Sorry for letting things get so dead around here lately, but a lot has been going on in the past couple weeks. First, I graduated from Hillsdale College a couple weekends back, and now I’m trying to nail down a job somewhere in the conservative movement. Fortunately, some interesting things are happening behind the scenes on that front, so we’ll see what happens. Second, my other blogging home, NewsRealBlog, recently closed its doors. Don’t worry, though – you’ll still be able to see my writing at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s main commentary site, Front Page Magazine, as well as – hopefully – several other great conservative publications in the near future.
blogosphere
Around the Web
Tim Pawlenty is set to make his presidential bid official today. Yawn.
JB Van Hollen comes out against the lawless decision of Judge Maryann Sumi to block the budget repair bill, and Charlie Sykes has the scoop on Sumi’s conflict of interest regarding unions.
On federal spending and government shutdowns, Russ Vought makes the case for drawing a line in the sand.
Mark Levin has an excellent comparison of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush’s conservative credentials.
More union thuggery here and here.
And it turns out that Mitch Daniels is even worse than you (and I) thought.
Conservatism at a Crossroads
Today my NRB colleague Chris Queen has a blog post with a good overview of important issues all conservatives should be able to agree on, but unfortunately, it rests on a deeply flawed premise:
I think the Right is at a crucial crossroads. If we have too many more moments like these, conservatives will be known for what we can’t agree on more than what we can. I believe it’s time for the Right to rally around certain issues and unite. There’s too much that true conservatives can unite around, and that’s what this list is about.
I’d like to make one note here: in this post I’m avoiding certain social issues for one particular reason. While there are plenty of conservatives who are passionate about abortion, traditional marriage, and several other issues, we often have to walk on eggshells when dealing with such issues. My intention is for this post to be a rallying cry, rather than a flashpoint for further debate, so I’m staying clear of some of these potentially more contentious issues.
Conservatism is at a crossroads, all right…but that crossroads is the choice to either stick to our principles or abandon them. Conservatism is undergoing a critical battle for its soul right now, with libertines and cultural leftists within the movement who want to stigmatize and drive out social issues, and avoiding that discussion is functionally equivalent to surrendering those issues to the Left.
Further, social issues simply cannot be separated from the first principles of conservatism. As the murder of innocent human beings, abortion is clearly a liberty issue, and to be pro-choice is nothing less than to reject the Declaration of Independence. And as for marriage, the Founders were clear that self-governing societies don’t work if institutions like the family aren’t strong and stable. Don’t expect to make any progress making government less paternalistic if marriage goes down.
Lastly, on every “unifying” issue Chris lists, there is still intense disagreement, on philosophical, practical, and political grounds. How do fights between pro-life conservatives and pro-abortion Republicans make us “known for what we can’t agree on more than what we can,” but fights between Israel supporters and Ron Paul cultists not? How is arguing against gay marriage divisive, but arguing against people like David Frum, who wants to merely “improve” ObamaCare rather than get rid of it, not?
Bottom line: whenever you stand on any principle, you are inviting division and opposition. It’s unavoidable, and real principle and courage is about standing up for what’s right regardless of how challenging it will be. We can’t expect to get anything done as long as we’re constantly obsessing over who we’re going to alienate, because once you start jettisoning principles for convenience, it’s only a matter of time before you have nothing left.
Link Thanks
First, The Week recognizes my January 12 NewsReal post on Archie meeting Obama and Palin as one of their “Best Opinion” reactions. I’m grateful, though the quote they choose kinda makes it sound like I disagree with Jon Goldwater and was criticizing the comic. Which was the exact opposite of what I said.
Next, radio host Peter Heck links my January 24 American Thinker piece about how Kermit Gosnell’s abortion clinic isn’t as different from the “respectable” death mills as polite society tells itself. Thanks!
Around the Web
The New Hampshire GOP says “screw marriage.”
What’s the worst lie Ann Coulter has ever seen in the New York Times? It’s a doozy.
My NRB colleague Paul Cooper has a cool list of pro-life heroes.
How many “memorial services” can you think of with their own official logos and t-shirts?
Wisconsin Republicans plan to push voter ID. Now there’s change I can believe in!
In the wake of Tucson, Sarah Palin’s getting an “unprecedented” amount of death threats. But don’t hold the scumbags to their own standard and blame Paul Krugman, James Clyburn, or Chris Matthews, No sir.
Joe Carter contemplates atheist anger toward God. Why vent at someone you don’t think is there?
And check out the case against cutting defense spending.
The Tucson Shooting and the True State of American Political Discourse (Updated)
Bill Clinton. Keith Olbermann. Chris Matthews. Dick Durbin. Scott Feldstein. Jay Bullock. David Frum. Paul Krugman. The New York Times. Jonathan Alter. Bob Kerrey. James Clyburn. Joan Walsh. Robert Brady. Jon Justice, Jane Fonda, Michael Moore, Patton Oswald, Elizabeth Banks, Roger Ebert, John Legend, Josh Groban. Markos Moulitsas. Stuart Shapiro. Patrick Kennedy. Chris Liebenthal. John Kerry. Ed Schultz and Bill Press. Clarence Dupnik. Aaron Mehta.
This is but a partial list of politicians, journalists, bloggers, and celebrities who have chosen to use the horrific shooting in Tucson – which left six people dead, including a little girl, and a Congresswoman fighting for her life – as an opportunity to condemn conservatives and Republicans for allegedly inflammatory rhetoric. Some explicitly claim figures such as Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin are culpable for Jared Loughner’s actions, while others insinuate they are dangerously cultivating the sort of hatred and fear that could trigger similar acts in the future. *
Never mind that the perpetrator’s mentally-disturbed, violent tendencies are unrelated to politics. Never mind that the political indicators in his record, if anything, suggest hostility to God and an affinity for radical leftism. Never mind that his hatred of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords had nothing to do with her or her party’s policies.
Jared Loughner thinks in gibberish, processes what he sees and hears in gibberish, and acts on gibberish. Yet we’re asked to hang our heads in shame about an alleged cause-effect relationship that leads from Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin straight to Loughner’s trigger finger?
Bull. I get the intent behind respectfully critiquing this line of attack as Allahpundit does, but doing so misses the point. The point is: this record has already been played time and time again. It’s broken. The people using this to smear conservatives know better. Some of the more shameless ones, like Frum and Feldstein, admit as much—they acknowledge Loughner’s real motives yet proceed to say we should use the opportunity to bash the Right’s “dangerous, irresponsible rhetoric” anyway.
None of this is sincere. We know because these leftist lies about conservatives are nothing new. When a Communist circulated Obama-as-Hitler posters, conservatives were blamed. MSNBC ran selective footage of a black man with a gun, to characterize him as a potentially trigger-happy white supremacist. Leftists have publicly advocated impersonating Tea Partiers. The media misrepresents polls to defame Tea Partiers. Phony quotes attributed to prominent conservatives are disseminated without hesitation.
We know because we have a decade’s worth of hatred, terrorism, anger, bigotry, dishonesty, and violence-inciting from scores of left-wing activists, celebrities, journalists, and public officials on the record. We have violence committed by leftists against conservatives, and violence committed by radical Islamists, for which leftists have a different standard. The online savagery of leftist commenters is the stuff of legend.
If any of these lying, two-faced, murder-exploiting bastards were even remotely concerned about the “tone” of American politics, they would have piped up when it was their side—their fellow travelers, their elected leaders, their favored media personalities—doing the “coarsening.” But with rare exception, they either ignore it outright, make excuses for it, or tell bald-faced lies about their side’s filth coming from “marginalized, unimportant people whose voices don’t carry too far.”
Sure. “Marginalized, unimportant people” like prominent MSNBC commentators Schultz and Olbermann. Like Rep. Alan Grayson, who Obama has showered with praise. Like the current Senate Majority Leader. Like Sen. Dick Durbin. Like Sen. Robert Byrd. Like Rep. Keith Ellison. Like the late Ted Kennedy. Like former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe and numerous other Democrat officeholders. Like former President Jimmy Carter. Like current President Barack Obama. Nah, those “voices don’t carry too far” at all…
You want to know why America’s got problems? Why our political discourse seems so degraded, so futile? Re-read the names comprising the first paragraph, and you’ll have one of the biggest answers. The answer isn’t that we don’t scrupulously follow arbitrary rules of decorum. The answer is that the conduct of bad people in government, in the media, and in the blogosphere has gone unchallenged for far too long. We criticize their misconduct one day, yet we smile at them and act as if it never happened the next. We’re so eager to demonstrate our reasonableness, our maturity that we keep reaching out to the other side, no matter what they do. It never seems to occur to us that they might be giving us a glimpse at their souls.
But these cretins—so consumed by hatred and bias, so devoid of morality, that they’ll exploit murder to hurt their political enemies—bring shame upon their professions and upon our country. Treating these smears like they’re sincere concerns legitimizes them, and guarantees that we’ll see more of this defamation in the future.
Enough. It’s time to stop pretending the participants of this smear campaign are decent people who’re simply misguided. It’s time to stop extending olive branches. To stop pretending it’s respectable to cast votes for them. To stop giving their blogs and publications our attention and business.
And given the topic, let me be perfectly clear, to preempt anyone who would consider twisting my words against me: this is not a call to violence. The only just response to even evil speech is to exercise your own freedoms of speech and free association. To respond with physical force would be a failure of our human capacity for self-control, a violation of our foes’ God-given, unalienable rights, a betrayal of our respect for the rule of law as citizens in a free society, and a vote of no confidence in our ability to solve our problems through the public discourse and the democratic process.
This much is true: American political discourse is sick. How we react to the murder-exploiters among us will reveal whether or not we’re finally serious about healing it.
* UPDATE: The second paragraph has been modified from its original version to more accurately reflect the caveats made by some of those named. In the comments, Scott Feldstein requests that I remove his name entirely. That’s not going to happen, but his complaint did convince me that this change was in order, because I value truth and accuracy regardless of which political agendas they advance or hinder.
Rave Reviews 6!
@font-face { font-family: “Cambria”; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: blue; text-decoration: underline; }a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: purple; text-decoration: underline; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }
Colorful complaints, lousy aims, illiterate corrections, nasty insinuations, blind rage, character assassination, toxic blends of arrogance and stupidity…you’ll find it all in the latest installment of Rave Reviews!
I’m not too impressed with Calvin Cheeseburger’s ability to analyze this situation. If this is what passes for a Hillsdale College intellect I am doubly disappointed. Please Horowitz, I know you are trying to help reform our crappy universities but why do you have a lot of these Jr. Jim Bobs writing this juvenile crap on your website? – iopscusa
All your response has done is prove that you are nothing more than an angry and horribly brainwashed blogger who makes false accusations and assumptions of anyone who would dare to question your indoctrination. – Aaron
You’re full of crap Calvin. – Newsman
The people I wish to sway will not be convinced by prim chiding from doe-eyed innocents like Calvin Freiburger — however well-mannered they may be. If I am to be credible and effective, I must have something far more substantive to give them. – Lori Heine
What astounds me is your ignorance, Really, really ignorant. But maybe I am wrong, perhaps you are one of the 821 people in america that have a passport, and quite worthy of opinion. – Anonymous
That’s just stupid. I would think that Mr. Freiburger would know better than to make such a silly statement. – LucasMcCain
And behold a person who is willing to give up liberty for safety and deserves neither. – Joseph Veca
I read the exchange you had with him and you didn’t lay a glove on him. You obsession with Ron Paul and trying to prove he’s a bigot is laughable. This entire episode is about endless war for Israel. Israel Israel Israel. Our great ally Israel. – WilliamRD
All you’re references do is force me to go through pages of biased writing to click on links that lead to another bias website for ‘proof’. I understand if you’re opinions aren’t swayed but how can you not admit that you are wrong on his opinions. If you don’t like his policy that’s youre choice but you basically walk around spreading lies/half truths about Paul. – AlwaysTurning
…young Mr. Freiburger has become unhinged…what else would you expect from somebody who proudly displays Dr. Laura on his blogroll? – conimbricenses
Did you actually write a smear article against a 75-year-old grandfather who’s done nothing more than stick to his principles for 30 years in Congress? …Have you ever met the guy? You’d be embarrassed by your words. You’ve never met less of a “demagoge” in your life. Ron Paul never asked to be a leader. For 28 years of his career (after being an OB/GYN for most of his life) he’s preached and practiced with humility and humbleness the same philosophy of liberty in a sea of corrupt statists… all without a fan club, all without the Tea Party. Calvin, where will YOU be when you’re 75? Fighting tooth and nail to restore liberty to Americans? Or will you just be sniping from your wheelchair on a war glorifying blog? – pimpfresh
By telling such blatant lies over and over again (and expanding them in some cases), you are actually smearing yourself. – deleted4026005
You’re just a Big-Government Republican; the level of taxation doesn’t seem to be an issue with you: rather, who gets to divvy up the stolen dough. – efffrem
I am just commenting on your in ability to understand his clear comments about issues previously discussed, which appears from some of your past comments to be a common theme. – kwg1
More excuses for you personal attacks is another sign of a immature person. – aspacia
This is becoming too heartbreaking to read. – Jenn Q. Public
I don’t think you yourself was being level-headed and rational – but rather immune to sound argument. You never got it. Sorry. – Skandinav
You know you’re not allowed near any of my female friends or relatives now, right? – Rob Taylor
Stop pretending that you are anything but a Christian Talibanist. Liberty offends you…You may think that you have me dead (I’m quite sure that the words “to rights” was an after thought) but all you have done is shown yourself repeatedly to despise liberty. – Reason_For_Life
So… why are you afraid of a group whose conservative street cred has been proven time and again, participating in a conservative event? Why do you fixate on the “gay” part of the phrase “gay conservatives”? – Jesse Hathaway
…a college kid in desperate search for a sinecure at some think tank in an attempt to prove his bonafides… – bvw
…totally deranged, neoconservative moonbattery…Calvin Freiburger and people like him are very confused, and very misinformed. – Wesley Messamore
People like Calvin are hacks and very far from anything intellectual. The most in depth literature he has probably ever read was probably something by Bill O’Reilly or Ann Coulture. – David Hazi
The author is a complete fool. I’m not just saying that because I disagree with him. It’s because that’s what people who know Calvin on a personal level have told me. – Mike Phillips
…mean-spirited bozo… – Hec Jervae
Calvin – you’re a hack! Get a fuckin’ real job – join the Marines and head to Afgahnistan’s Kandahar Province for an 18 month tour. Calvin – are you buying gold/silver yet? Calvin – are you learning Chinese? – wailtd
You can feel his intensity and anger just reading his words. He’s pathetic. A waste of time. – theCL
Hey Calvin why dont you go pop your mouth back on dick cheneys tit, stop pretending people read your crummy blog and get over it. not all of us get a raging hard on when thinking about pre-emptive nuking 3rd world countries. – calvin=idiot
pussy. – Frank
You would do well to mind your own hypocrisy before you begin to critique others’…Mr. Freiburger, to state this gently, you come across as a bully. – Dustin
In short, he reads like a liberal troll with a conservative ideology. I cannot imagine a worse combination of intellectual bankruptcy. – Lloyd
…overall it’s hopeless to try an make any type of point to this man… – Kyle
Calvin Freiburger Online: Shouldn’t you be reading?
Around the Web, GOProud Edition
There are a couple noteworthy things in Los Angeles Times‘ report on the storm brewing over GOProud’s involvement in CPAC. First, the conference has lost its biggest name yet: the Heritage Foundation. Second comes a new indication that tolerating gay people isn’t the problem: “CPAC has refused to schedule a panel about traditional marriage.” Third, the paper quotes Family Research Council president Tony Perkins as emailing to supporters: “Conservatives and homosexuals cannot coexist in a movement predicated on social values.” But that’s not how the quote appears in FRC’s strong public statement: “Conservatives and homosexual activists cannot coexist in a movement predicated on social values.” Either Perkins changed his tune for public consumption, or the LA Times is lying. I’m gonna guess it’s the latter.
At NewsReal, David Swindle and the infamous Ryan Sorba are debating, “should gays be part of the conservative movement?” David’s correct as far as the debate goes, but frankly the whole conversation draws time and attention away from what the GOProud controversy is really about: not gay rights, but whether or not the radical gay agenda is infiltrating the conservative movement.
Speaking of confusing the issue, Andrew Breitbart’s take is more than a little disappointing: “even though I’m sensitive to the social conservative movement […] the treatment that they’re giving gay conservatives at CPAC deeply offends me.” Y’know what offends me, Andrew? Blatant misrepresentation of what’s going on. What treatment? Which gay conservatives have been mistreated? Details, please.
Yes, Sarah Palin Is a Social Conservative – And Conservatives4Palin Is Off Its Meds
Hat tip to Lisa Graas for linking to one of the most mind-boggling blog posts I’ve seen in a good long while. It seems Chris Cillizza, in an overview of the 2012 GOP field, hurled an absolutely unfathomable insult at Sarah Palin: he called her a…a…social conservative!
While Palin has spoken forcefully against President Obama’s fiscal policies, her rise to prominence has largely been built on very strong support among social conservatives.
Doug Brady at Conservatives4Palin is very, very upset about this:
This simply makes no sense. Just because the Lamestream Media concocted a phony “Sarah Palin is a religious fanatic who thinks dinosaurs roamed the earth just last week” narrative the moment McCain selected her doesn’t make it so, and Tea Partiers know this (unlike, evidently, Washington Post pundits). Indeed her entire political career has been based on fiscal, not social, conservatism. To be sure, she is personally a social conservative, but that did not figure prominently, if at all, in any of her political decisions.
The issue, then, isn’t that Cillizza insulted Palin, but that he innocuously identified her as something Brady considers contemptible. To normal people, “social conservative” denotes a handful of political views, chief among them opposition to abortion and gay marriage. But when Brady hears it, his mind immediately jumps to “religious fanatic who thinks dinosaurs roamed the earth just last week.”
If you wanna argue Palin’s tenure as Alaska governor was defined by fiscal matters, fine. If you wanna argue she’s devoted the bulk of her commentary since then to small government and economics, fine. But make no mistake, Palin is indeed a social conservative (the “normal people” variety, not the “religious fanatic” one). Palin’s always embraced the pro-life movement, with many of her fans inspired by her choosing life for baby Trig, despite his Down Syndrome. She supports the Federal Marriage Amendment. And she’s freaked out leftists with her discussion of the Founders’ faith in God.
Anecdotally, I have attended several Tea Party events. Everyone I have spoken to has the highest regard for Governor Palin…due to her fiscal conservatism. In fact, none of the Palin supporters I know (and there are many), including myself, could be characterized as social conservatives. Her appeal is to libertarian leaning fiscal conservatives because that is how she has governed.
Wait a minute. Is this guy – a die-hard supporter Sarah Palin – really claiming not to have ever encountered pro-lifers or marriage defenders among her supporters? Really? Under what scenario is this plausible? In what universe is this tool not lying?
This is simply bizarre – Doug Brady opposes Palin on social issues, yet defends her from an imaginary attack as if they’re on the same page. Is he such a diehard Palin fan that he simply can’t accept that his heroine parts ways with him on anything significant?
I like Sarah Palin, but clowns like this don’t do her any favors. Cults of personality aren’t healthy, no matter who they coalesce around.
Around the Web
Happy New Year, everyone!
Kirsten Powers gets thrown off balance by a nasty run-in with the truth.
“I admire those who join armies, whether America’s or the Taliban’s.” Just don’t question their patriotism.
RedState has a troubling rundown of the problems with Michael Steele’s would-be RNC successors.
Some pinhead named Tad Lumpkin shills for Julian Assange on Big Government. Andrew Breitbart, call your office; this guy’s gotta go.
Another day, another debate about social issues on NewsReal. Do you think there’s a “true” definition of conservatism?
The internet is abuzz with acclaim for Red Letter Media’s third and final takedown of the Star Wars prequel trilogy. These reviews have been amusing (if extremely off-color), and made some fair points, but they’re drastically overrated, and seem to mostly coast on people’s raw, blind hatred of the prequels. (More here.)
Conservative Standards 