Archive for ‘Weekly Standard’

July 20, 2009

Mark Levin vs. Weekly StandardBozo Who Needs to STFU

(Note to self: Never argue with this guy.)

In the first sentence of his review [Bozo] asserts “Moderation … is an essential political virtue and a quintessentially conservative virtue.” This is the way forward for conservatism, he insists. At no time does he define “moderation” or any governing principles, other than to misapply moderation as prudence, when prudence is, in fact, about judgment. . . .
For the neo-Statist (or neo-Conservative), the problem is particularly acute when applied to international relations for he usually promotes a hawkish and interventionist foreign policy. If prudence is moderation per se, then how does [Bozo] square this circle? Is bombing Iran’s nuclear sites, even as a last resort, a moderate or an immoderate act? Obviously, the question makes no sense. The test is whether it is prudent.
Thus, those, like [Bozo], who promote moderation (not prudence) as a principle, are actually promoting a tactic or process without any core.

Read the whole thing. Try not to slip on Bozo’s entrails that Levin leaves scattered on the floor.

Note that Levin distinguishes himself from the neo-conservatives. One of the idiotic misfortunes of the Bush era was that the Left picked up the term “neocon” as shorthand for “Jewish hawk,” with conspiratorial overtones of “stooge for the Zionist lobby.” This was both unfair and inaccurate.

As my old friends know, I tend to roll more toward the paleo side of the neo/paleo divide, with a wide streak of libertarianism (“From My Cold Dead Hands!”) and am also a hillbilly Bible-thumping Calvinist, if not a theocrat.

My position on the Iraq war was nuanced, as the liberals would say. Unlike Kerry, I was against the war before I was for it. Basically, from 2002 until the war started, I was very skeptical toward arguments for the invasion and conquest of Mesopotamia. However, the time for arguing ended when the first shot was fired. My attititude about war is, “If you’re in it, win it.”

No nation ever benefitted from losing a war. Military defeat tends to demoralize a nation and, if repeated, can result in absolute decadence. (Cf. France.)

A Peace Through Strength approach to foreign affairs doesn’t make you a warmonger, an imperialist, or a “neocon.” I could write a book about this, but I’m on deadline for the Spectator, so just read Mark Levin’s article — and remind me never to pick a fight with him.

March 27, 2009

More reporting conservatives don’t do

Tonight at George Washington University, David Horowitz made news:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — There is a “100% chance that there will be . . . an attack on U.S. soil,” conservative author David Horowitz said Thursday.
Horowitz made the prediction while speaking to a George Washington University student group, after being asked about the possibility of U.S.-Iranian conflict. In the event of such a terror attack against the American homeland, Horowitz predicted, there will be widespread public outrage against U.S. liberals. . . .

Having spent more than two decades in the news business, I was outraged in January when Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard said conservative bloggers don’t do reporting. I’d love to do more, but the stuck-up know-it-alls at the Weekly Standard never asked, and they don’t ever link me off their blog, so . . . OK, /rage.

But then Matthew Yglesias jumped in with his “nyah nyahs,” prompting Malkin to demonstrate, au contraire, that conservative bloggers do report. And I know doggone well that they could do a lot more reporting, if anyone with any influence in the conservative movement had a freaking clue about the news business. But they don’t, and so I’m out here shaking the tip jar at 11 at night, while some other people on fat salaries are at home in bed.

F— them.

Dan Collins has further thoughts on the subject. I’m too tired and angry to write about it now.

UPDATE: Linked by Pundit & Pundette.