It’s Tough to See Conservatives with MSM Blinders On
In response to a piece of mine crossposted an another blog, a reader would like to know if there are “other conservatives that challenge the current brew of Bushism/Cheneyism/Republicanism these days“. He’s a little bit behind the times given that Messrs. Bush and Cheney have since left office and gone into retirement.
Like all too many in the netroots and among those who use our comments section to criticize conservatives and Republicans in general and us in particular, he’s under the assumption that all conservatives fell into line and blindly followed George W. Bush over the last eight years. Does he only get his information about conservatives from left-wing blogs and MSNBC?
How often do we hear that refrain that we blindly supported W and failed to criticize him?
If you take a gander at archives of any number of conservative blogs, you’ll find a great variety of posts criticizing Bush and any number of aspects of his Administration. Most of us took him and congressional Republicans to task for not holding the line on spending. (The National Review even ran a cover story on the Bush Administration’s competence problem.)
When I point this out, it falls on deaf ears. All too many repeat their mantra about how monolithic and unquestioning we were in our support of W. To make it easier to some of our critics, I did a piece providing a partial listing of posts where we took issue with the former president’s (and congressional Republicans’) profligacy, they remain unswayed, so strong is their conviction about conservatives.
They criticize us while remaining clueless about our ideas. A line from the theme song from a 70s sitcom, Alice, come to mind as I consider their narrow-minded attitude toward conservatives. ”Going through life with blinders on, it’s tough to see.”
They blind themselves to contemporary conservatives because they define us not by our ideas and the things we have written, but by their prejudices and things leftist bloggers and left-of-center “journalists” have written about us.
22 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The fact is that they don’t want to see. They have a set world view and only believe “truth” as it is dictated to them. Any posts or anything in the archives destroys that and demonstrates that what they’ve actually been fed is bullshit. This frightens the lemmings and therefore they won’t acknowledge it.
ILC will probably come along and say that they know they’re wrong, but I don’t think liberals are that smart. If they aren’t told, it doesn’t exist.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 22, 2009 @ 4:24 am - April 22, 2009
The fact is that they don’t want to see.
I can see plenty good. So far, I’ve seen that partial listing of posts on this blog, all dating between 2006 and 2008, and this post adds a single magazine article published in 2007. This doesn’t refute my point about conservatives failing to criticize George Bush, it proves it.
It’s really easy to criticize someone when their policies are failing and they’re losing elections. There’s nothing easier than piling on a loser. By 2006, that’s what George Bush had become. By law he couldn’t win elections anymore and it was pretty apparent that he wouldn’t have been able to anyway, and what’s more, he seemed to have a toxic effect on the electability of House and Senate Republicans as well. A conservative movement that devoted itself completely to George Bush had to find a way to divorce themselves from the President, and what better way to do that than to pretend like you guys were never married in the first place?
And thanks, but I’ll trust my memory of the first six years of the Bush administration over yours. You guys simply have too much to lose if that dissociation can’t be made. You’re motivated by your own political survival, not a desire for historical accuracy, and it’s obvious that on this issue, one of those interests has overtaken the other.
Comment by Levi — April 22, 2009 @ 10:18 am - April 22, 2009
And again levi ignores the facts of the matter to pimp his own delusions. Then again, when pointed out how President Obama is continuing, or speeding up the debit spending he rails against, he’s ‘disappointed’ and ‘wants to give him more time’.
Go on Levi, don’t let reality get in the way of your rants.
Comment by The Livewire — April 22, 2009 @ 10:33 am - April 22, 2009
Then again, when pointed out how President Obama is continuing, or speeding up the debit spending he rails against, he’s ‘disappointed’ and ‘wants to give him more time’.
I never said anything of the sort. You’ve got a caricature in your head that you’re arguing against. Or you’ve got the reading comprehension facilities of a ten year old.
Comment by Levi — April 22, 2009 @ 11:17 am - April 22, 2009
Levi, your attitude in a nutshell, “I’ll trust my memory of the first six years of the Bush administration over yours. You guys simply have too much to lose if that dissociation can’t be made.”
Your memory over the facts of the matter. I’m not asking you to trust my memory. I’m asking you to review the archives of conservative blogs (read the post; that notion is there).
You continue to make assumptions about us, based only on your own animosity. Go check our archives. Go check the archives of any serious conservative blog and you’ll see frequent criticism of W.
What does it say about you that you would spend so much time on a blog as the once you described. Your comments make clear, facts won’t alter your prejudices against conservatives in general and us in particular.
Any time we present them to you, you try to explain them away. I would take the time to dig up additional posts we wrote almost from the beginning of this blog. Or the numerous, numerous articles going back at least to 2003 where conservative media took issue with W’s spending, but it won’t matter to you. Your prejudices are fixed.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 22, 2009 @ 11:18 am - April 22, 2009
Dan, speaking of the sitcom “Alice,” I do recall a fabulous line that I feel would be best employed right now.
Levi, KISS MY GRITS.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 22, 2009 @ 11:28 am - April 22, 2009
Your memory over the facts of the matter. I’m not asking you to trust my memory. I’m asking you to review the archives of conservative blogs (read the post; that notion is there).
You continue to make assumptions about us, based only on your own animosity. Go check our archives. Go check the archives of any serious conservative blog and you’ll see frequent criticism of W.
What does it say about you that you would spend so much time on a blog as the once you described. Your comments make clear, facts won’t alter your prejudices against conservatives in general and us in particular.
Any time we present them to you, you try to explain them away. I would take the time to dig up additional posts we wrote almost from the beginning of this blog. Or the numerous, numerous articles going back at least to 2003 where conservative media took issue with W’s spending, but it won’t matter to you. Your prejudices are fixed.
I didn’t really need to be invited to browse your archives, it’s something I do frequently on conservative blogs. But I decided to take you up on your offer, and just got done skimming the first three months of this blog’s archives, from February 2005 to April 2005.
You know what I found? Or more precisely, what I didn’t find? I didn’t find a single post about spending. I also didn’t find a single post critical of George Bush, on spending or anything else. Care to explain that? If there are numerous posts on this blog about out Obama’s out-of-control spending every week, how come there are none from four years ago, when conservatives were allegedly criticizing Bush all the time for spending?
I invite anyone here to try and prove me wrong. To be fair, the blog seemed focused more on gay issues back then. But still, shouldn’t there be a few posts? Even one post? Maybe there’s some other period you’d have me review?
Comment by Levi — April 22, 2009 @ 12:18 pm - April 22, 2009
Levi
“I’m not surprised this is happening, either. Obama made it clear he wasn’t going to make any real stands on any of these policies during the campaign. It’s disappointing, to be sure, but anyone that didn’t fool themselves about who Obama was saw this coming.”
So Bush is evil, Obama is disappointing.
Comment by The Livewire — April 22, 2009 @ 12:35 pm - April 22, 2009
Don’t bother leftists with facts. They are busy arguing with their imaginary right wing straw men!
Comment by Dark Eden — April 22, 2009 @ 12:47 pm - April 22, 2009
And what did Levi whine before, Livewire?
I never said anything of the sort.
Let’s see; Levi insists that he’s accurately reporting on what conservative blogs said, but he can’t even remember accurately what he said.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 22, 2009 @ 12:50 pm - April 22, 2009
Let’s see; Levi insists that he’s accurately reporting on what conservative blogs said, but he can’t even remember accurately what he said.
If you don’t believe me, you can go look for yourself.
I can’t even understand what you’re trying to do with that quote of mine you’ve got up there.
Comment by Levi — April 22, 2009 @ 12:57 pm - April 22, 2009
That doesn’t surprise me Levi,
You can’t understand anything that shows you want President Bush in irons, but are ‘disappointed’ with President Obama.
Comment by The Livewire — April 22, 2009 @ 1:29 pm - April 22, 2009
I can’t even understand what you’re trying to do with that quote of mine you’ve got up there.
Not surprising; as we’ve proven, consistency has never been your strong point, which is most likely why you project that failing onto others so often.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 22, 2009 @ 1:31 pm - April 22, 2009
Levi, you’ll also notice that I was blogging a lot less in in 2005. I was then doing my course work in my grad program and has less time to write about politics.
But, go back and read the post and note I’m not referring to just this blog, but conservative blogs in general.
And the issue now with Obama is that spending has increased by an order of magnitude that made W’s increases look small.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 22, 2009 @ 3:28 pm - April 22, 2009
I’ve challenged you several times to defend the massive debt your lord & master is running up and how that helps the country. You’ve yet to do so.
I asked you first.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 22, 2009 @ 4:15 pm - April 22, 2009
Levi, a word to (or is that from?) the wise: When even a gentleman like GPW has to *highlight* his text to make sure you got the basic point, you need to do a much better job of reading and thinking, before you respond.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 22, 2009 @ 4:32 pm - April 22, 2009
[...] It’s Tough to See Conservatives with MSM Blinders On [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Facts Don’t Alter Some Liberals’ Anti-Conservative Prejudices — April 22, 2009 @ 4:40 pm - April 22, 2009
Levi, you’ll also notice that I was blogging a lot less in in 2005. I was then doing my course work in my grad program and has less time to write about politics.
But, go back and read the post and note I’m not referring to just this blog, but conservative blogs in general.
And the issue now with Obama is that spending has increased by an order of magnitude that made W’s increases look small.
Fine, let’s do Michelle Malkin. Same period – Feb. 2005 to April 2005. I’ve been reading her for years now, and I’d give her the distinction of being one of the earliest and most vocal critics of George Bush on the conservative side.
Still, that’s not saying much. In three months, she criticized Bush maybe a dozen times, confining her complaints almost exclusively to Bush’s immigration policy. Even those comments usually consisted of no more than a sentence or two (sometimes one word). She also hit Bush twice on the effectiveness of No Child Left Behind, but there was not one post, not a single one, devoted in whole or in part to criticizing Republican spending in general.
She did a lot better than this website, but a dozen or so mild criticisms of the President over the course of three months, none of which pertained to spending or fiscal responsibility specifically, doesn’t really do much to dissuade me from my position that Republicans were uncritical of Bush to a fault.
I can do this all day, by the way. You could direct me to any conservative blog, and I’m pretty sure that in the same time period, they would score somewhere between GayPatriot’s ‘absolutely nothing’ and Michelle Malkin’s ‘almost absolutely nothing.’
Comment by Levi — April 22, 2009 @ 8:25 pm - April 22, 2009
Grow up, Levi. You’re just using just one period. You’ve somehow decided that criticism only matters when it’s in the period you dictate.
I’ve indicated my sources above. Why not check blogs and conservative website which focus more on budget matters. Increase your time frame and your frame of reference.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 22, 2009 @ 8:47 pm - April 22, 2009
Keep moving those goal posts, Levi.
I can spend all day showing you the unpatriotic proclivities of the liberals and another day on how you hypocrites pissed and moaned about Bush’s spending, but have no problem with your beloved A-hole in Chief running up the highest debt in history. I can also show how not a damn one of you can defend it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 22, 2009 @ 9:16 pm - April 22, 2009
Considering that the original goalpost / contention was that conservatives wouldn’t or didn’t criticize Bush… that is damn good. She knocked Bush weekly, in other words. It debunks your original point.
Well, lah-dee-dah. It’s a blogging style, that Instapundit (for one) has raised almost to an art form.
…which was an EXPANSION of the federal government and therefore a form of SPENDING.
C’mon Levi… put two and two together. And/or, expand your narrowly-constructed search period, as others say. Or alternatively, just admit that no amount of evidence will ever satisfy you: that if, for example, Malking had written three-paragraph posts criticizing Bush’s expansionist programs once per week in a certain period, you would now be faulting her for failing to write daily editorial-length essays on his spending.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 22, 2009 @ 9:40 pm - April 22, 2009
All of which is neither here nor there, by the way, if we are ultimately still talking about the alleged Republican “failure” to criticize Bush’s spending as a way to invalidate the Tea Party movement.
As someone else put it: The fact that you didn’t whine, bitch, or moan when the cat scratched you (Bush 400B deficits) – or that you only whined once, or whined only to your spouse, etc. – in no way invalidates your calling the Humane Society to capture and put down the next cat, when that one bites you viciously with repeated puncture wounds (Obama’s 1.8 trillion deficits).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 22, 2009 @ 9:45 pm - April 22, 2009