That doofus insulting Rush is as tone deaf as a liberal politician who would diss the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Bicurious, Transgender, Cisgendered, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Polysexual, Pansexual, Two Spirit, Drag King, Drag Queen, Closeted, Queer Youth, and Curious community.

Let's get that limp dick out of the Chairmanship and get a true man of steel in there.

Rush Limbaugh just made a speech that has the whole blogosphere, and the conservative base lit up like a Christmas tree. He's the only one out there who is articulating the values and ideals that made Reagan's revolution possible. And this is the thanks he gets? Sorry, Steele. Rush won't fit under the bus. If the Republican party had half a brain, they'd put Rush in the driver's seat. He's the only one out there with a sense of direction. Hell. Replace Steele with that cool bubble headed fish. At least the fish is interesting.

JWM

Dear Mr. Steele:

Leaving your lunch money at the house does not mean you "win" against the bully. You don't eat lunch, and the bully just makes a note to catch you on the weekend.

CPAC didn't generate a public call for the resignation of Specter and Snow. Guess I'm all out of party politics until something else pops up.

Steele is a rino at best. Your comments as always are spot on. He should stop the big tent crap, parties are ideas not skin color. His election to the chair at RNC is a disaster. Republicans can you say Whig.

Somebody's gotta say it: Michael Steele is the RNC chair because of Affirmative Action.

The guy got points because he's, uh, colored. I don't give a shit if he's green, he's the wrong person at the wrong time. Lefties have got the whole country so goddam afraid of their own shadows that nobody can point out that Pelosi's and Hillary's problem is that they're female and Can't Understand Normal Thinking, and that the Dems won by whining about race, and on and on and on.

F*ck a bunch of bipartisanship and getting along. If the country's gonna model itself after Sean Penn and a bunch of actresses, I don't want any. Having a Republican in office don't mean shit if it's somebody approved of by Brooks, Frum, et al, and if Steele can't lead or follow, he'd best just shut up and get out of the way.

Dear Gerard,

You really shouldn't put hot sauce on your oatmeal.

Regards,
Roy

There are only 2 men near the Republican party that can speak about ideas, with passion, and do it often: Rush and Newt. Rush won't run for anything and Newt will be destroyed or coopted.

I think our fundamental problem is that the rank-and-file members and former members outsource the defense of ideas to people that make a living defending the ideas. I can't tell you the number fo times over the years I've had or heard a conversation similar to the following with people who profess to be cast-iron conservatives: "hey what do you think about this Obama fella, he seems to be the type of Dem we might be able to support for a charge."

If you are conservative, don't let a liberal speak without stepping in and correcting his lies. Don't let a liberal myth be uttered before a small gathering or a large crowd without refuting it. If you aren't prepared to engage the argument, without notice and without support from others, you are allowing liberals to win by default. Don't just feel liberal ideas are wrong, be able to speak for as long as necessary with as many facts and examples as necessary to prove your point.

Why aren't the states and cities with the longest history of liberal government surging ahead with robust prosperity and equality and security? Why are San Fran and Seattle public toilets disguised as cities?

It's not enough to fill your time with very-talented radio hosts saying what is the truth. Learn the truth and spread it like Johnny Appleseed everywhere you go. The guarantee of conservative failure is for all of us to sit like passengers in a 1970s NYC subway car averting our eyes while the thugs rob others and spray paint the seats. It's of zero value for us to do nothing, even if everyone around us in the car agrees with us.

Whoring after voters who will never vote Republican. This great idea comes from the Bolshevik play book. Stick to the conservative program, Steele.

>>>Posted by Scott M. at March 3, 2009 2:49 AM

Amen, brother.

Code Pink helped elect Obama and trash McCain, then slipped off stage. That's the job of low-road politics. It's part of the game. It isn't the whole game. You can't win without it.

Republican McCain could not get the vote or the campaign funds from Wall Street. On the list of things to do is to figure out the political side of Wall Street.

I also am glad I am not a Republican or Democrat.

The 'new sheriff in town' had a better line to describe
Mr. Steele's attitude toward the GOP base. Sheriff Bart:

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers...
these are people of the land. You know... morons."

Oh, and by the way -
"they are becoming a Party of the Left-Behinds or Kiss-Behinds."
Remember Ferris Bueller? ...

"“You can’t respect someone who kisses your ass. I just doesn’t work”

Rush is a warrior. Steele is obviously not. Repubs are sadly lacking in warriors, people that will defend their ideas/values. Outstanding piece, Vanderleun.

Here ya go:

"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects."

Lady Margaret Thatcher

I was at CPAC, the folks I met all through out the lobbies ,the dinners, the exhibits, all raved over Sarah; the leadership is something else again. I personally was supporting Blackwell, who really had a strong record of conservative policies, both in Ohio government, and at the UN.

Sing it, Gerard!

Our guys are way too busy turning gimpy circles around the short bus. It's embarrassing.

They don't have a damn clue about our expectations. Rush isn't a favorite of mine, but I appreciate his consistent message and watching Steele wade nine yards into this stupidity was highly disappointing. I expected better.

My opinion of the GOP is dismal. Other than a few exceptions, they don't look much better than the opposition.

The electorate has its legs spread, its gash drooling, hoping and praying for 6 inches of hard meat. Not the foot long mind, just a good hard 6 inches.

And all the Republican leaders can deliver is limp dick.

It looks like the electorate will be taking it up the ass unlubed a while longer.

==

Just like old times at the skin mags eh? Without the occasional enjoyment.

Lucky I didn't include any sailor talk. fn this and effn that.

Palin has more dick than Steele.

I think most real conservatives have gone John Galt on the whole deal. If this is the country the sheeple want, why play the game at all?

Thanks for the graphic imagery, Mr. Simon, I suppose that's an endorsement, although do you still think she's a theocrat. Michelle Bachman is an another certainly in that category,considering the last minute attack she survived in Minnesota. A few other come to mind, but a precious few.

I'm curious, Gerald, when did you settle on this militant libertarian and sometimes reactionary path; was at Guccione's crib. Whatever did happen to Omni in 1997.

The problem with Rush, and, in fact, all Republican leadership, is that they supported the liberal George HW Bush and then the pretend conservative George W. Bush 'till the cows came home. They have lost every ounce of credibility by so doing. Whatever Rush says is actually irrelevant. His criticisms of Obama's spending are ridiculous when he failed to criticize properly the Bush spending.
The reality is that we need an authentic conservative party, one that is truly for limited government. Rush is for big government and big business solutions. He is a Bush/Cheney Republican who is able to talk the conservative talk, but is in fact for oligarchy, of the Republican wing. Obama is an oligarch of the Democrat wing. True conservatives like Russell Kirk or Richard Weaver would be bullied out of the Republican party, and, if they were alive, off of a blog such as this.

"True conservatives like Russell Kirk or Richard Weaver would be bullied out of the Republican party, and, if they were alive, off of a blog such as this."

You cannot begin to comprehend how wrong you are. But you a wrong just the same.

For example:

Weaver commented in 1948 on "the paradox of materialist Russia expanding by the irresistible force of idea", while the United States, which supposedly has the heritage of values and ideals, frantically throws up barricades of money around the globe. He was not exactly surprised, having already begun his critique of modern Total War. This is perhaps most developed in Visions of Order. Here Weaver notes that wars had formerly been part of civilization, that is, they had been conducted on the basis of commonly understood rules for limited ends. The ability of the French Revolution to field massive armies on the basis of conscription helped destroy the old rules of war. A major turning point was the way in which the United States (North) conducted its war against Southern secession, 1861-65. World War I enlarged the criminal remodeling of warfare and World War II – the Only Good War waged by the Greatest Generation, as we now say – perfected it. World War II "reduced the word ‘noncombatant’ almost to meaninglessness."

The very notion of "victory" had changed into something which Good Side already possessed, by right, from the outset, "or rather would have except for the inexcusable resistance of a totally depraved opponent." Hence: "No excuse can arise for not waging the war by any and all means."

Do you have a new weapon that throws used circular saw blades? Use it! Do you have jellied petroleum (NAPALM), developed by the nice folks at Harvard? Use it! Is your uranium depleted? The answer is clear. To the claim that use of any-and-all weapons of mass destruction "shortens the war" and thereby "saves lives" (net), Weaver makes the obvious reply that "If the saving of lives were the primary consideration, there need never be any war in the first place."

As it was, our crusade of 1941-45 had "ended in a situation in which we make ‘perpetual war’ in order to have a distant ‘perpetual peace’" – a nice echo of Harry Elmer Barnes.

Weaver’s was not a pacifist position. He arrived at it from the premises of his own civilization. There might be wars, but they ought to be conducted by inherited rules of civilized conduct, so long, anyway, as we had any claim to civilization. Civilization grew by learning to make distinctions – metaphysical and otherwise – and by developing internal restraints "slowly and painfully... through patient example and exhortation."

Brought into relation to war and other matters, those difficult notions like ontology don’t seem quite so medieval, do they?

I have to say that, given everything Weaver wrote about making distinctions and, indeed, about the just conduct of war, that he would not be found today in the Establishment conservative chorus baying for a bigger, badder military establishment with mega-colossal funding, or for the much-ballyhooed missile defense system. He would agree with the critique of feminism and egalitarianism as forces undermining the armed forces. But, even with the Bushies in town, he would want to know what the armed forces, of whatever size, were for, in the first place, and whether the big spenders’ overarching conception of the military’s mission was, well, moral.

Joseph Stromberg

I deeply love a comment that starts, "You cannot begin to comprehend how wrong you are...." It's genius really. One could also say, "since you are obviously an idiot, there is no point in arguing with you..." And all of this derived from a sentence with which one disagrees. Oh well! I love how Republicans and Democrats are so quick to label someone as an idiot, a racist, an anti-Semite, etc. It is so difficult to break out of one's preconcieved ideology, in spite of the facts. That's why reading someone like Weaver is so earth shattering. He simply challenges you to break out. I know, I know, you prefer to hold on to your views and coopt someone like Weaver or Kirk to your ideology rather than truly learning from them. Carry on!

One has to see the context of that quote, because the idea that he's talking about is communism, class envy, jealousy of what your neighbor has, that's as old as Kane and Abel. We provide equipment and personnel, as a tangible expression of what capitalism and human liberty can provide, which helped break the stranglehold of the Depression. Michael wants to back to the days of the cavalry charge, the noble era before the Maxim at Omdurman, that's not happening

Narcisco,
Funny thing about authentic values, like nobility, chivalry, and, well, all principled morals, they happen to be timeless. I certainly am not interested in returning to the material culture of 1950, much less 1850, but that is beside the point. I know, I know, the world don't work like that no more! Let me guess, though: you are opposed to Roe v. Wade? Hey buddy, the world don't work like that no more. Government stimulus packages? The world don't work like that no more! In the words of Eric Gill, "it all hangs together". Total government and total war...hell, let's call it what it is...totalitarianism is what you have embraced, evidently. I hardly wish to return to the year of the founding fathers, but I would like to give their principled world view a shot. You should read them sometime, antiquated rascals that they were.

You know Michael, you have a capacity to anger me, as no one since Fletcher Christian, if you've seen some other posts about me, you'd know never to call me a totalitarian; that was the fate I escaped in 1969, although the Country fell in 1959. I admit I was taken in by the scam that was the TARP, and reluctantly supported it; total war, what we've seen is a very furtive action on two localized front of a very old conflict with the West. Total Goverment, that's probably what you enabled by voting for whatever perfect candidate, Barr or Baldwin, I gather you chose. The days of bucolic agrarian economies are long gone; my friend.