Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘RINO’


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 21, 2010

Friedn to conservatism, columnsit Kathleen Parker

I suppose the Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker is considered one of those mainstream-media-friendly “sensible” conservatives – the kind that doesn’t reflexively fall back on all of that “Constitution” and “Founding Fathers” stuff like many of the hate-peddlers that populate the right.

She isn’t scary like the throngs of sign-carrying tea-partiers who keep the shivering libs constantly having to unravel the knots in their collective panties.

She’s like David Frumm with big blue pearls – almost cuddly.

She poses no real threat.

She is one of those “reasonable” center-right voices that the mainstream media news outfits can summon when needed so they can say, “Of course we’re balanced. Of course we present both sides. We had Kathleen Parker talking with Bob Schieffer just the other day.”

Parker, indeed, may be one of those folks you’d love to split a knish with, but she doesn’t speak for conservatives or conservatism.

She is one of those tepid, non-wave-making, clever wordsmiths who believes it is a grave mistake for the Republican Party to espouse tried and true conservative principals. Such a strategy, according to her right-light way of thinking, would be alienating to too many. All of that ‘Declaration of Independence” stuff, and the whole thing with the guns and the Second Amendment, and always bringing up the Constitution and the Framers, and that God mumbo-jumbo … it’s just too much. To the Kathleen Parkers of the world, a shift toward the center is the way to draw the masses into the big tent of a mushier and more pliable GOP – as John McCain successfully proved in November, 2008.


Speaking with Bob Schieffer on CBS’s Face The Nation on Sunday, the following exchange took place:

SCHIEFFER: And you write this morning about some of the rhetoric that’s coming out from the right side, especially from the tea party, and you point out that you think it may be dangerous.

PARKER: Well, I think we have to be cautious. I’m not saying that the tea partiers are bad people or dangerous, but I think that the zeitgeist now – with all this heated rhetoric, and some of these words that are pretty loaded: “reload,” “targeting,” all that sort of thing – you know, there’s a danger there. I just think we have to be very vigilant. I do think there’s a lot of anger and it could become something else.

SCHIEFFER: I saw some of this really nasty rhetoric that shows up on the internet, where you don’t know who said it. There really is no accountability – the internet being the only place, the only vehicle that will deliver news that has no editor.

PARKER: It’s sort of like terrorism. You know, we don’t know where to aim our bombs, and we can’t go after a country because there’s no one place to focus on it, and it’s the same thing with the internet. You don’t know who to go after.

(see the video, direct from here)

Where to begin?

First of all, it might help if Parker stopped sounding like a typical, off-the-rack, inconsistent, speak-before-you-think liberal. (Unless, of course, she secretly is one).

Talking about the tea partiers, she told Bob Schieffer “there’s a danger there.” Yet, she insisted she was not calling tea partiers dangerous.


Tea-partiers who, in her mind, pose a potential threat would have to be, by definition, “dangerous.” She cannot have it both ways. One cannot say that the tea partiers are not dangerous and then, in the next sentence, say that there is a danger there. It’s like voting for something before voting against it. It nothing but mushy-in-the-middle RINO-like double-speak. If, indeed, the tea parties could evolve into “something else,” as Parker believes, then the participants must be dangerous.

Second, Americans are angry. They should be. They see the freest, most accommodating nation the world has ever known – the beacon of liberty for the entire world – being transformed into a Marxist-flavored nanny-state. They see those things that have made the United States the greatest country ever to grace God’s green earth being beat down by big-government-loving leftists who spit on the free market and have contempt for rugged individualism.

What’s not to be angry about?

But being angry doesn’t mean violence is the inevitable next step, does it? What indications are there that the kind of “danger” Parker fears lurks ahead?

Has Parker actually been to any of these rallies? Has she seen the people who attend these events? Has she noticed how well-behaved and civil these gatherings have been? Has she taken note of the lack of violence and ugliness at these tea parties?

The tea parties, in fact, have been peaceful gatherings in the true spirit of the First Amendment. The tea-partiers even clean up after themselves – something that Inaugural Day attendees didn’t bother doing when The One was anointed fifteen months ago.

Have the tea parties, in any way, shape or form resembled the anti-war demonstrations of the Bush years? Have there been arrests and violence connected to the tea-parties akin to, say, the “Bush=Hitler” protests that we saw during the “W” era? Where are the books written by tea partiers that depict the assassination of Barack Obama? What conservative think tanks or organizations have sent out memos wishing for the death of a Democrat governor, as was done with New Jersey’s Republican Governor Christie by that state’s liberal teacher’s union? What conservative groups have had members chain themselves to the fence of the White House, as did some “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” protestors recently? What Republican presidents have had comedians wish for the death of liberal commentators at official functions?

It's called legitimate dissent, Kathleen

Third, does Parker really want to say that posting nasty rhetoric on the internet is somehow similar to perpetrating a terrorist act? Is that the best a so-called conservative columnist can come up with who wishes to appease her mainstream media overlords? Is that what it takes to keep those invitations to the most important cocktail parties in Washington coming? Using the word “terrorist” and “tea partier” in the same stream of thought?

I’m curious …

Did Bob Schieffer ever question Frank Rich or Paul Krugman on “nasty rhetoric” when the internet was rife with “Die Rush Limbaugh” posts after Rush was taken to the hospital several weeks ago? Did the “I hope Dick Cheney gets cancer” blog entries, or the “Put Bush out of this nation’s misery” posts somehow elude the ever-vigilant Bob Schieffer? Were the swastikas too small on the protest signs for Schieffer and Crew to notice as the anti-war left succumbed to their Bush Derangemnt Syndrome?

To be fair, I don’t think anyone would disagree that anonimity is a powerful badge of courage in the cyber world. A large percentage of what we all see and read on the web simply would not be out there if a name and town were attached to everything that was written. And that goes for commentary on both sides of the aisle.

That being said, Parker’s language is disconcerting.

In agreeing with Bob Schieffer, she said it was difficult to know who is behind the anti-Obama rhetoric because “you don’t know who to go after.”

“Go after?”

Now that sounds dangerous.


H/T to the great Weasel Zippers blog.

wordpress statistics


Posted in Big Government, Media Bias, Tea Party | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 18, 2009

rinoFrom the “What The Hell Is Happening To My Country” file … or the “Phony Republicans, Get Lost” file …

I have to believe that somewhere in this nation are people who have actually lived through a recession before. The people of the United States cannot possibly be this frail, this spineless, this whiny and thin-skinned. A nation of rugged individualists simply could not have been fundamentally transformed into a dominion of unsure, frightened, dependant crybabies this quickly. The realities of an economic downturn cannot be so unique and so extraordinary as to inspire such intellectual depravity and idiocy from those charged with power. The so-called leadership in Washington already has enough of its citizens thinking that the country is teetering on complete collapse. Do we now need terrified, jelly-spined Republicans going along with the Obamacratic vision of nationalizing banks?

Dammit, we are not Sweden … or are we?

From the Financial Times of London:

Long regarded in the US as a folly of Europeans, nationalisation is gaining rapid acceptance among Washington opinion-formers – and not just with Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman. Perhaps stranger still, many of those talking about nationalising banks are Republicans.

Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator for South Carolina, says that many of his colleagues, including John McCain, the defeated presidential candidate, agree with his view that nationalisation of some banks should be “on the table”.

“You should not get caught up on a word [nationalisation],” he told the Financial Times in an interview. “I would argue that we cannot be ideologically a little bit pregnant. It doesn’t matter what you call it, but we can’t keep on funding these zombie banks [without gaining public control]. That’s what the Japanese did.”

Barack Obama, the president, who has tried to avoid panicking lawmakers and markets by entertaining the idea, has moved more towards what he calls the “Swedish model” – an approach backed strongly by Mr Graham. In the early 1990s Sweden nationalised its banking sector then auctioned banks having cleaned up balance sheets. “In limited circumstances the Swedish model makes sense for the US,” says Mr Graham.


Simply stunning.

By all means … if it worked in Sweden – whose entire population totals less than half of New York City’s metropolitan area alone – it ought to be a cinch to click here in the United States. After all, the efficiency with which government has been shown to operate speaks for itself.

How dare these petrified, lily-livered Republicrats lend any credibility whatsoever to Obamacratic big-government ideas by even suggesting that nationalizing American banks is an option. That such concepts are even considered as viable solutions in challengeing times is more frightening than the suggestion itself – particularly from those in the Republican Party.

It’s interesting how some on “our side” are instinctively quick to relinquish liberties when times are tough.

I’m curious where Senator John McCain falls on this issue.

President Obama said that the signing of the $787 billion porktabulous spending bill into law would not immediately turn the economy around, but that it was, in fact, the “beginning of the end.”

Sadly, he may be right.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 23, 2009

harmless fuzz ball

harmless fuzz ball

Dignity, wherefore art thou?

The President sure is making friends off the bat, isn’t he? His silly glove across the face of Rush Limbaugh is already filling up blog space everywhere tonight – and rightly so. It’s been a while since we’ve seen this kind of pettiness coming from the White House. This is just the latest in what has been nearly four days of yanking away the so-called olive branch Barack Obama spent the better part of his campaign promising to extend to the other side and shoving it into the nether regions of his opponents.

After all, in his own words, “I won.” (I’ll get to that in a moment).

Let’s run through a quick checklist …

He has already endeared himself to the families of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks by announcing the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. He’s reached out to pro-lifers by lifting the ban on overseas abortion funding. His economic advisor has decided that white professionals are not good enough for the rebuilding of America’s infrastructure. The benediction at his inauguration was, arguably, the most racist prayer I have heard this side of Jeremiah Wright. And he’s already proven what a ray of sunshine he is in dealing with questions he doesn’t wish to answer.

Why can’t he just eat his waffle?

And now this.

To review … according to the New York Post:

President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

Recall, it was Obama-drooler, former Secretary of State Colin Powell – a Republicrat – who made similar remarks against Limbaugh not too long ago, warning the Republican Party to stop “all the shouting.”

This time, the newest attack against the nation’s top radio talker is coming from the very top. (Not that Limbaugh cannot handle it, believe me).

But it’s not just the signing of Executive Orders in public that keeps the President looking most off kilter, it is the fact that he actually took time to comment on and condemn those who might listen to Rush Limbaugh’s radio program – this while Obama was attempting to sell his out-of-control “socialism here we come” stimulus package to Republicans.

Perhaps if more members of the GOP actually did expend a little time listening to Rush Limbaugh instead of worrying about how to get Charlie Gibson and Matt Lauer to like them, the 2008 election might have ended with different results. Then, We the People would not have to witness the nation’s Chief Executive come across as petty and unpresidential.

What precisely is The One hoping to achieve here?

RINO #1: “You know, he’s right. We must stop listening to Limbaugh.”
RINO #2: “He is right. I hadn’t thought of it that way before.”
RINO #3: “What do we do now?”
RINO #4: “Don’t worry. The Messiah will tell us what to do.”

Remember, unity is defined as having everyone think as Obama does.

While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House’s Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message.

“I won,” he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. “I will trump you on that.”

The response was to the objection by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) to the president’s proposal to increase benefits for low-income workers who don’t owe federal income taxes.

Good for you, Jon.

We are experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis that has to be dealt with and dealt with rapidly,” Obama said during the meeting. Republicans say that is too big a burden for a nation already crippled by debt and that it doesn’t do enough to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes.

“You know, I’m concerned about the size of the package. And I’m concerned about some of the spending that’s in there, [about] … how you can spend hundreds of millions on contraceptives,” House GOP Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) later said. “How does that stimulate the economy?”

But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs countered: “There was a lot of agreement in that room this morning about the notion that we’re facing an economic crisis unlike we’ve seen in quite some time … There was agreement that we must act quickly to stimulate the economy, create jobs, put money back in people’s pockets.”

Gibbs disagreed with those who called the meeting window dressing.

“The president is certainly going to listen to any ideas,” he said. “He will also go to Capitol Hill the beginning of next week to talk to Republican caucuses and solicit their input and their ideas.”

Two things here …

One, this is not – repeat not – an unprecedented economic crisis. By every measure, not only does the current recession not even qualify to be mentioned in the same paragraph as the Great Depression, but it doesn’t even compare to the economic woes Ronald Reagan inherited when he took office.

Facts are facts.

President of the United States

President of the United States

Two, anyone who believes that the President is going to listen to any ideas that does not involve growing the government by leaps and bounds, please stand on your head.

Will Obama, for instance, be as open-minded about how to handle the economy as he has been on the “case closed” verdict on Global Warming? How many of a rapidly growing list of reputable dissenters has he actually talked to on the subject?

How about his resurrection of the New Deal? Has he talked to any of a number of respected economists who believe that FDR’s big government approach to saving the floundering economy actually prolonged the Great Depression?

And how quickly did President Obama put an axe to Guantanamo Bay? Was it necessary to kill it on his second day in office without having a specific plan – or any plan, for that matter – on what to do with the terrorists who are detained there? Would it have been at all unreasonable to try and formulate a proposal slightly more worthy of the most powerful nation on Earth?

Incidentally, Rush Limbaugh’s radio program returns Monday at 12 Noon EST, live.

I might just give it a listen.


Update: 10:16 PM, 24 January 2009

Byron York, at National Review Online’s The Corner, spoke to Rush Limbaugh early on Saturday to get his response to the BAM attack.

In part, Rush said:

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier’s plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.

Read the entire response here.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Conservatism, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, Talk-Radio | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »