Freepers Make Astounding Discovery : Dispatches from the Creation Wars

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Profile

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb

Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

My Ecosystem Details

« Awww, No Obama Holiday? | Main | Radio Update and Request for Help »

Freepers Make Astounding Discovery

Posted on: November 14, 2008 9:23 AM, by Ed Brayton

The loons at Free Republic have finally figured out that Michael Savage is a "self-serving, self-promoting egotist" and an "unhinged narcissist." What did it take to get them to recognize that? He criticized Sarah Palin.

Find more posts in:

Politics

Comments

Every once in a while his show is the only thing that comes in on my car radio. At first I couldn't believe how smoothly he'd transistion from a guy trying to make a rational argument to a raving lunatic. His listeners that call in are worse.

Posted by: Odie | November 14, 2008 9:37 AM

From comments:

Palin is the most articulate voice of conservatism to come into the limelight in a long time . . .

It's signed "Tamar1973", but I'm thinking Hinderaker.

Posted by: noncarborundum | November 14, 2008 10:07 AM

If Palin represents their most articulate voice, conservatism is dead. Not that I mind....

Posted by: Mike | November 14, 2008 10:38 AM

Mike, I disagree, but only on the semantics. I think conservatives really do feel she articulated their values like no one else in recent political history - not since the Godfather of the GOP, Saintly Ronald Reagan. She was the embodiment of the rabid religious right, which is why I feared and disliked her so much. She was appealing in her appearance but she appealed and continues to appeal to conservatives because they found her ideals attractive.

And that the commenter used "limelight" is telling: they think she is a star (talk about a celebrity), who will be ascendent to its zenith in oh about half a decade minus one. Let us all hope she is merely of the shooting-star variety, as quick and as gone as a meteor burning up in the atmosphere as it plummets to earth.

Posted by: marnk | November 14, 2008 11:15 AM

"Palin is the most articulate voice of conservatism to come into the limelight in a long time . . ."

That is arguably true. I mean, can you think of a more articulate voice of conservatism to come into the limelight in recent years? Bush? Romney? Huckabee could at least tell a joke, but that's about it. This is a distinction with a low, low bar.

Posted by: Moopheus | November 14, 2008 11:15 AM

Thanks, Ed: I accidentally read a few of the comments at that link, and now I can't remember how to tie my shoes...

Posted by: Spidergrackle | November 14, 2008 11:40 AM

Moopheus wrote:

"Palin is the most articulate voice of conservatism to come into the limelight in a long time . . ."

That is arguably true. I mean, can you think of a more articulate voice of conservatism to come into the limelight in recent years?

Well, if you're talking "conservatism," and not "Republicanism," perhaps Andrew Sullivan or George Will.

But those guys endorsed Obama in spite of their conservative leanings.

Republicanism is a whole different, partisan, ignorant, kettle of fish. The FReepers are more Republican than conservative -- and they're all a bunch of right wing nut jobs because if you try to post there without being one you'll get booted off and banned.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/11/can-you-hear-me-now.html

Posted by: Norman Doering | November 14, 2008 11:44 AM

Well, if you're talking "conservatism," and not "Republicanism," perhaps Andrew Sullivan or George Will. But those guys endorsed Obama in spite of their conservative leanings..

George Will endoresed Obama?!?

Posted by: Gabe Kaplan | November 14, 2008 12:06 PM

Gabe Kaplan asked:

George Will endoresed Obama?!?

See for yourself:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/10/george-f-will-e.html

Posted by: Norman Doering | November 14, 2008 12:15 PM

Norman - do you have a source for the Will endorsement?

Also, I self-identify as a republican, and certainly not as a conservative. I consider myself center-left to center-right on most issues, Colin Powell probably has an ideology most in line with my own. Andrew Sullivan does as well though I don't believe he's conservative since no other conservatives seem to self-identify as such and agree with him. These Freepers, who I just heard of in Ed's forum the other day, are a species I can in no way relate to on the matters they care about nor does it fit the classic ideal of what republicanism actually is.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 14, 2008 12:18 PM

But those guys endorsed Obama in spite of their conservative leanings.

No, they endorsed Obama because of their conservative leanings. They evaluated each of the tickets and decided that Obama was, at the very least, the candidate most in line with their leanings. Not just from an ideology standpoint necessarily, but intellectually. Obama is coming across pretty centrist (at least fiscally, so far), and I would not be surprised if he upholds some of the conservative intellectual principles in a better fashion than McCain or Palin would.

Posted by: mathyoo | November 14, 2008 12:20 PM

Michael Heath asked:

Norman - do you have a source for the Will endorsement?

Oh, yee of little faith, of course I do:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/29/AR2008102903199_pf.html

Also, I self-identify as a republican, and certainly not as a conservative.

I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you get better.

Colin Powell probably has an ideology most in line with my own.

So, you'd lie to the U.N. too?

These Freepers, who I just heard of in Ed's forum the other day, are a species I can in no way relate to on the matters they care about nor does it fit the classic ideal of what republicanism actually is.

They're the base of your party.

Posted by: Norman Doering | November 14, 2008 12:25 PM

mathyoo wrote:

Norman Doering wrote:
But those guys endorsed Obama in spite of their conservative leanings.

No, they endorsed Obama because of their conservative leanings. They evaluated each of the tickets and decided that Obama was, at the very least, the candidate most in line with their leanings.

You're not suffering from the delusion that conservatism is some sort of coherent political philosophy, are you?

Not just from an ideology standpoint necessarily, but intellectually. Obama is coming across pretty centrist (at least fiscally, so far),...

Can you really call anyone advocating these massive billion, or trillion, dollar bail outs conservative or centrist?

... and I would not be surprised if he upholds some of the conservative intellectual principles in a better fashion than McCain or Palin would.

Be specific.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/11/yet-more-evidence-that-right-wing.html

Posted by: Norman Doering | November 14, 2008 12:40 PM

Palin is not articulate in any way my college English or public speaking instructors would appreciate. Some people, when asked a question, ponder it, seriously think about how best to answer it, carefully phrase the points in their minds and finally deliver a string of words that make sense. Palin just begins talking hoping the right words get spoken from the fount of 200-300 words she is comfortable with. Often she will hit phrases she has practiced regardless of whether they make sense in context. (Joe the plumber, for instance.)

I pity any movement or group that relies on her to articulate anything beyond an order at McDonald's. I do wonder how her most rabid right-wing nutjob fans feel hearing her talk about supporting Obama. They probably figure she's lying like a good politician and appreciate her all the more for it.

Posted by: Mike | November 14, 2008 12:46 PM

I don't think it's correct to say these folks are "Republican," not "conservative." That wholly ignores the history of the Republican Party, and it also very poorly correlates with being "republican" (small r).

What these folks are is reactionaries, plain and simple.

Posted by: James Hanley | November 14, 2008 1:42 PM

Andrew Sullivan does as well though I don't believe he's conservative since no other conservatives seem to self-identify as such and agree with him.

Michael, Andrew Sullivan is definitely a conservative. While he has been on the Obama train for the past couple of years he was a big supporter of Bush's war until after the 2004 election when his concerns over what Bush was doing to our civil liberties helped him realize the war was a big mistake. And his near pathological hatred of the Clintons was a huge motivation for his backing Obama so vigorously during the primaries.

But it's his idol worship of Margaret Thatcher, probably the most conservative British PM in a century, that proves his blood runs true Tory blue. He hates the idea of a nationalized health service (Thatcher considered ridding the UK of the NHS, but the public backlash would have been brutal, so she balked), and if and when the Republicans return from their dalliance with the religious right he will be firmly in their camp.

That said, it's been fun reading his blog these past few months. His dismay over Palin and the social conservatism she represents is genuine and heartfelt. British conservatism (as epitomized by the current leader, David Cameron, who is quite comfortable with a couple of his gay colleagues getting hitched) move past these issues years ago, and that's what Sullivan is fighting for to happen here in the US.

Posted by: tacitus | November 14, 2008 2:30 PM

Norman -

I can see where Will has lots of unpleasant things to say about the Republican ticket. But nowhere do I see where he goes on to explicitly, or even implicitly, endorse Obama.

Posted by: Dave S. | November 14, 2008 3:29 PM

Dave S. wrote:

But nowhere do I see where he goes on to explicitly, or even implicitly, endorse Obama.

I saw it as implicit. And would this not qualify as an endorsement:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08267/914214-109.stm

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

Posted by: Norman Doering | November 14, 2008 4:23 PM

I think it is an interesting discussion as to what the terms "republican" or "conservative" refer to at this time. From my perspective the republican party has had to appeal to a coalition of neo conservative groups in order to maintain their numbers. These groups are the militarists, corporatists, religious fundamentalists, and nativists. Removing any one of these groups from the coalition brings republican numbers so low as to be non competitive with the democrats. Intelectual conservatives possesing integrity and honesty find themselves in coalition with these people that they often can have little in common with. In my opinion it is time to destroy the two party system so we can all be more forthright in expousing our views and bring the ideological differences out into the open where we may or may not form alliances honestly and without sacraficing our values.
M Duran

Posted by: Mark Duran | November 14, 2008 4:53 PM

They honestly believe that a Palin/Jindal ticket will win in 2012? Because that ticket will appeal to moderates more than McCain did?!?!?

Obviously quite delusional...

Posted by: dogmeatib | November 14, 2008 5:59 PM

Are the philosophies of the "intellectual conservatives" even that appealing? Doesn't the true root of English conservatism, at least, center on support for the aristocracy and the established Church? How can intellectual conservatism even have a basis in the United States? We are supposed to worship the descendents of hopped up robber barons and financiers?

(Of course...advocating the rights of descendents of raiding brigands and warrrior tribes may not be that justifiable, either...but...

Posted by: Brian | November 14, 2008 6:07 PM

Are the philosophies of the "intellectual conservatives" even that appealing?

Depends on who you're talking about. Barry Goldwater, Bill Buckley, Scoop Jackson, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan (all variously "conservative" today) could have a good argument over dinner without any of them trying to pull brain-dead sound bites as though they meant anything. They could think carefully about each others' views and arguments, respect them without having to agree with them, and part as friends.

Damn I miss them. I like to hope that President-elect Obama would be able to pull up a chair at that table and join the conversation on the same terms. Time will tell.

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | November 14, 2008 6:55 PM

Quoth Norm Doering:

Can you really call anyone advocating these massive billion, or trillion, dollar bail outs conservative or centrist?

The majority of the legislators voting against those bailouts (which are actually power-grabs by the Treasury Secretary and his friends on Wall Street) were Republicans.

I said some time ago that the only way for the Republicans to win the election this year was to prepare articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney and pressure them to resign in favor of someone sane; a repeat of 1973-4. They didn't, and they lost big. That's what they got for being Bush's little sheep: they got sheared.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | November 14, 2008 11:21 PM

Norman -

I saw it as implicit. And would this not qualify as an endorsement:
It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

If anything it looks as if he's poxing both their houses, although Obama might be rehabilitated in time, and is thus possibly the lesser of the two evils. I wouldn't call that an endorsement. Some might. Anyway, its water under the bridge as the election is over.

Posted by: Dave S. | November 15, 2008 11:47 AM

dogmeatib:

They don't care about the moderates. They've thrown them to the wolves because they believe that only ideological purity can bring the numbers back up. We're talking about people who believe that conservatism is so self-evident that the American electorate will accept it if it's properly presented. (Come to think of it, it sounds a bit like tax-protester logic...)

Posted by: Brian X | November 15, 2008 9:50 PM