've been unhappy for awhile now. With the likes of John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Mike DeWine, Arlen Specter, et al in the Senate, it's no wonder why conservatives are upset. The media likes to throw into their stories like this that the conservative base was upset with the preisdent for betraying our ideology.
I hate to tell people this be we conservatives knew that President George W. Bush wasn't a conservative in the mold of President Reagan. We knew this. But given the choices we were presented in 2000 (Al Gore or Ralph Nader) and 2004 (John Kerry or Ralph Nader) it was a no-brainer for conservatives. Elect a guy who wished he was Pinocchio (that he was made of wood so he could emote with his brethren trees better) or a guy who was running on his 30 year old questionable military record; hmmm, Monty I'll take what's behind curtain number two in either case. We'll leave Nader to the Michael Moore types that can embrace him far better.
NO ONE with a brain ever thought President Bush was a conservative. (And excuse me if you claim you have a brain, and believe he was; his rhetoric during the campaign told a much different story.) President Bush is a moderate, and the type who believes in a larger government and more spending. In short, the ma is a social liberal with national security conservatism, and a dash of judicial conservatism.
But conservatives aren't upset with the president this year because he's not running int he election. Conservatvies are upset at the RINOs who are partially responsible for the mess in Congress. Not only have these insufferable fools continued to spend like a lottery winner in a whorehouse for the first time, but they've shown an inability to execute their majority position. They've been fickle and feckless; unable to challenge the Democrats directly when they should be. They dragged out the Constitutional Option so long that it allowed idiots like McCain to undermine the traditional roile of the Senate when it came to appointees. They divided themselves regarding Harriet Miers and the Dubai Ports deal. And they have spent a good amount of time questioning the president's plans and policies int his war.
These are just a few of the reasons why conservatives are upset with their party, and it's seemingly wholesale departure from the conservative ideology that started winning them elections starting in 1980. Yes, there was a brief stretch with President Clinton in the White House, but the new revolution spurned on by Newt Gingrich broke forty years of solid control by the Democrats in Congress. And in 1994, when the GOP tossed the Democrats out of power in the House, those candidates ran a platform that America could relate to and trust, and they've continued to trust it.
Trust, however, doesn't translate into liking. This is why the base, and a good majority of pundits like those at NRO, have been griping. But even they know what abandoning the GOP means this year. Leaving the party they've trusted for so long means the Democrats win power back, and in doing so they'll begin undoing everything over the last five years. That, even in their unhappy eyes, isn't a viable option. And in our humble opinion here at The Asylum, that will be the determining factor in the midterms.
Do we want a party in charge that we can trust 80% of the time to do the right thing, or are we willing to give a party that is openly hostile to the president and his policies in charge where they can screw up things?
We're voting the former, and we're positive that that will be the outcome at the end of the night on the 7th.
Sabrina McKinney
Captain's Quarters has an interesting piece involving Vanity Fair and the writers at National Review Online. It appears that Vanity Fair had asked for interviews from the notables there like Michael Ledeen (who is one of my favorite writers at NRO), David Frum, Richard Perle, Eliot Cohen, and Michael Rubin, and they promised them that they wouldn't run this article before the election. In fact, they stated the interviews would run in the January issue.
But, as with much of the media nowadays, Vanity Fair reneged on their word, and printed the interviews this weekend--two days before the election.
The point of the article was that there are conservatvies that are unhappy with the conservative movement in America. Well, no duh, dipsticks. Of course there are conservatvies unhappy with the movement here. We've been unhappy for awhile now. With the likes of John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Mike DeWine, Arlen Specter, et al in the Senate, it's no wonder why conservatives are upset. The media likes to throw into their stories like this that the conservative base was upset with the preisdent for betraying our ideology.
I hate to tell people this be we conservatives knew that President George W. Bush wasn't a conservative in the mold of President Reagan. We knew this. But given the choices we were presented in 2000 (Al Gore or Ralph Nader) and 2004 (John Kerry or Ralph Nader) it was a no-brainer for conservatives. Elect a guy who wished he was Pinocchio (that he was made of wood so he could emote with his brethren trees better) or a guy who was running on his 30 year old questionable military record; hmmm, Monty I'll take what's behind curtain number two in either case. We'll leave Nader to the Michael Moore types that can embrace him far better.
NO ONE with a brain ever thought President Bush was a conservative. (And excuse me if you claim you have a brain, and believe he was; his rhetoric during the campaign told a much different story.) President Bush is a moderate, and the type who believes in a larger government and more spending. In short, the ma is a social liberal with national security conservatism, and a dash of judicial conservatism.
But conservatives aren't upset with the president this year because he's not running int he election. Conservatvies are upset at the RINOs who are partially responsible for the mess in Congress. Not only have these insufferable fools continued to spend like a lottery winner in a whorehouse for the first time, but they've shown an inability to execute their majority position. They've been fickle and feckless; unable to challenge the Democrats directly when they should be. They dragged out the Constitutional Option so long that it allowed idiots like McCain to undermine the traditional roile of the Senate when it came to appointees. They divided themselves regarding Harriet Miers and the Dubai Ports deal. And they have spent a good amount of time questioning the president's plans and policies int his war.
These are just a few of the reasons why conservatives are upset with their party, and it's seemingly wholesale departure from the conservative ideology that started winning them elections starting in 1980. Yes, there was a brief stretch with President Clinton in the White House, but the new revolution spurned on by Newt Gingrich broke forty years of solid control by the Democrats in Congress. And in 1994, when the GOP tossed the Democrats out of power in the House, those candidates ran a platform that America could relate to and trust, and they've continued to trust it.
Trust, however, doesn't translate into liking. This is why the base, and a good majority of pundits like those at NRO, have been griping. But even they know what abandoning the GOP means this year. Leaving the party they've trusted for so long means the Democrats win power back, and in doing so they'll begin undoing everything over the last five years. That, even in their unhappy eyes, isn't a viable option. And in our humble opinion here at The Asylum, that will be the determining factor in the midterms.
Do we want a party in charge that we can trust 80% of the time to do the right thing, or are we willing to give a party that is openly hostile to the president and his policies in charge where they can screw up things?
We're voting the former, and we're positive that that will be the outcome at the end of the night on the 7th.
Sabrina McKinney
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home