The childish political thought of the Tea Party

[Dick Tuck]

And another conservative nails the tea baggers....

The childish political thought of the Tea Party

With his recent criticisms of Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell on Fox News, Karl Rove kicked up a controversy. His critique of O'Donnell was granular and well-informed. Having worked with Karl for a number of years, I know that he is nothing if not detail-oriented. Rove has taken O'Donnell to task for her checkered financial past, her history of litigiousness and paranoia, her misleading statements about her educational background. These facts may not be disqualifying for office, but they indicate a flawed, inexperienced, perennial candidate on the model of Alan Keyes.

While Rove's critique was tough, the reaction in parts of the conservative blogosphere has been unhinged. Michelle Malkin wrote that it "might as well have been Olbermann on MSNBC." Mark Levin pronounced Rove at "war against the Tea Party movement and conservatives." "In terms of the conservative movement," wrote Dan Riehl, "we should not simply ignore him, but proactively work to undermine Rove in whatever ways we can, given his obvious willingness to undermine us."

This reaction is revealing -- and disturbing -- for a number of reasons.

First, it shows how some conservatives view the business of political commentary. Rove obviously has strong views on O'Donnell, based on personal experience with the candidate. But deviations from the party line are not permitted. It is not enough to dispute Rove's critique; Rove himself must be punished. The message is clear: The facts do not matter. Politics is war carried on by other means. Anyone who doesn't consistently take one side is a traitor.

This attitude can be found on right and left. But a serious commentator cannot think this way. He owes his readers or viewers his best judgment -- which means he cannot simply be a tool of someone else's ideological agenda. Some conservatives have adopted the Bolshevik approach to information and the media: Every personal feeling, every independent thought, every inconvenient fact, must be subordinated to the party line -- the Tea Party line.

...​

 

[Stephanie]

HAHAHA, here we GO again.

If David Brooks is a CONSERVATIVE, then I'm the damn Queen of England.

what a stupid, condescending article..Brooks can kiss our ass.

 

[Dick Tuck]

HAHAHA, here we GO again.

If David Brooks is a CONSERVATIVE, then I'm the damn Queen of England.

what a stupid, condescending article..Brooks can kiss our ass.

The article was written by Michael Gerson, not David Brooks, Einstein. You know Michael Gerson, who was a senior aide to Dan Coats.

 

[jillian]

And another conservative nails the tea baggers....

The childish political thought of the Tea Party

With his recent criticisms of Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell on Fox News, Karl Rove kicked up a controversy. His critique of O'Donnell was granular and well-informed. Having worked with Karl for a number of years, I know that he is nothing if not detail-oriented. Rove has taken O'Donnell to task for her checkered financial past, her history of litigiousness and paranoia, her misleading statements about her educational background. These facts may not be disqualifying for office, but they indicate a flawed, inexperienced, perennial candidate on the model of Alan Keyes.

While Rove's critique was tough, the reaction in parts of the conservative blogosphere has been unhinged. Michelle Malkin wrote that it "might as well have been Olbermann on MSNBC." Mark Levin pronounced Rove at "war against the Tea Party movement and conservatives." "In terms of the conservative movement," wrote Dan Riehl, "we should not simply ignore him, but proactively work to undermine Rove in whatever ways we can, given his obvious willingness to undermine us."

This reaction is revealing -- and disturbing -- for a number of reasons.

First, it shows how some conservatives view the business of political commentary. Rove obviously has strong views on O'Donnell, based on personal experience with the candidate. But deviations from the party line are not permitted. It is not enough to dispute Rove's critique; Rove himself must be punished. The message is clear: The facts do not matter. Politics is war carried on by other means. Anyone who doesn't consistently take one side is a traitor.

This attitude can be found on right and left. But a serious commentator cannot think this way. He owes his readers or viewers his best judgment -- which means he cannot simply be a tool of someone else's ideological agenda. Some conservatives have adopted the Bolshevik approach to information and the media: Every personal feeling, every independent thought, every inconvenient fact, must be subordinated to the party line -- the Tea Party line.

...​

there is some truth to that, though i think it may be somewhat overstated. The problem is that when you have a purported movement that's based largely in anger and foot-stomping and anti-intelletualism, it's difficult to approach problems in an intelligent fashion. instead you get a visceral response which is, in fact, the way children are more likely to show their dissatisfaction. And some have, indeed, been unhinged because they know that is the best way to rev up their troops.

 

[Stephanie]

HAHAHA, here we GO again.

If David Brooks is a CONSERVATIVE, then I'm the damn Queen of England.

what a stupid, condescending article..Brooks can kiss our ass.

The article was written by Michael Gerson, not David Brooks, Einstein. You know Michael Gerson, who was a senior aide to Dan Coats.

sorry, I saw another article written by Brooks just like this one.
so let me say, they Both can our ass.

 

[Stephanie]

And another conservative nails the tea baggers....

The childish political thought of the Tea Party

With his recent criticisms of Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell on Fox News, Karl Rove kicked up a controversy. His critique of O'Donnell was granular and well-informed. Having worked with Karl for a number of years, I know that he is nothing if not detail-oriented. Rove has taken O'Donnell to task for her checkered financial past, her history of litigiousness and paranoia, her misleading statements about her educational background. These facts may not be disqualifying for office, but they indicate a flawed, inexperienced, perennial candidate on the model of Alan Keyes.

While Rove's critique was tough, the reaction in parts of the conservative blogosphere has been unhinged. Michelle Malkin wrote that it "might as well have been Olbermann on MSNBC." Mark Levin pronounced Rove at "war against the Tea Party movement and conservatives." "In terms of the conservative movement," wrote Dan Riehl, "we should not simply ignore him, but proactively work to undermine Rove in whatever ways we can, given his obvious willingness to undermine us."

This reaction is revealing -- and disturbing -- for a number of reasons.

First, it shows how some conservatives view the business of political commentary. Rove obviously has strong views on O'Donnell, based on personal experience with the candidate. But deviations from the party line are not permitted. It is not enough to dispute Rove's critique; Rove himself must be punished. The message is clear: The facts do not matter. Politics is war carried on by other means. Anyone who doesn't consistently take one side is a traitor.

This attitude can be found on right and left. But a serious commentator cannot think this way. He owes his readers or viewers his best judgment -- which means he cannot simply be a tool of someone else's ideological agenda. Some conservatives have adopted the Bolshevik approach to information and the media: Every personal feeling, every independent thought, every inconvenient fact, must be subordinated to the party line -- the Tea Party line.

...​

there is some truth to that, though i think it may be somewhat overstated. The problem is that when you have a purported movement that's based largely in anger and foot-stomping and anti-intelletualism, it's difficult to approach problems in an intelligent fashion. instead you get a visceral response which is, in fact, the way children are more likely to show their dissatisfaction. And some have, indeed, been unhinged because they know that is the best way to rev up their troops.

lol, and fer sure we have NEVA seen all "them intellectuals" on the left show anger and foot stomping. sheesh jilly, your snobbishness is showing through again.

 

[rightwinger]

And another conservative nails the tea baggers....

The childish political thought of the Tea Party

With his recent criticisms of Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell on Fox News, Karl Rove kicked up a controversy. His critique of O'Donnell was granular and well-informed. Having worked with Karl for a number of years, I know that he is nothing if not detail-oriented. Rove has taken O'Donnell to task for her checkered financial past, her history of litigiousness and paranoia, her misleading statements about her educational background. These facts may not be disqualifying for office, but they indicate a flawed, inexperienced, perennial candidate on the model of Alan Keyes.

While Rove's critique was tough, the reaction in parts of the conservative blogosphere has been unhinged. Michelle Malkin wrote that it "might as well have been Olbermann on MSNBC." Mark Levin pronounced Rove at "war against the Tea Party movement and conservatives." "In terms of the conservative movement," wrote Dan Riehl, "we should not simply ignore him, but proactively work to undermine Rove in whatever ways we can, given his obvious willingness to undermine us."

This reaction is revealing -- and disturbing -- for a number of reasons.

First, it shows how some conservatives view the business of political commentary. Rove obviously has strong views on O'Donnell, based on personal experience with the candidate. But deviations from the party line are not permitted. It is not enough to dispute Rove's critique; Rove himself must be punished. The message is clear: The facts do not matter. Politics is war carried on by other means. Anyone who doesn't consistently take one side is a traitor.

This attitude can be found on right and left. But a serious commentator cannot think this way. He owes his readers or viewers his best judgment -- which means he cannot simply be a tool of someone else's ideological agenda. Some conservatives have adopted the Bolshevik approach to information and the media: Every personal feeling, every independent thought, every inconvenient fact, must be subordinated to the party line -- the Tea Party line.

...​

Karl Rove built his political career not on pursuing a political ideology but in winning elections. He understands what needs to be done to patch together a coalition that can win come election day

He knows that you can't win elections running people like Christine O'Donnell

 

[Stephanie]

Oh brother, you know the left is becoming "Unhinged" when they start praising, Karl Rove.

scary stuff.

 

[jillian]

poor steffie... i know, it's a terrible thing to want smart people to run things. they should actually be run by people who are clueless and ignorant. :

you betcha

here's a tissue.... take care of the spittle, dear.

 

[WillowTree]

And another conservative nails the tea baggers....

The childish political thought of the Tea Party

With his recent criticisms of Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell on Fox News, Karl Rove kicked up a controversy. His critique of O'Donnell was granular and well-informed. Having worked with Karl for a number of years, I know that he is nothing if not detail-oriented. Rove has taken O'Donnell to task for her checkered financial past, her history of litigiousness and paranoia, her misleading statements about her educational background. These facts may not be disqualifying for office, but they indicate a flawed, inexperienced, perennial candidate on the model of Alan Keyes.

While Rove's critique was tough, the reaction in parts of the conservative blogosphere has been unhinged. Michelle Malkin wrote that it "might as well have been Olbermann on MSNBC." Mark Levin pronounced Rove at "war against the Tea Party movement and conservatives." "In terms of the conservative movement," wrote Dan Riehl, "we should not simply ignore him, but proactively work to undermine Rove in whatever ways we can, given his obvious willingness to undermine us."

This reaction is revealing -- and disturbing -- for a number of reasons.

First, it shows how some conservatives view the business of political commentary. Rove obviously has strong views on O'Donnell, based on personal experience with the candidate. But deviations from the party line are not permitted. It is not enough to dispute Rove's critique; Rove himself must be punished. The message is clear: The facts do not matter. Politics is war carried on by other means. Anyone who doesn't consistently take one side is a traitor.

This attitude can be found on right and left. But a serious commentator cannot think this way. He owes his readers or viewers his best judgment -- which means he cannot simply be a tool of someone else's ideological agenda. Some conservatives have adopted the Bolshevik approach to information and the media: Every personal feeling, every independent thought, every inconvenient fact, must be subordinated to the party line -- the Tea Party line.

...​

Oh goody our resident homsexual teabagger is back. Nice bags ya got there old farty teabagger.

 

[WillowTree]

HAHAHA, here we GO again.

If David Brooks is a CONSERVATIVE, then I'm the damn Queen of England.

what a stupid, condescending article..Brooks can kiss our ass.

Careful now, you might piss off that old farty teabagger DT. He donna like you disagreeing with his hate and bigotry.

 

[WillowTree]

poor steffie... i know, it's a terrible thing to want smart people to run things. they should actually be run by people who are clueless and ignorant. :

you betcha

here's a tissue.... take care of the spittle, dear.

Do You think "smart people" have been running things? How'd that work out for us? Do be looking down your elitist little nose. You elitists have had your day. Enter Tea Party stage right.

 

[Stephanie]

poor steffie... i know, it's a terrible thing to want smart people to run things. they should actually be run by people who are clueless and ignorant. :

you betcha

here's a tissue.... take care of the spittle, dear.

tsk tsk, snobby doesn't look good on ya dear.

 

[Old Rocks]

With mantras like 'keep government out of our Medi-care', what is there to hate about the Teabaggers? Funniest thing down the pike in ages. Even more fun than the Birch John Society.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG6taS9R1KM]YouTube - John Birch Society Song[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

That Staph would hate David Brooks is hardly suprising. Brooks is intelligent, thoughtful, and, from his conservative point of view, promotes what is best for this nation, rather than just the upper two percent of the people in the nation.

 

[WillowTree]

DemonRats are going down and their flaccid farty old homosexual bags will be seen no more for at least a hundret years.

 

[Dick Tuck]

And another conservative nails the tea baggers....

The childish political thought of the Tea Party

With his recent criticisms of Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell on Fox News, Karl Rove kicked up a controversy. His critique of O'Donnell was granular and well-informed. Having worked with Karl for a number of years, I know that he is nothing if not detail-oriented. Rove has taken O'Donnell to task for her checkered financial past, her history of litigiousness and paranoia, her misleading statements about her educational background. These facts may not be disqualifying for office, but they indicate a flawed, inexperienced, perennial candidate on the model of Alan Keyes.

While Rove's critique was tough, the reaction in parts of the conservative blogosphere has been unhinged. Michelle Malkin wrote that it "might as well have been Olbermann on MSNBC." Mark Levin pronounced Rove at "war against the Tea Party movement and conservatives." "In terms of the conservative movement," wrote Dan Riehl, "we should not simply ignore him, but proactively work to undermine Rove in whatever ways we can, given his obvious willingness to undermine us."

This reaction is revealing -- and disturbing -- for a number of reasons.

First, it shows how some conservatives view the business of political commentary. Rove obviously has strong views on O'Donnell, based on personal experience with the candidate. But deviations from the party line are not permitted. It is not enough to dispute Rove's critique; Rove himself must be punished. The message is clear: The facts do not matter. Politics is war carried on by other means. Anyone who doesn't consistently take one side is a traitor.

This attitude can be found on right and left. But a serious commentator cannot think this way. He owes his readers or viewers his best judgment -- which means he cannot simply be a tool of someone else's ideological agenda. Some conservatives have adopted the Bolshevik approach to information and the media: Every personal feeling, every independent thought, every inconvenient fact, must be subordinated to the party line -- the Tea Party line.

...​

there is some truth to that, though i think it may be somewhat overstated. The problem is that when you have a purported movement that's based largely in anger and foot-stomping and anti-intelletualism, it's difficult to approach problems in an intelligent fashion. instead you get a visceral response which is, in fact, the way children are more likely to show their dissatisfaction. And some have, indeed, been unhinged because they know that is the best way to rev up their troops.

It's true of most extremist movements. Hitler had his book burnings and purging universities of "Jew science". Mao had his cultural revolution. Extremist movements have a need to rid themselves of people that can think, and replace them with drones who buy into their party purity. The problem with the tea baggers is their lack of any serious ideological underpinning, other than getting loonies elected.

 

[Stephanie]

That Staph would hate David Brooks is hardly suprising. Brooks is intelligent, thoughtful, and, from his conservative point of view, promotes what is best for this nation, rather than just the upper two percent of the people in the nation.

good grief, now the left "LOVES" them some so called Conservatives. as long as they run down the American citizens who belong in the Tea Party.
ya just feel the love there.

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually I have listened to and read David Brooks for a long time. He is a good conservative that well understands the needs of this nation. He is not an ideologue, and not a hater. In a choice between him and about 2/3 of the present Democrats, I would vote for him.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

HAHAHA, here we GO again.

If David Brooks is a CONSERVATIVE, then I'm the damn Queen of England.

what a stupid, condescending article..Brooks can kiss our ass.

Keeping sipping it up. O'Donnell is one of the most tainted candidates running this election cycle. About the only bigger dud than her is Alvin Greene.