Favorite poster from NR's "The Corner"

National Review Guest Comment:

January 24, 2006, 8:23 a.m.
Empty Prophecies of Gloom
The pessimist chatter may be increasing, but this economy is decidedly strong.

By David Gitlitz

http://www.epluribusmedia.org/features/images/FDR-2_Hoover.jpg

andrew stuttaford otm!

This Is Not Spin, Honest Question [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Ask most Americans: Other than Roe, name a Supreme Court decision you disagree with? Off the top of your head? Sure, you'd come up with one. There's Kelo. My mind would then wander to "that child-rape case." Then, before digging deeper into history during these split-second deliberations, would realize I may not want to say "that child-rape case" on the national TV. And, then, decide: "I just am not going to play Katie's quiz-show game."

I think the campaign has decided "Sarah Palin doesn't do game shows. And we'll 'expose' the media for every one of those questions."

Welcome to the end-stretch strategy. The McCain campaign may just be planning an anti-media campaign. I think that's what we've been seeing these last few days. And they couldn't be happier about Gwen Ifill and the appearance of favoritism, if that's true.

i just.... what?

Ask most Americans: Other than Roe, name a Supreme Court decision you disagree with?

holy god how do these people walk upright and communicate?

My mind would then wander to "that child-rape case."
My mind would then wander to "that child-rape case."
My mind would then wander to "that child-rape case."
My mind would then wander to "that child-rape case."
My mind would then wander to "that child-rape case."
My mind would then wander to "that child-rape case."
My mind would then wander to "that child-rape case."
My mind would then wander to "that child-rape case."
My mind would then wander to "that child-rape case."
My mind would then wander to "that child-rape case."

which child rape case? that one.

Padgett / Harvell '16

Or whoever you want as veep -- it's your campaign.

The United States vs. Derbyshire.

of those Americans who can't give you an answer, how many sound this stupid?

PALIN: Well, let's see. There's --of course --in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are -- those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know -- going through the history of America, there would be others but--"

COURIC: Can you think of any?

PALIN: Well, I could think of -- of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a Vice President, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

Other than Roe, name a Supreme Court decision you disagree with? Off the top of your head? Sure, you'd come up with one. There's Kelo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

I am reasonably certain that most Americans who heard about/followed this case had forgotten about it by June 24, 2005.

A little introspection:
Wednesday, March 24, 2004

Iraq Wmd [Rich Lowry]

I know we are in the middle of a debate about 9/11 and not Iraq WMD, but I had an opportunity yesterday to hear someone plugged into the WMD debate. To review, we were massively wrong about the state of Iraq's WMD capabilities. The nuclear program was a pale shadow of what Saddam had had in the early 1990s. On chemical weapons, there was research and development, but nothing that was usable. On biological weapons, there was research into how to better weaponize anthrax, but again, nothing that was usable. It was Saddam's missile program that was most active, and most disturbing in what it said about the possibility of Iraq leaping ahead in its WMD programs. The missile program was almost entirely dependent on a network of foreign assistance. If Saddam had gotten comparable foreign help in other areas, he could have made leaps ahead in his capabilities. But that hadn't happened. So why were we so wrong?

which child rape case? that one.

― and what, Friday, October 10, 2008 2:13 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Kennedy v. Louisiana, probably

Yes, but it is slightly more complicated than "that child-rape case".

(only slightly, granted)

I may not understand the nuance.

Nuances are stupid things.

i was reffing "that one" guyz

He would have been the first person executed in a case where the victim didn't die (iirc).

I got where you were coming from, E.

I took it upon myself to email Jonah last night, before he could post, and explain why the Washington Times story wasn't a story - in clear and slow language. He hasn't posted about it yet today.

No, no. I understand the "That one" reference. I just didn't understand it in reference to the child rape case.

xp

lol mordy keep reinforcing how conservative you are every time you email him. u can be a mole in the operation

I don't want to be an obvious concern troll.

"Oh god, Jonas. I was really hoping this would put the final nail in that bastard, terrorist Obama's coffin. But alas, it doesn't seem like the real deal."

From FREEP, w/r/t Buckley's endorsement of Obama:

"So, should we cancel our NR subscriptions? I don’t particularly want to provide support for an institution that is so far off from my beliefs."

I loves it!

The wonderful FREEP link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2102328/posts

Why don’t guys like Buckley and Brooks just proclaim they are Democrats and be done with the facade.

To: Numbers Guy

I just cancelled my subscription to the National Review. It felt good.

78 posted on Fri Oct 10 12:09:46 2008 by Jibaholic ("Those people who are not ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants." --William Penn)

The best thing about Sarah Palin is that she is the fastest way to drive the country club Republicans out of the party. They’ve long been captured by secular intellectuals. It will clear their lives of cognitive dissonance if they become Democrats. In fact, they will find it positively liberating.

I agree. I think what we are seeing is that these type never were with us. They were token liberals masquerading as Conservatives.

To: Numbers Guy
45 years ago, National Review's founder and editor made a decision to purge the magazine of what he considered to be intellectually unsavory elements on the Right: John Birchers, Randians, Gold-bugs and the like. William F. Buckley did so not in order to enforce a stringent orthodoxy on the Conservative movement of which he made his magazine an integral part, but to make it more respectable by removing the voices of the hyperbolic, the shrill and the intellectually limited.

Perhaps it is time for his successors-in-interest to purge the magazine and its on-line companion of the equally unsavory elements who have over time found a home there; specifically, the elitist urban haute-bourgeoisie types who all went to the same prep schools, wear the same designer clothes, frequent the same bistros, and live in the same rent-controlled enclaves in Manhattan.

These people are to my ears increasingly indistinguishable from their liberal cohorts in their choice of interests and attitudes, and it is no surprise that they see qualities in Barack Obama that resonate powerfully with them. He is essentially one of them. A flinty Arizonan war hero and an Alaskan hockey mom do nothing for them because they do not know, have never known and will never know people like that anywhere in the cool cloisters of their privileged lives.

Buckley, Sr. was presumed by many to be a natural elitist by virtue of his upbringing, and in some ways he certainly was, but from what I have seen and read, he lived a life of exceptional variety and identified well with people of backgrounds and interests far different from his own. The fact that he wrote about them convincingly is proof enough.

It would likely make WFB sad to have to kick his own son off the team, so to speak, but he loved his magazine dearly and and was fiercely protective of it. In my opinion, the current editor ought to decide how much he loves it, too.
106 posted on Fri Oct 10 12:43:21 2008 by andy58-in-nh (Somewhere in Illinois, a community is missing its organizer.)

To: Numbers Guy

What the he$$ has happened to National Review??? Rod Dreher, Kathleen Parker, C. Buckley, and even Kathryn Jean Lopez (and at least one more that I’m blanking on) are—very publicly—jumping on the anti-Palin bandwagon. Do they not realize or care about how that’s going to be used by people who mean harm to the U.S.? Do they not realize or care about how that’s going to upset or demoralize people who love this country? I don’t care if they truly do hate Palin with a passion, but they should be smart enough to confine their b*tc$ing to the watercooler, their personal e-mails, cocktail parties, etc. K. Parker and K-Lo can’t wave a little white flag now and claim that maybe Palin isn’t quite as bad as they wrote. Too late. You went public. By attacking Palin, you attack me by implying that I’m too stupid to see her weaknesses, like you do. And now, with C. Buckley (Krauthammer, Will) fawning all over a socialist whose friends pray for the downfall of the U.S.? Beyond despicable. Beyond stupid. National Review and NRO are no longer must-reads for me. I’m done with them.

122 posted on Fri Oct 10 13:07:40 2008 by Bookbuck

What the he$$
http://www.adolfthegreat.com/site/fileadmin/Image_Archive/Personalities/Hess-Rudolf/RudolfHess-01s.jpg

He’s not hair on dad’s arse.

It's funny how personally these people take any criticism of Palin.

It's Night of the Long Knives.

lol did u see the clip someone posted of the woman on fox furious about newsweek's palin cover ... she was hysterical

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE THIS IS AN OUTRAGE

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YInuTc3C3jM&hl=en&fs=1";></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YInuTc3C3jM&hl=en&fs=1"; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Well, that didn't work.

id blap

"This cover is a clear slap in the face at Sarah Palin. Why? Because it's un-retouched."

i mean, what?

this meme didn't last through that morning, btw, i don't think

Christopher Buckley & Obama [Jonah Goldberg]

I am a great fan of Christopher's. I am proud to call him my friend and I am grateful for his many kindnesses. None of that changes because of his decision to endorse Barack Obama. But I think he’s wrong.

I would very much like to leave it at that.

But since I don't need a kazillion emails complaining that I punted, I'll pick up the ball and carry it a few yards downfield without any attempt to make it to the end zone, never mind do some sort of dance at his expense.

I think Mark's reader has it basically right. Christopher knows that McCain once had great character. We know he knows this because he says so at some length. He thinks McCain has lost it. I think that is unfair and untrue. His only real evidence stems from McCain’s recent political performance. But even if you think McCain has run a less than honorable campaign (I do not – which is not to say that I think he’s run a particularly good campaign), it's hard for me to take the complaint all that seriously from someone who worked for — and greatly admires — George HW Bush. Campaigns often require a certain tackiness, as was conspicuously the case with poppa Bush. But Bush pere was not a tacky president and I see nothing in Christopher’s argument that persuades me to think it would be otherwise with McCain.

Meanwhile, Christopher invokes Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous line that FDR had a “first-class temperament” and so too Obama. Indeed, he suggests that Obama is a man of great character because, he's a man of great temperament. Are the two really the same thing? I don't think so (indeed, that would be a hard case to make about FDR himself, who could be deceitful, vindictive, petty — even to his own son — and adulterous. And let us note that Holmes himself was not a man many of us should be invoking as an authority on political virtue or decency).

The story Christopher tells of McCain's great character has no real analogue in Obama. He may be in private a deeply honorable man, but his public record is one of accommodation, shortcuts, dishonest equivocations, serious leftwing sympathies and fellow-traveling with some awful people. Obama, let us recall, threw his own grandmother under the rhetorical bus in order to defend his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. That he sounded dignified doing it does not confer dignity on the act itself or the man behind it. That is surely not all there is to say about Obama, many of his friends and fans speak very well of him. But the scales Christopher uses to weigh one man against the other seem awfully rigged to me.

Am I misremembering what Obama said about his grandmother or is this guy mentally-handicapped?

The latter.

i didn't know people outside of reality tv interview bites used the phrase "throwing people under the bus" and its derivatives

I heard a lot of that at work before 75% of my department quit/got laid off.