Quote:
Originally Posted by richlevy
It would be interesting to see you define 'common run'. IMO, Slate, Salon and the New Republic match up well with National Review (I don't know Commentary) and I assume are 'responsible' examples under your definition. As for 'common run', the most watched/read conservatives of late are Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I am having a hard time finding liberal examples who are both as popular and as damaging to the national psyche.
|
Not the national psyche, Rich -- the leftist psyche, which frankly requires severe damaging if you want a Republic. If you want a tyranny, stick with the Left. Personally, I'm not having any.
Quote:
|
One of the biggest losers under the Bush Era were conservative intellectuals, who seem to have become disenfranchised under the Republican 'embrace stupidity' anti-'elitist' mantra. The only thing that Bush and Buckley had in common were the first two letters of their last names.
|
Such a "loss" would have been shown in an absence of conservative intellectual effort -- that absence is not in evidence. They're still cranking out the smart stuff, and if anything at a greater pace. What's more, so many of them are Republicans that you just can't show that Republican = intellectually impoverished. This was a clue to me that the left-of-center just ain't got it. Dinesh D'Souza remarked that the bright conservatives don't go into politics as much as their opposite numbers, but instead into business. What I see here is that richlevy is being suckered. Doesn't have to be that way. You may refuse to believe that I'm living proof -- but tell me, from what you've seen is that likely to stop me?