A few days ago the post, “What Is Conservatism?” asked whether it was (a) merely agreeing with anything President Bush says, or (b) upholding a set of principles and time-tested practices.

Turns out the answer is (c).

Today’s editorial taking Rush Limbaugh to task for his boorish behavior draws a rebuke from a reader who writes:

Your attack on Rush Limbaugh in the editorial comment today made me mad and I now feel you are truly and thoroughly an extreme liberal and unbalanced news medium.

Evidently conservatism consists of swallowing anything Limbaugh says, whole.

Duly noted—with a sigh.

It’s bad when any group allows extremest views to co-op rational thinking. Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, all give conseratives a bad name. Like Kennedy, Kerry for the liberals. I’ll reserve judgment on Hillary untill she completes her move to center, preparing for elections in 2008. Who knows how far she’s willing to lean?

“Fox was definitely exaggerating his dyskinesia.”

And you know this… how?  The reality is that dyskinesia comes and goes.... and it is a reality of the disease.  It isn’t an exaggeration in the slightest if you are familiar at all with the disease. 

If you want a debate on substance, then debate the substance.  And don’t come crying when, if you act like a jerk, the story becomes “stop being a jerk, jerk” rather than your supposedly deep and important arguments.

It is amazing to me that no one in the MSM has thought to address the SUBSTANCE of what Rush said in this whole affair.  It merely confirms the point made by Coulter, that the Left trots out a victim as shill for their ideology, and debate is supposed to end.  Think Sheehan,the Jersey girls,and now, Fox.  It is almost Stalinistic in its desire to squelch thought.  After all, when you can’t debate issues, much less win a debate of issues, shut down the debate.

“Conservative” and “liberal” are labels that have lost any real meaning.  They mean whatever the person applying them wants them to mean.  And almost without exception the person applying the label is doing so from the opposite side; therefore, the label will always have a negative connotation. 

Add to the mix the fact that so few people seem to have a grasp of the various theories of government or have any understanding of what Jefferson’s (or Adams’ or Hamilton’s, or Jay’s, etc.) views really were.  Everyone (especially in Virginia) wants to lay claim to carrying on the great Jeffersonian tradition - but do you really want to do that?  On some issues, perhaps, but he was truly an odd fish.

The labels that applied then have no meaning in today’s world.  Anti-federalist, anyone?  Talk about the horse being well out of the barn…

Rush Limbaugh is not what I would consider to be a conservative, at least in what I consider to be the traditional sense.  And when it comes down to it, he’s an entertainer, really.

Anyhow… if that guy thinks you’re “extreme liberal and unbalanced” I can’t imagine what he would think of the New York Times…

In reference to Scott’s comment abou the French Revolution:

What’s also interesting is that our ‘Founding Fathers’ were actually liberals of the day. The ones practicing conservatism, then, were the feudal-lord types back in Britain-- who the early American colonists were railing against.

So now that I think about it, maybe someone should tell George Allen this. I believe he often refers to himself as the natural heir to Thomas Jefferson. That darned liberal rascal.

Bush is a dangerous radical. He has attemped to change every U.S. policy there is.

The Sierra Club, in their mission of CONSERVing of the environment, are conservative.

However in terms of left vs. right, I go back to the traditional terms based on the podium during the French Revolution.

If you want a change in leadership, you sit on the left of the podium, if you want to “stay the course” with current leadership, you sit to the right.

Once again, I concur with you that being a true (Conservative, Liberal, or anything else) is to simply Walk-the-Walk --not tell others how they should think. Its something a person lives, not just blow hot air about.

But I have to add this: Limbaugh was not totally out-of-bounds concerning the Michael J Fox thing. Fox was definetely exaggerating his dyskinesia.

Plus...one should remember that Limbaugh is a B.S. Artist. And because he is, he can easily spot this in others’ behavior.

Welcome aboard Bart!

Now I know which side of the blogroll to put you on.

Post Your Comments: