BlogHer - Winter for Conservatism? - Comments

A Minor Quibble - No Really a Major One

Gena Haskett — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:03:56 -0600

Bush did not win the 2000 election. Gore actual won the popular vote. The question came with the electoral votes. Bush was appoint by the Supreme Court due to massive voter fraud in Florida and other states. According to the rules of Congress the election was supposed to be decided by the House of Representatives.

I have always referred to his administration as the occupation and will continue to do so until he leaves and forever more.

You don't have to believe what I believe but this is where my start for my disdain of his administration. Dubya then built upon it and I know he has a solid lock on being a memorable president.

I think the Obama girls are a little young to start binge drinking so we both can rest easy.

Rush and Coulter not prime instruments of hate speech? Puleez.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

Yes, You Are Angry - And So Am I...

Gena Haskett — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:43:05 -0600

You do understand that there is a spectrum of women and ideologies right? I did not like Sarah Palin as VP because she was a political newbie. She did not have the information and the ability to articulate her party's positions and goals for the candidate.

Palin, no matter if she was a Democrat or Republican was not fit for the job of vice-president. It was wrong to pick someone that politically green and then thrust her into the public spotlight for 5 weeks. She may have represented your values and that is great. But if elected she would have had to represent an entire country; not just the parts of it she considered viably American.

That is a the other issue than claiming at ALL liberal women are attacking traditional women and their beliefs.

The fight for women's equality was to have a choice, specifically, if you wanted to stay home and raise a family I would support you. If you wanted a career, I support you. It make me crazy to hear that conservative women have been told that homemaking does not count. IT DOES.

Now if you are listing to loony-toons like Dr. Laura who to me represent the far, far right of conservative thinking well ok. That is your choice. She was the one doing the back stabbing.

It is not fair to say that liberal women didn't understand the importance of being able to stay home and raise a family. There are liberal women who wish to God they could financially make the same choices.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

Pushing that realization forward...

KeegsMom — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:02:16 -0600

I wonder -- to go back to my long dead, flogged horse -- if a third party for moderate conservatives would help that happen. It seems the far right has the loudest voice, the furthest reach... but it says something that it didn't gather the support needed this time around in order to keep the GOP at the top.

If a more moderate conservative voice were to arise, and strengthen, it seems the far right might lose some steam (at least for a while) ... and I think liberals and Dems of most stripes would appreciate the oppty to have real dialog with the other side of the aisle. I feel like that might get us somewhere. Maybe?

Great conversation here.

KeegsMom blogs at:
KIDSFLIX

How do you push that realization forward?

carol45 — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:45:17 -0600

What IS helpful is to realize how much fear-mongering and divisive language has affected us as a nation; it's what drives talk radio (why Radio America fails). We need to move away from it. This is taken directly from KeegsMom above and I fully agree. My question is how do you push that realization forward? An earlier post spoke about payback, when governing becomes about payback, how does that benefit us as a nation? My gut feeling is that if we don't begin strong movement away from all this partisanship and labeling we are in for very, very difficult times as a nation. How do we take the field for civility and common sense again? I am honestly asking this question. we need to move forward, how do we get there. I know people in my personal life who are still just fighting the election and are still so angry but time hasn't stopped. for some of the people i know they are just continuing to relive the past 21 months. November 5th never arrived for them. My question is what now? For me i choose to support my president and my country. period.

Agreed

Nordette — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:50:34 -0600

My main point was, under our constitution even speech that makes us all cringe in horror must be protected under the First Amendment. Without giving such a wide berth to free speech, we would not be a free country.

I think the right to free is something that most people who want a free society can agree on. However, I haven't read all the post here, so I'm not sure that anyone was suggesting we do away with free speech.

I think what people concerned about this nation and hate speech do is point out language that raises a red flag, the kind that may lead to destabilizing the country by stirring up virally violent racial unrest, accusing specific ethnic groups of plotting to take jobs, homes, life and limb. Implying or saying outright that minorities are to blame for our woes is the kind of language that leads to civil war and ethnic cleansing agendas.

We have heard that evil wins when good people do nothing, and that saying is frequently associated with the slow creep of hatred toward Jews in Nazi Germany. And while we use Nazi Germany as an example, we can look farther back in time and find others, such as the burning of people believed to be witches or the persecution of Christians under Nero. We can look at ethnic cleansing since Hitler. Furthermore, we learn in school Santayana's quote, "The people who forget history are doomed to repeat it." I think forgetting hisstory is not only the failure to keep dates and events in memory, it's also laziness in analyzing the factors that led to certain events so you never take precautions to prevent a another occurrence.

History indicates that when people push hate speech with false information about ethnic groups or other blocks of society the majority deems as "the other" and the inflammation goes unchecked with few objections from the people or the powerful, societies fall into their darkest hours. We should never underestimate the power of speech to influence humans to commit either horrific acts or our most noble deeds.

And while we give free speech a wide berth, we must still remember that not all speech is protected. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected. Spreading lies and exaggerations that blame one distinct group (ethnic, gender, religious, sexual orientation, disability, size, age, skin color, hair texture, etc.) for societal ills is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater and is worse because if the information is propaganda and not fact, then the message is more sociopathic.

While we should try to practice civility when dealing with individuals in our world, I don't think we should trivialize the genuine danger of singling out ethnic groups as "the problem" with the nation by equating that type of speech with squabbles between individuals engaged in name calling. The latter is simply not nice behavior that requires personal introspection. The former undermines the stability of society as a whole and may result in genocide.

Let's not turn speaking out against hate speech into a game of he said/she said.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link. Also at Blogher, Obama Family Obsession, The Huxtable Effect, and Black Images on the Screen.

Inflammatory and/or Hate Speech from the Left

NOfreelunch — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:36:53 -0600

KeegsMom, here are some examples of this sort of speech from the left.

"I believe what we are seeing with regard to New Orleans and the surrounding area is a policy frankly of ethnic cleansing by inaction."
--Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank

"The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side." "[Bush] has selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics."
--NAACP chairman Julian Bond (He also labeled Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell as "tokens.")

"I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease."
--USA Today columnist Julianne Malveaux, on Clarence Thomas

"There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word."
--Current West Virginia Democratic Senator and former Ku Klux Klan member Robert Byrd

"Jews have bought everybody. Jews. J-E-W-S."
--Former Georgia State Legislator Billy McKinney, father of former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney

"What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?"
--Former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney

"If you look at folks of color, even women, they're more successful in the Democratic Party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in the Republican Party."
--Former Governor of Vermont, Chairman of the DNC and onetime presidential hopeful Howard Dean

"Hymietown"
--Jesse Jackson on NYC

"Sarah Palin will be gang-raped by my big, black brothers if she enters Manhattan." "Now you got Uncle Women, like Sarah Palin, who jumps on the sh_t and points her fingers at other women. Turncoat b_tch! Don't you f_ckin' reference Old Testament, b_tch! You stay with your new Goyish crappy shiksa funky bullsh_t! Don't you touch my Old Testament, you b_tch! Because we have left it open for interpre-ta-tion! It is no longer taken literally! You (w)hore in your f_ckin' cheap New Vision cheap-ass plastic glasses and your [sneering voice] hair up. A Tina Fey-Megan Mullally brokedown bullsh_t moment."
--Entertainer Sandra Bernhard

(Adolf Hitler was a better man than President George Bush, because even though Hitler tried to eliminate the Jews) "the Bush administration is the first that doesn't even mean well. You could argue that even the world's worst fascist dictators at least meant well."
--HuffPost blogger and former Washington Post sportswriter Peter Mehlmann

"Cheney is a terrorist. He terrorizes our enemies abroad and innocent citizens here at home indiscriminately."
--Actor Alec Baldwin

"If there is retributive justice (Senator Jesse Helms) will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."
--Nina Totenberg, NPR

"Florida's Cubans are responsible for sleaze and influence-peddling in American politics. In every incident of national torment that has deflated our country for the past three decades - Cuban exiles are always present and involved."
--Michael Moore, from his book "Downsize This"

"Davis and the Jews, No Good for the Black Belt"
--Alabama Democratic congressional incumbent Earl Hilliard, on his challenger for office

"der Fuhrer" "lying bastard" "terrorist" "war criminal" "filth spewer"
--Cindy Sheehan referring to President G.W. Bush

Southerngirl, I was trying to make it clear in my last post that I don't think inflammatory or hate speech is necessary or desired in political arguments. Maybe I didn't make it clear. I think this thread is a good example of how people of vastly differing opinions can have civil discourse over political matters. I believe that everyone--conservative, liberal or anywhere in between--should ultimately be held responsible and accountable for the way in which they speak to others about politics or in general. My main point was, under our constitution even speech that makes us all cringe in horror must be protected under the First Amendment. Without giving such a wide berth to free speech, we would not be a free country.

Inflamatory

Southerngirl — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:46:24 -0600

Most of those examples are statements directed at individuals, not whole groups of people. But like I said above "He did it too" Is a kids game and adults need to act as such. Stop with the excuses and get to fixing the mess Repblican policies have created. The Southern stragety is an ingrained the way to victory policy for the party. Jesse Helms was a racist at best. I too say good ridance. But I do not share their party it is up to those inside the party to condem these things I can stand outside and yell but until you refuse to have them at the table their behavior is accepted and sanctioned by all who sit with them. Your silence is deafening.

For the record here is what Nina Totenburg really said:

Totenberg had this reaction to Senator Jesse Helms stating that AIDS research was getting a disproportionate share of federal research money. Totenberg said of Helms: “I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind, because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”

There was probaly a better way to put it. But in essense she was saying what would he do if it came home for him? That has been the case with even stem cell research had it not been blocked by republicans it may have been far enough along to help Ronald Regan.

Michelle

I blog at http://www.mommycan.blogspot.com/

Well, I asked for it...

KeegsMom — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:04:34 -0600

though, not to pick nits or anything with NoFreeLunch, much of what is cited isn't hate speech (calling Bush/Cheney terrorists, or war criminals, or a weak attempt at humor calling the GOP the 'white party" [did you SEE the convention?], or even Barney Frank's assessment of the Katrina disaster). Those things do not denigrate an entire population based on gender, race, sexual identity, etc.

There are plenty of others cited, however, that are pretty awful and eye opening (some are just hard to belive: I can't believe Nina Totenberg -- not a ranting lefty pundit by any means -- said that - ?)... And as someone else wrote here, we've spiraled downward into "he said she said" which isn't helpful. What IS helpful is to realize how much fear-mongering and divisive language has affected us as a nation; it's what drives talk radio (why Radio America fails). We need to move away from it. Conservatives should loudly lambast and protest those who make a living doing it.

Lisse wrote: Rejection of that message in this election should send a signal to the
Limbaughs of the world to shut up and let George Will be heard.

That's worth amplifying.

Also, my original post here was asking if conservatives feel they need a third party... I don't think anyone has answered that question. I'm really quite curious about that!

Well put!

Nordette — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:35:11 -0600

Conservatives may also need to consider that their message of limited
government decidedly conflicts with their determination to invade the
bedrooms and the hospital rooms of all Americans.

Indeed.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.

It is what it is

Nordette — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:31:59 -0600

I can recognize when Farrakhan's gone astray in his rhetoric despite us both being black people and his belief that he promotes our elevation. I can see and not listen anymore.

That is the end of my paragraph about Louis Farrakhan. I hope we aren't going to now play the game of people must explicitly state like we're all lawyers, "I denounce" so and so. If I can recognize that his rhetoric has gone astray and don't listen anymore that should be enough.

Yes, I believe Limbaugh is a psychopathic liar. Also, I said at my own blog that I knew someone would come later chiding me about political correctness or the impolitic choice of my words mainly because I think some people think political correctness is a game of some type. Oooh, first you point out what I said that was not nice and then I point out what you said. WOW! goodie.

Really don't care that you disagree with my assessment of Limbaugh as a total jerk.

Bitterness? Hah! Gee, we all have flaws. Go figure.

Oddly, I would not have been offended in the least if you called Farrakhan a psychopathic liar because it's clear I think something's very wrong with what he says. Why you're offended on Rush Limbaugh's behalf, I'm not sure.

Well, I can make an educated guess, but I won't.

Ah, the world is a mystery. Humans, know thyself.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.

It's not all about you or me alone either.

Nordette — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:30:31 -0600

I wasn't trying to incite righteous anger ...

Every comment made in response to any commenter is not necessarily about the commenter herself. I tend to write to a larger audience when I respond with an essay. You didn't incite righteous anger. It takes a lot more than what you've said to do that. But, yeah, I'm a bit frustrated because I see we are a chasm a part and I think our separateness reflects the distance Americans must travel to heal despite the joy many of us felt on November 4 and still feel today.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.

deleted due to wrong placement

Nordette — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:14:26 -0600

deleted by author

Speech may be free...

Lisse — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:18:09 -0600

But that doesn't mean that it is helpful.

Just because Coulter can (and has) state that Liberals can be killed for their views, doesn't mean that it is helping her country to do so. Thankfully, talk like that seems no longer to be helping her cause either (never mind that Coulter, Limbaugh, Malkin, and others are far more self-serving than they are country-serving).

We are coming off an era where anyone who dared question the Bush Admin or the conduct of the war in Iraq was labelled unpatriotic; those who questioned Israel's heavyhanded tactics labelled anti-Semitic.

The Bush Adminstration came to power because its supporters played on the anger and fears of the most vulnerable and often least knowledgeable of citizens. Some of that outrage was justified; most of it was predatory fear-mongering.

And so "fear itself" became the only message the country heard from neo-conservatives. Rejection of that message in this election should send a signal to the Limbaughs of the world to shut up and let George Will be heard. Will and other conservatives have a message that is often logical, but requires careful listening, rather than spoon-fed finger pointing.

Conservatives may also need to consider that their message of limited government decidedly conflicts with their determination to invade the bedrooms and the hospital rooms of all Americans.

-Lisse

@ Home in the World

Show me, show me!

KeegsMom — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:54:48 -0600

Can anyone cite any hateful bigotry or namecalling by Dems or liberals who are not fringe personalities, eg, people who have been already alienated by most Democrats (like Farrakahn)?

The equivalent of Coulter calling Edwards a "faggot" or Rush's "Blacks in a 30 year plot" bit? I'm hard pressed to find one or think of one...

KeegsMom blogs at KIDSFLIX

One other thing

carol45 — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:47:36 -0600

I wasn't trying to incite righteous anger and I feel in retrospect that parts of the post about hate speech went too far. There are talking heads and pundits on both sides that emit far too much hot air and say too little. I am not unaware of free speech and many in my family are military (ret./active duty) and they defend that right every day. I really strongly feel that we are at a point in the life of this republic that we must somehow start to stand together. I know families that are being torn apart over the state of our government. I defer to Dana on this because she has stated some salient points that i respect
1. It is my hope that neither side becomes so introspective that they forget the purposes and reasons which brought them each to their respective positions.
Purpose and reason for a position: Dana is asking people to think with their hearts and minds on the issues. We can all benefit from doing that.
2. Everyone always assumes that I'm a Republican because I'm a conservative. It's a stereotype as my brand of conservatism is one that the Republican party has long since abandoned.
Stereotypes are dangerous ground as are assumptions, when you paint with too broad a brush you lose the ability to hear.
The first line in an earlier post of mine did that very thing, I used a broad brush speaking of hate speech, Coulter, Rush, etc. I still think they are idiots, but they have the right to speak freely and embrace being idiots. I apologize.
I don't like where we find ourselves as a republic, no civil discourse among those who represent us, only payback? I still think labels are dangerous and always will because you forget the person. I think we are dangerously divided and need to move past partisanship and look toward the center and compromise for solutions. Civil discourse hasn't been practiced for a long time. Reagan and Bush 1 were first and foremost about being gentlemen, at least imo and I can't help but think there is value in that. Clinton and beyond not so much. The other thing about this election for me and I have to say it, I am simply glad that the name of the president is neither Clinton or Bush. I couldn't see these family empirical presidency's needing to continue or even in any way being a good thing. Adams aside. One other thing I voted for Obama and I admit that but it wasn't a clear cut choice for me and I struggled with this election. In the end the negative tenor and the incoherent message from McCain lost me. I don't know where our country goes from here. Both sides voted for socialism with the bank bailout.
For me I have to believe we are better than all this fighting and that better days are ahead. I am sorry for any role I have had in posting that simply stirred up more.
In the end i think agreeing to disagree and moving forward is what is important.

Winter for Conservatism?

Dana Loesch — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:02:39 -0600

Last night I received hate mail and was at the business end of scathing Twittentary, from both sides, oddly enough. Democrats were angry with me because I disagreed with them on things and Republicans, well, there were some hot-headed Republicans that railed against me when I exploded on air and online about the deficiencies of the party.

At some point in political discourse we must have honesty.

If it feels like the day after a battle, it's because it is. Some of us are celebratory; others are dragging themselves from the battlefield. It is my hope that neither side becomes so introspective that they forget the purposes and reasons which brought them each to their respective positions.

I congratulate the Democrats on an excellently ran campaign. I will stand behind Barack Obama as our president (just as others stood behind President Bush) because I respect the office, but I will continue to disagree with him as is my right, something any number of Democrats would do if lipstick-wearing pigs had flown and John McCain were elected. And because I am a prayerful person, I will pray that Barack Obama receives divine guidance and wisdom. This is his turn to try now.

However, I won't lie; I'm still angry.

Everyone always assumes that I'm a Republican because I'm a conservative. It's a stereotype as my brand of conservatism is one that the Republican party has long since abandoned. My brand of conservatism is marginalized by a party that presumes to court my vote. At some point in this election, some of those who directed the path of the Republican party decided that true conservatives - not those who pivot on a dime to embrace new-to-them conservative issues - weren't worth fighting for. We would vote Republican because that's what we do; all conservatives are Republicans, right?

Not quite.

This election has defined and validated the reason why I will not align myself to a political party. I serve my country, not a group of politicians. I serve my beliefs and the candidate onto whom they reflect best. My fury grew to a shriek when Sarah Palin was named as McCain's vice-presidential pick. I take issue with Katie Couric's ironic assessment that Palin did McCain in; to the contrary: she saved John McCain. John McCain was dead in the water; Palin revitalized his campaign and is the only reason he lasted until November 4th. Instead of receiving support, Palin was attacked by women like Dr. Laura for being a mother - a non-policy issue. The conservative female pundit seemingly skipped over the story of Deborah, and, coincidentally, her second-in-command, Barak. Palin was marketed by the Republicans as a novelty instead of as a future face of conservatism. And in perhaps one of the most unchivalrous moves I've seen in politics, she was forced to be the attack dog, fighting for the hearts of the Republican "base" while McCain turned his entire campaign into one long concession speech.

And I sighed and repeated Reagan's 11th commandment in my head over and over again while politely suggesting on air and online that perhaps McCain should step it up.

John McCain first abandoned the Republican party; the Republican party then abandoned its constituents by nominating a moderate. After the nomination, the Republican party exacted its revenge and abandoned McCain in return.

The Republican party is hemorrhaging. The Republican party deserved John McCain. Even though I am on record of supporting Fred Thompson since before the primaries, I include myself in this. We deserved John McCain because we as a group devolved to the point where we had to depend on a moderate for this election. We refused to support new, young faces of conservatism. Our campaign was poorly ran. It's the cold hard truth and if we conservatives are interested in regaining our movement instead of saving face and posing, then we need to admit it in blunt terms.

Conservatives need to regroup. The Republican party needs to reconnect with its base; it needs to fight for and woo the hearts of those to whom it owes its existence. I know the loss was hard and I know that there is a lot of resentment there and you will not convince me that there is no justification for that resentment - but that's beside the point. Republicans need to fix their party. They also need to realize that graciousness during this time does not equal surrender, but serves as a testament of the faith, the faith they speak of on the stump.

Let's put that graciousness into action, let's rebuild the party, let's reconnect with the values on which this party was founded. If you love this country as I do, you will fight for it, regardless your political persuasion.

Then, and only then, can we try again in four years.

I'd like to share some quotes I came across on a few sites I frequent:

"And I’m hoping that the catharsis of an Obama win will open within the left some vein of generosity toward Dubya, because the man deserves much better than he has gotten from most of the nation, for too long."

- The Anchoress

"The only answer for conservatives is to keep on truckin’, and not lose confidence. When conservatism is clearly defined…it wins. Unfortunately, it wasn’t clearly defined by McCain."
- Nice Deb

(Correction: Phyllis Schlafly was in favor of Palin as McCain's VP nominee. My apologies to Mrs. Schlafly. Sadly, there were still, at the time, seemingly more outspoken conservative women against her than for her.)