Pages

Jump to bottom

14 comments

1 D. Tomeric  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:38:45am

Quite frankly I see newfound isolationism amongst the GOP to be a qualified positive. It may very well go to far (in fact, it nearly certainly will) but if their fervor can be used to make opposition to "foreign entanglements", as George Washington referred to them, a bipartisan affair again that can only help the country.

The problem then becomes one of what to do with the military and it's budget, because we all know the isolationists will simultaneously rail against using the military abroad and insist on keeping it's massively bloated capabilities and budget unchecked.

2 Gus  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:43:58am

Like clockwork, David Swindle at David Horowitz's garbage website, NewsRealBlog responds with a childish smear of Alex Knepper: The Liar Alex Knepper Wasn’t Fired for Criticizing Ann Coulter, He Was Fired for Being An Intemperate, Unmanageable, Perverted, Impulsive, Narcissistic Child.

This was followed by a response from Knepper at Frum Forum: Am I a Pervert? My Reply to NewsRealBlog Smears.

This is not the first time that we've seen this type of mental refuse emanating from Horowitz's site via the equally sophomoric Ryan Mauro: Ryan Mauro and the Christian Action Network.

3 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:48:19am

re: #2 Gus 802

It is going to be interesting to see how people like Horowitz adapt to the new isolationism. His whole career was built advocating an aggressive foreign policy.

4 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:50:42am

re: #1 Brew Dad

I just don't think it's practical in today's world. In Washington's time it would take months to cross the ocean. The world is much smaller now and I don't think strict isolationism is practical or moral.

5 Cheese Eating Victory Monkey  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 9:54:53am

re: #1 Brew Dad

The "foreign entanglements" quote is quite the anachronism in our interconnected world. One can argue about the wisdom of starting or quitting wars, but George Washington lived in an era without complex international interests and modern global threats.

6 Gus  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 10:02:48am

re: #3 Killgore Trout

It is going to be interesting to see how people like Horowitz adapt to the new isolationism. His whole career was built advocating an aggressive foreign policy.

What fascinates me isn't the Afghanistan debate -- which I think is welcome in an open democratic society -- but the bipolar reversal of those like Horowitz, Coulter, etc. Michael Steele planted the seed for what is now a growing rift within the conservative movement as Matt Lewis opines:

Ann Coulter vs. Bill Kristol: Beginnings of a Conservative Schism?

Ann Coulter's recent column "Bill Kristol Must Resign" may have officially kicked off the next great schism within the conservative movement. At issue is the war in Afghanistan -- and, more specifically, whether Republicans should support President Obama's approach to a conflict that has now lasted for Americans far longer than World War II.

Mocking neoconservatives, Coulter wrote: "Bill Kristol [editor of The Weekly Standard] and Liz Cheney have demanded that [Michael] Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war -- and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)"

[...]

Coulter is not the first conservative to warn that Afghanistan could turn into a quagmire. George Will and Tony Blankley have raised that very point. But Coulter has made it in a way that directly -- and personally -- challenges conservative orthodoxy. And it's catching on. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough tweeted Coulter's column out to his followers, adding, "Thank you, Ann Coulter. She speaks out against the GOP now being for permanent war. She is right."

And if conservatives are asked to choose sides between, say, the elected leader of the Republican National Committee (Steele) and the titular head of the Democratic National Committee (Obama), how many will decide that Obama's Afghanistan policies are not worth the trouble? Maybe it was unavoidable, but it does seem as if Coulter's comments today hearken back to the 1990s -- when Bill Clinton was in the Oval Office -- and conservatives criticized his efforts in places like Bosnia and Kosovo as "nation building."

Clearly, things have changed since 2008, when candidates John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and even Mitt Romney represented the mainstream viewpoint, and when Congressman Ron Paul was essentially mocked for his isolationist tendencies and his desire for a "humble foreign policy." Today, Paul's positions are enjoying resurgence, and his son, Rand Paul, is poised to be elected to the U.S. Senate. How quickly things change.

[...]

7 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 10:06:24am

re: #6 Gus 802

What fascinates me isn't the Afghanistan debate -- which I think is welcome in an open democratic society -- but the bipolar reversal of those like Horowitz, Coulter, etc. Michael Steele planted the seed for what is now a growing rift within the conservative movement as Matt Lewis opines:


I'm pretty sure it was a calculated move by the Republican party based on their own internal polling. There was enough support for isolationism in their base to make the change. Steele was just the guinea pig to launch the new talking points.

8 Gus  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 10:08:23am

re: #7 Killgore Trout

I'm pretty sure it was a calculated move by the Republican party based on their own internal polling. There was enough support for isolationism in their base to make the change. Steele was just the guinea pig to launch the new talking points.

Indeed. It was done to enlarge the Tea Party and Ron Paul base of the GOP. It also become an attractant to independent voters. Officially, by way of Steele, it is a cynical political move.

9 Daniel Ballard  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 12:34:51pm

It may really be The End Times. For the ridiculous right wing.

10 Crimsonfisted  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 12:59:19pm

I don't get it at all. Winning in Afghanistan is important regardless who is in the Oval Office. Am I wrong on that? This makes my head hurt.

11 lostlakehiker  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 2:39:22pm

re: #1 Brew Dad

Quite frankly I see newfound isolationism amongst the GOP to be a qualified positive. It may very well go to far (in fact, it nearly certainly will) but if their fervor can be used to make opposition to "foreign entanglements", as George Washington referred to them, a bipartisan affair again that can only help the country.

The problem then becomes one of what to do with the military and it's budget, because we all know the isolationists will simultaneously rail against using the military abroad and insist on keeping it's massively bloated capabilities and budget unchecked.

How do we all know that? History is not always repeated, but it's always a clue. In the 1920s and 1930s, the Republicans were fairly isolationist; too much so, considering what was afoot. They were also much inclined to pinch the military's budget. There was a deficit, times were tough, etc.

How do we know that it's a good idea to have a weak military? We did that in the 1930s, and then right after WW2 we quickly demobilized. So we got caught with our pants down in Korea, just 8 years after Pearl Harbor.

In both cases, our enemies miscalculated, but our own decisions made that miscalculation more likely: we created a situation in which they could see clearly that at any rate they'd get off to a good start with their war.

12 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 4:41:10pm

So, the GOP goes isolationist while the left maintains its traditional mythology of defeat-as-virtue. This seems to leave just Obama, Gates, my humble self, and the men and women of the US armed forces to resist the defeatist clamor. I couldn't ask for better company.

13 The Left  Sun, Jul 11, 2010 5:00:44pm

re: #12 Shiplord Kirel

So, the GOP goes isolationist while the left maintains its traditional mythology of defeat-as-virtue.

I see we're back to pretending that Obama is weak on defense, hasn't done much more than Bush did in Afghanistan, and repeating the tradition meme that 'the left' hates america and wants american military defeat.

Damn, I'm so tired of the hippiepunching. What year is it again? Why are so many right wing memes at least 30 years old?

14 Vambo  Mon, Jul 12, 2010 8:12:39am

We have always been at war with Eurasia, says Ann Coulter.

The woman who said we should "kill their children and convert them to Christianity" is now anti-war. First reaction: LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!! Second reaction: Oh my gah.

I can't wait until Coulter's next interview, when someone brings up her support for the invasion of Afghanistan under Bush... it will be fun to watch her trip over her own excuses.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 146 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1