| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
Let none of the following be misconstrued as a defense of Steele's comments:
It really annoys me how news reports will report what someone says, but then bury where it was said. Especially with politicians, the audience is important. Notice the context is finally given in the above link in the 5th or 6th paragraph, well after quoted responses are taken from people who weren't even there. |
That still does not make it right to make contradictory statements, also known as lies, just because they are said in different places.
|
I fixed your quotation. It lacked very relevant information. |
I read that. So if your point is not that context makes it OK, what is it? |
C'mon, ba.
My point is that journalists often don't give us context when they report what a politician says. As OTOH notes, the context may actually damn the politician more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
C'mon, ba.
My point is that journalists often don't give us context when they report what a politician says. As OTOH notes, the context may actually damn the politician more. |
OK, Ha. So then MS is even stupider than we were given to believe. That is something I'll go for.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ReeseDog
Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Location: Classified
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stupid as stupid gets...
...oh, I'm sorry. I though you mean Michael Moore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The reason Kristol and his neocon pals (Liz Cheney, Charles Krauthammer, Lindsey Graham, John McCain) are now calling for Steele�s head is not because they merely disagree with the RNC chairman�but because he committed heresy. |
This paleoconservative defense of Steele makes it sound as if he was going against the Republican leadership in criticizing the Afghan War. But as far as I can tell, he wasn't. Yes, he was saying the Afghan war is unwinnable, but at the same time he was trying to make it sound as if the war was entirely a Democratic concoction. Which of course is a complete fantasy.
So, ultimately, I think the neo-cons are right about this: If Steels really believes what he claims to believe, he should resign from his current leadership position in the GOP, and criticize that party from some other perch. He cannot, under the current circumstances, attack the war while also claiming to speak as the public face of the Republican Party. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| attack the war while also claiming to speak as the public face of the Republican Party. |
Because the neo-cons colonized the GOP in the 70-80's any attempt to take it back must happen from some other perch? No. The neo-cons were ruthless in their colonial project. They're just continuing on. MS should be congratulated for stepping on their toes. Remember "big tent"? The big tent includes people who disagree with Kristol and Podhoritz. If not we can just call it the America-Israeli party with some WASP puppets. Though that might upset some people (Kristol and Podhoritz).
Paleoconservative is a meaningless term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| MS should be congratulated for stepping on their toes. |
But that's the thing. By framing it as "Obama's war", he's trying to make it sound as if he's NOT stepping on the neo-cons' toes. He wants to have it both ways, and he can't.
| Quote: |
| the neo-cons colonized the GOP in the 70-80's |
You know it and I know it, but that's not what Steele is saying. If he were sincerely trying to advance the same critique as Ron Paul et al, he would talk about this neo-con colonization. But then he'd have to admit that he is the leader and public face of the colonized party. In which case, it would be pretty dificult for him to continue in that role, wouldn't you say?
I don't think Steele's current status is anything comparable to Paul's. Because Paul pretty much openly portrays himself as a maverick, trying to lead an insurgency against the dominant trend in Republican foreign-policy. Steele can't really do that as long as he wants to remain the chairman of the RNC.
Last edited by On the other hand on Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:07 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Paleoconservative is a meaningless term. |
Yeah, I was using it for easy reference. It's the term that gets applied to The American Conservative magazine, so I guess I could have used that as my synechdoche. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What do the conservatives think of Neo-Cons? I'm not one, but if I was I would find it disturbing. The Neo-cons foreign policy is the worst type of idealistic liberal thought process, yet it is what it means to be a mainstream republican today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| What do the conservatives think of Neo-Cons? |
There is an honest answer and a politically correct answer. Which do you want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| What do the conservatives think of Neo-Cons? |
There is an honest answer and a politically correct answer. Which do you want. |
Honest, I think I already know the other one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| By framing it as "Obama's war", he's trying to make it sound as if he's NOT stepping on the neo-cons' toes. He wants to have it both ways, and he can't. |
Obama is a neo-con. He is stepping on neo-con toes. This is Obama's war now.
| Quote: |
| he would talk about this neo-con colonization. |
Do you think he knows? I doubt he's reading Sam Francis and Paul Gottfried about the colonization. You have to dig really deep into some very angry writing to really figure out why the American GOP is as it is.
| Quote: |
| But then he'd have to admit that he is the leader and public face of the colonized party. In which case, it would be pretty dificult for him to continue in that role, wouldn't you say? |
If he knew and then yes. I think they guy merely has a feeling about something or other and doesn't understand the intellectual context that gave us the modern GOP. I think he thought "war isn't going well" and let it slip.
This is how the neo-cons won. They destroy the career of anyone who gets in their way. See Glenn Greenwald's recent columns. They are ruthless. MS must not be forced out. They must not be given yet another victory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| What do the conservatives think of Neo-Cons? |
There is an honest answer and a politically correct answer. Which do you want. |
Honest, I think I already know the other one. |
This is what American conservatives think of neo-cons:
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/UnderstandJI-3.htm
I am not an American conservative, so don't shout at me after reading (all) of that. I'm a Canadian conservative/libertarian/classical liberal (depending on the issue, election cycle and moon phase) which is different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Obama is a neo-con. He is stepping on neo-con toes. This is Obama's war now.
|
Well, that might be true as far as it goes. But let's face it: I don't think Steele's intended message was "the neo-cons are bad", with neo-cons meant to be understood as a political tendency impacting both parties. It's pretty clear to me that his audience was meant to think that the Republican Party had nothing to do with the war.
| Quote: |
I think they guy merely has a feeling about something or other and doesn't understand the intellectual context that gave us the modern GOP. I think he thought "war isn't going well" and let it slip.
|
I personally don't think that anything "slipped". What I think happened was that Steele figured public opinion would soon shift decisively against the war, and decided to engage in some ad hoc backpedalling away from the pro-war position. It's an old political game ie. blame your opponent for something that you advocated as well, and hope the public won't notice. Steele was just playing it REALLY ineptly in this case.
| Quote: |
| If he knew and then yes. I think they guy merely has a feeling about something or other and doesn't understand the intellectual context that gave us the modern GOP. |
You know, I might find it hard to believe that Steele was unaware of the neo-con influence on the GOP when he made that speech. But then I remember this anecdote...
| Quote: |
Notwithstanding this episode, Bush 43 still sometimes drew on his father's wide knowledge of the world. Though he refused to read newspapers, he was aware of criticism that his administration had been excessively beholden to a particular clique, and wanted to know more about them. One day during that holiday, according to friends of the family, 43 asked his father, "What's a neocon?"
"Do you want names, or a description?" answered 41.
"Description."
"Well," said the former president of the United States, "I'll give it to you in one word: Israel."
|
This exchange took place when Bush II had been president for four years.
link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Notwithstanding this episode, Bush 43 still sometimes drew on his father's wide knowledge of the world. Though he refused to read newspapers, he was aware of criticism that his administration had been excessively beholden to a particular clique, and wanted to know more about them. One day during that holiday, according to friends of the family, 43 asked his father, "What's a neocon?"
"Do you want names, or a description?" answered 41.
"Description."
"Well," said the former president of the United States, "I'll give it to you in one word: Israel."
|
This exchange took place when Bush II had been president for four years.
link |
Oh my lord. I can't believe that.
Kristol's pushing Sarah Palin on us now makes sense. They (neo-cons) find dumb WASP's who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground and present them to public after a process of Israel-first vetting.
Lindsey Graham is another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlVCH1j7Enc
Last edited by mises on Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
