Election

Moderate Republicans Reappear As If From Nowhere

Note this entry is nearly 20 years old. The GOP is much worse today.

Moderate Republicans decide to take back their party just 29 days before the election. Good luck. The Radical Right calls you “RINO” — “Republican In Name Only” — and seeks to purge you from the party. The Radical Right would rather lose than compromise. mjh

[A real response to one of the moderate comments on the website:]

Proud to be Republican for George W. Bush
If you consider going to a far left Democratic party that exist today don’t let the door hit you in the ——. Shame on you for saying your a Republican. At least we are not socialist pretending to be Americans. If the Republicans are so bad, why do the Democrats have to slant their campaign to seem like they are more conservative. They can’t run on their true beliefs because mainstream America would never elect them.

“Socialists pretending to be Americans” — another diversity-loving Republican speaks up. mjh

[And another:]

With all due respect wimpy “moderates” are just another name for liberals/socialists like Mcain.

Dump Duhbya

‘you can be certain and be wrong’

Transcript of Thursday’s presidential debate

KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?

I believe that when you know something’s going wrong, you make it right. …

KERRY: [W]e do have differences. I’m not going to talk about a difference of character. I don’t think that’s my job or my business.

But let me talk about something that the president just sort of finished up with. Maybe someone would call it a character trait, maybe somebody wouldn’t.

But this issue of certainty. It’s one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong.

It’s another to be certain and be right, or to be certain and be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a principle and then learn new facts and take those new facts and put them to use in order to change and get your policy right.

What I worry about with the president is that he’s not acknowledging what’s on the ground, he’s not acknowledging the realities of North Korea, he’s not acknowledging the truth of the science of stem-cell research or of global warming and other issues.

And certainty sometimes can get you in trouble.

Dump Duhbya

Change Horses

baltimoresun.com – As Kerry hits domestic front, Bush drums security

“Time and again, George Bush has proven that he’s just plain stubborn, out of touch, and unwilling to change course,” Kerry said. To those who would say voters “shouldn’t change horses in midstream,” Kerry retorted: “If your horse is heading downstream towards a waterfall, it’s time to change horses in midstream.”

mjh’s Blog: Can’t Change a Horse in Mid-stream

Well, if the horse ignores your rein and drags you into a raging torrent that is well over his head, maybe you should. mjh [two weeks before]

Letters-to-the-Editor

In Which I Give All Liberals A Black Eye (and refuse to apologize)

I’m a conservative myself, have been a conservative as long as I’ve been thinking on political matters, and have known any number of conservatives over the decades. And while I’m sure there are ignorant, vitriolic conservatives — or more precisely, pseudo-conserviatives — in the land, after 30 or more years of being a conservative I have only met such people in liberal attacks.

Were conservatives as bad as Hinton claims, I’d have become a liberal about 30 years ago. But we’re not. Quite the contrary. In my experience the best place to locate political hate speech is in liberal expressions — Hinton’s letter being a fine example of this.

Granted that a letter to the editor does not provide infinite room for expatiation, but surely Hinton could have spent a few words on issues rather than putting all his effort into sneers and slurs. By restricting himself to such personal assaults, Hinton has caused liberals to appear to be what he claims conservatives are. — Robert McKay

Regarding Robert McKay’s response to my letter (mjh’s Blog: Radical Right Writer Rants), which was in response to Paul Linkenheimer’s letter [“It’s liberals who are whackos (so feel sorry for them),” 9/2/04]: I’m sorry Mr. McKay didn’t read Linkenheimer’s letter. I’d be interested in his response to that letter. It is interesting that ignorant of anything from Linkenheimer’s letter, McKay is still comfortable assuming that I’m the bad guy.

I respect McKay’s pride in his conservative perspective and his subtle disparagement of my liberal view. I think neither of us is truly objective.

I question one thing from his letter: “I’m sure there are ignorant, vitriolic conservatives — or more precisely, pseudo-conservatives….” I understand and share McKay’s desire to distance himself from the Radical Right, but they call themselves conservatives, they win conservative votes, they repel and repudiate liberals — how can anyone call them ‘pseudo-conservatives’? In fact, I have heard people in the Republican Party who would call McKay the pseudo-conservative if he deviates from the narrowest definition. The Radical Right will not become more inclusive and tolerant in the next 4 years — no matter who wins in November. That’s not hate speech; that’s the truth. mjh

Dump Duhbya

A Conservative Critique of Bush in the First Debate

Jay Nordlinger on Election 2004 & Debate #1 on National Review Online

Although the two candidates had the same amount of time, Kerry got many, many more words in. And they weren’t rushed words. Kerry spoke at a good, measured pace all through.

Bush said, “We’re makin’ progress” a hundred times — that seemed a little desperate. He also said “mixed messages” a hundred times — I was wishing that he would mix his message. He said, “It’s hard work,” or, “It’s tough,” a hundred times. In fact, Bush reminded me of Dan Quayle in the 1988 debate, when the Hoosier repeated a couple of talking points over and over, to some chuckles from the audience (if I recall correctly).

Staying on message is one thing; robotic repetition — when there are oceans of material available — is another. …

I hate to say it, but often Bush gave the appearance of being what his critics charge he is: callow, jejune, unserious. And remember — talk about repetition! — I concede this as someone who loves the man. …

Why did Bush keep requesting a special 30 seconds to say the same thing over and over? …

I’m thinking that Bush didn’t respect Kerry enough. That he didn’t prepare enough. That he had kind of a disdain for the assignment….

I have a feeling that Bush could have done just the same — exactly the same, no better, no worse — with zero preparation. With no practice at all. Just wingin’ it.

Dump Duhbya

The Look

Reaction Shots May Tell Tale of Debate (washingtonpost.com)

smirk? grimace?Bush has flashed such expressions — and worse — at reporters when they ask him hostile questions. But the public has generally not seen the president’s more petulant side, in part because he is rarely challenged in a public venue. He has held fewer news conferences than any modern predecessor, Congress is in his party’s control, and he has a famously loyal staff. In rare instances when Bush has been vigorously challenged — most recently in interviews with an Irish television journalist and a French magazine — he has reacted with similar indignation.

the lookAs questions continued about Bush’s demeanor on Thursday night, his aides have changed their explanation of it. On Thursday night, adviser Karen Hughes said: “On his face, you could see his irritation at the senator’s misrepresentations.” But by Friday morning, Mehlman said: “I don’t know that he was irritated.”

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." — Sam Adams