Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review and Politico columnist, talks about CPAC 2013 and the debate over the future of the GOP and conservatism.
→ Watch the CPAC 2013 Live-Stream Below
Instructive quotes from "illfg", continued from previous post:
(after quoting, "wikipedia article on Racism in Israel.") "You guys cant even get along with yourselves, lol." ("You guys" obviously referring-to Jews) - Tuesday April 03, 2012, 11:04 AM http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2012/apr/03/crisis-zionism/ (As if Jews are the only people to ever have internal conflicts and rivalries...)
**NOTE: I am NOT Zionist and my views on the issues discussed at the above and following pages would likely fall closer to "illfg"s than to the people he was debating. Nonetheless, that does not take away from the problem with these quotes of "illfg"s that I am posting, which should be disturbing to any reasonable, decent person. Basically, "illfg" makes sweeping condemnations of /Jews/ -- just /Jews/, no distinctions or qualifiers.(and, in some cases, other groups as well, such as Muslims in the first quote below)**
The following three quotes are all from:http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2012/mar/21/jimmy-carter-bible-study/
"i don't defend muslims either. i think you both are mentally ill"
"i hope you are truly proud of your people and their own evilness"
"You prove that jewish people like any other group are selfish and make the facts fit their own selfish desires. "
The following two quotes are from:http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2012/feb/08/narratives-womens-prisons/
"isn't getting a prison sentence the loss of YOUR RIGHTS? pandering to pregnant prisoners may lead to potential prisoners getting knocked up prior to getting incarcerated so they can get special treatment. Men dont have this option. Men get abused in prison. No one is changing their treatment because of "trauma". maybe women aren't EQUAL after all?"
"no offense, but how can one expect the general public feel bad for prisoners when they are there by their own accord. it sucks to be abused in prison and all that but the stuff that gets you locked up usually involves a selfish and anti social behavior that only when caught and locked up does the perp realize maybe they were in the wrong."
(Some responses to the above two quotes: 1.) Incarcerated individuals have rights as well. That's the difference between society where the rule-of-law prevails and one where vigilantism prevails. 2.) What did the fetus do to warrant treatment that could harm it? 3.) People get incarcerated for many different reasons, including completely non-violent and largely victimless crimes, such as most drug offenses. 4.) Innocent people get incarcerated as well.)
"Conservatives are anti-human."
" I propose that Conservatism may even be a mental illness." (Mar. 15 2013 10:36 AM)
"Joe - tell the people who have lost everything they own from Hurricane Sandy to handle it locally."(March 15, 2013, 10:03 AM)
As opposed to telling people who grew-up in this country, are law-abiding and productive, etc., that they must now leave the only country they ever knew and go "back" to what is, for all intents and purposes, a foreign land to them-- just because they comitted the "crime" of allowing themselves to be brought here by parents who entered illegally?
"Children of illegal aliens, thank your parents for doing everything wrong to get you here. " - "illfg", Friday September 21, 2012, 10:09 AM- http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2012/sep/21/candidates-univision/
"illegal is illegal. deportation is the law isn't it? why are we even contemplating rewarding those who broke the law? it's curious isn't it? maybe it's just a ploy to pander to a new voting demographic at the expense of society as a whole?"- http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2013/feb/01/senate-immigration-reform-vs-presidents/
Below are some other choice quotes I found from "illfg" that I found quite remarkable in light of his responses to me on this page.
"Black americans need to grow up. Slavery still exists in the world and it was never race centric. Hey, you could always move back to africa?"- Oct. 08 2012 10:54 AM http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2012/oct/08/slaverys-legacy/
Apropos, regarding Ronald Reagan, I highly recommend: 'How Right Was Reagan?' by Richard Gamble, May 2009http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-right-was-reagan/
Excerpt:"Doubting the depths of Reagan’s conservatism sounds akin to doubting FDR’s liberalism. We are so accustomed to thinking of Reagan as the pre-eminent conservative statesman of our time that any shadow on that reputation seems nonsensical. But some conservative dissidents have recently blamed Reagan for giving his benediction to the most culturally corrosive tendencies in the American character."
Apropos my previous posts, some highly germane quotes:Rob McGee:http://funfrotfacts.blogspot.com/2009/07/letter-i-sent-to-my-mean-and-judgmental.htmlExcerpts:>In 1985, which is to say just a few years before C. Everett Koop's AIDS letter, the Dutch government launched a two-pronged AIDS prevention campaign aimed at gay/bi men. The message was very simple:
>(1) If you are a man who has sex with other men, the surest way to avoid AIDS is to abstain completely from anal intercourse.
>(2) If you are unwilling to abstain from anal sex, you must use a condom every time.
>By the early '90s, the language of the Dutch campaign had been changed -- totally dropping the "don't have anal sex at all" suggestion. (Which was, let's remember, MERELY a suggestion, as the libertarian Netherlands had abolished its anti-sodomy laws as of 1813 .) In place of the two-pronged approach, the revised language put all the AIDS-prevention eggs into just one basket. That basket being, of course, "Use a condom every time you have anal sex." Which in no time at all got truncated to "Use a condom every time" -- thus subtly reinforcing the highly dubious notions that breaking-and-entry through the backdoor is not only "vanilla," but also the Default Mode of male/male sex.[...]>And why exactly was point (1) dropped from the Dutch campaign? And why was it never even given a chance by the NIH, CDC and other tax-funded government health institutions in the US? [...]>And all because of gay political and ideological nonsense that everyone else's money subsidizes. (Just one of the many, many reasons that I tell people: "I'm a total homo with no apologies, but please don't call me gay, because it's a stupid word and an even stupider subculture.")_______________Also from Rob McGee:>gay men who don't enjoy buggery experience relentless (albeit often subtle) peer pressure telling them that they're missing out on something incredibly fabulous and they could/should LEARN to enjoy it ("it" meaning "receptive anal sex") with a little more effort. Or, gee -- maybe they're afraid to try it because they suffer from internalized homophobia and self-loathing? ________I oppose /all/ forms of predation, injustice and thuggery: economic, militarist, sexual, etc.
The appearance of the word "inconvertible" in my previous post is an error. When attempting to write, "incontrovertible", I mistyped, making one or more spelling errors. Firefox's spell-checker changed this to "inconvertible" and I only noticed it after my post appeared.
@ Tony from Canarsie, 11:23 a.m.:
"Since sodomy laws were struck down several years ago by the Supreme Court, isn't your case a bit moot?"
First, you should be asking your friend "illfg" that question, as HE was the one who brought-up sodomy laws, writing, "Maybe getting rid of some stupid laws like ANTI SODOMY laws makes more sense" ( 10:41 a.m.)
I was merely /responding/ to that statement of "illfg".
And if you read my post carefully, you will see that I was not actually discussing Sodomy laws, per se. I was merely arguing that they were far more/defensible/ than the "flip-side", if you will, that "illfg" was clearly suggesting support for with his statement that I was responding to. "illfgs"' subsequent posts only confirmed this, leaving no doubt.
"(Not to mention that your case has absolutely nothing to do with actual science.)"
It has /everything/ to do with actual science.
The evidence for the inordinate role that anal penetration plays in spreading deadly disease is /overwhelming/ and /inconvertible/. The anatomical, physiological and hygienic realities of the act /empirical/.
Yet, these are whitewashed, downplayed and glossed-over by government health and educational institutions, under pressure from a lobby that yields tremendous, completely disproportionate power. The way in which invented, tendentious, manipulative terms such as "homophobia" are wielded like a cudgel to silence dissent; to allow agenda to trump science and health, etc., is no less egregious, abusive and outrageous than McCarthyism or any number of other examples that it is politically correct to label as forms of tyranny.
I could cite examples and elaborate at some length but I do not have the time to do so now. And although still related to the topic of this page, conservatism, this discussion has already veered quite a bit into what is a whole topic unto itself.
For now, I will simply reiterate my suggestion, for you, "illfg", and anyone else interested, to read some of the two men whom I mentioned previously, both homosexuals themselves. They support everything I have written in my posts on this topic.
[WARNING/DISCLAIMER: The sites listed below contain sexually explicit and graphic content. Bill Weintraub's sites, especially, contain many explicit images.]Bill Weintraub: http://www.man2manalliance.org/ Rob McGee: http://funfrotfacts.blogspot.com/
@ mklw1954, 11:41 a.m.:
"Noach referenced a different type of conservatism, as represented by The American Conservative magazine"
Actually, the view expressed in the quotes I posted (both from the "Who We Are" statement of The American Conservative as well as from a column by Andrew Bacevich appearing in said publication) was not so much that what today's GOP represents is merely a different /type/ of conservatism but that it isn't conservatism /at all/.
"It is unfortunate that the libertarian version of conservatism predominates today, advocating everyone for themself, limited to no government, etc."
I don't see how today's GOP could be characterized as "libertarian".
They certainly employ /rhetoric/ of, "personal liberty", "small/limited government", "unfettered free markets", etc. But in most cases, such invocations are little more demagoguery, betrayed by the actual positions and actions taken.
Examples include:- Drug policy that criminalizes and prosecutes physicians who try to alleviate patients in misery- All kinds of governrment largess to /corporations/ that amounts-to redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle-class to the wealthy- Support for the Patriot Act, the NDAA and other policies highly restrictive of civil liberties- Highly interventionist, aggressive foreign policy
People such as Ron Paul are clearly the exception.
And then there is the whole question of whether economic views such as those held by Paul can truly be considered "libertarian". Consider the following quote from Noam Chomsky:
_________Begin Quoted text___________
But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority.
If capital is privately controlled, then people are going to have to rent themselves in order to survive. Now, you can say, "they rent themselves freely, it's a free contract"—but that's a joke. If your choice is, "do what I tell you or starve," that's not a choice—it's in fact what was commonly referred to as wage slavery in more civilized times, like the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example.
_________End quoted text__________
From "Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomksy, quoted athttp://www.distantocean.com/2008/04/chomsky-on-libe.html
tony - your humor wasnt lost on me. its all about hitler always ;)
Whither conservatism? Donald Trump and Wayne LaPierre are speakers at CPAC, and they weren't laughed off the stage.
Noach referenced a different type of conservatism, as represented by The American Conservative magazine. It is unfortunate that the libertarian version of conservatism predominates today, advocating everyone for themself, limited to no government, etc.
Another view of conservatism is communitarian conservatism. The struggle between libertarian and communitarian conservatism for predominance in the 1950s, when the country was overwhelmingly liberal thanks to the New Deal, is described nicely in the first one-third of the 2011 Carl T. Bogus biography of William F. Buckley (Buckley: William F. Buckley and the Rise of American Conservatism). Buckley succeeded in having libertarian conservatism win out.
illfg -- btw, my previous comment to you was meant to be humorous. ;-)
illfg -- I have to admit that your comment below is the first time I've seen Godwin's Law applied to Eisenhower, so points for originality.
Liberty and Freedom applies to all humans. not just heterosexuals. Only those who can not defend themselves like children or animals should be "protected". what goes on between adults who consent? NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
Noach (Independent) from Brooklyn - as a human being you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. shame on you for trying to tell people how to live. your fear mongering about disease spreading is dubious on a scientific level to say the least. humans spread disease all the time. ever hear of the FLU? im not gay. but i also dont care what gay people do. sexual orientation doesnt make you less human. grow up.
Noach (Independent) from Brooklyn -- Since sodomy laws were struck down several years ago by the Supreme Court, isn't your case a bit moot? (Not to mention that your case has absolutely nothing to do with actual science.)
@ illfg (10:41 AM) "Maybe getting rid of some stupid laws like ANTI SODOMY laws makes more sense" Anti-sodomy laws are far more defensible than the prevailing triumph of agenda and ideology over public health and basic decency that you apparently support; the whitewashing and effective promotion of a gruesome, inordinately disease-spreading sexual practice. Conflation of this anatomically, physiologically and hygienically unsound, empirically dangerous /act/ with an /orientation/, homosexuality, facilitates (if not _accounts_ for entirely) the highly effective guise of "tolerance" and "progress".
I recommend the writings of homosexual dissidents such as Bill Weintraub and Rob McGee.
Joe - commerce? toll booths? WRONG...dont the states put toll booths up? im from NJ. the fed isnt running any of our tolls. furthermore EISENHOWER a general who became president expanded our highways so the MILITARY could move around just like the germans did with their blitkriegs. Everyone back then was impressed with hitlers ability to shutle the military around quickly. that was because of the Autobon.
joe - i like ron paul. but his views are wacky. yes there is government waste. totally. the road to redemption is not slashing the government. its accountability WITH congress. they are the problem. we need logical, intelligent people in congress cutting waste NOT pork barreling for their states constantly.
again...1st the need for roads came, fostered by commerce. Then the gvt steps in and puts up the toll booths.
Joe - actually the Roman Empire invented the modern road and paved them all over europe. what happened afterwards? Trade flourished. same with the US. roads existed. the Eisenhower greatly expanded the US highway system, BASED on another government funded road project, the GERMAN AUTOBON. Do some research. The companies today that use trucks to ship goods across this country DID NOT built the highways. Local and Federal government did. Remember when prisoners in a chain gang built roads? The federal government was involved with the building of Railroads too and even to this day quasi government agencies RUN the railroads. Should we let corporations, who are not obligated to operate in SOCIETY's best interest run things?
Joe - tell the people who have lost everything they own from Hurricane Sandy to handle it locally. Its easy to talk junk but the second a natural disaster hits you, we would undoubtably see you ask the government for help. remember the government is us, the us citizen. the taxes you and i pay are meant to help us. otherwise why have a government?
@illfg gvt did not invent the road
Democrats and Republicans are little more than two wings of the ONE party of the corporate-military ruling sector. Two wings of the same bird of prey.
Vote third-party/ do write-ins!
@illfg so when there is a "disaster" you want to wait for help from DC rather than handle it locally. Gvt takes money and gives it back and we call it charity.
excuse me Joe, the department of education is what i meant. Actually the need built the highways? not really. Our highways are based on the autobon that the americans saw during WW2. we built highways here for military and evacuation purposes. BUSINESSES use the highways for commerce. not whay they were built and business didnt build them. Furthermore all trade to and from america benefits by OUR MILITARY keeping ports and seas SAFE for trade. Do the businesses pay for this enforcement? not directly. just like you and me they pay for it THROUGH TAXES!!! Taxes built the space program which fueled satelites, GPS and other technologies. The structure that built the internet was funded by tax dollars for the MILITARY! Facebook owes its existence to the efforts the government put in to create the internet.
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan -- Jennifer Rubin is herself a caricature of the average reader of the Washington Times. She is easily the worst of the new crop of online editorial columnists who are employed more for attracting page hits than for having anything rational or insightful to say.
Well said Noach: Reagan as articulate as he was - mixed up a batch of cheap conservative hooch - mixing deficit speeding, trickle down economics with reactionary evangelical christian "values."
It worked - how do you get white union workers, you clearly despise, to vote for you? You tell them that gays, welfare blacks and secular "lefties," and the federal govt are the cause of your jobs going to Mexico not big corporations.
So-called conservatism has been watered down further ever since, away from its libertarian roots. It's now a cheap, low-entry, anti-intellectual brand, relegated to talk shows and books. Buckley is turning in his grave.
@illfg hahahaha not the board of eduscation the dept of education at the federal level. The Dept of Edu at a federal has been around since 1980. The gvt didn't build the roads and highways...the need built them.
for many kids, college has become a 4 year party of texting, drinking and distractions, leading to a hollow degree that is not worth the outrageous university expenses and the hangover of long term unrealistic loan burdens.
Is it true that CPAC was going to begin their conclave by calling for "a new blacklist" until someone noticed that the word black was in there and so they quietly scuttled the idea?
"@illfg go help people...it doesn't have to involve Washington DC"
really? so when we have a natural disaster what? we help each other rebuild infrastructure that was originally built BY the government?
This a government FOR and BY the people. the first priority of government is to protect its citizens. Not corporations, or wealthy people. Those who fought and died to CREATE america were the poor, the average, the every man.
Conservatives are frightened children.
and this "I dont want to pay taxes" mentality is stupid. The government is a huge innovator. It built the highways, it built the internet that i am typing this comment on. the private sector BENEFITS from government funded technology.
@illfg go help people...it doesn't have to involve Washington DC
No prob, Bob.
"Ron is the real deal for liberty"???
he wants to eliminate the board of education. stupid idea. Dismantling the US government isn't the path to "liberty". and what is "liberty" today? back when the country was formed it meant throwing off the yoke of oppression from a monarch. we have been "free" since 1776. Yes, we are over legislated but getting RID of the government isnt a solution. Maybe getting rid of some stupid laws like ANTI SODOMY laws makes more sense
more accountability...this guy is saying nothing
Tony - Sorry I wasn't clear enough. I am very, very tired today. My comment was actually a suggestion to the conservatives to help revive their legitimacy. That's what I meant.
Conservatives are anti-human. they are the ebenezer scrooge of politics. Look at Gov Christie. it took Hurricane Sandy for him to realize there is a reason we have a federal government. we pay taxes to our government so it can fullfill its purpose.. TO HELP people. No one believes we should just pay citizens to sit around and be lazy. But its foolish to think we can and should all be rich. Conservative values are based on fear and loathing of those different than themselves. I propose that Conservatism may even be a mental illness.
Rand is more of a politician...Ron is the real deal for liberty...Rand will play the game.
Bob from Brooklyn -- "Why aren't the conservatives not coming out against Wall Street and debt fueled capitalism?"
I suggest that reading a book or two about the history of the GOP will provide the answer you seek. The Republicans have traditionally been the party of Wall Street.
Bob from Brooklyn...why don't them Dems in general...No one but a select few (Ron Paul Rand Paul).
btw Rand considers himself a Constitutional Republican
please, please, challenge him on the term "Pro-Life." it's very insulting, and if conservatives are pro-life, they may want to express it more concerning social programs, the death penalty, prison populations, hunger, etc...
Is the GOP a political party or an anachronistic joke? I'd have to go with choice two.
GOP and Democrats suck at the teet of the greedy.
Why aren't the conservatives not coming out against Wall Street and debt fueled capitalism?
Highly apropos quote from Andrew Bacevich:"[...]it quickly becomes apparent that the Republican Party does not represent conservative principles. The conservative ascendancy that began with the election of Ronald Reagan has been largely an illusion. During the period since 1980, certain faux conservatives—especially those in the service of Big Business and Big Empire—have prospered. But conservatism as such has not."
From, "The Right Choice?", March 2008http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-right-choice/
Bacevich began the piece by outlining his definition of conservatism:
______________Begin quoted text___________
My own definition emphasizes the following:
- a commitment to individual liberty, tempered by the conviction that genuine freedom entails more than simply an absence of restraint;
- a belief in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the rule of law;
- veneration for our cultural inheritance combined with a sense of stewardship for Creation;
- a reluctance to discard or tamper with traditional social arrangements;
- respect for the market as the generator of wealth combined with a wariness of the market’s corrosive impact on humane values;
- a deep suspicion of utopian promises, rooted in an appreciation of the sinfulness of man and the recalcitrance of history.
___________End quoted text______________
Pretty funny, Martin: self-described "conservatives" own dozens of TV networks, newspapers, book publishers and web publications, fund think-tanks, in the billions, to propagate their "message" tirelessly, are quoted equally on every public policy issue, no matter how marginal or preposterous their views are, and have the general support (financial and otherwise) of the most powerful constituency in the country, commonly known as "business community".
And yet "lefties" never hear the the conservative message!
For a very different view of conservatism, have a look at 'The American Conservative'
"Today, many politicians and pundits who call themselves conservatives seem to stand for something else: war, every man for himself, and endless deficits and debt."
Thanks, Brian, for at least having a conservative on the show when discussing “conservativism” .... whatever that is.
As Jennifer Rubin wrote at the Washington Post last night, most leftists just make up their own caricature, and then gleefully attack this cartoonish image.
“Inside the lefty cocoon, they are terribly certain what conservatives (to whom they rarely speak) are thinking, planning and hoping to do.What would be more productive and certainly more accurate (since so many hide in liberal TV and print enclaves unwilling to directly debate their intellectual adversaries) would be for them to ask ...........”
Conservatives have a class, communication, and culture problem.
A recent college grad, saddled with student loads, working two jobs, doesn't want to be lectured by a career politician about gay marriage, hear semi-abstract rants against big government, why rich people should pay less taxes, or why Obama is a marxist devil.
They want to know what so-called conservative politicians stand FOR and how it will make their lives better. It was refreshing to see Rubio and Paul address that partially. Unfortunately, they have a long way to go.
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm
your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the
right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the
Comment Guidelines before
By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's
It's your neighborhood, your city, your country, your world, and now your website. Brian Lehrer delves into the issues and links them to real life.