The vultures have begun to circle.
On the very day of Ronald Reagan's death, I interviewed numerous activists wishing the 40th President death and seeing his passing as an event demanding celebration. These crackpots that I wrote about today on National Review Online are not alone in their opinions.
Christopher Hitchens eulogizes Reagan as a "cruel and stupid lizard," "as dumb as a stump," and "an obvious phony and loon." About this last part, was Hitchens talking about Reagan or himself? Cartoonist Ted Rall imagines Reagan burning in hell. "Ronald Reagan was a conman," Greg Palast writes. "Reagan was a coward. Reagan was a killer."
Why does Ronald Reagan, even in death, elicit such unglued reactions? Maybe because he travelled down a path the Ted Ralls, Christopher Hitchenses, and Greg Palasts of the world knew led to certain failure. Yet Reagan, a man they viewed as an intellectual inferior, pursued that path and found overwhelming success--92 months of economic expansion, diminishing inflation, unemployment, and interest rates, the demise of the Soviet Union, and restored pride in America after the disasters of the 1970s.
How dare he suceed when their theories determined he would fail?
Gotta loves these tolewrant compassionate people. When did liberalism become the apostate of hate. I am getting to the point of being way past anger at this sociopathic people.
These people are the absolute epitome of that which they clainm to hate. If you want to know what these people are thinking or doing it is always what they are accusing us hard working, God fearing, Americans of. TRULY SICK
I have question -- now. Hitchens has been -- since severing ties with The Nation and that devil bitch Katrina? -- congenially praised and intellectually embraced by many high-profile Conservatives commandering high traffic Conservative forums. He's on many buddies list as an ok guy. David Horowitz is one buddy fond of Hitchens I can think of off the top of my head, a guy with huge popular cultural stroke. Just how do us conservatives process this vitriol? Is it acceptable to excuse this vulgarity as simply one erratic exercise of Hitchen's freedom of speech, and then find it ok to engage his good writing skills and quasi-/libertarian/conservatism on all the rest. Or do we get our heads out of our arses and spurn him through and through as the complete crapbag he truly is. I, for one, am fed up with Conservatives (so they say) making compromises in ways that allow the enemies to get away with this flamethrowing brand of compartmentalized hate -- hate across the board for all Conservative ideas. We know it for what it shows itself to be yet we don't call it what it is. We say, come on, we didn't take it the way you meant it, come on back over to our sand box and play. While what they really get to do is destroy, grain by grain, everything we conservatives believe in.
As Mr. Reagan would say to the idiot
"Well; there you go again"
May God bless Reagan and America
Frankly, I think the Hitchens phenom is this: folks on the Right have long felt the skewer of Hitchens' wit and ability. Seeing him turn his tools on the Left was cause for celebration.
It was not, however, what many conservatives tried to make it: Hitchens becoming a Man of the Right.
Let's not forget, this is the guy who slagged Mother Teresa. He's an asshole. A well-written one, but an asshole nonetheless.
Reagan was a conservative, a consensus builder and a profoundly warm and witty man. George Bush is not.
Walter, try "hogwash" on for size.
Bush is sincerely warm and witty. Ask those who've spent time with him. He's a consensus builder (too much so, if you ask me). Perhaps his conservative credentials aren't Reagan-esque - but Reagan raised taxes, don't forget.
