Now this is a hardcore conservative... or maybe not

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_09_07_corner-archive.asp#013348

Look: I’m willing to defend income inequality, sweat shops, child labor, tax cuts and the like, if the merits are there. I’d privatize everything but the army and maybe four other things if I had my way. In other words, I’m no softy on these issues. But am I the only one in the corner offended by Dick Grasso’s 9/11 bonus? I mean at a time when everyone was talking about sacrifice and loss, when we were touting the resumption of our normal lives as a patriotic counter-strike to the terrorist menace, Dick Grasso get’s a five million dollar bonus on top of his enormous salary because the stock market re-opened? I despise financial populism of any kind, but this just strikes me as galling.

The really interesting bit is that the NYSE is a quasi-public institution, begging the question of what the hell is going on in there.

And one last funny conservative for tonight.

Coulter has no credibility. She’s like a caricature of herself.

Is her rhetoric overblown? Yeah, but she has a fantastic sense of comic timing…her columns never fail to bring a smile to my face. A bitter one, occasionally. Not to mention she’s a useful counterbalance…

As for NR’s corner…I particularly like the follow-up to the well-look-how-much-hollywood-actors-make argument. Goldberg’s tangents are the most solid part of his lineup.

National Review: Fair and Balanced?

Shhh…don’t let Fox hear you say that.

It would be hilarious if Fox sued NR!!

I would argue that we will be keeping our ground troops on in Iraq, spread around the country longer just to protect Halliburton employees. If this was really for the Iraqi people, wouldn’t we be “empowering” them to rebuild their own country? They seem to have an awful lot of idle hands.

It really is a comparable situation to the war on drugs and private prisons. The government creating a situation/infrastructure to help private companies.

Halliburton, Wackenhut, they are all the same.

Chet

That’s great. Can you bring some class warfare into it? Perhaps through another non-sequiter…
So can your position best be summed up as “the solution to Iraq is fewer troops and less foreign investment”?

It really is a comparable situation to the war on drugs and private prisons. The government creating a situation/infrastructure to help private companies.

Halliburton, Wackenhut, they are all the same.

Wackenhut: TEH NEW HITLER. I think you should embark on a quest for the Democratic candidacy yourself. Your platform could be “Creating a situation/infrastructure to hinder private companies”. I bet it’d be a bigger hit than Algore’s “Fuck the rich” approach.

It’s only a matter of time til they decide to copyright “conservative”.

Wow you so eloquently put some words together that maybe had something to do with the thoughts in your head, but do you really think we won’t be spending extra days in Iraq because we have chosen to rebuild the infrastructure ourselves?

I can only guess from your response that my point is so obvious, you were being wacky sarcastic.

Chet

Is her rhetoric overblown? Yeah, but she has a fantastic sense of comic timing…
[/quote]
She’s a moron. In this column alone, I find this: "On the basis of their recent pronouncements, the position of the Democratic Party seems to be that Saddam Hussein did not hit us on 9-11, but Halliburton did. " Is she trying to imply that Saddam Hussein hit us on 9-11? (because, of course, the Democrats are always wrong)

her columns never fail to bring a smile to my face. A bitter one, occasionally. Not to mention she’s a useful counterbalance…

It probably also wasn’t lost on him when Reagan pulled the marines out of Lebanon. But God forbid that she mention that.

Or her idiotic comment that “I note there was no need for a Marshall plan in Japan.” And there was no need for a MacArthur constitution in Germany. Does this even mean anything to a rational human being?

And does she really want to bring up the draft-dodging thing when she’s comparing Clinton to President who was AWOL during his stint in the Texas Nat’l Guard?

And is it a good idea to complain about $200 billion annually for the Marshall plan when Bush has just asked for an ADDITIONAL $87 billion for Iraq, and we haven’t even been there a year?

I’m going to end this rant now, b/c it’s just too irritating to continue.

Gav

Smooth cover. I can only guess from the considerable weakening of your “point” in the follow up that you are now being wacky regretful.

No, I believe in her own way she is simply connecting the dots between the “We are getting sidelined from the war on terror” approach to Iraq with the equally Democratic “It’s all about the greedy corporations”.

It probably also wasn’t lost on him when Reagan pulled the marines out of Lebanon. But God forbid that she mention that.

An excellent point. Reagan is one of her more flagrant blind spots. I especially like how “that Lewinsky woman” is lying under oath but “I don’t recall anything about that pesky Iran-Contra thing” isn’t.

Or her idiotic comment that “I note there was no need for a Marshall plan in Japan.” And there was no need for a MacArthur constitution in Germany. Does this even mean anything to a rational human being?

Well, yeah. That Japan (handled by the US exclusively) required mostly a structural framework for reconstruction, as opposed to the massive infusion of cash and the structural messes that Germany entailed.

And does she really want to bring up the draft-dodging thing when she’s comparing Clinton to President who was AWOL during his stint in the Texas Nat’l Guard?

You’ve got me. I guess there are different degrees of draft-dodging if you wish hard enough.

And is it a good idea to complain about $200 billion annually for the Marshall plan when Bush has just asked for an ADDITIONAL $87 billion for Iraq, and we haven’t even been there a year?

I don’t think she was complaining about the cost so much as correlating the relative success of the reconstructions of Germany and Japan. It’s not like the occupation of Japan was free, either.

Also, 200b was a lot more money back then.

I’m going to end this rant now, b/c it’s just too irritating to continue.

I agree. Deconstructing pundits of any sort is intellectual masturbation of the most frustrating kind.

Like I said, I am amused and occasionally aggravated by her. Not informed.

Right. Ann Coulter, reasonable! McCarthy got a raw deal!

L_K, long as you don’t take her as gospel, I have no quarrel with you about Ann Coulter (obviously, we disagree about just about everything else :-) )

But it’s still essentially meaningless if you know anything about the two regions. Frex, the Marshall Plan covered 16 countries, as opposed to Macarthur’s one.

I don’t think she was complaining about the cost so much as correlating the relative success of the reconstructions of Germany and Japan. It’s not like the occupation of Japan was free, either.

But, as I mentioned above, it’s a bizarre comparison. You might as well argue that b/c of Japan’s current economic problems the Marshall plan was more successful than MacArthur’s reconstruction.

Also, even if she’s not complaining about the cost as such, she’s just inviting comparison with Bush’s Iraq spending. Bush can only hope that he ends up with something as successful as the Marshall plan, and probably at a far greater cost (remember, the Marshall plan was $200 billion annually over 16 countries–Bush is coming close to that annual figure for just one.

Also, 200b was a lot more money back then.

She’s using today’s dollars for that figure. The cost in 1948 dollars was $13.3 billion over 4 years.

Like I said, I am amused and occasionally aggravated by her. Not informed.

Fair enough. I guess I’m just frustrated by the ninnies I hear on the radio who hang on her every word.

Gav

You really want to open that can of worms? Bloody Commie…

Gav: Yeah, you’re definitely right in pointing out the glaring inadequacies of her argument. I guess it’s a sign of how seriously I take her that I barely even stop to think about what she writes, rather just laugh and move on.

And I think it’s a sign that I shouldn’t post on an empty stomach when I start considering 200b a reasonable estimate of Marshall Plan funds.

Well, enough about her. How are those moderates Limbaugh and Buchanan doing?

She actually say that?

She actually say that?[/quote]

She’s been devoting an incredible amount of effort the past couple of years to “correcting” McCarthy’s image, yeah. Trying to make people “see” that there really was a vast communist conspiracy, that McCarthy was a good and noble patriot, that all of the excesses weren’t his fault, and that it’s traitor democrats who have sullied his noble image. Freaking insanity.