Who has the best answers for liberal taunts, leaving moderate hacks in their dust, with more and more taking notice with respect?
Right now there are two RNCs here in Washington, side by side. The contrast is instructive.
One, the Republican National Committee, is a clueless self-parody. The other, the (R)ush-(N)ewt-(C)heney tag team, is providing the real muscle as the Republican right begins to build traction in taking on President Obama and the Democrats.
The official RNC just spent the last two days wasting time and inviting ridicule—listening to a listless, empty speech by its chairman, Michael Steele, and debating the grand idea of calling the Democrats “socialists.” Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh hammers away at the Democrats and the president on radio every day; Newt Gingrich sarcastically attacks Nancy Pelosi on The Daily Show (and gets laughs for doing so); and Dick Cheney continues his high-profile, Iraq-star media tour.
And now that President Obama has had to reverse some of his campaign promises to catch up to the real world, it’s becoming clearer as the days go by. Conservatism is making a comeback and moderation is being backseated into irrelevance.
Ya hear that, Meghan and Mitt?
I’ve never been a huge fan of Rush, but he’s certainly a good voice for the Conservative movement (even if a bit too extreme by my own standards, but to each his own opinion).
But while Rush has the charisma, I believe Mark Levin makes better points. His book certainly was worth the money and time spent on it.
I don’t know if you’ve ever heard Mark’s radio show, but I finally did after a brief trip to NYC.
He kinda comes off like a raving, high-pitched lunatic.
I challenge you to actually tune in to Rush every day for a week and then come back and say that, fboiteau.
I have never heard Rush say anything “extreme” ever.
I have, however, heard many accusations from mainstream media and the like, all of them lies.
Funny thing about the real world. It plays by real rules and it won’t tolerate cheating.
BP: “Ya hear that, Meghan and Mitt?”
Of course not! “Moderates” value something higher than they do either principles or truth. So, when an actual truth (or principle) conflicts with whatever it is that they most value, that truth must become invisible to them.
@machine:
Extreme was too strong a word. I mean that he takes conservatism to a point past my own beliefs. I did mention on many occasions I consider myself a “small-c conservative”
I’m not on the hard right, I’m mostly centre-right and thus SOME things that come from the left have slight appeal. Not much, but I do see the benefits in unions for instance…if they don’t go rampant like they do now. I believe in welfare, but I believe it should be heavily “regulated” (bad word but I can’t find anything else) measure that would ensure people get off it as soon as possible and find jobs, not like today where people can spend their entire lives on welfare and work under the table, living off the fat of the gov’t but never contributing.
As for listening to Rush’s whole show, I can only get podcasts (i dont have satellite radio and AM bands dont carry that far up north…or at least i havent found a station yet). I’ve listened to bits and pieces, not those given by the MSM, and I dont always agree with him, but I do see him as a good frontman for the cause.
@Bob
As for Levin I’ve tried watching his show but i ended up on his week of vacation so he wasn’t on the podcasts I got. I know his voice isnt the best, but then again I was simply speaking of his talking points.
Mark Levin does make some good points, but I have to agree with Bob about how he can come across sometimes. And I was shocked to hear him go after libertarians, since libertarians tend to be more constitutional/republican than what we have as republicans now.
And, I have to say, I think I’m more libertarian-republican leaning as time passes.
I’ll take Mark over Rush any day. Yes, he’s rough around the edges but I can’t deal with Rush’s arrogance.
fboiteau – you can hear any of these personalities on the internet by googling “Levin (or whoever)” and “streaming.” About the first item out of the box will be for stations across the U.S. streaming that person’s show. It will show the tiime the show streams so you will know when to tune in by your time zone. Mark Levin’s show can be listened to from his website live, or anytime for free. He also has free podcasts of his show. Hannity, Rush, etc. do not allow you to listen or get pod casts without paying. Mark may be brash (it took me a while to get used to him) but he is an exceptional constitutionalist. Liberty & Tyranny and Men in Black are testiments to his intelligence.
You can listen to Rush’s show every weekday starting at 12 noon EST over the internet.
Try http://www.wnis.com
I can’t really believe you know what Rush is all about simply because If you think Rush is extreme then you should think Bob and B&R is over the top…
@machine:
I will uphold your challenge Mac, though I cannot possibly watch his whole show live, as I am at work with only a half-hour of lunchtime at this hour. I’ll get as much of Rush as I can to form a complete opinion on the man.
As for thinking Bob & B&R being over the top…
Well I don’t agree with everything Bob says, but I believe him to be an honest Conservative who has some very interesting opinions(which i usually share) and ways of expressing them, which is why I contributed financially on a few occasions, even though I don’t fully agree on some planks like abortion (I’m not 100% against it but I believe it should be strictly for extreme cases such as rape or debilitating deformities or illnesses, and not as a measure to remove the inconvenience of pregnancy.), religion (I believe in the possibility of a creator but not one who would actually give a damn about this one speck of dust in the Universe we call the Sol System) or “code-crackers” (while I do advocate for stronger punishment of those who destroy years of work in building a program, I can appreciate their efforts to ruin DRM which is severely limiting user rights on software – such as limited installations or inability to run software when not connected to the internet).
Given that most of the “code-crackers”, when they grow up, turn into extremely proficient computer professionnals (Steve Gibson is an example, the guy who coined the term “Spyware”, used to be a notorious “cracker”) and end up enhancing security in corporate of government areas as adults, their antics while teenagers, while serious, should not, in my opinion, be rewarded by the death penalty as we would be depriving ourselves of eventual adult professionnals which will have the necessary knowledge to keep code cracking at a minimum, which is what the last generation of hackers and crackers have become.
Damn sorry about the blob of text, somehow the formatting was screwed up, i did set up paragraphs… they just did not show
fboiteau: “… I believe in the possibility of a creator but not one who would actually give a damn about this one speck of dust in the Universe we call the Sol System …”
It can’t be both ways.
It certainly can. With about 100 billion stars in our own galaxy, and the universe being populated by millions, if not billions, of galaxies, a Creator would most likely have things of much more interest than ourselves. I’ve also entertained the idea that the universe is actually part of some unimaginably gigantic being (if you look at an atom and a star system, both look nearly identical) of which we are but a part. We cannot see beyond subatomic levels, but it does not mean nothing exists beyond that either.
But the main reason I cannot believe a Creator watches over us is quite simple: there is no historical evidence, except for a book written hundreds of years after the events it depicts to support any truth to any religion that has deities.
Statistically, there HAS to be several other species inhabiting the Universe(and personally, I believe that if one thinks we are the only sentient species in the Universe, then this person is egocentric because of the sheer statistical possibility. Which begs the questions: Is God simply watching over us, supervising our development or does he protect us from potential invaders from other worlds? And if so, then does he also protect those other species that exist? If he does, what would happen if they had the technology to reach each other and lob warheads at one another? Would one species be preferred over the other?
And if He doesn’t protect any other species but us, WHY are those other species considered of lesser importance?
Ah! So size (or mass) is the definitive determinate of intrinsic worth? No wonder everyone instinctively knows that an asteroid is worth more than a baby!
Fboiteau,
The form and layout of B&R doesn’t really lend itself to a “deep” or long-term discussion. I’ve posted something here if you’d like to discuss this more.
I’m not gentle, I don’t coddle. I hope you don’t take offence at that, but many people do.