I agree about John McCain. Although I suppose there’s some debate about whether or not he’s actually conservative.
I even registered as a Republican 3 years ago to vote for him in the presidential primary. I would have rather voted for him than any of the Democratic candidates at the time (and I’m a life-long Dem!)
Try reading it all again in the context of “pushing hatred” in mind 
Although I mostly agree with your list, I’m not sure how you define idiot.
In the not idiot column, I’d put O’Reilly and Maher. Both of these guys can converse intelligently on any number of subjects. O’Reilly is very caustic on his show (it’s as much entertainment as news analysis), but if you’ve ever seen him speak in front of a crowd, he’s quick witted and very funny.
In the idiot column, I’d put Ivins, mainly because she just comes off as a partisan hack. Not as bad as Coulter, but along the same lines.
I’m surprised no one mentioned the most likeable (fiscal) conservative: “Uncle Milty” Friedman. He’s much more of a libertartian than a conservative, but the guy is everybody’s grandfather. He’s always smiling!
After watching the CA recall debate last night, I’ve added one lefty that is just thoroughly unlikable-- Camejo. The guy is just an angry, angry individual.
I kind of like O’Reilly, though I’m not buying into that ‘No Spin Zone’ bullshit…they ALL spin like tops IMO. I’ve corresponded with him on his web site a few times and found his replies as good as anything I’ve seen on this board. I’m not as fond of his show though…
I like McCain too. I think he’d have made a MUCH better president than Bush, and I was sorry that he didn’t get the nomination.
-XT
Colin Powell: according to the few leftist sources I still have in the State Department, he is very highly respected by nearly all.
Uk!
I can see people agreeing with him, but as far as the OP goes – naming likable conservatives – McCain has got to be on the short list of the most petulant, abrasive, and mean-spirited folks right-of-center.
Likeable conservatives on my short list: Bill Buckley, Bob Dole, Bush, Sr., and John McLaughlin (proving that bombast does not mean mean-spirited).
Conservatives are fundamentally selfish and dishonest?
What a ludicrous statement. As a conservative (unlike some sitting U.S. presidents I could name), I believe a smaller and less intrusive federal government would better benefit the nation as a whole. Now, how am I lying to myself, by holding this belief?
I’m a conservative who has a profound dislike for the average right-wing am radio shock jock.
As far as real politicians go, if I were to recommend a cool conservative one to my cousin dopers over on the left, I’d have to say EU honcho and former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten. A political hero of mine. He has his critics, but for mine he’s a decent and clever guy, and a fine example of a conservative with a social conscience.
UB, though I’m loath to draw out this highjack, suffice ir to say that I have no illusion that I’d be able to convince you that I’m “right,” so a debate on this issue would take us exactly nowhere. Nonetheless, if you start such a debate elsewhere, I’d probably check in.
Another prop for P.J. O’Rourke, with reservations. I read every book he writes, 'cause he cracks me up and makes me think. But I don’t want to hear another word about how he used to be a hippy-type radical and now he has a bunch of money and a drinking problem. Maybe not your best move, PJ. Contrast and compare to Willie Nelson “I gave up whiskey for weed in 1975, and it may be the only smart thing I ever did.”
What I don’t really get is the multitude of winger radio pundits. Theres a station in my town that plays them 24/7 - Gallagher, Medved, Pronger, Ingrown, Hewitt - and there isnt any difference between them save the relative pitch and timbre of thier voices. How can the market support so many when there is nothing to distinguish one from the other?
I worked for Barry Goldwater in '64 (when LBJ was the “peace candidate”). I also read a lot of Ayn Rand. I got better. But I still dig the man. When he says he voted against the Voting Rights Act due to concern for states rights, I believe him, even though I regard it as a serious, even grave, error. I can think of no other conservative of the time that I would extend such a benefit of the doubt.
Besides, he loathed R. Nixon and is quoted as saying (re gays in the military) “What does being straight have to do with pulling a trigger?”
You’re right. You should get splattered for this.
If I was to say “it’s hard to respect gays because they have a lifestyle founded on deliberate sin,” I would expect to get splattered.
If I was to say “it’s hard to respect black people because they are lazy and brachiate like apes” I would expect to get splattered.
If I was to say “It’s hard to respect liberals because they’re founding belief is that other people should be forced to take care of them becuase they are too lazy to take catre of themselves” I would expect to get splattered.
If I was to say “liberals are traitors to this country because their protests aid and abet terrorists” I would expect to get splattered.
As a gay man, I would expect you would be sensitive to disingenuous mischaracterizations and demonization of people you disagree with.
I would imagine that you probably don’t like it when you’re the target of such ignorant bigotry.
Unfortunately, past experience leaves me little excuse for being surprised at the ignorant bigotry you’ve chosen to display.
You of course are free to clear this up by explaining precisely why conservative = selfish liar, but we both know that you don’t really beleive it and won’t even bother to try.
I suspect, as in the past, you will claim “amusement” at the results your deliberately false and insulting claims generate.
Have a nice day.
It’s an honestly held opinion, not based on bigotry: I’m defining a behavior and a set of choices, not an arbitrarily delineated group of people (e.g., blacks, gays). I’d be happy to share the route I’ve taken to reach these conclusions, but not in this continuing hijack, and probably not today; too much work on my desk right now to devote the time this explication deserves.
Yes, narrow-minded dogmatic bigots do tend to have that belief.
Also, Scylla, please be so kind as find a cite for this accusation of trolling, the definition of which is NOT, I believe, suggesting that a hijack be taken elsewhere, as I have done here.
Scylla, UB, et al.—a hastily scrawled explication follows. PLEASE open another thread if you want to pursue this.
Needless to say, this is all strictly about the view from my treetop; YMM, of course, V.
I’m unable, for whatever emotionally immature reason, to divorce my political feelings completely from my personal feelings. I simply cannot fathom, for example, how James Carville and Mary Matalin could possibly make a marriage work.
I’ve been observing the world around me and drawing my own conclusions from that observation for forty years. The objective truth seems so very obvious to me that I am simply unable to understand how anyone can observe the same universe and be a conservative; it simply does not add up.
In addition, I have never been convinced by any conservative argument I have ever heard: each one seems more full of holes than the last one, and the holes are so freakin obvious, that the only way (my thinking goes) that someone can NOT see the holes is to REFUSE to see the holes, which of course is a form of dishonesty.
The nature of the world we live in, and the people who live in it, and the absolute necessity of our inextricably interwoven responsibility and mutual support seem to me like such crystal clear givens that I simply cannot see any honest way to ignore the truth of them.
Conservatives (so my thinking goes) have more motive to be dishonest: all their rationalizations and justifications are self motivated. You might call it a conflict of interest: the chief beneficiary of a conservative’s politics is himself. While a liberal’s energies seem, to my understanding, to be focused outward, on the community. A liberal’s philosophy is, “Work toward making the community a better place to live, and it follows necessarily that the individuals who make up that community will all mutually benefit from that happiness.” A conservative, to my mind, wants to skip the first step; “Screw the community, make ME fat and happy and—trust me on this—the rest will follow.”
This so patently does not work, as has been demonstrated (to me at any rate) time after time after time, that I cannot grasp that anyone could honestly buy it.
And yes, this is guilt by association, but O’Reilly’s a liar, Coulter’s a liar, Limbaugh’s a liar, George W.’s a liar, Gingrich is a liar, Reagan was a liar, and on and on and on. (And yes, Clinton lied about his personal life, but I’m talking about people who lie about wars and poverty and drugs and money and oil and genocide and on and on and on; I’ll take an adulterer over a demagogue any day.)
I don’t take those people as the cause for my beliefs, but as supporting documentation after the fact.
And no, Scylla, I am not being a bigot. We’ve gone over this before. If you define a group of people by an arbitrary characteristic like skin color, and then say they all share a common belief or behavior, that’s bigotry. But if you define a group by certain behavior or choice, and then address that behavior or choice, that is not bigotry. I am focusing on behaviors and choices, not arbitrary categorizations. And I am addressing the specific behaviors and choices by which I define that group, not categorizing by one behavior and then painting the whole group with a different brush.
And besides, you know perfectly well that generalization is not in and of itself evil; it’s just often misused (more often than not, probably), in the service of bigotry. Here are some contrasting generalizations, as an exercise.
[ul]Bigotry: Gay people are promiscuous.
Not bigotry: Gay people are attracted to members of their own gender.
Bigotry: Conservatives eat their children.
Not bigotry (but certainly an opinion and subject to debate): Conservatives subscribe to a belief system that causes more harm than good.
Bigotry: African Americans watch too much TV.
Not bigotry: African Americans tend to have a higher concentration of melanin in their skin than most people of European descent.
[/ul]To me, the difference in the examples above falls along the honest/dishonest divide: bigotry is a dishonest generalization.
So, to summarize for now, I have never heard a conservative argument that has sounded convincing, but—here’s the rub—I’ve heard them from people who seem smart enough to know better, so I must conclude (you’d say erroneously; fine) that there is some dishonesty at play. And since the outcome of any philosophy put forth by a conservative will likely benefit himself more than anyone else, there’s always a motive for the dishonesty ready to hand.
lissener’s political manifesto, in a nutshell.
Two out of the three items on your ‘Not bigotry’ list are facts supported by empirical data and can be proven.
One of them is your opinion, which no matter how true you believe it to be, is not a fact and cannot be proven.
On what basis do you equate your belief in the truth of an opinion with a scientifically verifiable fact?
So the fact that it’s your “honestly held” opinion makes it not bigoted? The KKK will be interested to hear that. As will the people that “honestly believe” homosexuals are deviants.
Or is the fact that the “group” you’re slandering is not made up from immutable characteristics? Then it’s not bigotry to say that the French are smelly (people can voluntarily change their nationality)? Or that anyone who dresses like a gangster is too stupid to vote (people can change how they dress)?
No. The truth is that your definition of “bigotry” does not jibe with that word’s actual definition. From dictionary.com:
The reason that I have a severe dislike for talking heads like Coulter and Savage (and others) is that they’re too small-minded to even understand the other side’s opinion. How else to explain why they never, ever disagree with their own party, and always disagree with their party opposition? They don’t oppose the other side’s ideas; they just oppose the other side. Rather than address the issues, they think it’s perfectly acceptable to slander the opposition by calling them liars or selfish or disrespectful. All of a sudden, instead of debating ideas, people are forced to waste time and effort defending their character or responding to idiotic and irrelevant attacks. In my opinion, these type of people drop the level of discourse by about 50 IQ points.
Man, I hate that.
As for conservatives with cross-over appeal, I’d second Dewey’s list, except to say that I’m ambivalent about O’Reilly, and I’m not sure I’d consider him a conservative anyway. I’d also add J.C. Watts (I was disappointed that the Pubbies screwed him around), Rudy Giuliani, and Sandra Day O’Connor.
I am a liberal checking in to let you know that you have put forth one of the most frightening and extremist arguments I have ever heard on these boards. Diversity of opinion is the great blessing of human existence. I cannot imagine coming to a point where you dismiss a huge portion of humanity that comes to conclusions different from your own.
An honest reply would have included most of the rest of this board listed as liars. Even most liberals hold some common ground with conservatives. For instance, I am a liberal that believes strongly in free markets. This is a traditionally conservative position.
I evince considerable pride in being among the lying conservatives in this case. The alternative being an ultra- rigid extremist who would espouse a manifesto that is about as frightening as Mao’s.
I can respect a conservative on fiscal issues. The economy is very complex; there are valid differences of opinion; it’s not always clear what is the right way to go.
I cannot respect a conservative on social issues. I’m bigoted against bigots.
sigh.
Should we even bother to ask which conservative social issue you’re talking about or should we just assume that every conservative social position is somehow bigoted?