ROSEN: Party trumps person

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 10, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Comments

October 10, 2008

2:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

paperboy writes:

This is pretty pedestrian, even for Rosen:

A vote for McCain is a vote for the party of constitutionalist judges, Adam Smith, the NRA, Gen. David Petraeus and Ronald Reagan. A vote for Obama is a vote for judicial activism, Karl Marx, the ACLU, the NEA, the AFL-CIO, the NAACP, Al Gore, Cindy Sheehan, Keith Olbermann and Rosie O'Donnell.

Hey, what about Nixon? Viet Nam? Guantanamo? G.W. Bush? Torture? Get it dummy? Your dichotomy, as usual, is false, and, conveniently for you, avoids acknowledging, let alone answering, any of the valid liberal issues.

This is what people are so tired of, Mike. On your radio show you challenge a caller to judge who has the better resume between Obama and McCain. You won't accept any answer that doesn't first answer McCain or Obama. He keeps avoiding a yes no answer and you put him on hold 3 or 4 times while you re-explain the rules. He finally says Obama and you hang up before explaining that if you think McCain's resume is better, you vote for him, if Obama's is better, vote for him.

This is the kind of convenient conservative idiocy you have to maintain to espouse all the stupid crap you believe. First of all, in this context, "resume" means life experiences. This is subjective, and not susceptible to an either or answer by people who actually think about things, as oppossed to ideologues like you. Hey Rosen: if all you can do is answer yes or no or choice A or choice B to my questions, I guarantee I can get you to agree with every one of my misguided liberal notions.

You are such an intellectual coward, Rosen, you are not fit to publish a column. Your idiotic list proves the point.

You have a radio program that reflects an advertiser friendly demographic that feeds on conservative talk radio, and you've arrogantly come to believe you represent some kind of majority. You don't.

The transparent, stupid attempt to make some cogent political point by comparing opposing lists you made yourself of evocative names ... I can't get over it! Do you know what an idiot you look like?

Does the News still have editors? Somebody wake em up and tell em Rosen's ruinin' the Paper. Oh, wait, this has always been a right wing rag, hasn't it.
October 10, 2008

5 a.m.

Suggest removal

Brian1973 writes:

Mr Rosen must have struck a nerve there. From decent well written to childish name calling in about 6 sentances.
October 10, 2008

5:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

rlutzs writes:

To bad you can't vote for the best person instead of the same old criminals that are already there.
October 10, 2008

5:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

frickeedickee writes:

A vote for McCain is a vote for death, blood, war, debt, intolerance, racism, a 6000-year-old Earth, China, nuclear waste, fairy tales, torture, rendition, abortions, bumpkins, yahoos, yachts, spas.

"The smartest young Americans are now educated in an overwhelmingly liberal environment."

"It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community."

- David Brooks
October 10, 2008

6:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

frickeedickee writes:

Oh, and collapsed bridges and drowned cities.
October 10, 2008

6:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

blacksho89 writes:

Minneapolis and New Orleans are both long-term Dem strongholds.

But don't let the truth get in the way of your rants.
October 10, 2008

6:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

"intellectual coward"? paperboy, you are the one who is writing with an anonymous by-line. You are the one engaged in petty name-calling while hiding your identity.

Mike Rosen requires callers answer questions and state their positions as part of the dialog. When they don't, it interferes with an intelligent debate and he hangs up on them. Most of the time the ones who will not answer simple questions are lefties trying to pretend they are "moderates", a fact apparent to the listeners as well as Rosen.

paperboy - you are a inconsequential pseudo-intellectual who hates to lose and who resorts to insipid name-calling to bolster your infinitesimal ego.
October 10, 2008

6:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Just in case we forgot the last three times your wrote on it and the hundreds of times you've opined on this during your talk show.
October 10, 2008

7:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Mike_in_Hartsel,

I think paperboy was stupid enough to call Mike's show pretending to be a liberal, and he is peeved because Rosen wouldn't let him make a liberal anti_bush diatribe on his show.
October 10, 2008

7:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

frickeedickee writes:

And BTW, Mike Rosen, I'm not guilt-ridden, although I do admit to being somewhat burdened with a conscience.
October 10, 2008

7:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

socrates writes:

Well, I guess this explains why Rosen approaches politics as such a naive and blind partisan - he has absolutely no idea what Democrats stand for.

Mr. Rosen, you can disagree with a party's basic values, such as democratic support for the constitution and opposition to a certain republican president's efforts to create an imperial presidency - but when you put this kind of drivel on paper, you really demonstrate an ignorance that doesn't do you or your party any favors.
October 10, 2008

7:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

GK writes:

Rosen:

"The Republican coalition is an alliance of conservatives, middle- and upper-income taxpayers (but not leftist Hollywood millionaires and George Soros)"

What about Rupert Murdoch, Kelsey Grammar, Dennis Hopper, Dennis Miller, Patricia Heaton, Toby Keith, Jon Voight, Gary Sinese etc. etc. all Millionaire Hollywood righties.
October 10, 2008

7:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

taoistblockhead writes:

America the Banana Republic
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/fe...

In a statement on the huge state-sponsored salvage of private bankruptcy that was first proposed last September, a group of Republican lawmakers, employing one of the very rudest words in their party’s thesaurus, described the proposed rescue of the busted finance and discredited credit sectors as “socialistic.” There was a sort of half-truth to what they said. But they would have been very much nearer the mark—and rather more ironic and revealing at their own expense—if they had completed the sentence and described the actual situation as what it is: “socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the rest.”

I have heard arguments about whether it was Milton Friedman or Gore Vidal who first came up with this apt summary of a collusion between the overweening state and certain favored monopolistic concerns, whereby the profits can be privatized and the debts conveniently socialized, but another term for the same system would be “banana republic.”

What are the main principles of a banana republic? A very salient one might be that it has a paper currency which is an international laughingstock: a definition that would immediately qualify today’s United States of America. …
October 10, 2008

7:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

The dollar is not quite that dismal yet. We might be seeing five or seven percent inflation at the moment, but I think that term fits better for latin American countries facing inflation at least in the hundred percent of not the ten thousand percent.

A succession of coups, whereby whoever happens to be in charge at the moment prints money at will to fund whatever he feels like. Since a relatively low inflation rate is paramount to a developing economy, these countries can't ever get decent investment and so never grow.

The United States misses that definition on so many levels. We are now approaching the higher (5 to seven percent) inflation rates already seen in many if not most of the EU countries, all of which do not qualify as a banana republic either.
October 10, 2008

7:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

JYP3500 writes:

Mike, I love your definition of the "Democratic coalition". It is truely sad what the Democratic party has become. And the goofy posts by paperboy & others like him/her just prove the point.
October 10, 2008

8 a.m.

Suggest removal

taoistblockhead writes:

The larger point being that Rosen and others are tied into and promoting a false and failed dichotomy - The real issue isn't Republican vs Democrat (at this stage they are simply two wings of the one Corporate-owned Party), but rather the fact that we have created and are living an unsustainable culture. We inhabit a world of finite resources and that world will force us to transition into a new way of living on the earth. Rosen's column is a diversion and as the old saying goes, "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic."
October 10, 2008

8:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

taoistblockhead,

Regardless of what side you are on, I see this whole thing as being everyone's fault. It is not about republican or democrat anymore, but rather, everyone. It is everyone's fault, including both parties, the government (regardless of who was in power), and corporate America.

The base root of everything that has gone wrong in America in the last two months is the fact that Americans live on credit.

You can blame dems for opening that credit up to the poor who couldn't pay it off, or you can put it on the repubs who were unwilling to keep it regulated, or you can just put it on the culture of excess here in America.

In trying to keep the bubble from bursting, government is now feeding it and keeping it artificially high, to no avail, and now we get an extra couple of trillion dollars in debt to try to pay off despite a tax base that will be lower, even if the next president raises taxes.

Something has to change. I don't think you and I would agree on what, but something must. You can put a lot of it on the excesses of the nineties and the governments in charge, and you can put it on unscrupulous businesses, and you can put it on me and every other American out there.

On the other hand, this column is aimed straight at conservatives like me who might consider jumping ship into the Obama camp. It is, as jay would put it, not relevant (for most people anyway).

He wasn't trying to make his employer money this week. He was just trying to get a couple hundred or thousand people in Colorado to vote McCain. He doesn't care about you or me, who were obviously not the target of this piece.
October 10, 2008

8:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

jay,

Rosen was not relevant today.
October 10, 2008

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

chaka419 writes:

All Mike is saying is this:

If you agree more often with the Republicans then vote Republican or you will be dissappointed.

If you agree more often with the Democrats then vote Democrat or you will be dissappointed.

Why do some always take offense when none was intended?
By the way most of the time these days, hatred comes hard and fast from the left!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 10, 2008

9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

GK writes:

"By the way most of the time these days, hatred comes hard and fast from the left!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

You can't be serious.
October 10, 2008

9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

Rosen's argument remains as it has always been: we have a system that rewards and promotes the 2 parties, so all other voices should recognize this reality and exercise their patriotic duty to shut up and play along. RosenWorld is chocolate and vanilla. Some of us prefer the 31 flavors of a Baskin Robbins though, pain in the a$$ though that might make us.
October 10, 2008

9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

I've said it before and continue to say it: propaganda is propaganda regardless of who shovels it. Mr. Rosen is an unapologetic propagandist! So is Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh and Al Frankin. They all profit immensely from presenting a totally one-sided political view. They exaggerate, distort, cherry pick and take opposing viewpoints out of their original context to make those who differ with their own opinion appear to be dithering fools. I contend that the dithering fools are those among us who hang on their every word and who accept their predigested pablum as the Gospel according to: you fill in the blank.

Mr, Rosen's point of view is so slanted that his agenda should be obvious to anyone within one or two sentences. In this piece his agenda is directed at you Republicans. Certainly, he throws in a few demeaning statements about Democrats and liberals, but he is really speaking to you. He is not too subtly trying to influence those of you who would dare break ranks to vote for a...gasp!, Democrat in this election. I sense more than a little bit of fear in his attempt to influence you. This is a rare crack in his otherwise brave conservative persona.

So you can let Mr. Rosen or other talking head propagandists influence you this election season. Or fancy this: you can actually stop listening to talk radio, discuss the issues in forums such as this, read the papers, both liberal and conservative and form your own opinions and use your own minds to make a decision upon how you will vote. Think for yourselves people, don't let the propagandists think for you!
October 10, 2008

9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

drubish4 writes:

Hi Mike,

I am sorry to say that ithere is little difference with the fiscal policies of the two parties today. McCain blew it with moderates when he announced ANOTHER bailout plan this week. What happened to limited government, frugal fiscal policies, and the separation of state and faith? And where are McCain's ideas of gaining back our country's dominance in science and technology? Do you really think Gov Palin is going to invest in science?
Ok, you say, vote Republican, and try to change things inside the party platform. Well, I have for the past 8 years, and the Republican party is still in bed with Focus on the Family, and still on a spending spree. I say the only way we can take back the party is to vote all of the free spending rascals out, so they get the message. They certainly don't care as long as they are in office.
October 10, 2008

9:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

Mike Rosen gets the biggest comedian award for the day, saying "The Republican coalition is an alliance of conservatives, middle- and upper-income taxpayers (but not leftist Hollywood millionaires and George Soros), individualists who prefer limited government, those who are pro-market and pro-business..."

Come again? The Republican Party has proven itself in the last month to be even bigger fans of socialism and wealth redistribution than the Democrats! From Paulson and Bernanke's ridiculous 700 billion bailout, to McCain's out-of-the-blue plan to buy up bad mortgages.... and now the White House is alluding it now wants stakes in our banks?!

Mike-- you can leave the blinders on all you want, cup your hands over your ears and yell "La! La! La! Republicans are great! La! La! La!", dancing and pretending your party is anything close to conservative. It is NOT, and this month proved it. Your credibility as a conservative is shot with this column. You are a hack, but you are NOT a conservative.

Democrats are socialists wanting to redistribute wealth for the poor.

Republicans are socialists wanting to redistribute wealth for the rich.

If you are a TRUE conservative, and not a fake, honorless, lying weasel scum like Rosen pretending to be a conservative, vote Libertarian. True, our candidate may not win, but at least you can go to sleep at night knowing you did not vote in the clandestine socialists that the Republicans have all become.
October 10, 2008

9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

greenleaf,

Even if the dichotomy that Rosen preaches is real, which for me it is, the fact is that we live in a world where at least half the people believe something different.

Rosen's column may be dead on (for republicans) today, but reality shows us that there are two hundred plus million adults living in America right now, with almost as many various opinions.

Right now we are on very dire times. The answer is going to have to be something that compromises to find an acceptable answer to the majority without sacrificing the ultimate goal of making sure this doesn't ever happen again. Ideologies don't matter...and strangely enough, even those at opposite poles of their parties are agreeing on such things as despising the latest 700 billion dollar bailout.

That being said, this two-headed but impotent dragon that is driving America (the American political system) is largely responsible for this latest disaster. One side has said "free market" while the other has said "what about the little guy." Together, they steered us straight into a median!
October 10, 2008

9:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Zim,

What you said is true enough! Though it may seem to directly contradict what I just wrote greenleaf, in the long run, the republican party needs to go the way of the dodo...and maybe one day there will be a re-awakening among true conservatives (though I doubt it). Anyway, (in the long run) those who despise socialism need to come together and fight it, even if it means stabbing "the lesser of two evils" in the back.
October 10, 2008

9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

radagan writes:

Rosen hit it right on the head. Why do Dems hate being called by the things they do and promote? Even Justice Ginsberg has admitted to judicial activism.
Hey paperboy your saying McCain is Nixon and torture and Vietnam? Nixon committed a crime with just a couple others, Vietnam was created by Johnson wasn't it? Do you anyone more against torture than McCain? And I don't think there's ever been a President less experienced than what Obama would be. Thats just a fact.
October 10, 2008

9:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

For once Mike I actually kind of agree with you in your first paragraph. It's about philosophy and I always vote philosophy not the person. Voting the person is simply some esoteric way of making youself feel above the sheople. It's nosense.

I must agree with Socrates: You have no idea what liberals stand for. I am a gun owner and a strong supporter of the military and a liberal, as most of my liberal friends are. We, contrary to you, do believe in the Constitution, not the Patriot Act or the Homeland Securiry Act. We do believe in personal freedoms whereas you conservatives believe in warrantless searches and illegal wire tapping.

Conservatives like you are the most paranoid, freaked out neophytes I have ever met in my life.

Quit being so affraid and spreading your fear of everything to the rest of us. It is plain as hell to see that all you conservatives care about is financially cherry picking the middle class and forcing them into working for cheap wages. You like to call it the ownership society where those who have the most will own everbody and everything. This is exactly how you eletist conservatives think. You have nobody fooled any more. You are done!!!
October 10, 2008

9:55 a.m.

Cowboy63 writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
October 10, 2008

9:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

Spencerr,
Good to talk to you again. My response to Rosen may seem unusually harsh, coming from me, but I cannot tell you how angry I am to see the Republican Party become what it has... and even worse, all those out there who fashion themselves as conservative who still defend this party.

Rosen is an idiot. Every conservative value he lists in this column has been decimated by the Republican Party. This column proves he is a stalwart Republican, but a failure as a conservative.

RE: "The republican party needs to go the way of the dodo...and maybe one day there will be a re-awakening among true conservatives."

We can only hope, Spencerr. As the Republican Party stands now, and if it continues down this course, there will NEVER be a voice for true conservatives. Just more politicians bankrupting our country day by day.

Conservatives-- speak up!! Quit defending a bankrupt party and start demanding REAL leaders who uphold REAL conservative values!! Low taxes, lower spending, a small federal government with stronger local governments, and no government intervention in our social lives (i.e. evict the social conservatives!). It is not too late!
October 10, 2008

10:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Zim,

I still think that by not compromising, we are shooting ourselves in the foot because true conservatives do not have enough clout by themselves. That being said, after this mess shakes out, I am quite willing to shoot myself in the foot.

However, our president and other republicans have aided the democrats with sticking the taxpayer with an extra 700 billion dollar bill...and for what, it is impossible to salvage our economy and bring it back to what it was in the short term. Should have just let it slide and see where the chips might fall. The dems are unhappy about it too because it amounts to socialism for the rich. Nobody is happy about it.

Maybe this event will tear both parties up enough that coalitions can be reformed...????

Anyway, conservatism is dead in America, as demonstrated by the republicans' first two choices for president, John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Romney would have been better, but I am betting that he is a sellout too.
October 10, 2008

10:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Spencer,

As a die hard independent and third party(centrist) advocate, I do agree with the majority of your last posting. I hope that you are right in saying the two parties have steered us into a "median" and not into a brick wall!

radagan,

You are proving my point about believing the propagandists. Of course you see nothing insulting and baiting in Rosen's comments about liberals, he is saying what he knows you want to hear, and in that way, he manipulates you. If he says enough things that you like and agree with, he can occasionally slip in something else that you will accept as fact without questioning it. Listen to this stuff long enough and you will be programmed and influenced. That's propaganda at work, and it appears to be working with you.

By the way, Abraham Lincoln didn't have very much experience either before becoming president and that actually is a fact.
October 10, 2008

10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

greenleaf,

As long as there is a political tug-of-war in which one side never really wins, there is the potential for steering America into a brick wall.

You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't, especially if you are a centrist, but that goes for everyone as long as there are two economic systems and various degrees of adherence to either of them competing in the same economy.
October 10, 2008

10:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

Rosen-
Although I agree with the thesis of your article, I think you need to research the demographics of Dem v. Republican again.

You fail to account for the vast bulk of republicans who are lower to mid middle class who vote on values and cliches - i.e. "Gays, God and Guns.." You all know what I'm talking about here. Look at the red states and the median income and median education levels.

You also fail to account for the HUGE number of upper-middle class and upper class Dems. Again, look at the solidly blue states and then at median income and education. These too are value voters, however many are also economic players who believe that trickle up has helped them far more than trickle down.

In fact, most Dems I know across the country are upper midle class and highly educated.

Again, the thesis is solid, but you really missed the mark sporting an innaccurate cliche when describing members of the parties.
October 10, 2008

10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

jonmg111 writes:

GK: Toby Keith is a democrat. I know I was shocked too. But at least do a little research before making assumptions. Keith considers himself "a conservative Democrat who is sometimes embarrassed for his party." (wikipedia)
And those four other names you mentioned, yeah, that about covers it for Hollywood republicans. Good job in pointing them all out.
October 10, 2008

11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

taoistblockhead writes:

Continuity of Government Contingency Plans - Martial Law in America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgMx2F...
October 10, 2008

11:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Malachi,

Don't get me wrong. I still despise socialism and in most cases with the possible exception of education, its presence within our economy. I would love to see a pure capitalist state where when businesses make bad decisions, they go away and everyone has real incentive to work hard and make wise decisions.

The republican party just ain't it. It compromises everything a real conservative stands for. Socialism for the benefit of the corporation (which admittedly, should help the people) or socialism to the direct benefit of the people. Six in one, half a dozen in the other.

The republican establishment is flawed and has betrayed its ideology. At least, while the democrat party is flawed, it has not really forsaken its ideology.

The republicans are the lesser of two evils, but they need to be destroyed so that a conservative party that is less evil might resurface. Maybe it will be a reawakening within the republican party, or maybe it will be a completely different party.
October 10, 2008

11:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

RE: Spencer-- "Anyway, conservatism is dead in America."

Hey Spencerr,
Conservatism isn't dead. It's alive and well. Unfortunately, it's being used and perverted by the power elite. Conservatives need to stop supporting the status quo because hacks like Rosen tell them it's the conservative thing to do. There are enough of us out here-- we CAN effect change. We just need to start demanding it, and stop apologizing for all of the Bushes and McCains who have been perverting our ideology.
October 10, 2008

12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

p_myers661 writes:

Marshdale

Taking what you say as true, voting in the Democratic candidate for Senate from Colorado and Obama from president, will put in power those who desire socialism and strict gun control. Rosen is the antithesis of my favorite electoral strategy which is only vote for the other parties fool. For President, there is a natural term limit of 8 years. For any other national office, you are stuck until the other side wins, your idiot dies or your idiot quits.

We face many decisions. I decided to vote for McCain because he showed that he realized the difference between reality and fantasy. He realized he could not win without the conservative base.

Listen to Rush and to liberal voices, usually on the Sunday morning news shows. Read what is said whenever possible. Vocal toning and body language can fool almost anyone into buying into a trick. Tricks are not the private property of either party.

I don't listen to Mike very much. I prefer the Drive Home crowd. My "me-time" is from noon to three. I set up my quilt frame every day at noon. The rest of the time it's against the ceiling.

Party does, at times, trump person. Mike's definitions of the parties may be off, but he's got the reality of the results correct.

I'd offer a better suggestion of where we need to look to see the results of too much power concentrated on one side. Look at the Colorado Legislature and Governor. Agree with him or not, they have all the power they need to pass any measure they wish. By changing the balance, by giving Republicans a majority of one house, or by electing independents in sufficient numbers to become the balance shifters there.

We need true conservatives. Bush has been a total disappointment. I only voted for him because his opponents were so much worse.

Mike has offered a very inconvenient truth: the pedigrees of both parties outline what they will do and not do. It is our responsibility to elect those who will make a difference. Sometimes that will mean using our votes to elect someone we disagree with in several areas.

Politics is like re-wiring a waffle iron while taking ashower. You have to be careful, pay attention and avoid getting either in the way of the other. Happy sparking.
October 10, 2008

12:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

cjc1951 writes:

Gee Rosen. You left out a few things. How about a vote for Mccain is a vote for the party of Richard Nixon, George Bush, Cheney, and Rove. And Reagans buddy Annenburg who put David Ayres on that panel with Obama. It’s the party of Big Oil, de-regulation, Hoover and the depression, the current Wall street mess. The party of Iran/Contra, Watergate,the Keating 5 and Savings in Loan scandals. The party that embraces big business and big oil, but ignores the Middle Class. The party of the rich and privileged. The Party of No Hope.
A vote for Obama is a vote for the Party of humanitarianism (I know it’s a Republican bad word) and the party of the Middle Class and working Americans. The Party of JFK and the Great Frontier. LBJ and the Great Society helping people and promoting civil rights and freedoms. It’s the party of FDR the man who saved this country from the great depression, without whom there would no longer be a United States. The Party of Hope.
October 10, 2008

12:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

FDR saved us from the depression and is responsible for the continued existance of the U.S..???????

What a joke. That man is primarily responsible for the failing welfare state that we live in now. He is responsible for both parties turning steeply leftward.

WWII and heavy government spending on WWII (not social programs or anything else) is what pulled us out of the depression, and he had four terms to work on the problem.

What a joke! You are living in a pipe dream.
October 10, 2008

1:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Your comments are right on the money as usual, greenleaf. But I won't be so nice about it: the RMN degrades itself by publishing Rosen's partisan trash. And their counterpartisan seems to be Paul Campos. The Denver Post has John Andrews.
October 10, 2008

1:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

anderson,

Clarify. Paul Campos is Rosen's partisan antithesis. You support Campos but not Rosen...or you detest both.
October 10, 2008

1:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

blake writes:

the republican coalition is made up of hockey moms and joe six-packs
October 10, 2008

1:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

p_meyers,

You've done it again my friend! If everybody stated their positions in the thoughtful, personal and down to earth way you employ we would always have wonderful conversations on this thread. You always provide an easy to read and pleasant posting. I am not always in total agreement with you, but darn it! I sure would like to be. You strike me as the kind of person I would love to have as a neighbour . We could chat across the fence! Thank you!
October 10, 2008

1:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

Unfortunately, Mr. Rosen missed the most obvious point of the current "two-party" system: they are both run by rich white guys.

They put up the money and groom the candidates. They don't care if a Democrat or Republican wins. Both people are selected by the elite ruling cadre and either will suit them just fine.

Neither party is going to deliberately do anything to disturb the concentration of wealth.

I'm no conspiracy-theory nutcase, just an observer of the way things work. Rich people rule. Liberal or conservative doesn't matter. They have common goals: keep what they have, and get more. The Hollywood stars don't want the government to take their money any more than the industrialist do.

This system is not likely to change any time soon.
October 10, 2008

1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

I meant to say that Campos is Rosen's partisan antithesis, not an antidote to partisanship. In other words, I'm critical of both for their rank partisanship. And let's be clear, there's nothing wrong with taking sides on any issue and having strong opinions. But arguments of the propagandist don't belong on the editorial pages of a major newspaper. To quote greenleaf, they (this means Rosen) "exaggerate, distort, cherry pick and take opposing viewpoints out of their original context". If you're a Machievellite, that's okay--any lie is good so long as it furthers the cause. But most of us aren't.
October 10, 2008

2:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Just keepin' ya honest, anderson. For the record, this article is aimed at a specific crowd that might be pondering voting against party lines. It is not meant for you and me.

However, I am done defending Rosen per my many earlier posts.
October 10, 2008

2:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Grim_Reefer writes:

Well, Rosen, both parties have sold most of us down the river!!! What's an independant minded, non-affiliated voter to do? Riddle me that, ga$bag!
October 10, 2008

3:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

Isn't this the kind of thinking that got us into this mess? How many people voted for incompetence (Bush) simply because he had an R by his name? Why not vote for the best?
October 10, 2008

4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

hunterman writes:

"A vote for McCain is a vote for ... Ronald Reagan."

You're voting for dead men now? I knew you were desperate, but that's pathetic.

Based on the saintly nature of your fantasy Republicans, it's a miracle you haven't all just ascended to God's right hand to join Ronnie.

Or maybe the problem is that you're a liar, and you have a party of greedheads, rednecks, and war criminals. Not as flowery when you put it that way.
October 10, 2008

9:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

paperboy writes:

Tweedle dee wrote:

paperboy - you are a inconsequential pseudo-intellectual who hates to lose and who resorts to insipid name-calling to bolster your infinitesimal ego.

Tweedle dum responded:

Mike_in_Hartsel,

I think paperboy was stupid enough to call Mike's show pretending to be a liberal, and he is peeved because Rosen wouldn't let him make a liberal anti_bush diatribe on his show.

I really appreciate that you two pen pals at least understood enough of what I wrote to be offended. For conservatives this is pretty good. Usually you don't get the insults that are longer than two one syllable words.

And of course you both utterly ignored my point, which is how conservatives debate, so you've still got that going for you.

I don't call Rosen's show. He cheats. I explained one method. He knows them all. Rosen is very bright and knows a lot about many things, except himself. He's kind of a Bush with an actual brain, but equally oblivious.
October 10, 2008

9:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

Paperboy - "conveniently for you, avoids acknowledging, let alone answering, any of the valid liberal issues." That's the biggest oxymoron I've ever seen. Valid liberal issues, don't make me laugh.

Great column Mike.
October 10, 2008

9:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

patronusa writes:

rosen, you s*ck and you will always s*ck. how old are you? tell me you're like 75+(or current white male expectancy rate) so you can just pull a d*ck lamn and do your white male human duty. simply said, ignore the rePUBICANs. we've heard enough of their bullsh*t. rosen and the rePUBICANs enlighten me as much as the penthouse forum- actually i take that back. you rePUBICANS are so weak that i get more of rise out of the penthouse forum than i do you.
October 10, 2008

10:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"A vote for McCain is a vote for the party of constitutionalist judges, Adam Smith, the NRA, Gen. David Petraeus and Ronald Reagan. A vote for Obama is a vote for judicial activism, Karl Marx, the ACLU, the NEA, the AFL-CIO, the NAACP, Al Gore, Cindy Sheehan, Keith Olbermann and Rosie O'Donnell."

wow.

you are a partisan hack, mike.
October 11, 2008

9:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

paperboy,

Liberal talk BS is just as bad as Mike Rosen. Each makes you follow his line of reasoning and answer his questions. If you don't like the line of reasoning and have other valid issues that would serve as a counterpoint, they put you on hold or hang up on you and make you look like a butt after you aren't on the air anymore. I've never called one, but it is obvious what they do. Some are worse than Mike, some better.

Your egotism is fed by your own ignorance though, "For conservatives this is pretty good. Usually you don't get the insults that are longer than two one syllable words."

You feel pretty convinced that your own side is the smart side, when the differences between conservatives and liberals simply boils down to two opposing sets of values. Cons prefer the free market, individual freedoms for American citizens, and national defense, the latter of which sometimes trumps the former two. Liberals prefer an economy that, while weaker, makes sure the needs of the little guy are always taken care of. They prefer pacifism, environmentalism, and social liberties (where some conservatives try to force their morals on people).

It is about what you prefer, not what or who is necessarily more intelligent. If you think that moving our mixed economy further in the direction of socialism rather than capitalism is conducive to actually strengthening the overall economy, then it is you who needs to re-evaluate your system of beliefs.

Rosen is very intelligent, but he has his agenda, and for those of you who do not have his agenda, there are a lot of reasons for you to be annoyed. I used to buy his crap, but he is nothing more than an apologist for a party that has long since forsaken its core ideologies. He is a thousand times smarter than Rush, but Rush has him in one way...Rush is willing to slam his own party when they compromise the beliefs of the base. Rosen is not. Anyway, if you are a liberal and your mind is set, you don't really have any business reading him because it will do nothing for you except raise your blood pressure.
October 11, 2008

10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

paperboy writes:

Really thoughtful post, Spencer. Seriously.

Thank you.
October 11, 2008

10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

TroyJGrice writes:

Rosen,

You are desperately flailing about in an attempt to get conservative republicans to hold their nose and vote for a NON-Conservative. You suggest ignoring ideology and principal which I find hypocritical on your behalf.

The problem is putting party over person enables the current crop of rotten-to-the-core republicans to continue on with socializing Wall Street losses, Sovietizing our financial system (ala 1932) expanding the size and role of government, waging trillion dollar wars for nothing, and eliminating the constitution in the process.

The GOP needs a great purge and a good pounding in this election will ensure that unprincipled fascists ("country first") like McCain will be driven out. Pro state, pro war, pro welfare republicans will hopfully be ruined for a generation and the warmongering evangelicals will be pushed back onto their compounds where they belong.

The GOP needs to reinvent itself as the pro free market, pro small government, pro constitution, pro liberty party they once were.
October 11, 2008

11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

dencolo writes:

A vote for Obama is a vote for Karl Marx? What a boob! This idiot's punishment is living with himself.
October 11, 2008

3:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

RodE writes:

And a vote for McCain is a vote for Palin as well as 4 more years of Republicans in the Executive Branch something I don't think the country could survive. McCain has surrounded himself with Bush Repubicans so guess who would still be running things?

Oh, yes and back to Palin.

Palin and her husband have consistently denied wrongdoing, describing Wooten as a "rogue trooper" who had threatened their family -- allegations Branchflower discounted.

"I conclude that such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins' real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family reasons," Branchflower wrote.

Or in the plain speak of Palin, she lied.
October 11, 2008

7:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

paperboy,

I really meant no offense in my first post...it was merely reaction to rhetoric that was very inflammatory to conservatives in general.

It doesn't have to be like that. I hate socialism. I don't hate those who seek answers in it though.
October 12, 2008

9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

TroyJGrice writes:

Rosen is the worst kind of socialist- one that pretends to be pro-free markets, then turns around and supports the socialization of our financial and banking sector. He is no supporter of free markets. He is a corporatist (or a fascist in lay terms.)
October 12, 2008

12:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

Spencerr-- excellent post at 10/11 @ 9:27am.
October 12, 2008

3:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

benn writes:

Nice Strawman arguments there Rosen. For one who claims to be logical, your arguments commit numerous logical fallacies.
October 13, 2008

12:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Liberals prefer an economy that, while weaker, makes sure the needs of the little guy are always taken care of. They prefer pacifism, environmentalism, and social liberties (where some conservatives try to force their morals on people)."

no. spencer jr, this is yet another in a long list of strawman arguments from you.

and by the way...what have we told you about the socialism conspiracy theories?

once again...you may hate "socialism"...but that has nothing to do with voting for democrats.

i just don't know what we can do with your consistent willful ignorance.

we've debunked your myths so many times and yet you continue to spout the same ones.

any ideas on why that is?

is it lack of intelligence or material?

is it just that you have nothing else to offer and just throw the same crap against the wall in the hope that it will eventually stick?
October 13, 2008

8:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

jay,

I have stopped using rhetoric and have instead suggested some things that I see as true regardless of political bent. Even paperboy, who seems to me to be pretty liberal, liked the post that you are quoting.

Socialism is a part of our economic system. It is the basis for our education system, and after that corporate bailout a couple of weeks ago, it is obviously a part of the bigger economic picture. I am not posting boogey man stories, and I am not using the term to paint a negative picture of liberals...the fact is, liberals openly turn to it when they see a problem. Apparently, less conservative republicans do too. I am opposed to it, personally, and so, obviously, are Troy and Zim.

I am not trying to scare people with boogeyman stories. Socialism, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. It's intentions at least seem completely altruistic. 20% of our economy is government, up from 5% at the turn of the last century. You can put that on socialism and attribute its existance in this current economy mostly to FDR's administration.

Like I said, both republicans and democrats don't seem to have a problem using it.

I'll openly admit, jay, when I am leaning heavily on extreme-conservative rhetoric. I am not in this post. I am just stating my observations as someone who is tired of his own party.
October 13, 2008

9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

SDaedalus writes:

Mike Rosen's latest contribution to the field of economics: "A vote for McCain is a vote for the party of...Adam Smith....A vote for Obama is a vote for...Karl Marx..."

And this is who some readers rely on to explain Schumpeter?

With America in the throes of a once-in-a-generation economic upheaval, can we agree that Rosen distracts more than contributes when it comes to helping readers weigh the economic challenges and opportunities either party proposes to get us out of this mess?
October 13, 2008

8:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i don't blame you for trying to take off your jersey now that your team is so lousy that it's embarassing to be a fan, spencer jr....but when you post crap like...

"Liberals prefer an economy that, while weaker, makes sure the needs of the little guy are always taken care of. They prefer pacifism, environmentalism, and social liberties (where some conservatives try to force their morals on people)."

...i don't think you should feign ignorant innocence when you get called out on it.

you can rail against "socialism" all day long...if you remember that both democrats and republicans are equally guilty of it....according to your own special brand of "logic".

if you do that...you're just the guy in the corner ranting about "socialism" (and black helicopters i'll wager)...but if you attach those rantings to attacks on dems...then you're a partisan hack.

understand the difference?
October 13, 2008

11:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"...but if you attach those rantings to attacks on dems...then you're a partisan hack."

Whoa...wait a second.....as if you are not partisan, jay? You can't be serious.
October 14, 2008

6:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

jay, I'm not even speaking as if socialism is bad. It is not a boogey man. It is part of the American economy. There is no such thing as pure capitalism. We have always had some sort of socialism. The second that someone decided to get a government together to do something that the private world was either incapable of doing or unwilling to do, we had socialism.

Our economy is a mixed economy. At the turn of the twentieth century, government composed 5%. Now, government composes 20%.

It is not some sort of big bad boogeyman. I personally hate it, as do many Americans far less politically enthused than me. However, it is a part of life.

I have one point that you keep attacking me on...the parts of our economy that depend heavily on government without some sort of market structure involved are weaker than the parts of our economy that are based on private industry.

My normal rhetoric is gone. I don't care who wins the election. Please lay off, or do I have to find another screen name so that you will stop attacking me every time I make an appearance on the Rosen column?
October 14, 2008

6:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Morover, jay,

Rosen is irrelevant to all but those who are like-minded. It is obvious by the posts on here that not only to liberals dislike his rhetoric, but so too do many conservatives.

Why do you read his stuff if you disagree with it. When you get on here preaching, you are preaching to two crowds. One is your own quire. The other is Rosen's quire. You aren't going to change anyone's mind.

The only one here more irrelevant than Rosen is you.
October 14, 2008

1:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

do you have examples to support this latest conspiracy theory, eli, or is this another unsupported myth?

"I have one point that you keep attacking me on...the parts of our economy that depend heavily on government without some sort of market structure involved are weaker than the parts of our economy that are based on private industry."

i haven't attacked you at all, spencer jr, but rather pointed to holes in your logic and brought to light the fact that you're a partisan hack because you spout rushian talking points about "liberals" being "socialists" while ignoring that both parties are guilty of your brand of "socialism".

"Please lay off, or do I have to find another screen name so that you will stop attacking me every time I make an appearance on the Rosen column?"

i haven't attacked you in the least, spencer jr...and i don't appreciate you lying about that.

as i said before.....i don't blame you for trying to take off your jersey now that your team is so lousy that it's embarassing to be a fan, spencer jr....but when you post crap like...

"Liberals prefer an economy that, while weaker, makes sure the needs of the little guy are always taken care of. They prefer pacifism, environmentalism, and social liberties (where some conservatives try to force their morals on people)."

...i don't think you should feign ignorant innocence and fake victimhood when you get called out on it.

you can rail against "socialism" all day long...if you remember that both democrats and republicans are equally guilty of it....according to your own special brand of "logic".

if you do that...you're just the guy in the corner ranting about "socialism" (and black helicopters i'll wager)...but if you attach those rantings to attacks on dems...then you're a partisan hack.

understand the difference?
October 14, 2008

1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

jay, I stand by my very last statement.

You still haven't said whether you will come to church with me. Well? Will you come to church with me?
October 14, 2008

2:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

you can stand by what you say all day long...but when it includes partisan hackery...you're going to get called out on it.

glad we're clear.

good luck getting that jersey off.
October 14, 2008

4:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"do you have examples to support this latest conspiracy theory, eli, or is this another unsupported myth?"

Jay,
I take it from this that you believe you are nonpartisan. This leads me to believe that you are confused about what that word means, so let's start with a definition.
According to Merriam Webster, a partisan is "a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person"

Are you saying that this does not apply to you? Are you not a strong Democrat?
October 14, 2008

5:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

apparently it is you who needs some brushing up on the definition of partisanship...unless of course you can actually support your latest conspiracy theory.

"partisan" is yelling "kill him" in regards to your chosen candidate's opponent.

"partisan" is beating up one party for the sins of both (see spencer jr)

"partisan" is parroting ridiculously inaccurate myths about a candidate's childhood, beliefs and/or "friendships"

unlike rosen, i truly vote policy over party, eli.

i hold fairly conservative opinions on gun control for instance.

just because i shoot holes in extremist rhetoric doesn't mean i'm "partisan".

you folks on the far right are just having a couple of pretty bad decades....there's no need to get all defensive about it.

take your licks with some grace.

grow some accountabilities.
October 14, 2008

6:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Ah, I see. You just like to make up your own definitions for words when you don't like what the actual definition is. That explains a lot about you, jay.

Yes, jay, you are a partisan. Like it or not, according to the REAL definition of the word, you are a partisan. Maybe you're not in your own little world of made-up definitions, but in the real world you are. No need to throw a fit over it, it's not a big deal.
October 14, 2008

8:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"You just like to make up your own definitions for words when you don't like what the actual definition is"

well eli, i know you've got nothing else when you start lying.

again...i support both conservative and liberal positions and please don't confuse my striking down of extremist rhetoric with "partisanship".

the vast majority of americans share my views that a third bush term would be bad for the country.

does that mean that the rest of the country is also "partisan" because they support change?
October 14, 2008

11:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"i support both conservative and liberal positions"

Can't say that I've ever seen you support a conservative position of any kind, but I'll take you at your word for it.
The fact remains that you are a steadfast Democrat, and that would make you partisan as per the Merriam Webster definition of the word. I really don't see why your panties are in such a twist over it....it's not necessarily a bad thing or an insult.
October 15, 2008

6:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

And for the record jay, I haven't abandoned my party because they are losing. It is largely because of people who think like me that they are losing. When McCain won the nomination, I was disheartened. When Bush bought into this corporate welfare, I was further disheartened.

Now people who are truly hardline conservatives are leaving the republican party hanging out to dry. McCain tried to counter this by picking Palin as his VP candidate...but history shows that usually a VP pick will hurt the candidate more than help. This is the case because now, not only are conservatives alienated by McCain, but the fence riders are flocking to Obama because they can't stand Palin.

I am not a partisan hack because party does not trump person to me. If conservatism was a party, then I would be a partisan hack, but since it is actually a tendancy toward a certain way of thinking, that means I am not partisan.

I have actually heard you spout rhetoric that suggests that while you support your party through thick and thin, you are not the most hardcore democrat out there.

And for the record, the strong point of democrat economic policy is that it helps the poor. The strong point is not that it helps our economy grow. That was my basic point. That being said, when Obama becomes president, I think he will wait a few years before raising anyone's taxes, and the economy will likely be very strong before he does it (so...credit to Obama!!!).

I already voted, but if I didn't, I would write in or omit every issue and candidate except for two.

I would vote yes on 47 and 49.

Anyway, have a nice day, and that invation to accompany me to church is still open.
October 15, 2008

9:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"That being said, when Obama becomes president, I think he will wait a few years before raising anyone's taxes, and the economy will likely be very strong before he does it (so...credit to Obama!!!)."

this could be said of either of the next possible presidents.

the next president will have to raise taxes to pay for the conservative policies of the last 8 years.

let me repeat that.

the next president...whether they be dem or rub...will have to raise taxes because of coservative policy decisions over the last 8 years.

that's not partisanship, eli...that's the truth. you're going to have to sell crazy some where else...we're all full of foil here.

spencer jr....i hope that you are able to change your partisan hackery ways and vote based on policy...but pardon me if i don't hold my breath.
October 15, 2008

9:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

jay, you just agreed with me and somehow managed to throw an insult at me anyway.

"this could be said of either of the next possible presidents."

I don't get it. What is your issue?

"the next president...whether they be dem or rub...will have to raise taxes because of coservative policy decisions over the last 8 years."

Mostly republican, not necessarily conservative, my old friend. There is a difference.
October 15, 2008

10:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

lol...like i said...good luck taking off that jersey.
October 15, 2008

12:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Last word freak.
October 15, 2008

12:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

well....at least you aren't spouting conspiracy theories about "marxists" anymore, spencer jr.

that's progress, no?
October 15, 2008

1:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Stop pouting jay. Your insistance upon spouting leftwing rhetoric devoid of facts and in spite of the validity of your opponents arguments severely damages your credibility.
October 15, 2008

2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

mauman writes:

This Rosen column is almost word for word the same as the column he wrote four years ago (August 13, 2004) called "Party Still Trumps Person."

Do you allow self-plagiarism, Rocky Mountain News? If not, you got robbed, and you should ask for your money back.
October 15, 2008

4:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"the next president...whether they be dem or rub...will have to raise taxes because of coservative [SIC] policy decisions over the last 8 years"

What you mean to say is that you predict they will have to raise revenue, jay. There are various ways you can go about doing this, and raising taxes is one. No, that in and of itself isn't necessarily partisan ship, but that's not really relevant to the fact that you are a partisan.
It is the fact that you are a strong adherent to the Democratic party that makes you a partisan. There's nothing wrong with that, it's not an insult. Relax. No need to get upset over it. The fact that you seem so twisted up over the idea that you're a partisan further demonstrates your lack of understanding of what the word means. It's nothing to be upset over. Just pick up your dictionary and chill out.
October 15, 2008

4:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Oops...."partisanship" rather...not "partisan ship"....can't type today....
October 16, 2008

10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Stop pouting jay. Your insistance upon spouting leftwing rhetoric devoid of facts and in spite of the validity of your opponents arguments severely damages your credibility."

again, spencer jr, lashing out at me for poking gaping holes in your extremist rhetoric isn't going to help your case.

eli, if you'd like to explain to the class who you believe that we won't have to raise taxes to pay for the 12 trillion dollar debt, including the ongoing cost of the wars in iraq and afghanistan......i'm sure we'd all be interested in hearing it.

uh oh...looks like rosen got caught phoning it in once again.

and the irrelevancy quotient just keeps going up.
October 16, 2008

2:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

NEHoss writes:

Mike,

You're the best this 'news' outlet has to publish. This is perfect and so true. I've got a number of friends who take this approach and all it tells me is, I'm too stupid to research anything so I'll say I'm independent and undecided. I say, stand up and take a side. This Country needs more like you who tell it like it is.
October 16, 2008

4:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"eli, if you'd like to explain to the class who you believe that we won't have to raise taxes to pay for the 12 trillion dollar debt, including the ongoing cost of the wars in iraq and afghanistan......i'm sure we'd all be interested in hearing it."

I made no such claim, jay. Please do not make things up that I didn't say.
October 16, 2008

4:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

RE: Spencerr-- "Mostly republican, not necessarily conservative, my old friend. There is a difference."

a VERY good point. The word needs to get out that the two are no longer one and the same. Conservatism needs new representation. Hopefully the Republicans will purge their dead weight and bring in TRUE conservatives for 2010 and 2012.... or at the very least, maybe conservatives can form a third party and eventually replace the inept Republican version. One can only hope.
October 16, 2008

7:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

and here i thought you were making the case that the next president won't have to raise taxes, eli.

my bad.
October 16, 2008

7:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Rosen represents Republicans as, among other things, proponents of "American exceptionalism and a strong national defense."

Actually, some of the best arguments I've ever read against these beliefs have been in articles at www.americanconservative.com.

There is a real difference between neoconservative Republicans, who currently run the party, and traditional conservatives.

Some links to intriguing American Conservative articles:

"The Lure of Military Society":
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/...

"Appetite for Destruction":
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/...

"Trigger Man"
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/...

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

ROSEN: Party trumps person

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 10, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs