Posts with the tag 'Liberal hypocrisy'
I recently had the pleasure of interviewing S.E. Cupp and Brett Joshpe, authors of Why You’re Wrong About The Right: Behind The Myths - The Surprising Truth About Conservatives, which debunks 20 negative stereotypes about Republicans and conservatives.I have posted the interview below:
MATT MARGOLIS: Did your experiences growing up and living in the liberal northeast inspire you to write this book? Was there any particular incident that made writing book feel more like a necessity to you?
S.E. CUPP: Although I grew up in the liberal northeast, I didn’t necessarily grow up in a particularly political household. My parents were patriotic, hardworking and compassionate, so that was my largest immediate influence — not politics. It wasn’t until college really that I understood how conservative I was, and until I realized that the Republican Party best addresses my political interests. This book is a direct result of our circumstance, being conservative fish-out-of-water in liberal Manhattan, and finding ourselves inexplicably at the business end of a verbal firing squad on a near-daily basis.
BRETT JOSHPE: Yes, for sure. My experiences in college and law school probably contributed to my desire to write this book more than anything. It is very frustrating being lectured to by left-wing professors and having relatively little recourse. It made me want to respond in other ways, hence the book. Also, I witnessed a great deal of anti-Americanism given the post 9/11 world we live in, which was also frustrating and inspired me to want to work on this project.
MATT: How did you choose which stereotypes to address in your book?
S.E.: It wasn’t hard to come up with a list of 20 stereotypes that are regularly and inaccuarately used to sum up conservatives in catchy sound bytes and clever bon mots. I think anyone with a pulse and a television could come up with 20 stereotypes about Republicans.
MATT: How can Republicans overcome these stereotypes?
BRETT: Well, it certainly won’t happen lying down. It’s important for conservatives to disprove these stereotypes by not only showing people that they do not embody the myths, but by educating themselves on the facts so that these accusations can be refuted. Our book is a good place to start, and there are also some other new books filled with facts that show why some of these stereotypes are grossly inaccurate. Peter Schweizer’s new book, “Makers and Takers” is one such example.
MATT: Have any of your liberal friends read your book? Were they convinced by it?
S.E.: Many of our liberal friends have read the book, which is a feat in itself. And while they’ve all said how much they enjoyed it, how funny it was, and how informative it was, few have actually changed their own political ideologies. But I think a number have realized that conservatives and Republicans are far more intellectually diverse than they thought. I think they appreciate how nuanced our positions on race, reproduction, poverty, foreign policy, faith, gun control, and the rest are, and I think many will think twice now before using the same, hackneyed rhetoric to describe conservative points of view.
BRETT: Yes, many liberal friends have read it and enjoyed it. One such friend said that although it didn’t push him over the edge from liberal to conservative, it provided about a 20% swing towards conservatism. Not bad. If we could get a 20% swing in everyone, we would have no trouble in November. In general, I think most people, liberals and conservatives, who have read the book have enjoyed it and definitely have a more complete view of our movement now.
MATT: Did you ever consider writing a book about positive stereotypes about Democrats/liberals and debunking them, rather than a book debunking negative stereotypes about Republicans?
BRETT: No, because we have a very real and personal understanding of the negative stereotypes cast on conservatives since we have experienced them first-hand. And, to some extent, in addressing the stereotypes thrust on conservatives, we also touch on some hyprocritical liberals. However, the focus is still the defense of conservatism and the Republican party.
S.E.: We were very serious about making this book defensive, not offensive. I didn’t want to be another attack book on the shelves. I wanted to write positive things about conservatives, not negative things about liberals. And while we do point out some liberal hypocrisy (by necessity in some cases) the book is largely a defense of conservative ideals.
MATT: Are Republicans/conservatives at all to blame for perpetuating these stereotypes? Are we not doing enough to fight our negative image?
S.E.: Absolutely. Thanks to a few bad seeds who brazenly cling to the stereotypes like their badges of honor, some have been hard to erase. Also, we have collectively decided to ignore them. To their credit, most Republicans are more concerned with getting the job done than winning popularity contests, but someone needs to re-write the image. We’ve been racist, homophobic, warmongering, sexist, boring, money-grubbing and uncaring for way too long.
MATT: S.E., in the introduction you wrote about the dilemma of writing such a book as you did. Specifically, you wrote, “our friends are already repulsed by us.” Do you believe that political differences put major strains on friendships?
S.E.: Unfortunately they can. Tucker Carlson adroitly pointed out in our book that liberals don’t have categories for people they like personally but dislike politically. And we’ve definitely run across this. I couldn’t imagine “de-friending” someone because of their politics, but I think conservatives are far more used to dealing with liberals than liberals are conservatives, especially in urban, liberal environments like Manhattan. But even in conservative strongholds, Republicans are still explosed to liberal influences, like television and the media, the liberal ethos of Hollywood, underground youth subcultures. So yes, being conservative sometimes makes us unpopular. But Brett and I really celebrate our minority status.
MATT: Brett, I grew up near Boston, and found that despite the dominating presence of liberals, especially in the Peoples’ Republican of Cambridge, that there were quite a few conservatives out there, but were a very silent majority. While you went to school at Harvard Law School, did see similar evidence of conservative oppression? How did you deal with it?
BRETT: I agree. I’m not sure conservatives constitute a majority but they are certainly a silent presence. When I formed an organization in law school that supported the war in Iraq, we held a rally near the Cambridge T station one Saturday afternoon. We had a few dozen people waiving American flags, and suddenly cars were stopping in the intersection honking their horns in support. You could tell that people were relieved that a group of students was finally showing a love of this country in Cambridge. Even in the classroom, conservatives constituted a rather vocal minority. I think in every liberal, big city in America, there are more conservatives than people often assume. I encourage those people not to be intimidated by their surroundings because they will be surprised by how many similar minded people are among them.
MATT: Do you think liberals in conservative areas have similar problems?
BRETT: Not nearly as much. I think conservatives in conservative areas tend to be a bit more tolerant than liberals in big cities. As S.E. mentioned, one of our contributors discussed how liberals tends not to have a category for people they like personally but dislike politically. I like to think that conservatives are better able to separate the political from the personal. Of course, I am biased, but that has been my experience.
MATT: Democrats claim to be the party of tolerance and diversity, why is it then conservatives in liberal areas feel they can’t be open about their politics?
S.E.: The wrath of angry liberals is disturbing. And militant groups like Code Pink, for example, scare the bejesus out of me. For such supposed tolerance, liberals are surprisingly exclusionary, preferential and judgmental. And there’s the presumption on the part of liberals that everyone agrees with them (and if they don’t, it’s because they’re dumb). So overhearing a couple liberals in Whole Foods asserting that people who don’t eat organic, drive hybrids, and oppose drilling should be tried and executed for mass murder can be really intimidating. I completely understand why conservatives in liberal places keep their politics to themselves. But hopefully this book gives some people courage to “come out,” as it were.
MATT: Lastly, how has the response been your your book, from both conservatives and liberals?
S.E.: Really excellent. For the most part people find the book engaging, provocative, funny and surprising. We get tons of mail and it’s mostly positive. When we get disagreement, it’s generally thoughtful and insightful, and we appreciate that too. Of course, we also get the occasional piece of vicious hate mail, but that’s to be expected from some members of the Church of Tolerant Liberalism.
BRETT: It has been really great so far. As I mentioned, even liberal friends have found the book persuasive and many conservatives who have shared our frustration in being stereotyped are happy that we have tried to set the record straight.
MATT: Thanks you for taking the time to answer my questions.
Once again, the book is called Why You’re Wrong About The Right: Behind The Myths - The Surprising Truth About Conservatives, and is written by S.E. Cupp and Brett Josphe.
Tags: Brett Joshpe, Conservatism, interview, Liberal hypocrisy, liberalism, S.E. Cupp, Why You're Wrong About The Right
July 28th, 2008
In 2004, protesters at the Democratic National Convention were put into a “free speech cage,” in order to keep them contained and away from delegates.
It looks like they’re planning similar infringements on free speech for their convention in Denver.
The fence around the public demonstration zone outside the Democratic National Convention will be chicken wire or chain link, authorities revealed in U.S. District Court today.
That may allow protestors to be seen and heard by delegates going in and out of the Pepsi Center during the convention.
But the American Civil Liberties Union and several advocacy groups have filed an amended complaint to their lawsuit against the U.S. Secret Service and the city and county of Denver that says protestors and demonstrators may have their First Amendment rights violated by security restrictions.
The ACLU has said it wants to avoid the conditions that existed during the 2004 convention in Boston, where protesters were caged, infuriating First Amendment advocates.
The first phase of the lawsuit asked the court to compel the city and the Secret Service to disclose the information on protest restrictions.
What really gets me about this is that back in 2004, liberals accused the Bush campaign of kicking out protesters from campaign rallies, while all attempts by Democrats to limit the free speech of protesters who oppose them aren’t criticized at all.
Just goes to show you howl little the Democrats think about the Constitution.
Tags: anti-free-speech, Democratic Convention, Liberal hypocrisy
July 1st, 2008
Hows’ this for hypocrisy: If you don’t support Barack Obama, if you dare mention his middle name, you’re accused of fearmongering. If you support Obama, and mention his middle name, you deserve a freakin’ medal:
Barack Obama’s middle name Hussein has been used in some corners as a rallying cry to cast false aspersions against him, but in a growing movement, some of his supporters are adopting his middle name as a show of solidarity with the candidate.
The New York Times reports that those who are adding Hussein to their name tags — at least online — come from a wide variety of backgrounds, including Jews and Catholics, Hispanics and Asians; and from all over the country, from Oklahoma to Washington, D.C.
[…]
People are changing e-mail accounts and adding Hussein as their middle names on social-networking sites like Facebook, the Times reports, to deaden the effect the name “Hussein” has on some people who see it as a negative trait.
Well then, if they can call attention to it, from now on, I’ll just call him by his full name, Barack Hussein Obama.
Tags: Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Liberal hypocrisy
June 29th, 2008
Yep, that Obama; just a breath of fresh air in American political life:
Obama: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” (Barack Obama, Remarks At Fundraiser, Philadelphia , PA, 6/14/08)
FLASHBACK: Obama: “I chose to run … because I believed that Americans of every political stripe were hungry for a new kind of politics, a politics that focused not just on how to win but why we should, a politics that focused on those values and ideals that we held in common as Americans…” (Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Des Moines , Iowa , 12/27/07)
One of the more amusing (in a sad way) things about modern politics is the way the left has convinced itself that the left has been the victim of a smear campaign - this is one of the best illustrations of the “big lie” I’ve ever seen. There is, however, an internal logic to this - when the left calls the right racist, sexist and homophobic the left views this as mere statement of self-evident fact, and thus can’t be a smear. On the other hand, as leftists are living saints (in the important things - which don’t include actually helping the poor, but do include recycling), anything which might cast them in a bad light is automatically a smear. Example: Calling the President “BusHitler” is ok, merely asking quesitons about Kerry’s bona-fides is evil; get it?
But the fact remains - it is the left which is nasty, and increasingly so. As I said early on, we can expect the most massive smear campaign in human history to be directed against John McCain - Obama isn’t really talking about bringing a gun to a knife fight, but about bringing a gun to something that isn’t (or shouldn’t) even be a fight but should, instead, be a careful exposition of the contrasting views so that the American people can make an informed decision about what direction they wish the nation to be taken…but, the problem with this is that such an exposition would result in a crushing victory for McCain, so that whole concept is out the window.
Get ready for the political gun battle, boys and girls, because we can’t afford to hold fire.
UPDATE: This is making Team McCain rethink their offer of ten town hall meetings:
Obama Flip-Flop on Gun Control? Or New Politics? Or Both?
Barack Obama appeared at a fundraiser in Philadelphia last night where he delivered the following remark:
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
A couple thoughts from McCain HQ on this. First, Barack Obama has a long track record as a proponent of stringent gun-control regulations–to the point that a questionnaire filled out by his staff, and with the candidate’s handwriting on it, stated that Obama favored a ban on the manufacture, sale, and distribution of handguns. Can we assume that Senator Obama now opposes efforts to ban the possession of handguns?
Second, would Obama be carrying a concealed weapon to this fight? Will he have a permit?
And finally, we’re having second thoughts about our proposed series of town halls.
Tags: Barack Obama, Liberal hypocrisy
June 14th, 2008
That’s the interesting question I heard yesterday from a nondescript liberal-leaning fill-in host on a rerun of an October talk radio show. The host, who admitted that the democrat party has lost its once prominent base of white male voters, acknowledged that the democrat party wrote off the voting bloc 30 years ago, and hasn’t courted it since.
A quick google search suggests that the concept is not lost on many a democrat mind; some saying that the white male vote is a bloc forever lost in the democrat vest pocket; a prodigal son never to return to the fold. Others say that the white male voter is still a yet-untapped bloc of voters that if accessed, would assure a democrat juggernaut for years, if not decades to come.
The radio host went on to observe that all is not well in republican-land; that white male voters were becoming disaffected with the Republican party; and went on to cite the war in Iraq as the major factor in white male disaffection within the GOP.
I would submit that there may indeed be a growing disaffection with the GOP among white males, but the war in Iraq would be the least, if not nearly the least of the reasons. If anything, the disaffection of the white male voting bloc with the Republican party is due to the fact that the Republican Party, rather than governing under the principles that swept it into a decade-long majority, actually forgot who it was that brought them to the dance; and instead started acting like the two-bit tart that flirts with all the other guys while her frustrated date looks on.
The white male voting bloc signed on first with Ronald Reagan, then with Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America; and not for democrat lite. President Bush received a hefty majority vote among the white male voting bloc, not because we were ecstatic over his expansion of Medicare into prescription drugs for seniors; not because of his endorsement of No Child Left Behind; but rather because between him and Jean Francois Kerrie, he was the only one that could be trusted to be a stalwart against the terrorists, and the one who actually gave a damn about protecting this nation.
So, back to the original question, what would it take for me, a white, middle class male, to be able to vote for a democrat as President of the United States?
Here is a non-inclusive, though important list of the top four traits that would make it so:
- 1. First and foremost: The democrat must put America first, not blame America first.
If your rhetoric panders to the European intelligentsia, go and run for German Chancellor or President of France.
If you put the "rights" of terrorists above the safety of the United States, its citizens, and its defenders in harm’s way, just so you can beat your chest atop your soapbox and claim that you’re a morally-superior, caring, sensitive, feeling metrosexual, forget about leading the U.S.
Go and apply as a houseboy for OBL, sing kumbaya with Kalid Sheikh Muhammed; but get the hell out of my face and leave the leading of the Free World to the big boys, okay?
You want to know a secret? If the presidential race were between Ron Paul on the Republican side, and Joe Lieberman on the Democrat side, I’d vote for Joe Lieberman in a heartbeat, based on the above principle alone.
- 2. National security is serious business. Quit screwing with it.
The notion of National Security embodies the very fight for our survival as a nation and as a people. It is not a political-point vending machine placed there for your convenience.
When you go and treat Iraq as a political football game to be won, rather than what should and must be a critical strategic victory over a deadly geopolitical enemy; going so far as to actually lay obstacles in the way of our victory, and putting those who put their lives on the line in additional and unnecessary risk as a result, that tells me you don’t give a rat’s posterior about the security of our nation, and that as such you have no business leading it.
There really are people and even nations out there who mean to do us harm.
9/11 should have given you a clue.
- 3. The democrat must quit showing contempt for America and that for which it stands!
Trust me on this. You may get a pat on the back from your fellow limousine liberals over at the Yacht club, but you won’t score a single vote among the "Joe Sixpack" crowd if you refuse to wear a flag on your lapel because you have contempt for the nation for which you are asking for the privilege and honor of leading.
It’s OK to say you love America, that it is the greatest nation on earth, and that Americans have spilled more blood and have given more treasure to help the downtrodden than any nation in the history of the planet.
It’s OK. Really, it is.
- 4. Don’t tell us what our problems are. We know what they are.
Running a grocery-styled bitchlist of everything that’s wrong, and portraying everyone under the sun as a victim isn’t going to make any white guy run through a wall to get you elected.
Here’s a novel idea: Present a vision of what is right about America, and an accompanying vision of how to work with what’s right so as to become an even greater nation (and–this is important– believe in it!).
Ronald Reagan’s Shining City on the Hill vision eventually garnered him two landslide terms as President. Jimmy Carter’s "malaise" speech, along with his inability to proffer a positive vision of America’s future is arguably what lost him his second term, and what sealed his fate as one of the most ineffectual presidents in history.
Again, this list is far from inclusive as to what it would take for me to vote for a democrat as President, but it’s a start. I offer this in the knowledge that the suggestions put forth in this screed will be summarily dismissed as hogwash, and also in the knowledge that some leftwinger will no doubt leave some "clever" comments about how wrong I am. But it was a democrat that asked the question, and since I am the world’s leading authority on what I think and feel, I answered it to the best of my ability.
Fire away.
(Cross-posted at The Ice Palace)
Tags: Democratic Majority, Democratic Nomination, Iraq, Joe Lieberman, Liberal hypocrisy, liberal talk radio, NIE, President Bush, Ron Paul
December 23rd, 2007
A Muslim girl was murdered by her father, reportedly for her refusal to wear a hijab.
Where is the outrage in the streets from this woman’s sisters at NOW? A perusal of their website denotes no outrage, not even a mention of this story, nor any other story of oppression and/or torture of women at the hands of male Muslim counterparts!
Oh, they’re having a bloody cow over the reinstatement of Don Imus. But of course, calling someone a “nappy-headed ho” is a much more an egregious offense than strangling a girl to death, or mutilating her genitalia. They’re lobbying Congress for “hate crime” legislation, but I’ll bet not one word is said about the hate crimes that are perpetrated daily against their Muslim sisters.
Where are the demonstrations in the streets? Where are the hoardes at U.C. Berkeley who protested the supposed torture practiced by the CIA? (yes, I know that waterboarding is much more heinous than murder and beheading or lifelong subjugation of women)
Where is the outrage on the Left regarding the murder of Aqsa Parvez?
Could it be that there is no political gain or agenda to be advanced in demonstrating against Islamist atrocities? Could it be that the moonbat left has a problem pointing out that which may actually give credence to the reasons behind our war against radical Islam?
Could it be that the suffering of women isn’t really important to them at all?
Could it be that there must be a political payoff before they’ll demonstrate about anything? Or that any outrage that they do display is contrived and calculated to get the maximum political benefit?
Could. It. Be?
Tags: Acts of Hatred, agenda, Islam, Liberal hypocrisy, torture
December 19th, 2007
