Check out a list of 12 least favorite people on the right at Right Wing News.
It figures that Christians like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell would make the list. Conservative bloggers can be just as bad as liberals sometimes. And two of my favorites, Michael Savage and Pat Buchanan, made the list. But we all seem to agree that John McCain is THE least favorite person on the right.
I missed John’s deadline, but this is as far as I got, in no particular order:
- John McCain - United States Senator
- Tucker Carlson - Journalist(?)
- Bill O’Reilly - Host of “The O’Reilly Factor”
- George Bush - President of the United States
- Michael Bloomberg - Mayor of New York City
Who are your 12 least favorite people on the right?
Update (5:39 p.m.): Gee whiz, this post is hot! I had no idea that linking to John Hawkins’s little poll would generate so much heat.
Update II (6:57 p.m.): A now-deleted commenter brought up an interesting point. But for her personal attack against me, her comment would’ve been posted. She said, in so many words, that I was being tough on President Bush by including him on my list. Perhaps. But this amnesty-for-border-jumpers thing has got me seeing red.
“He can’t be all things to all people,” the commenter wrote. Perhaps not, but the very least he can do is carry out U.S. law and uphold the tenets found in a little document known as the Constitution:
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Now this should be INTERESTING. I’ll start: Ann Coulter.
Comment by Tiffany In Mpls — 08.01.05 @ 11:47 am
I’ll assume that he means “leaning ever so slightly right” as the qualifying criteria? If not, how’d O’Reilly make the list?
Yeah, John McCain’s definitely on my list, Bush is getting there. Sorry, LaShawn, I like what Savage says, but not the way he says it, so he’d probably make my list.
An based on Howard Dean’s recent assertions that “The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is ‘okay’ to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is,” I’d have to add Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Kennedy to my list of least favorite people on the right.
Hey, Dean called them that, don’t blame me!
Comment by Terry Dillard — 08.01.05 @ 11:56 am
1. Clarence Thomas
2. Armstrong Williams (yuck)
3. Michael Savage (he is just stupid)
4. Rush Limbaugh (I qualify this, I understand his game)
5. Sean Hannity (he isn’t that smart)
6. Ralph Reed (he gives Christianity a bad name)
7. Thomas Sowell (A goony fake)
8. Ann Coulter (hyperbolistic rhetoricist)
9. Pat Buchannon
10. Jerry Falwell (Gives christians a bad name)
11. Dinesh D’Souza (immigrant writer nut job)
12. John McCain (he is a sell out on both sides)
Hummm…I will have to think on the other two…
My favorite conservatives -
1. Alan Keyes (after I saw him shred Alan Dirshowitz in a debate I became a true fan)
2. Myself (I have to admit it, I am a big fan)
3. James Dobson (wife’s a big fan of focus on the family)
3. Newt Gingrich (he was a brilliant strategist)
4. Lee Terry (our NE congressman, solid guy, straight forward)
5. Ken Hamblin (at least when I was young and naive)
You know what LaShawn, I have sort of come around just a little bit on Walter Williams. He grew on me some when he filled in for Rush last week.
Comment by Dell Gines — 08.01.05 @ 12:09 pm
Could I just toss this out there too? The liberal I HATE the most is ——— AL FRANKEN
Comment by Dell Gines — 08.01.05 @ 12:22 pm
My least favorite people on the “right.”
- John McCain (cry baby, sissy, moderate)
- Bill O’Reilly (loudmouthed, arrogant, unprincipled, glory hound, egotistical goon.)
- Arlen Specter (is he really on the right?)
- Lincoln Chafee (linguine-wristed, unprincipled, punk moderate)
- George Voinovich (see McCain)
- Olympia Snowe (about as useless as a screen door on a submarine)
- Susan Collins (Who won? Then that’s the side I am on)
- James Dobson (doesn’t believe in spanking your kids and he believes you should let a child decide when he/she is ready for potty training). He is one of my favorites otherwise.
- Arnold Scwharzenegar (just a joke)
- Joe Scarborough (sold out to the left as soon as he landed his MSNBC gig)
- Mark Larsen (David Duke on the radio, racist garbage)
- Bill Frist (Soft as butter. This “man” couldn’t frighten a gay butterfly)
- FOX News producers (values only blonde white girls when it comes to missing people)
- John McCain again (just so he knows I am serious)
Comment by Raymond — 08.01.05 @ 12:26 pm
Dell, if you are conservative, I am the Queen of England. You are about as conservative as Gloria Steinem is sexy.
Comment by Raymond — 08.01.05 @ 12:30 pm
Based on the list at Hawkins’ site, and Dell’s above, I get the impression that republican bloggers don’t like strong conservatives. Buchanan, Falwell, or Robertson, I can understand, but Ann Coulter? Geez, maybe the feminists were right - maybe conservatives don’t like strong women. She’s correct on just about everything she says, and is strong in saying it, but she makes the list as one of the least liked? Color me confused.
And what in God’s name has Santorum done to deserve making this list? He’s an unabashed conservative, whom you know where he stands on all issues. I guess that’s too much for the current crop of godless, RINO bloggers.
It seems Republican bloggers want to be nice to Democrats, since their list would probably mirror the Democrats’ list. Sad, really. If this is the face of today’s Republican party, I’m switching to the Constitution party.
TV (Harry)
Comment by Inspector Callahan — 08.01.05 @ 12:33 pm
Some of these may be more locally related for me down here in Texas:
1. John McCain
2. Arlyn Specter
3. Rick Perry (Gov. of Texas)
4. Ralph Reed
5. Pat Robertson
6. Jerry Falwell
7. Pat Buchanan
8. Michael Savage
9. Michael Bloomberg
10. John Cornyn (Sen. from Texas)
11. Colin Powell
12. Tucker Carlson
Comment by Chris Roberts — 08.01.05 @ 12:34 pm
Inspector. While Dell is labeling HIMSELF a conservative, his reputation as established here does not support that assertion in any fashion.
I assume he is a very nice guy, but I would not call him a conservative. In fact, moderate is reaching.
Not to fret Dell. I’d drink a beer or two with you anytime.
Comment by Raymond — 08.01.05 @ 12:37 pm
Michael Savage may be correct on the issues most of the time, but that doesn’t excuse his disgraceful behavior.
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell may also be correct more often than not, but the rest of their play-acting TV shtick is unbearable to watch.
Most of the rest of the Right Wing News list is made up of people who aren’t on the right in the first place, so I’m as confused about that as Bill O’Reilly is about life in general.
John McCain and Arlen Specter as righties? Very confusing. 
Comment by RedBeard — 08.01.05 @ 12:42 pm
I think Michael Savage is very obnoxious and full of despair. He’s also rude to callers and dabbles in conspiracy theory.
Comment by mj — 08.01.05 @ 12:43 pm
Bill O’Reilly? But he’s independent. :\
Comment by Jade — 08.01.05 @ 12:53 pm
I stopped listening to Savage for about a month after he was rude to a caller. But I missed his firebrand delivery of the truth and defense of America too much. His rage is a double-edged sword.
Comment by La Shawn — 08.01.05 @ 12:53 pm
Raymond, what do you define as ‘conservative’? Do you define it in the classical sense, or do you define it in the neo-con totalitarianistic sense as you have been demonstrating in recent post?
I believe in the free-market minus the necessary corrections for externalities (IE Friedmanisc, I simply believe racism and its effects are one major un-corrected but correctible externality, which is where we disagree), I believe in competitive capitalism, minimal federal government, as many states rights as possible, and a strong power in local government, I believe in a strong military, but I also believe in the jurisprudence use of the military, I believe in the premise of the declaration of Independence, and the foundation of the constitution and strict constructionism.
I am for as many reasonable tax cuts as possible, for faith based initiatives, school vouchers, and a strong emphasis on restructuring the public schools system or destroying it all together in favor of local controlled systems. I home school, but I think community ya know.
From a moral position
I am strongly pro-life (check out my “I want my sperm back campaign) I am against homosexual marriage, I am an evangelical christian as well, but I recognize the inherent conflict between ‘free market’ and ‘corporate morality’ that is a constant struggle in a capitalistic system that seeks a moral foundation.
Heck, I believe in strong gun rights as well.
So what exactly makes me NOT conservative?
Comment by Dell Gines — 08.01.05 @ 12:59 pm
Dell, My test is simple. Either you is or you ain’t. I employ the age old, tried and true smell test.
I know it when I see it, but for the sake of debate I’ll throw you these bones. First of all, I have no freakin’ idea what a “neo-con” is and do not care to know.
Dell, the things you mention in #14 do make you somewhat conservative, but for some reason that is not the side that you promote on this blog.
Raymond in a nutshell:
- Christian or Jewish prayer reinstated in government schools.
- Mandatory reading of the Pledge of Allegiance in government schools
- Capital punishment for conviction of homosexual acts
- Marriage between one man and one woman only.
- Declaration that islam is an enemy cult and the official doctrine of our enemy. Will no longer be respected as a legitimate religion in the United States. All muslims indicted under this doctrine will be held as enemy combatants until war ceases or they are executed for war atrocities and murder.
- Flat tax no greater than 10% or consumer tax
- Male only military with a female auxilliary
- Purging of gays from the military
- Strictly controlled borders. Fences, snipers, military and minefields
- English only as the official language
- Constitutional Constructionism
- Abolish Title IX
- Agressive, deadly, nuclear, large military
- Move the UN out of US and cut funding to requests only for specific short term projects.
- Invasion of Canada to expand or Norther security buffer since Canada won’t do it.
- Terrorism policy tied to the destruction of one Arab city for every one American death beginning with Mecca and Medina.
- All muslims living in US must register.
- Abolish the death tax
- Abortion as a capital crime punishable by death.
- Abolish the Federal Education department
- Senators appointed by the serving governor to represent the state’s interest only.
- Abolish WIC, welfare and foodstamps as a way of life.
- Forced sterilization and short jail term for welfare mothers who ignore warnings and have more children while on the dole
- Yes on school vouchers
- Yes on faith based initiatives (exclusing islam)
- Football replaces baseball as the national past time
- Conservative all-male Supreme Court
- Anti-spanking laws repealled.
- “Dodgeball”, “King of the Hill”, “Tag” and “Kill the Man with the Ball” reinstated in government schools.
- Only ONE valedictorian per school. No social shenanigans
- Reinstatement and prosecutions under the Sedition Acts.
OK, I’ll stop here for now……..
Comment by Raymond — 08.01.05 @ 1:19 pm
O’Reilly is just silly. Savage, I can take inonly small doses. He is dead on when he is right, but he tends to drift.
Comment by Raymond — 08.01.05 @ 1:21 pm
I still listen to Savage occasionally, but too much of it and I am affected by his despair and consistent negativity. I appreciate his defense of this great country, but can only take him in small doses. At least he doesn’t always tow the party line like Sean Hannity–I feel like Hannity is manipulated by certain people and speaks from talking points to get an agenda across.
Comment by mj — 08.01.05 @ 1:41 pm
I think Hannity is a sincere conservative, but he can’t be too abrasive since pretty boy is his image and he has to keep ratings up.
Comment by Raymond — 08.01.05 @ 1:44 pm
Is this post only for conservatives to chime in on - if so, then excuse me but I’d like to add my input.
1. George Bush
2. Ann Coulter
3. Rush Limbaugh
4. Sean Hanninty
5. Tucker Carlson
6. Bill O’Reilly
7. John McCain
8. James Dobson
9. Ralph Reed
10.Jerry Falwell
Comment by James Manning — 08.01.05 @ 1:47 pm
Raymond,
I actually agree on most of your thinking…
Some I’m not so sure on. Excute for homosexual acts? Hmm….I’d prefer they just go back in the closet and stay there. I don’t care what you do behind your closed doors. But don’t tell me what to do behind mine.
Dell, You say racism is still a problem? I concur, but it’s on BOTH sides. I get called a cracker, whitey, honky, just walking in some neighborhoods. This isn’t racism? Not to mention that “Affirmative Action” *IS* racism.
Don’t tell me that you believe it’s ok to give someone less qualified than myself the job simply because they have the right skin color and I’m white, please…THAT would be racism as well.
I have no problem losing a job to an AMERICAN (I don’t care about skin color or ethnicity. If you love your ethnic background so much, please feel free to return to the country of your origin…I’m an American. Where my family originally came from has about as much meaning to me as the used kleenex I throw in the garbage) as long as they’re more qualified (or equally and did a better interview!) than I am.
Comment by Dan — 08.01.05 @ 1:55 pm
#15 Raymond, that list would appear to make you a paleo-conservative.
My list would include:
McCain
Specter
Arnold
Newt
They are too moderate/liberal
Comment by dan — 08.01.05 @ 1:56 pm
Dan,
Did you lose a job to some unqualified minority? You certainly seem angry about if you did because you mention your disdain everytime you post..
Comment by Tiffany In Mpls — 08.01.05 @ 2:09 pm
I really don’t like Dubya because I really don’t feel he’s very intelligient but I really believe that of most politicians these days. One thing I do admire about the President is his loyalty and determination.
As far as listening to Savage, Rush and Ann Coulter, to me that’s like me attending a Klan rally. Hate speech at it’s finest.
And of course, people like Arlen Specter and John McCain, whom the die-hard on the comment board destst, I really like.
Comment by Tiffany In Mpls — 08.01.05 @ 2:14 pm
Rush is like the Klan? Wow. I had no idea. [insert rolling eyes here]
Comment by RedBeard — 08.01.05 @ 2:29 pm
Tiffany,
Please give me one example of Ann Coulter using hate speech. Just one will suffice.
One rule, though: when someone says something that you strongly disagree with, that doesn’t count as hate speech.
TV (Harry)
Comment by Inspector Callahan — 08.01.05 @ 2:33 pm
In addition, using the same rule as above, give me an example of Rush using hate speech.
(This ought to be interesting)
TV (Harry)
Comment by Inspector Callahan — 08.01.05 @ 2:34 pm
Red, dear..that’s why it’s MY opinion. You ain’t gotta love it. LOL!!
Comment by Tiffany In Mpls — 08.01.05 @ 2:35 pm
Now THIS is fun………
1) John McCain. Plenty said on him already.
2) Jerry Falwell. I believe this man was born in a frumpy suit and anything that could possibly be considered the slightest bit fun he denounces as a tool of the devil.
3) Arlen Specter. He will never be as important as he thinks he is. Plus, he sold out to the liberals.
4) George Voinovich. I was born and raised in Ohio, but have lived in NC since ‘88. Because of morons like Voinovich and Springer I proudly say I am from NC.
5) Olympia Snowe. See #3.
6) Ann Coulter. Her schtick was funny at first, but has now become old.
7) Pat Robertson. If you’re looking for programming to enhance your walk with God, do not watch the 700 Club. It’s nothing but a platform for his political blather now.
9) Bill Frist. Has the man EVER taken a stand on ANYTHING?
10) Elizabeth Dole, Senator. Another RINO. We seem to be fond of those here in NC.
11) Lindsey Graham. South Carolina’s version of Elizabeth Dole.
12) George W. Bush. Speaking of RINOs…..
In contrast to some of the other commenters here, I love Limbaugh and O’Reilly. Blowhards and ego-maniacs to be sure, but look past the surface and examine their words. There’s a lot for conservatives to agree with.
Some of my other favorite conservatives - Michelle Malkin, Star Parker, Walter Williams, and of course, La Shawn Barber. And although he’s a Libertarian, Neal Boortz has plenty of viewpoints right in line with conservatives.
Comment by James E — 08.01.05 @ 2:43 pm
Inspector Callahan: I would refer you to my comment #27. Since you are thinking you are being real cute and also thinking I’m going to fall for the bait. No thank you. Not today.
Speech which is ugly and distasteful and seeks to divide rather than bring people together is speech that is hateful. Ann, Rush, Savage and their ilk don’t call people ‘niggers’ (well actually Ann does call people ‘old Arabs’ but I digress) but in their quest to advance their belief systems use their talents in ugly, hateful ways. I’ve no desire to listen to them just as I would have no desire to listen to the Klan.
I have just as much contempt for Micheal Moore and other far-far left zanies. None of them serve a purpose in trying to find true common ground.
That isn’t the answer you wanted is it. Well that’s the one you got…
Have a great DAY!
Comment by Tiffany In Mpls — 08.01.05 @ 2:44 pm
And one last thing. The purpose of commenting is just that to leave a comment which is an opinion. Folks on this board love to jump big and bad and spout off with: well I don’t agree with you/I don’t believe you so you need to prove what you say with citation this and quote that and weblink so and so. I don’t have to justify anything I say to anyone here, at any time. If you don’t like it, feel free to disagree at any time. I am not required, however, to have a bibliography evey time I’m allowed to comment.
Some of you need to get over yourselves.
(and no Inspector this isn’t directed at you..A lot of folks here like to do that)
Comment by Tiffany In Mpls — 08.01.05 @ 3:00 pm
Raymond, I actually like your list quite a bit. I think we are in general agreement. Here are my only quibbles:
I don’t want the government to reinstate anything (prayer, pledge of allegiance, corporal punishment, etc. )in the public schools. I don’t want government funded public schools to exist - period. All private, supported by vouchers is the way to go in my book. Schools can have whatever philosophy they want (Except Islamic, I’m all about banning that seditious, murderous cult) and parents can decide what their kids should learn. I don’t want the government in their benevolence to ALLOW us to do anything. I want us to be in control of our own lives.
I can’t get on board for capital punishment for homosexual acts. That is way too extreme in my book. However, I could argee with a jail sentence for public displays of homosexual behavior. Now, child molestation, either homosexual or heterosexual, is a crime that warrants the death penalty or life inprisonment.
Just build a fence on our northern border. I don’t want any more liberal moonbats joining the U.S. We have enough of them already. I just have to say no to Canada.
I would have to disagree with the all male qualification for the Supreme Court. There is nothing more intractable than a hard headed conservative woman.
Overall though, good list.
Comment by Independent — 08.01.05 @ 3:02 pm
James E - Hello from High Point! I agree with you about Liddy, but at least she’s not Erskine Bowles!
Least favorite (so-called) conservatives:
1. John “Sell-out” McCain’
2. Arlen “It’s MY committee, dammit!” Specter
3. Lindsey “Secretly a Yankee” Graham
4. Pat “Pharisee” Roberts
5. Jerry “Sadducee” Fallwell
6. Bill “Do what I say, or I’ll tell you to do it again!” Frist
7. Chuck “I get to be on with Biden again!” Hagel
8. Bill “Pompous Blowhard” O’Reilly
9. Michael “Friggin’ Insane” Savage
10. George “WAAAAAHHHHH!” Voinovich
Ann “The Razor” Coulter rules!
Comment by docjim505 — 08.01.05 @ 3:07 pm
Hey Tiff! Of course you’re entitled to your opinion, even if I don’t agree. Never would I suggest otherwise.
I was just expressing surprise at the likening of Rush Limbaugh to the Klan. Seems impossible to derive that opinion from actually listening to the man, so it struck me as rather odd, that’s all.
Comment by RedBeard — 08.01.05 @ 3:11 pm
Independent. My points are negotiable with other conservatives like you my friend. LOL!!
Comment by Raymond — 08.01.05 @ 3:20 pm
To James E. - you’re in Charlotte, also? I’m afraid this area’s love affair with Pat Mc. will never end unless he gets some real competition (which I don’t see happening any time soon). I’ve lived in this city since 1980 and it’s gone more and more liberal every year *groan*. Conservatism (the real kind) doesn’t seem to sell too well in these parts :-\
Comment by Sister Toldjah — 08.01.05 @ 3:29 pm
The purpose of commenting is just that to leave a comment which is an opinion
Look, Tiffany, I know you’re not going to answer this, but I have to say it anyway:
You have to base your opinion on fact; it has to have some kind of foundation. Your statement didn’t. Something like, “I don’t like Limbaugh, Coulter, or Savage, because I don’t like their in-your-face, caustic brand of punditry” would would have been an opinion. Not one that I would agree with, but still an opinion.
However, comparing mainstream conservatives to Klan members, to me, borders on slander. Don’t make the statement unless you plan to back it up with some foundation. Either put up, or, you know the rest.
TV (Harry)
Comment by Inspector Callahan — 08.01.05 @ 3:50 pm
#36 Well Tiffany? You have been challenged and quite frankly, I would like to hear your answer as well.
Comment by Raymond — 08.01.05 @ 3:53 pm
Raymond, brother, you are not a strict constructionist and most of your ideals listed as conservatism aren’t conservative ideals but totalitarian neo-con ideals. I keep telling you man. Call your sell Right Wing or something else, but conservative is not the term you should be using on yourself.
Rush is so much Klanish, but Savage is, I can see him cutting eye holes in his sheets.
Comment by Dell Gines — 08.01.05 @ 3:53 pm
Obviously Leftists sent their votes in - Bill O’Reilly and Michaerl Bloomberg are definitely not “conservative”.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 08.01.05 @ 3:55 pm
TV(Harry),
By Tiffany’s definition, nearly ALL political speech would be classified as “hate speech”.
Comment by Montie — 08.01.05 @ 4:01 pm
Inspector Callahan wrote:
However, comparing mainstream conservatives to Klan members, to me, borders on slander.
The two key words in that sentence are: to me. Meaning in YOUR opinion. Slander?? I hardly think I’ll be sued unless you plan to tell on me or someting…LOL!!!
You also wrote: Something like, “I don’t like Limbaugh, Coulter, or Savage, because I don’t like their in-your-face, caustic brand of punditry†would would have been an opinion.
If it makes you feel better I do agree with that statement 100%.
Happy now???
And I just know you weren’t suggesting that I shut up, right??? If you were, that’s quite rude. Which happens to be another trait of some of your mainstream conservative idols such as Rush and the like…
Comment by Tiffany In Mpls — 08.01.05 @ 4:10 pm
Great list. Glad to see that Arlen Specter & Olympia Snowe made it, as did Bloomberg. You guys seem to have forgotten NY Gov George Pataki.
BTW #3 Dell, what’s wrong with Dinesh D’ Souza? Why can’t an immigrant be a conservative?
Comment by NYgirl — 08.01.05 @ 4:10 pm
Now Montie, that’s just not true…However did you infer that???
Don’t you go twisting my words now, you naughty boy..:)
Comment by Tiffany In Mpls — 08.01.05 @ 4:12 pm
Dell, your label doesn’t matter. The point of the matter is that my conservative credentials go unchallenged in the right circles while I would bet money you get challenged often.
And I really could care less what you call me since you would be correct as Redbeard has pointed out in saying that nailing me down is like nailing jello to an air bubble.
One thing is for certain. I love this nation and I do not have time to sit around jaw jacking with people who prefer labels to action.
If you want to talk further, I’ll be on on that wall!
Comment by Raymond — 08.01.05 @ 4:13 pm
A liberal “shutting up?” You have a better chance of sweetening the Atlantic Ocean with a 5lb bag of sugar.
Comment by Raymond — 08.01.05 @ 4:19 pm
Oh I forgot to add Bill Frist, the stem cell turncoat.
Comment by NYgirl — 08.01.05 @ 4:28 pm
RedBeard and Insp. Callahan:
Maybe “hate speak” is the wrong term, but if you don’t think that what Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh engage in is extremely incendiary, polarizing, and insulting then I think you are drinking some very carfully contrived Kool-Aid.
Ann Coulter has been quoted before stating that she is not a pundit, she is a polemicist that is employed in debates to “stir the pot”. Rush Limbaugh is cut from the same cloth, they are not pundits because they are not authorities on anything, just very opinionated.
In that regard, Coulter and Limbaugh do engage in the same kind of “It’s those people causing all the problems” ways of speaking that hate groups employ.
But, I’m sure Tiffany will agree that there are people on both sides of the politicial spectrum that participate in this form of “divide and conquer” strategy.
Comment by M. Woodward — 08.01.05 @ 4:37 pm
The only way you could be insulted by Coulter or Limbaugh is if you were raised by the Kusinich family and went to a public school.
Comment by Raymond — 08.01.05 @ 4:48 pm
I’ve really been surprised to see some people here putting my favorite conservatives on their lists. Senator Cornyn is one of my favorites! Plus, with Carolyn Strayhorn teaming up with Democrat lawyers in Texas, I’m going to have to stick with Rick Perry.
To be honest with you, I can’t think of any conservatives right off hand that I don’t like. So, my list will be short and mostly full of moderates.
1. Hillary “the pretender” Clinton
2. Newt “I like Hillary” Gingrich (I’m still mad at him).
3. John “maverick” McPain
4. Comptroller Carolyn Strayhorn, for taking money from Democrats in the state of Texas
5. You can fill the rest of this list with various Republican senators who just aren’t conservative enough for my taste.
As for my favorite conservatives… this list is more fun for me to write.
1. La Shawn Barber
2. Ann Coulter
3. Michelle Malkin
4. Rush Limbaugh
5. Michael Savage
6. Sean Hannity
7. George W. Bush
8. Condoleeza Rice
9. Brit Hume
10. F. A. Hayek (dead, but oh so relevant)
11. Senator John Cornyn
12. House Representative Sam Johnson (R-TX)
Comment by RepJ — 08.01.05 @ 4:55 pm
Since people around hear have been throwing the racist term around here all willy nilly with respect to Republicans, I think it is time for “The Quiz.”
- Which party elected a Ku Klux Klan as President of the Senate Pro Tempore?
- Which party boasts as one of its most revered members, a man who still uses the “N” word and refers to inner cities where Black voters (mostly Democrats) live to the “lawlessness seen in the jungles of Africa,”
- Which Senator call the African-American, Janice Rogers Brown a “neanderthal.”
- Which former Presidential candidate’s father made his maid eat out in the car in the hot August sun while the rest of the family went into the restaurant to eat?
- Which former Presidential candidate’s father was a rabid segregationist?
- Which President affectionatley known also as “The First Black President” and “King of the Negroes” boasts as his friend and mentor J. William Fullbright (racist segregationist)?
- Which Party created the “Jim Crow” laws, poll tests and taxes?
- Which Party was proud of its support of slavery while another great party broke from its parent to form the GOP?
- Which Party created poverty-for-life inducing social welfare institutions.
- Which Party sports famous racists such as Danny Glover, Al Sharpton, Tavis Smiley, Tom Joyner, Ted Kennedy, Maxine Waters, Julian bond, Maxine Waters, John Conyers?
- Which former Vice-President was sued by his own Secret Servicemen for racial discrimination?
hmmm?
Comment by Raymond — 08.01.05 @ 4:59 pm
LaShawn,
I think an excellent topic for discussion would be for people to give thier own working definition of what a “conservative” and a “liberal” are. These discussions are always funny because I think people just use those terms to describe people with absolutely no regard for what the words actually mean. Let it run for a day or two, then update the post with the dictionary definitions and let everyone see how all over the place they are.
Comment by M. Woodward — 08.01.05 @ 5:11 pm
John McCain is at the top of my list so far. He is to put it simply, a punk.
I don’t understand why Bill O’Rielly is on any list given he usually doesn’t claim either side, at least on his show he doesn’t. If he does elsewhere I haven’t seen or heard him do it. I like Mr. O because he comes off as fair and isn’t afraid to critique either lefties or righties. He is the only pundit on television that I’ve heard actually speak up against the ACLU and blatantly call them anti-American. I haven’t heard or seen any other pundit do this on national television on a regular basis.
In my mind, there isn’t conservative or democrat, there is truth tellers and liars, men/woman of courage and conviction and cowards. McCain, President “won’t seal the borders” Bush , Spector, and Awnold are all cowards, period. If you are going to speak the truth then do it without reservation, no meandering about to please one side or another. You just lose credibility.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 08.01.05 @ 5:22 pm
#50 M. Woodward, that’s the beauty of conservatism, it is a big tent movement which does not requier strict obedience like liberalism does.
Comment by NYgirl — 08.01.05 @ 5:23 pm
Dittos #50. A list of Republicans is not a list of conservatives, nor is a list of conservatives necessarily a list of Republicans — remember Zell Miller (Dem)? Neal Boortz (Libertarian)?
And Bob Dole was absolutely right (1996 campaign, in his “What do they want? You can support 90% of their issues, but…”). Some conservatives are narrow-minded, bigoted, and as Dole implied, will cut off their noses to spite their faces. Dole is not and never was a conservative, but conservatives who love their country SHOULD HAVE supported him to defeat his 1996 opponent. Shame on those who sat on their hands.
A list of favorite or least favorite conservatives should reflect only conservatives. Names like McCain, Collins, Snow, Spector and Bloomberg have about as much relevance to any list of conservatives, favorably viewed or not, as Chirac, Kofi Annan or Joseph Stalin (NOT a comparison of character, simply an observation of general distance from conservative ideology).
Voinovich? My take was, and is, that rejection of his Campaign 2000 “feelers” for the VP slot under W left a bitter taste that he regurgitates whenever the opportunity presents itself, ie., the Bolton nomination. The good people of Ohio should get rid of it.
But how can any conservative dislike Rush Limbaugh and/or Ann Coulter? I suspect it’s due to HQD (humor quota deficiency).
Comment by Merry Whitney — 08.01.05 @ 6:12 pm
M. Woodward, what makes an authority on any given subject? Does it require a degree? Rush Limbaugh is an astute commentator and a quick study. Authority? I dunno. But definitely someone with a great deal of information at hand.
When Limbaugh says, “It’s those people causing all the problems” and points at liberals while saying it, all I can do is thank him for making public that which I have been observing for a very long time.
Comment by RedBeard — 08.01.05 @ 6:33 pm
1) Michael Bloomberg
Of course I’m applying the label “on the right” very, very loosely by including the RINO mayor of my beloved city of New York.
2) Pat Buchanan
3) G. Gordon Liddy
4) Alan Keyes
I still can’t believe that the brilliant Thomas Sowell–who, by the way, is far from the “goony fake” he was called in one list–would support Keyes’ farcical senatorial bid in Illinois, as he did in a two-part column last fall.
5) Trent Lott
I’m sure his podiatrist and his dentist have become very well-acquainted over the years.
6) John McCain
7) George Pataki
I have no doubt that he means well, and I thoroughly enjoyed the insightful commentary La Shawn delivered during her appearance on his show last year. But making broad and sweeping generalizations such as, “It’s somethin’ wrong with black folks” and “Black people are screwed up”–both of which I heard him say on his radio show–is unfair and downright offensive. His rhetoric plays right into the hands of leftists who prejudge all blacks who dare to even question, let alone repudiate, their racism-is-everything-and-everything-is-racism worldview as the self-hating puppets of anti-black bigots.
Of course, as his liberal, blacker-than-thou detractor fail to realize, a true bigot would not care if black disproportionately exhibited certain self-destructive behaviors. Actually he would encourage it. But the reverend’s over-the-top approach is all-wrong in my opinion.
9) Arlen Specter
10) Christine Todd Whitman
Comment by Jeff Clinton — 08.01.05 @ 6:37 pm
#56, Jeff Clinton, I am not sure I woud even call Bloomberg a RINO. He is a liberal who merely became a Republican in order to avoid the messy Democratic primaries.
Comment by NYgirl — 08.01.05 @ 6:57 pm
O’Reilly is an Independent and Bloomberg is hardly a Conservative or a Republican. In real life he is a Democrat who ran on the Republican ticket so he could win.
Comment by Real New Yawker — 08.01.05 @ 7:00 pm
I don’t like to play the hate game, so I’ll just name my twelve most beloved right wingers. Here they are in no particular order…
John Ashcroft
Rush Limbaugh
Mark Belling
Sean Hannity
Newt Gingrich
Michelle Malkin
David Limbaugh
Ann Coulter
Matt Drudge
Condi Rice
Donald Rumsfeld
President Bush
Laura Bush
Dick Cheney
and naturally… La Shawn!!!
Okay, I guess I went over a dozen. Oh well. Too bad. All these people rock and cannot be excluded.
Comment by John — 08.01.05 @ 7:58 pm
My list was incomplete, but here are my final two:
11) Michael Savage
I acquired a free copy of his latest book “Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder” through my job, and although I was amused by and agreed with much of it, Savage really says nothing groundbreaking. I also find his extreme hot-headedness a bit much. Honestly, this guy makes Bill O’Reilly look like Mister Rogers.
12) Olympia Snowe
Honestly, is she still calling herself a Republican? The jig’s up.
Comment by Jeff Clinton — 08.01.05 @ 8:01 pm
John - Except for Gingrich and Belling (don’t know much about Belling), your list looks a lot like mine.
Comment by La Shawn — 08.01.05 @ 8:04 pm
This is without a doubt, the most enjoyable blog thread I’ve read in YEARS.
I can’t join in because I could never limit myself to just twelve, but I want to thank LaShawn for having the courage of her convictions to do this. I don’t often agree with you, LaShawn, but I give you credit for the consistency of your beliefs.
Great job!
–Cobra
Comment by Cobra — 08.01.05 @ 8:16 pm
I know what you’re saying about Bush. He’s never been for sealing the borders. I don’t think he nor other pro-illegal “conservative” politicians understand the seriousness of the situation because they live nowhere near it, and they haven’t been victims of any illegal crime or terrorist bombings.
Comment by mj — 08.01.05 @ 8:34 pm
An “oops” PS: I should have said “Ditto, #51.” Sorry.
And an addendum, reminded by mention of John Ashcroft. I think he is a very highly-principled public servant, not least of all because he refused to use information he had (I know he had it, because I gave it to his campaign manager), which would almost certainly have won him re-election to his US Senate seat.
He was defeated, if you recall, by the cynical substitution of his opponent’s widow following a fatal airplane crash that killed the candidate. The Missouri Democrats ran the dead guy (with a very negative campaign which Ashcroft would not stoop to), won the election and, as promised, named his nice-lady-probably-but-no-there/there widow as a warm body to occupy the seat.
Comment by Merry Whitney — 08.01.05 @ 8:52 pm
And now a countdown of my favorites (don’t want to keep things so negative; life’s too short for that)–aside from La Shawn, of course:
12) Zell Miller (a self-described conservative Democrat who I’m certain is no darling of the Sierra Club crowd)
11) Milton Friedman
10) Rich Lowry
9) Joseph C. Phillips
He’s an excellent Republican columnist–and a Hollywood actor to boot. What a way to shake things up on the left coast!
7) Star Parker
6) Clarence Thomas
5) Heather Mac Donald
4) John McWhorter
3) Michelle Malkin
2) Walter Williams
Wouldn’t you just love to see him skewer New York Times columnist Paul Krugman in an economic debate? I’d paid top dollar for that.
1) Thomas Sowell
All I can say is just read his books and his column, then you’ll see why he’s número uno.
Honorable Mentions:
-Brian C. Anderson
-Herman Cain
-Nicole Gelinas
-Kay S. Hymowitz
-Donald Luskin
-Deroy Murdock
-Bob Parks
-John Perazzo
-Joseph Perkins
-Deborah Simmons
Left, But “Right”:
Tammy Bruce
This Democrat and lesbian feminist describes herself as a classic liberal and eschews far-left-wing, blame-America-first-and-always spin. She brooks none of the hedonistic, anything goes nonsense that many “progressives” mistake for liberation.
Comment by Jeff Clinton — 08.01.05 @ 9:05 pm
Jeff Clinton, I’m so glad you mentioned Zell Miller. He is one of my most loved conservative politicians. How I wish he could have been persuaded to switch parties. I guess at his age, he can’t help but wax nostalgic for a time when Democrats were sane and loved America.
Comment by Independent — 08.01.05 @ 9:22 pm
La Shawn,
I know you take issue with Mr. Newt. I admit, he’s made some big mistakes, but I still respect him for what he accomplished a decade ago, and for his sincerely upstanding conservative views on most everything.
As for Belling, he’s Milwaukee’s Rush Limbaugh, maybe better, if that’s possible. For around fifteen years, he’s championed conservatism and common sense both on the national scene and in my beloved once and future homeland of Wisconsin. He’s incredibly witty, funny, and always right about everyhting.
You can check out Belling’s website (www.belling.com)
Also, don’t miss my signed caricature and bobble head of him
(http://wisgrove98caricatures.blogspot.com/2003/08/mark-belling.html)
Or the blog post I wrote about his abominable suspension
(http://wisgrove98.blogspot.com/2004/11/in-defense-of-mark-belling_111645596882749442.html)
Don’t worry, he’s been back on the air for some time, and he hasn’t let up a bit!!!
Comment by John — 08.01.05 @ 9:32 pm
Uh, looks like my html links didn’t work! How can I include links?
Anyway, it’s http://www.belling.com
and… http://wisgrove98caricatures.blogspot.com/2003/08/mark-belling.html
Comment by John — 08.01.05 @ 9:34 pm
I’m old enough to remember when there was actual civility between liberals and conservatives. As a kid, I recall Eisenhower vs. Stevenson. Very mild contest by today’s bloody partisan standards.
This got me to thinking about just when things began to fall apart. There was a seminal moment in 1964, as Lyndon Johnson’s campaign began to rip Barry Goldwater as someone who was going to blow up the world. Irresponsible nonsense, but it was to reappear in 1980, a date which really begins the current state of incivility. Reagan was going to blow up the world. Ronnie Ray-gun. Reagan the cowboy. Reagan the lousy b-movie actor. Bedtime for Bonzo. Personal attacks from liberals became standard in 1980, and have festered ever since, becoming worse with each election cycle, leading us to the 21st Century spleen-venting free-for-all against George Bush.
Where will it end? I never thought I would yearn for liberals like Hubert Humphrey, but sadly, given the awful characters populating the left today, I do.
Comment by RedBeard — 08.01.05 @ 9:37 pm
How does J.D. Hayworth not make this list? Foghorn Leghorn, anyone?
Comment by Matthew Self — 08.01.05 @ 9:40 pm
NYGirl:
“…that’s the beauty of conservatism, it is a big tent movement which does not requier strict obedience like liberalism does”
Now that’s funny…I thought not following “strict obedience” was the trait of a liberal…you just proved my point.
RedBeard:
Does being a movie critic for years make one an authority on making movies? By the same token, does commenting on policy make one an authority on making policy?
Francis Ford Coppola - authorty on making movies.
Roger Ebert - critic of movies made
A current (or former) Secretary or State - authority on Foreign Policies
Rush Limbaugh - critic of Foreign Policies
The whole point is an authority is usually not someone who just studies it, but actually does (or did it).
Comment by M. Woodward — 08.01.05 @ 10:28 pm
Please forgive the double post but, in the previous post I meant “Secretary OF State”.
Oh yeah, NYGirl, here is one of the definitions of “liberal” from dictionary.com
” Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.”
Sound like a “big tent” to you?
Comment by M. Woodward — 08.01.05 @ 10:36 pm
M. Woodward wrote when defining liberalism, “Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.â€
You know, I agreed with liberal “reform” during the “original” civil rights movement. I DO passionatly believe in equal OPPORTUNITY for all. That was good change, good imporvement on old institutions. Then the liberal ideology got derailed. They became enamored of change for the sake of change. They started fighting for equal outcome regardless of work ethic, morality or personal ability. I have no problem with working to change something that is truely broken. But the liberals of the last forty years have been bending, folding and generally mutilating America to the point of abuse and cruelty. In many ways the “conservatives” of today are the old-fashioned liberals. Only we are seeking to undo the damage of overzelous artisans that were driven by over inflated egos and a sense of their own righteousness.
Comment by Independent — 08.01.05 @ 10:42 pm
Couldn’t get trackback to work, so my defense of John McCain is posted here: http://gaddabout.blogspot.com/2005/08/sticking-my-nose-in-it.html
Comment by Matthew Self — 08.01.05 @ 10:57 pm
My Least Favorite Republicans
My left leaning readers say I am too far to the right and never ever criticize anyone on the conservative side. Boy am I glad this topic came up, thank you John Hawkins! Hawkins held a poll that asked 50 right leaning blogs, who is their least favorite…
Trackback by The Political Teen — 08.01.05 @ 11:04 pm
Independant: I agree with you on most of your points but, the problem is that the same overzealous, egotistical self-rightousness is now being displayed by so called “conservatives”. Let us not forget the the special session of Congress for Terri Schaivo, but there is no special session for border security? Ridiculous budget and trade deficits? The fact that the Government is in debt about $28,000 for every American citizen?
Those are “conservative” issues. Old-fashioned liberals are still liberals, so if that is what you are that is what you should call yourself, that’s why I posted that definition of “liberal” because there are very few actual “conservatives” in Washington, the only one I can think of is Tom Tancredo. For those “conservatives” who were supporting Social Security REFORM (see definition of liberal) a true conservative would have settled for nothing less than the gradual phasing out of that liberal, progressive, New Deal and socialist program. A prescription drug benefit? A true conservative would have never entertained the idea.
Wake up call to all the “conservatives”…
Your President and your majority party Congress Criters are liberals!! The Democrats are just more extreme…being a LESS extreme liberal does not make you a conservative.
Comment by M. Woodward — 08.01.05 @ 11:04 pm
M. Woodward, you make an excellent point. Follow this mind numbing logic. Today’s conservatives are the new liberals seeking to roll back past democratic social and foreign policy, while abandoning old conservative philosophy. Your complaints with the present Republican party are the same as my own. However, I seek to bring about change within the Republican party because Democrats have ceased to be a viable option. Lord, what a world!
Comment by Independent — 08.01.05 @ 11:26 pm
Independant:
If more sensible people like yourself are allowed to participate in the public discourse, maybe not in our lifetime, but maybe this country can return to the representative, Constitutional Republic it once was. I fear, however my friend, that there has been a point of no return crossed over the past 15-16 years that in about 40-50 years the United States of America will unrecognizable by the people who founded it.
To that I say…Thank you Baby Boomers, you squandered everything that “The Greatest Generation” worked so hard to past on to you. More than that you “outsourced” your soul and mortgaged your country for a house in the suburbs and a BMW…
As a member of Generation X, thank you for my generation’s inheritance…the American Dream, nearing foreclosure.
Comment by M. Woodward — 08.02.05 @ 12:01 am
RedBeard,
I’m just old enough to remember Reagan and the politics he played weren’t ‘flower child’ like either. He played a nice race card and pulled the covers from under Carter by setting up the Iran-Contra deal. Sad to say that things will never be civil again. Liberals and Conservatives have no problem expressing their hatred for one another so we’ll just have to sit back and try to ignore the blood bath as much as possible. I’ve actually grown tired of politics. I’ve even stopped reading this blog as much as I use to. Its the same spew for the most part. I’m glad football season is here.
Comment by James Manning — 08.02.05 @ 12:27 am
Raymond, add THIS one to your quiz: Which party currently features a sitting U.S. senator who used to wear white sheets as a Ku Klux Klanner???
Comment by Michele — 08.02.05 @ 2:35 am
I can only think of RINOs:
–John McCain
–Arlen Specter
–Pat Robertson
–Pat Buchanan
–Michael Bloomberg
–Colin Powell
–Whathizface Phelps
–Olympia Snowe
–Bill Frist
–George Voinovich
–Christine Todd Whitman
–Chuck Hagel
–Rudy Guiliano
–Newt Gingrich (well, make that Republican that I don’t like)
Comment by Andy — 08.02.05 @ 2:48 am
How about all of the Step-n-Fetchits who voted for CAFTA? Largely Republican, and a great disappointment, and also throwing our nation closer to World Government.
Comment by Mark Slater — 08.02.05 @ 2:56 am
Bill O’Reilly doesn’t deserve the flack. After all, he’s a centrist.
What is RINO short for, anyway? I hear it thrown around a lot and can only discern from context that it’s derrogatory for centrist republicans.
Comment by Mike Marden — 08.02.05 @ 3:15 am
Hmmmm.
Righties I don’t like…
to be honest, I understand that many of the RINOs are the closest thing to a conservative their disctrict can get into office, so I take them even if I hold my nose. Maybe because I’ve lived in blue states all my life. I’d love a Tancredo, but in NJ they’d ride his type out on a rail (in a tolerant multicuturaly inclusive fashion).
Take Arlen Spector… don’t much care for him, but compared to who the dems would have elected in his place… I’ll take him. And keep taking him until the politics of Philadelphia allow them to vote for a more conservative candidate.
But anyway, my list of righties I can do without
Lincoln Chafee
Olympia Snow
Voinovich
McCain (he was cool before he was a media darling and camera chaser)
Mayor Bloomberg
Michael Savage (he’s just not pleasant… some days listening to him makes me feel dirty for agreeing with him the day before)
Andrew Sullivan (is he even still a righty?)
Righties I like, but think don’t get their due
Mike Adams
Bill Bennet
Walter Williams (he should do his own show rather than sub for Limbaugh)
Zel Miller
Tom Tancredo
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 08.02.05 @ 7:27 am
#83 Mark RINO stands for Republican In Name Only
Comment by James Newman — 08.02.05 @ 8:56 am
Andy - Pat Robertson is a RINO? How’s that?
docjim505 - excellent point; Dole isn’t Bowles. Too bad she isn’t conservative either.
Sister Toldjah - yes, we are stuck in a rut here, unless we can get Jason Lewis to run for Mayor.
Those of you in Minneapolis probably remember Jason Lewis when he was up there. Now he’s busy infuriating the liberal establishment here in Charlotte with his talk radio show. Wish he was national. He’s a true conservative.
Comment by James E — 08.02.05 @ 9:04 am
WOW, that was FUN! Hey, LaShawn, now let’s do our favorite Libs! That oughtta be a HOOT!
Comment by Terry Dillard — 08.02.05 @ 9:18 am
Senator John McCain is not on the right. He is from outer space.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 08.02.05 @ 9:52 am
“How about all of the Step-n-Fetchits who voted for CAFTA?”
I guess you’re in favor of all the “soft” America subsidies and protections that keep our consumer prices high and support companies that can’t hack it without government cash? CAFTA, NAFTA and all the trade treaties all represent the ideals of genuine capitalism, you know, competition. That is a VERY Republican ideal. Here’s another Republican ideal that plays by being a part of NAFTA, CAFTA, et al: lower paying jobs do move out, but they are replaced by higher paying, better benefited jobs. Read some Walter Williams to get the proper Republican economic perspective.
You want to talk Step-n-Fetchit, try the Dem house members bullied by the unions to vote against CAFTA.
RepJ-
I’m a fellow traveler in my digust for Carolyn Keeton-Strayhorn. She’s been running for Governor for years now by playing her Comptroller position in the press to embarass anybody who stands in her way. My only wish is that Kay Bailey was running for Governor.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 08.02.05 @ 11:19 am
Another Favorite…
Mona Charen.
I plead temporary insanity for forgetting to include her in my Top 12 list–the good one–yesterday. She belongs somewhere in the top five. Her most recent book “Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help (and the Rest of Us)” is an absolute masterpiece. I wish politicians and college student, susceptible as they are to the leftist fads and shibboleths, would read it in droves!
Also Linda Chavez and Larry Elder deserve spots on my “Honorable Mentions” list.
Comment by Jeff Clinton — 08.02.05 @ 11:22 am
12 Least Favorite Republicans?
Who are your 12 least favorite Republicans? I can start the list with John McCain, and I’m not a big fan of Bill O’Reilly…but I pretty much run out of ideas there. How ’bout you?
Trackback by Conservababes: Right from New Fallujah — 08.02.05 @ 11:41 am
Mwalimu # 89, I agree that John is not on the right. He is way left of center.
Mike #83, From my perspective centrist is conservative. Republicans are to the left of center. So to say RINO’s are centrist republicans would mean conservative republicans. Democrats are even more left of center yet they scream and holler as if Republicans are extreme right, polar opposites, etc.
Here’s a way to look at it:
From 1940 - 1994 Democrats were mostly in control. They had a majority of state legislatures, state governorships, majority in the House and Senate and from time to time a President. During this time the federal and state budgets grew and grew, more regulations were passed. More and more state and federal “programs” to help people were inacted. There are over 100+ illiteracy programs, one on top of another.
There was a shift. People were able to be informed in a different way.
Now, from 1994-2005 Republicans have been in control of more state governorships, legislatures, the House, Senate and now since the year 2000 there is a Republican President as well. The way the Democrats scare monger you’d think that there would’ve been HUGE draconian cuts in government spending and people would be destitute and the evil Republicans would’ve starved the elderly and taken the social security. Reality is that EVERY year the Republicans have increased spending in the state and federal budgets. For all of the flack that Arnold’s been getting he’s actually been proposing and getting increased state budgets. There are more federal and state programs and more federal and state regulations.
There is even NEW federal spending on stem cell research (not done before). Yet it’s talked about by the left as if there is this NEW ban on stem cell research.
Private investment to find cures via stem cell research is way more efficient and to me it’s not a right wing Christian wacko vs. common sense to do the science issue. It’s an issue that private companies will always and have always been able to do the research much more efficiently and the federal government should’ve never been involved. The left talks about it as if no cures will ever be found unless Bush includes all embryonic stem cells in the funding and not just the lines of embryonic stem cells that were already in use.
Moderation and centrism is a little to the right of the Republican party. Wouldn’t it be great if the federal government and state governments could curb their appetite for spending? Wouldn’t it be great if spending was frozen at current levels while the state and federal governments re-prioritized what they spent money on?
The new federal prescription drug program, the massive increase in federal education money (when the states have been responsible for education for decades until 1979 when the federal Dept of Ed came along- now it’s responsible for 7% of the education spending), more and more spending on foreign aid, airport screener workers becoming federalized, new spending for stem cell research. Heck. You’d think there was only really ONE party in power split between Republicans and Democrats just for show to make Americans think there was two parties.
Comment by Baklava — 08.02.05 @ 11:55 am
#90: “CAFTA, NAFTA and all the trade treaties all represent the ideals of genuine capitalism, you know, competition.”
That is the biggest load of propaganda bull plop I have ever heard. What Republican ideal subjugates the US Constitution to an International Court in trade disputes? The foundation of the Republican Party was defense of the US Constitution. You know America is a Republic, I stand for the ideals of a Republic, so I am a Republican? Do you even know what is contained in those “agreements”? Or are you just parroting the latest from Fox News?
Free trade??? Let’s look at the definition…
free trade (from dictionary.com)- Trade between nations without protective customs tariffs.
Even without tariffs (which don’t exist against American products imported into those nations), 99% of the populations can’t afford to buy American products. So I ask you, what good or service are we trading as a nation? And that being said, what is the nation (the US) receiving in return for that good or service?
If it is true that low paying jobs move out and higher ones move in, why is it that real wage growth in this country has not even keep pace with inflation over the last 10 years. If the lower paying jobs are moving out and higher paying ones moving in, why is that they only job sectors growing at record paces are low paying service industry jobs (waiters/waitresses, retail clerks, and landscape laborers)?
What higher paying jobs are being created??
Comment by M. Woodward — 08.02.05 @ 12:18 pm
“What Republican ideal subjugates the US Constitution to an International Court in trade disputes?”
That’s propaganda right there. If you read the agreement, in its entirety, the United States is not subject to any International Court under CAFTA. Disputes are settled in one of 3 ways:
1. Direct negotiation
2. Arbitration, with the panel chosen by the disputing countries.
3. Dissolution of the trade agreement if the arbitration panel reccomends actions that conflict with federal, state or local law.
No International Court involved, and the agreement specifically states that federal, state and local laws are inviolable under the agreement.
The only “international” aspect of the agreement is its use of WTO and GATT rules which we already follow and are a part of.
“So I ask you, what good or service are we trading as a nation? And that being said, what is the nation (the US) receiving in return for that good or service?”
First off, many American products are bought by citizens of Central and Latin American countries. We export over $15 billion a year in products to these nations. These countries make up our second largest trading partner in what we export. Stating that these people can’t afford any of our products is patently false. What else are we exporting? Investment capital for one. This will help these nations build industry for themselves and make them more vialbe trading partners on the world market. What do we get in return? 1. Lower prices on a large quantity of items that we all buy and use everyday. 2. A reduction in the influence of the Fidel Castro/Hugo Chavez partnership. 3. Potentially over time, as these nations see their standard of living rise, a decrease in the number of illegal immigrants arriving from the participating nations. 4. New opportunities for our businesses, farmers and ranchers to send their products.
“What higher paying jobs are being created??”
According to the Fed and the Department of Commerce, 3.7 million new jobs have been created in the last 25 months in manufacturing, communications technology, computers in addition to the industries you mentioned above.
I do suggest, if you haven’t, to read the agreement in its entirety.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 08.02.05 @ 1:22 pm
Chris:
Good points et al, I can admit that you obviously have researched this topic more than I. But, I have one more question, has NAFTA decreased the number of illegal immigrants from or increased wages and standard of living in Mexico?
Point being that the points you are making are best case scenarios, and has been proven in the reconstruction of Iraq, best case scenarios do not always come to fruition.
Comment by M. Woodward — 08.02.05 @ 1:46 pm
Q: “has NAFTA decreased the number of illegal immigrants from or increased wages and standard of living in Mexico?”
It’s like asking has using the toaster increased the # of knives in the silverware drawer?
NAFTA is about trade and it concerns Canada as well as Mexico. Yes. There has been an increase in wages and standard of living in certain cities in Mexico due to Caterpillar and Ford plants (as well as many others). Of course not up to our standards (no where near our standards) but an increase.
In other cities and all across the Mexican country there still is a will and tendency to want to come here for a myriad of reasons.
Unfortunately for us, it’s not about standard of living. It’s about national security and who is coming across the border besides Mexicans? Is it Pakistani’s? Is it people from Saudi Arabia? Until we get our border situation under control it will not be fixed (with our without NAFTA it needs to be under control).
Comment by Baklava — 08.02.05 @ 1:54 pm
BTW,
I was not endorsing NAFTA. I didn’t like NAFTA even though many Republicans did (including Limbaugh) for the following reasons:
1) Why did it take tens of thousands of pages to REMOVE trade barriers?
2) Why couldn’t it be one page that said “You will not charge us tariffs and we will not charge you tariffs”
Concerning trade, corporations and individuals will purchase goods and services from other nations resources (people and companies)… Unfortunately, countries will put a tariff on the purchase of our goods and services from our resources (companies and people) and my belief is it doesn’t take tens of thousands of pages to remove those tariffs. Tariffs are only a tax that gives the government revenue and raises the price of goods and services to individuals and companies.
Tariffs simply act as a price raiser and put brakes on goods and services being sold (economy).
Comment by Baklava — 08.02.05 @ 2:01 pm
M. Woodward-
I can say in the case of Mexico it has not. That’s why I listed immigration as a potential benefit, not as a probably or expected. Standard of living has risen to the extent that the Mexican government allows. Their defacto policy is to bring capital back to Mexico by exporting workers, not products. Real wage increases across the board will take place only when we slow down the flow of illegals and convince the Mexican government to act accordingly. Will it happen? Likely not. Which is another reason to add more conservatives to the “least liked” list.
Bak-
Excellent point in framing the immigration issue as it currently stands.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 08.02.05 @ 2:07 pm
I would much rather say who I like:
Clarence Thomas (He has largely stuck to his conservative roots despite enormous attacks on his reputation and has proved to be a consistent legal scholar, respected for some of his opinions. Scalia also warrants a spot here too, being the better wit and intellect and opinion crafter)
George Bush (Is he really the die-hard conservative we want him to be? No. But unlike say a Bill O’Reilly, a Newt Gingrich (today), or a Rush, Bush actually has to deal with real world situations and competing viewpoints and ambitions. Given this difficulty, I think he has done. He has stood ground on some issues, passed lots of legislation like NCLB (that the teachers and unions hate but which is proving to be of value in raising the quality of teachers and some test scores), he has boldly executed a plan to remake the Middle East, and he has made some good appointments. Our economy is functioning quite well considering we are at war and oil prices at the pump have doubled. As a black person I do get some satisfaction when he finds qualified blacks and gives them true power (Condi) as opposed to what people like Clinton have done, making a show of bringing in blacks or minorities, and then punting them to Housing or Health.
Also, I have listened (on my jobs) to more uneducated people deriding Bush for his lack of intellect than I can count. To me–and I was a slacker through school–he is just inspiring in terms of failing at different tasks and yet going forward, believing in his own mission. He is like a regular guy, no nonsense. Never has an “idiot” gotten so much done so fast. Yes he is not pure on every issue (immigration being a big major peeve of mine) but he has done much.
My list would also include people like Thomas Sewell, whose academic work provides valuable support for many conservative and capitalist goals.
The major person of subtance on my list who I don’t like is Donald Rumsfeld. While I applaud his execution of both wars, I think he made major mistakes when dealing with Iraq in terms of threat assessment and post war planning. I still get disturbed about the time he suggested that Iraqis were just “letting off steam” when they ran riot while we failed to tie down the country after winning the major battles. Stupidity like that has provided fodder for liberals to recast the war as some irrational adventure rather than the brilliant, and thus far successful, venture that it is.
What Bush is doing in Iraq (and its effects on Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon) is the type of stuff for the history books–if successful–and I think Rumsfeld has fueled the energy and voice of those who would like to see it not succeed.
Right at this moment he would be my chief serious dislike, but not in a hateful way, as the man is still smart and executed the war rather well (in terms of loss of life and sustained progress). I just feel that there were knowable risks that he chose to ignore thus creating an environment in the media that can undo all that has been done.
People like Rush, Coulter, Gingrich, and O’Reilly I don’t really respect all that much. Unlike politicians and others, they are talkers all, not really doers. I prefer flawed doers over perfect talkers.
Comment by Finn — 08.02.05 @ 2:08 pm
M. Woodward. Slight correction. Actually the foundation of the Republican Party was due to opposition to the Wig Party’s support of the slavery institution.
The GOP was formed mostly due to its opposition to the Wig Party’s steadfast platform of keeping slavery legal. Opposition leaders broke away and the Republican Party was born.
Comment by Raymond — 08.02.05 @ 2:41 pm
#76. M. Woodward is dead on!
Comment by Raymond — 08.02.05 @ 2:44 pm
Chris Roberts: Make no mistake, there’s plenty of blame to go around (Dems and unions, GOP *AND* Dems with corporate welfare. I just though pointing out a Republican failure was timely [Incidentally, Tom Tancredo voted “No” on CAFTA]. I would like to correct you on CAFTA, but Mr. Woodward did it in such a way that there is really little to add.
Raymond: The Republican party was founded to attack and punish the South, and to consolidate the central government at the expense of state/local government.
Looks like they’re still at it!
Comment by Mark Slater — 08.02.05 @ 2:52 pm
#103 Mark, that is also correct.
#80 The person you speak of is well represented in those questions. How this jerk gets a pass on the “being a racist” issue is so beyond me seeing that the Congressional Black Whiners holler racism on every issue from imagined voting irregularities to naming freakin’ hurricanes.
Comment by Raymond — 08.02.05 @ 2:57 pm
Hey #76 was saying what I was saying in #93 M. Woodward.
Raymond #101, Therefore the Democrat party should be sued for their involvement in slavery (as I’ve posted earlier was a bright idea by Dennis Prager now that the can of worms has been opened by the left suing companies for their involvement with slavery.
Comment by Baklava — 08.02.05 @ 3:03 pm
Another example of Democrats thinking the gubmint should control all aspects of your lives:
On the Drudge Report: “DNC: Bush Should Stop Playing Games with Physical Fitness”
Democrats use Bush’s uperior physical shape to call for more wasted money for publik ejookayshun.
They want more funding for physical fitness programs and blame Bush for fat, sorry kids produced by gubmint schools.
WHAT? There is this thing called parenting and personal responsibility. How about this cheap solution? Get your butt up off the couch and off the X-Box and go RUN and play real football instead of a video game. Take the twinkie out of your mouth. Put down the soda can!…It is free to do this!!!!! Geeesh. Another reason why America hates liberals.
Comment by Raymond — 08.02.05 @ 3:08 pm
I also think the Chappuquiddick case against kennedy should be re-opened and this time tried under federal statues concerning violating Mary Jo’s civil rights.
I am not being funny or sarcastic here. I further think the Kennedy’s need to give up their family’s crime generated wealth to charity or to the family’s of the people possibly killed during Joe’s bootlegging days.
Comment by Raymond — 08.02.05 @ 3:11 pm
Mark, are you really saying that by arguing that slavery should not be extended into the territories that the newly founded Republican Party was attacking and punishing the south? Hey, I’m as big a supporter of states’ rights as anyone, but I can’t get aboard that train.
Comment by RedBeard — 08.02.05 @ 3:35 pm
Every other civilized nation ceased Negro chattel slavery peacefully, and would have in this nation as well, were it not for the Republicans. They thought it best to utterly destroy a distinct section of this country.
What the early Republicans concerned about was the spread of the Northern free labor [read: cheap, ill-paid, and often abused Irishmen and Coolies] system to spread in the West, and they knew Negro slavery whould have foiled this. Hardly a humanitarian concern.
Comment by Mark Slater — 08.02.05 @ 3:55 pm
This is some discussion. Raw at LBC!
Comment by La Shawn — 08.02.05 @ 3:58 pm
As far as the foundations of the Republican Party, I think that we can all agree that the current members, save a couple, could easily get mistaken for nothing more than moderate Democrats if not for the ‘R’ after thier name.
Make so mistake about it, I think both parties are irrelavent in representing the electorate.
Can we get another party split? I think after 100+ years the country is just about due for one.
Now there’s a GOOD progressive liberal idea, a third party, or perhaps just the complete disentigration of party politics in general. Where elected officals would have to actually represent the people who elected them, not a party…
Hey, I can dream can’t I?
P.S.
Baklava: Ha, ha I said it first…
Comment by M. Woodward — 08.02.05 @ 4:13 pm
M. Woodward, again we are agreed. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, we are one bloody disaster away from mob rule. The majority of Americans are fed up with both the Republicans and the Democrats. It is frustrating to have to choose between the lesser of two evils (Republicans). Now, I’m still willing to work at a massive reformation of the Republican party. I could get behind a candidate like Tom Tancredo. But if the U.S. suffers a WMD attack, something all together new will rise from the ashes.
Comment by Independent — 08.02.05 @ 4:28 pm
M. Slater- Correct me on CAFTA? Why don’t you read the actual agreement first. If you read the comment thread later, Mr. Woodward admits he has not researched the agreement thoroughly.
Now I don’t withold blame from any Republican for advocating corporate welfare. Businesses should sink or swim on their own merits.
So Tancredo votes no on CAFTA…what’s that supposed to mean? Anything? That’s just another reason for him to say he’s tough on immigration. CAFTA isn’t what causes illegal immigration. Maybe if we a)close the borders and b)help these Central American countries develop their own industries (which CAFTA is designed to help us do just that) then the problem would lessen.
Maybe I should let you guys know my litmus test for conservative politics:
1. Pro life
2. Anti-illegal immigration (and will prove it, not talk it)
3. Anti-welfare of all kinds, corporate included
4. Anti-taxes
5. Pro free trade. No subsidies, period.
6. Pro strong millitary.
7. Pro vouchers in education.
8. Anti-preferences of all kinds.
9. Pro constructionist judiciary
I work in a world where my paycheck depends on my ability to win ballgames and graduate players. I have to compete at a very high level, or I get fired. Maybe that should clear things up on why I support CAFTA. Competition is the best generator of success. All the carping about real wages, job creation, and stuff has a simple solution: entreprenuership. Do it yourself. Work the extra job if you need to. Save money. Go out and compete in the marketplace. Invest in yourself and get retrained if you lack the skills. Take responsibility for yourself instead of looking for the government to protect your job. Where does it say in the Constitution that we are gauranteed good paying jobs that rise with inflation? Who’s ultimately responsible for that? Does the Constitution mandate material success and happiness?
Read Michael Barone’s “Hard America, Soft America”
Then you’ll know for sure where I’m coming from.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 08.02.05 @ 4:51 pm
They thought it best to utterly destroy a distinct section of this country.
Destroy how? By opposing slavery? I’m not seeing any moral dilemma there.
What the early Republicans concerned about was the spread of the Northern free labor [read: cheap, ill-paid, and often abused Irishmen and Coolies] system to spread in the West, and they knew Negro slavery whould have foiled this. Hardly a humanitarian concern.
So….. are you saying we should have permitted slavery to expand because Irish and Chinese freemen weren’t being paid enough? Interesting concept.
Comment by RedBeard — 08.02.05 @ 4:55 pm
Chris Roberts, I agree with your list of “true” conservative traits one hundred percent.
Comment by Independent — 08.02.05 @ 5:04 pm
Thomas Sowell rules.
Comment by mj — 08.02.05 @ 6:14 pm
Chris R. You’re in fine form on this thread. Free trade and govt reform need each other to be wholly successful.
Bottomline w/free trade, I will NEVER pay anyone–American or not–more than what they are worth, unless it is by personal choice. For our govt to remove that option is much the same as stealing my money outright.
Protection in any form only rasies cost w/o net benefit to productivity and economic growth. The exception to the rule would be in order to create a breathing space to reform internal productivity, as Harley-Davidson did with the 750cc+ tariff in the mid-80s. To their credit, H-D asked the govt to lift the tariff well ahead of the 5 year schedule, once they were able to reform and H-D’s growth has since been off the charts by all measures.
To claim that protectionism is somehow patriotic is one of the biggest lies perpetrated by politicians to buy our “lazy” support.
Comment by Andy — 08.02.05 @ 7:38 pm
“Every other civilized nation ceased Negro chattel slavery peacefully, and would have in this nation as well, were it not for the Republicans. They thought it best to utterly destroy a distinct section of this country.”
~Maybe I missed something but not every other nation has ended the buying and selling of negroes. Perhaps you have someplace particular in mind fitting the term “civilized”?
Comment by Mark La Roi — 08.02.05 @ 9:34 pm
Hi LaShawn
To borrow a (worn out?) ad saying: “You’ve come a long way baby.”
I began reading you awhile ago on a intermittent basis. Those seeds you have planted are blooming very nicely. I see you believe in the old adage to that you are who you hang out with. Powerline is one of my favorite daily’s and I read the post of your being on C-Span. I just d/l’d the vid. Going to watch it later.
I saw this post on the least liked conservatives too. Some I was surprised others not. I was a little taken aback on your listing President Bush. He has done a terrific job for this country. I trust that he is being lead by the Spirit and lets face it–it just ain’t easy being the Leader of the Free World. I know the border issue is very important to a lot of people. And I think that after all the unfair flack he took from this 9-11 report and the attack that he did nothing for 8 months when he took office and then had 9-11 blamed on him!
I would think that, considering how its necessary that he make the best decisions he can and keep our country safe, the border issue has to be right up there on his top 5 list. He has to know what he’s doing despite all the negative attacks that are being made to the point of hysteria that the Mexico border issue is another 9-11 just waiting to happen. I have been very concerned too. Fortunately as best as can be determined, there has not been any leaks of terrorists coming in. But only time is going to tell. We have been very blessed and fortunate to have had a President like him “for a time such as this.” I hope you might consider giving him some ‘reconsidered grace’ and place him on your “Favorites” list. Can we all be so perfect as to getting everything right we do?
Congratulations on all your hard work and for coming along as you have. Your example needs to be seen and heard by the youth throughout this country. There is always hope and success when you are passionate about your purpose.
God Richly Bless You,
AUSPatriotman
Comment by AUSPATRIOTMAN — 08.02.05 @ 9:43 pm
LaShawn Barber has an interesting partial list. She’s catching heat for putting Preside […]
Pingback by The Sundries Shack — 08.02.05 @ 10:53 pm
Mr. Roberts: I believe in free trade as well. I believe that CAFTA is a deficient vehicle for this. This is but a first step: highly managed and regulated trade agree ents, complete with loads of graft, masking as “free trade”, next will be a common market of the entire hemisphere, followed by a inter-political alliance, completing this game will be the total loss of U.S. sovereignty.
This not to mention the further loss of American jobs, squeezing out the American Middle Class which is the backbone of this society. Nor the codex provision: say goodbye to vitamins and supplements!
I will heed the opinions of Mr. Barone. Meanwhile, I suggest you read up on some of congressman Ron Paul’s (R-Tex) principled opposition to CAFTA.
Mr. La Roi: Perhaps you refer to those nations in central Africa who are participants in slavery. These are Black Christians and animists being enslaved. The traders and much of the leadership of these regions are Mohammedan thugs, thus hardly classificable as “civilised”.
Comment by Mark Slater — 08.03.05 @ 1:07 am
Reluctantly, I must now join the chorus of those criticizing President Bush on the Iraq Battle (it was hardly ever a war so I won’t use the term).
He is now, at least temporarily on my list of least favorite conservatives. I am not reacting emotionally to the recent deaths of the Marines whereas I think that losing only 1800 men in a battle of that nature is an outstanding attrition rate, but the fact remains that President Bush’s failure to fight this battle like an actual war by levelling the city and killing most things in them has all but insured that this endeavor, albeit initially noble will be relegated to one of the most miserable military failures in history.
Politics should never be mixed with war once the shooting starts. The only concern should be victory and then after the enemy has surrendered, talking and negotiation can begin. Negotiation on the terms of the victor only.
Largely because of America being skittish about the Vietnam debacle as well as now having it ingrained in our heads that every battle can be won with precision weapons and bombing only, we cannot accept the realities of consequences of a true hot-war.
America has lost its heart. Instead of becoming a tougher nation under President Bush, we are seeing no more than slight improvement over the days when America under Carter and Clinton was downright punked and no more feared than a school girl in pig tails.
While US Marines and Soldiers die in bunches, our bombers sit with engines silent and cool ready to end the battle. While bombers blast away at our allies, we are actually having a serious debate about putting one of the most ineffective, divisive FEMALES in US history in the highest office in the world.
I agree the battle in Iraq is a failure. for much different reasons than silly liberal Democrats do, but it is a failure nonetheless and largely due to the feminization of American policy and the commanders now leading our military.
Whenever you want to know why we keep losing battles. Just remember the names Shannon Faulkner, Paula Coughlin, Pat Schroeder, Barbara Boxer, Gloria Steinem and others who have made it their mission to pacify our once glorious military machine.
Comment by Raymond — 08.03.05 @ 10:15 am
I guess my mother is right. One thing that Democrats seem to do better than Republicans is to show utmost loyalty to their party. Of course, they took their loyalty to the extreme when Clinton was in the process of being impeached. Loyalty involves trust, and so I have to ask you who have put President Bush on your list of least favorites… Don’t you trust him?
It just makes me kind of sad, that’s all.
Comment by RepJ — 08.03.05 @ 11:16 am
“next will be a common market of the entire hemisphere, followed by a inter-political alliance, completing this game will be the total loss of U.S. sovereignty.”
They’ve said this about the EU. Nations are loathe to give up their national identity. Even Central American countries, with a common language, and similar ancestry will never, ever give up their national heritage. You really must believe that our leaders will give in to socialist tripe. The pulse of America shows that this will not happen.
“This not to mention the further loss of American jobs, squeezing out the American Middle Class which is the backbone of this society.”
That definitely gives me a chuckle today. It sounds just like the DNC/Kerry 04 talking points for the economy. Powerline ranted about this just yesterday.
37 million new jobs in the last 4 years (according to the Dept of Commerce), with increasing numbers of people being added to the job rolls every month. Manufacturing and home building are all up and the middle class is growing with an ever increasing amount of diversity (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians). So what we have is a growing economy with an expanding middle class. Somehow, somewhere, the MSM et al never report this.
Yet let me ask you this again, whose responsibility is it to ensure that we are materially successful and wealthy? Did the government designed by our nation’s creators have in mind an absolute that everyone should be entitled to at least a middle class existence?
Let’s get this clear before you start running with all your predictions. The rise and fall of the middle class, lower class, upper class, all classes depends on what the people in those classes are willing to do for themselves. Tough circumstances never took away peoples choices in how they can improve their lot in life. What most people in this country aren’t willilng to do is to make a choice like to sacrifice, penny pinch, get by with less, or go without. To them, material goods are a right. We are enslaved by our nation’s good fortunes and materialism. Good fortune must be earned. Far too long have we had this government safety net to protect people and make them soft to the realities of life. It infests every aspect of our lives like cockroaches. Yet, instead of squishing the bugs, we clamor for more.
Call me insensitive, Mr. Slater, but I am not inclined to feel pity for that which you rant.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 08.03.05 @ 11:22 am
Rep J. I generaly trust President bush, but my affection for the man is not trumped by my love of country and the fighting men who defend our libertie