Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I would be curious to hear U Colo’s side of the history. I can imagine all sorts of reasons why they didn’t renew Mitchell’s contract (they didn’t fire him). Maybe his teaching was good but his research wasn’t up to par. Maybe he did something innappropiate that the university can’t disclose. These kinds of things happen all of the time.

If he really thinks that the university let him go because he criticized affirmative action, he should sue them. I’m sure they have a code of academic freedom. Of course, if he sued them, he would have to produce evidence for his case. Something completely absent in this article.

Basically, this article is equivalent to a liberal rag telling the story of a Black person who got fired, and simply asserting that it was racism without providing any evidence.

This is an odd protest from you, Jack, since the far right is now pushing for legislation that would severely limit the rights of professors to express their own views, and teach students as they see fit, on the grounds that

a university education should be more than “one biased view by the professor, who as a dictator controls the classroom,†as part of “a misuse of their platform to indoctrinate the next generation with their own views.â€

Personally, I think this is just one more area that government and politicians should stay the hell away from. And far be it from me to dispute Fox News, but there are other news sources that present this issue a little differently:

“I know why I was dismissed; I know what happened,” he said. “It was because of my political and religious beliefs.”

Not so, said CU spokeswoman Pauline Hale, who on Tuesday released a statement saying Mitchell had not been fired but in fact reappointed for the 2005-06 academic year.

What did happen, she said, is that his appointment was shortened from three years to one year to allow a new Sewall program director taking over in May more “flexibility to make personnel decisions according to his or her plans for the future of the program.”

Mitchell was among several instructors to have the length of his or her appointment changed for the same reason, Hale said. “I fail to see how that is being fired.”

Unlike tenured professors, instructors like Mitchell are hired course-by-course and can be replaced without cause. The university will not decide whether to renew Mitchell’s contract for 2006-07 until closer to that time, Hale said.

Also, a CU news release says “. Instructor Mitchell was not dismissed…Mitchell…was renewed for academic year 2005-06. Hiring decisions for the subsequent year (2006-07) will be made in early spring semester of 2006. … Mitchell’s new appointment is for one year, rather than three years, because of an upcoming change in leadership in the program.”

That said - when teaching a subject like history or philosophy, it’s often easier to present material in a way that engages students if you let interleave of your own views with your subject matter—I certainly learned a lot more about the personal beliefs of my English and religion profs than from my math profs - and tenure issues aside, you don’t fire someone after 20 years without good cause. It would be very inappropriate for Mitchell to be fired for teaching well in a way that exposed students to evangelical Christianity, as long as the exposure was in the context of the subject being taught. If that’s what’s happening.

Oops. I guess this is more like a liberal rag fabricating a story about a Black person who got fired…

I agree with Woody - and it seems there was indeed another reason:
From the article
“Earlier Mr. Mitchell, an evangelical Christian, got into hot water for using a book on liberal Protestantism in an American history class”
Sounds to me like the guy may have been pushing his ideologies rather than teaching — a perfectly good reason to let him go.

As for the rest of your post…
You have a problem with Ann Coulter being called a right-winger? I’d say they were merely being kind not to call her something much worse.

From the article:
“As soon as she stepped up to the microphone, Coulter fired off one zinger after another about liberalism while promising to answer questions from left-wing members in the audience who could “thrash their way to a coherent thought.”
“I’ve come to find I like liberals a lot more,” Coulter said early in her speech. “They’re kind of cute when they’re cold, shivering and afraid.”
(snip)
“she also found herself interrupted several times by a small, scattered group of hecklers.
“I think there are some people in the audience who meant to be at the sexual reorientation class down the hall,” Coulter said, in response to the heckling.
(snip)
Coulter resumed her critical remarks, calling Sen. Ted Kennedy a “human dirigible” and the Democrats’ “spiritual leader.” She also made fun of the Democrats’ dalliance with filmmaker Michael Moore and former presidential candidate John Kerry, who she said got away with telling “big, fat, enormous lies.”
(snip)
She also blasted the nation’s judicial system for its handling of the Terri Schiavo case. “We no longer have a single check on the judiciary,” she said.”

You know what I thought was really funny? The fact that the facility she was lecturing in is called the Lied Center. It’s the perfect venue for the twisted spewings of Lucretia Coulter.

“Notice the label. I don’t think the same modification would be used for left-wingers.”

The modification for them would probably be “Liberal Commentator” - and as we all know the term liberal is often used by the Right like a dirty word.

“I did a google search on Michael Moore and Al Franken, who are to the left of center about as far as Coulter in right, and didn’t find them so labeled.”

Perhaps because they use a comedic model to deliver their opinions, rather than the form of a hate-filled diatribe?

I don’t know what it is about pies…

Jack-
It’s one thing for private individuals to shout down Ann Coulter. What about George Bush using a technicality about private ticketsellers to keep Democrats and dissidents out of his townhall meetings, which the American taxpayers are footing the bill for?

It’s one thing for a private individual to assault someone with a pie for having different views. What about the people fired for revealing corruption and graft in the Bush administration?

And why is a university keeping Ward Churchill on the staff to avoid trampling on his academic freedom so bad, when your people are so intent on preserving yours with this guy? It can’t be “free for me, but not for thee”. If this guy has a legitimate case that he’s being fired because of something he said, let him put it forward, and God willing, he will have his vindication. But the price of that is that another person with (very) unpopular views cannot be denied his freedom.

While I’m on the subject of academic freedom, when are the Republicans going to recognize that college students have minds of their own, and that the best way to ensure that they keep those minds their own is to not starve them of views that they may find disturbing or unsettling? The less a person has any real grounding in the issues, the more easily they will be swayed by demagogues and charismatics. Have any of your people thought that maybe an encounter with Ward Churchill might create a healthy sense of skepticism, rather than a blind sense of devotion?

As soon as Michael Moore or Al Franken (both extremely annoying people) advocate killing or “concetration camping” those who disagree, then they are as bad as Coulter.

Stephen

You are right about Ward Churchill could be a good influence. When I was a junior in college, a left wing professor made us read Marx. Before that time, I didn’t have a strong opinion or maybe even vaguely thought it might not be a bad thing. After actually reading the old fool and comparing it to my own proletarian experience, I never felt the pull of Marxism again.

Adrienne

Franken and Moore are two of the most hateful people I have ever heard. Moore at least can be funny. As far as I can tell, Franken has no redeeming characteristics.

Everyone

I never advocated government action to “correct” these problems. I just think it is ironic that any institution that continues to employ the likes of Churchill can fire anyone for cause.

My tone was meant as lighthearted. I am sorry if it appeared ponderous. I am not really worried about it because I really do believe that the PC movement is in its final stages and that universities will begin to move to the right. I noticed already that students are much more conservative, by and large, than their professors and the range of accepted opinion is shifted to the include things farther to the right. Back when I was in school, people like Kristol would not have gotten a hearing at all. And I recall the fights of the 1970, where it was forbidden to mention the possibility that there was a culture of poverty, that free markets might be a way to improve society or that socialism wasn’t the way of the future.

In general, I think campuses are less liberal placed than they were when I was studying.

So I am optimistic. As Lincoln said, you can fool all of the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

In fact, my only concern is that the correction might go too far.

Jack,

You completely ignored the fact that no one actually got fired.

I would never hold Moore and Franken up as paragons of political thought, but they are in a whole different league than Ann Coulter. First of all, their so-called “hate” is aimed at individuals, not whole classes of people (not withstanding the a certain tongue-in-cheek title by Moore). Conservatives like to equate disdain of Bush with bigotry, but that just doesn’t wash. Moreover, I defy you to find examples of either of them advocating political violence. I can think of at least three examples of Coulter doing this:

1) saying that Clinton deserved impeachment “or assassination”

2) saying that Tim McVeigh should have blown up the New York Times

3) saying that John Walker should be executed “to intimidate liberals” (why this would be true I can’t fathom, but it’s her logic)

I defend Ann’s right to free speech, but she is a hell of a lousy martyr.

“Franken and Moore are two of the most hateful people I have ever heard.”

Please. Don’t make me go digging up Ann Coulter’s brand of hate to make me prove you wrong here. I can’t bear reading through it today. Just go ahead and do me the favor of admitting she’s much worse than they are, could you?
The “hateful” things that people like Franken and Moore say are as nothing to the violent and bitter bile spewed from Lucretia’s Coulter’s snarling maw.

“Moore at least can be funny. As far as I can tell, Franken has no redeeming characteristics.”

I think the both of them can have their brilliant comedic moments — but it seems to be a hit or miss thing to me, rather than like clockwork.

You guys really don’t like Coulter. I have never read her books (and don’t intend to) and see her only on TV. She is not thoughtful or a real pundit. She is more of an entertainer. That is why I think she compares to Al Franken and Michael Moore. They are all three out of their depth in a cup of water. I also have never read anything Moore or Franken have written (and don’t intend to) so my relationship with them also comes via television. On television, they all seem equally nasty, but I will defer to those of you who have read the books.

My point in making the comparison was that people feel it necessary to modify right wing and not left wing. Organizations or people on the right are usually called right or conservative. Organizations or people on the left are more often called non-partisan, watchdog or citizens. Or more likely they are not modified at all, making it seem very neutral.

Having read and seen Franken for many years, starting with SNL, I don’t think he really tries to be funny anymore. Maybe sardonic (scornful) is a better term as he aims to shame his targets.
As far as Moore, I’ve seen his stuff, he’s more satirical (derisive) and aims to discredit his targets.
For Coulter, I’ve read some and seen some. She is pure hate and bile. Just taps into her audiences hate buttons. She should be silenced, painfully.
But then again, I believe in free speech. A real conundrum, eh?

I’m new to this site. I am pleased that conservatives, or at least some of them, see the really way-out lies, distortions, and insults of Ann Coulter for what they are. I had thought, if this is representative of Republicans, I wouldn’t touch conservatism, ever, under any circumstances, with a pole of any length. She is poisonous. So who likes her so much, then, and why hasn’t she been ignored into irrelevance?

For the same reason Michael Moore and Al Franken haven’t - she is very entertaining to people who agree with her.

* caveat - I’ve never read any of them, though I’ve read reviews of their stuff. All of my thoughtful friends despise all of them. Most of my thoughtful friends are conservatives, and they spend more anger on Coulter than the other two, probably because they consider her disgraceful.

Jack -

Your optimism is encouraging. I hadn’t thought of it in terms of what it used to be like (I’m young, so I don’t know what it used to be like, for the most part), and I hope you’re right.

I go to a conservative university, but I’ve gone to a liberal one in the past, and when I took my graduation tests a month or so ago (those standardized tests every accredited university gives), I was reintroduced to those modes of thought. I’d forgotten how different my school is from most, but the test instantly and repeatedly reminded me of it. I’ll give a sample of those questions I remember: most of these questions were comprehension questions, where you simply were supposed to see if you could work though the articles and understand what they said.

There were other examples, but I’ve forgotten them. Perhaps we have other college students who took the same test (or similar) that can critique or confirm what I experienced. I remember the relief of getting to the mathematics section, where one is dealing with delightful, objective math.

Please, understand; I’m not saying that every one of those articles didn’t make a significant point or wasn’t correct. I’m sure they were - or at least, that they were mostly right. But they all (except for the one I noted) condemned the traditional culture of the West or brought to mind its most humiliating episodes. I thought that the test was unnecessarily biased (whereas many on the left probably don’t even understand what my problem is) towards a position unfavorable to our country and our heritage.

Add me to the list of people who think that Moore, Franken and Coulter are all equally disreputable commentators.

Em5, that’s great that you’ve finally found reasonable Republicans. Look around some here and you’ll find some reasonable Democrats too. I think it’s pretty funny though that Jack is willing to play the middle ground, but no one here from the other side is yet (although it looks like some are close!) Perhaps David will be the first.

I’m a Republican, for the record.

I value personal responsibility. That is the only fact that you know about me. Where would you place me on the left to right spectrum? Far left, mid-left, center, mid-right, far right.

David -

Looking only at that statement, it tells me you’re probably right of center (statistically speaking). Certainly, many of those left-of-center also support personal responsibility, but it is not their focus. Their focus is on using government to correct societal ills, not using personal responsibility to do so.

Allowing myself to be more suspicious, I imagine you’re actually left-of-center, and disclosed that trait of yours because you know that most people would think of you as conservative, and you like to catch people in their assumptions.

In the same vein, I believe that modern American society doesn’t care enough about the poor and disadvantaged.

Daniel, I’m not on “the far left” but I still don’t see what your problem is with the three essay questions you mentioned. They obviously haven’t had a negative impact on you (or have they scarred you for life?). I understand that it can be uncomfortable answering questions you believe to be based on an unfair bias, but again, you turned out fine didn’t you?

Jack:
You comments were pointed and wise. If I understand the basic part of your statement, I would be very inclined to support it. I think that college professors do not have the right to espouse any of their own beliefs when they are at the lecturn to teach a specific curriculum and being paid for it!

I believe they should stick to the “lesson plan” and avoid adding any personal touches that distract from the real lesson. I will add that these lessons are the ones that they are paid to explain and help the student analyze! They are not paid to editorialize or push a private agenda. They are paid to stick to the course outline approved by the college or university. The taxpayer should demand nothing less.

Political correctness, the plague on the world!!! Who thought up this stupid double talk and just plain bull shit? A spade is a spade!! Americans are not politically correct, they should never be so and they should speak their minds very clearly! I am blunt and will never speak in silly soft language just to please someone or avoid stepping on their toes. Why should I?

Zeek -

No, the questions haven’t had a negative impact on me - certainly, they haven’t scarred me for life. They upset me a little, but that has more to do with my personality - I’m fascinated with argument, but it also upsets me. So all I endured was a little annoyance. The questions were a mosquito, nothing worse.

I thought I outlined my problem with them above. I’ll try to do so again. They all condemned the “traditional” culture of this country - one by reminding me of the civil rights era and the oppression of minorities, the other by remembering the oppression of the Native Americans and the ignorance of our ancestors, and the third by the destructive impact of our culture on others (I forgot to mention the specific context was Africa). I don’t dispute any of those things - either that “traditional” American culture oppressed minorities, mistreated Indians, or damaged other cultures. It’s all true, to one extent or another. But my problem is that is all the test said. My problem is that, to an annoying degree, that is all we hear from the left about our history. To listen to them, Anglo-Saxon white males have done nothing but oppress, subjugate, murder, extort, and belittle everyone else they ran across. Yes, white Anglo-Saxon males have done all those things … but they’ve also done other, better things, too! My problem isn’t so much with what they say, but with what they don’t say … what they don’t see. When they look at our history (or at least, when they tell that history to me), all they seem to remember is that bad parts, the mistakes. I wish they also remembered the glories and the right things done as well. I wish I could be proud of this country if all I knew about it was gleaned from their textbooks.

Let me quote some Boromir from the first Lord of the Rings movie:

Why do you have so little faith in your own people? Yes, there is weakness, there is frailty, but there is courage also! And honor to be found in men. But you will not see that!

Oh - on the Ann Coulter subject, I forgot that a friend of mine posted this on his blog recently. It’s worth a look.

Those sorts of questions, and the mindset that goes with them, is just silly. You should not ask such leading questions unless you are trying to persuade or manipulate and you should be trying to do neither in a test like this. Beyond that, they are factually misleading.

Scholars have studied graffiti on monuments from ancient Rome and Greece. It goes to show the ignorance and limited vision of the writer.

The deforestation was the consequence of a different system of agriculture and the need for meadow. The settlers had few regrets about the improvements they made and by the way, the New England forests have now returned and forested areas are probably greater than when the first man stepped onto Plymouth Rock, since nobody starts them on fire anymore. I guess the Indians didn’t understand those ways.

And sure enough change is destructive to traditional ways. That is as close to being a tautology as can be.

That educated people could come up with such questions, not their PC bias, is what worries me.

Daniel,

Yes. The white man could have learned ALOT from the Native American. Unfortunately they already knew it all.

Ann Coulter is funny. I can’t believe anyone takes everything she says seriously - to the extent they do anyway - same with those other two.
Most of what they say is exaggerated so someone will pay attention.
‘That’s entertainment.’

I think the major difference between Franken, Moore and Coulter, is that Franken and Moore treat things like it’s a social movement, and Coulter and her compatriots treat it like a holy war. Moore and Franken advocate a reversal of the political trends of the last generation. Coulter, Hannity, and the like are basically arguing for the destruction of the political influence of an entire segment of the American political landscape. They want the world remade in their image. It is inconceivable to them that the world might be constructed different from their idealization of it. Also inconceivable is that people can disagree with them and be right, or even respectable.

The world escapes everybody’s full grasp, but they act like either they or we should have that understanding, and that since they disagree with us, they are the ones with the received wisdom. It has been the strength of the conservative movement that it’s been so self-assured, but it’s rapidly becoming it’s weakness, as it has plowed itself right into a number of non-negotiable realities where the strength of the Republican will can serve to entangle as much as break it free of its problems

To All
I think you give too much credit to Coulter, Franken and Moore. They are probably melancholy or sanguine personalities. Their job is to provoke. They are all successful at doing it. I don’t take any of them seriously. I am in agreement with their thoughts on occasion. But that is because they say something that will get a rise out of me.

Tom is right.

To be generous, we might think of them as cheerleaders. The cheerleaders chant that their team will crush the opponents, who are a bunch of wimps or weaklings. Imagine the cheerleader saying, “the other team is just about our equal, but we feel we have a reasonable chance of winning.” Of course none of the trio is as attractive as the average cheerleader and Michael Moore has roughly 2.5 times the mass.

Jack wrote: ” Imagine the cheerleader saying, ?the other team is just about our equal, but we feel we have a reasonable chance of winning.?
Hahah Hysterical!

Now Dennis Miller and Geraldo Rivera, they puzzle to me.( which is not that difficult).

Back to the matter at hand. The issue seems to me should be between the students and there parents. Not the Gov’t.

I believe they should stick to the “lesson plan” and avoid adding any personal touches that distract from the real lesson. I will add that these lessons are the ones that they are paid to explain and help the student analyze! They are not paid to editorialize or push a private agenda.

At the university level there is usually not going to be a “lesson plan”. What you describe sounds more like high school. People go to college to be exposed to different ways of thinking, not learn rote material.

By the way, one field that definitely does NOT have a liberal bias is economics. If anything, the reigning orthodoxy is right wing. Then of course there are many other fields where political bias is simply impossible, like math or physics. Fragile conservative kids have plenty of places to hide. :)

I read an interesting article in the Nation pointing out that the people who used to talk about ridding institutions of Communists are now targetting garden-variety liberals/leftists.

Re Ann Coulter: Some may call her an entertainer, but she is also called a “constitutional expert”. It is interesting how people always think that the extreme figures on their side shouldn’t be taken too seriously, while the figures on the other side are foaming at the mouth with hatred. Even if Coulter is a humorist or entertainer (a very deadpan one), however, humor has its limits. I don’t think you should “joke” about assassinating anyone(and I am really giving her the benefit of the doubt here that humor was intended).

To follow up on the cheerleader analogy, I haven’t been to a lot of pep rallies lately, but I don’t think cheerleaders talk about assassinating the other team’s quarterback. That would seem like a real rally-stopper.

Personally, I much prefer to ignore her existence, but it amazes me that she is treated as a respectable figure.

You guys really don?t like Coulter. I have never read her books (and don?t intend to)… I also have never read anything Moore or Franken have written (and don?t intend to)

You should. Otherwise you have no idea what you’re talking about. I forced my way through one of Coulter’s books. Ugh. Nothing but vile hatred.

Jack, you are selling Ann Coulter waaaay to short when comparing her with those other two “entertainers”. Her bio is very impressive…

” Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.

After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.

… Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.”

While she may be a flamethrower, hence your comparisons, she does a very good job researching her points; whether you agree or disagree with her perspective.

A liberial professor pushing his/her views, GOOD GOOD.
A conserbative porfessor pushing his/her views, BAD BAD BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So on the one hand Ann Coulter is a clown who shouldn’t be taken seriously, on the other hand a serious nose-to-the-grindstone scholar. Will the real Ann Coulter please stand up?

Regardless of her resume, the lady has same crazy junk coming out her mouth and pen. Look at this debate on Larry King with Alan Dershowitz:

http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticoulter/larryking98.html

Here is a tasty quote from your brilliant scholar:

COULTER:I believe the reason for this is because of the one impeachment of a president, of Alexander Hamilton, was over Hamilton’s refusal to enforce an unconstitutional law, so Congress was accusing the president…

Or try this…

DERSHOWITZ: We know that Thomas Jefferson was surrounded by scandal which he denied to people who asked about whether he follow fathered a child.

KING: If then were now, they couldn’t make a case against Thomas Jefferson.

DERSHOWITZ: No.

COULTER: He was never president.

Fisher,

You report Coulter has an impressive biography, I won’t fact check it, but that would be even more of a reason to consider her a pariah. Read Franken’s “Lying Liars …”
He and his unpaid staff of graduate students reviewed her so-called research and very effectively discredited her. When she can’t use obfuscating grammar, she doesn’t shy away from outright lies.
Basically, I can’t understand how anyone would equate her and Franken/Moore. Evil vs. Silly.

Ann Coulter is also an admitted “dead head” who has been to over 45 Greatfull Dead concerts, go figure.

Her statement that democrats never want war or use military force deserves a nice boston cream
in the kisser.

Dave,

Look, I am not an Ann Coulter apologist, my point is that she is not just an entertainer like Frankin and Moore. I have read his comments on her book and I have read her rebuttal. He really didn’t try to take on her main premise or her reasoning. Honestly, I found both books too boorish to complete.

Justin, no mental images, please!

Kill the Infidel!

There is more going on under the stars than would meet the eye. Coulter is amusing, the others not so. Just my .02 the right should brace ourselves for the death throws of a group think whose time has past (Socialcrats … the jig is up … We brown people are waking up and realizing that you are not the all powerful OZ) So expect the noise to be a bit much for a bit. As to the matter at hand, who cares what the Demunist think? Personal achievement and the free market will prevail! (I do recommend that you load up and stockpile your arms just till the beast is truly dead, least they try to come and take just a little more one last time!) So looking forward to the revolution.

MAY GOD ALMIGHTY SAVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

* Cringes, whistles. Waits for furious barrage. *

You can see who is the establishment when you look at this blog page. I wrote it and only mentioned Ward Churchill. I notice on the side of what I wrote are three sponsored links defending Ward Churchill.

Somebody paid for those links. This is not the cry of an oppressed and voicless minority. It is the shout of the privelged establishment demanding to stay on top.

Next time anyone doubts that the established official thought is leftist, remember this.

Jack,

The established official thought is leftist? What about the President, the Supreme Court, Congress, big business, all the right-wing “think tanks”, etc?

Read Franken’s “Lying Liars …” He and his unpaid staff of graduate students…

I guess you get what you pay for…

Fisher,

Have you ever heard of volunteers? You get more from people who are doing what they want and believe in, rather than what they get paid for. Just look at the Bush paid press problem. They rolled like a radial once they got caught.

Stephen Daugherty:

“I think the major difference between Franken, Moore and Coulter, is that Franken and Moore treat things like it’s a social movement, and Coulter and her compatriots treat it like a holy war. Moore and Franken advocate a reversal of the political trends of the last generation. Coulter, Hannity, and the like are basically arguing for the destruction of the political influence of an entire segment of the American political landscape. They want the world remade in their image. It is inconceivable to them that the world might be constructed different from their idealization of it. Also inconceivable is that people can disagree with them and be right, or even respectable.

The world escapes everybody’s full grasp, but they act like either they or we should have that understanding, and that since they disagree with us, they are the ones with the received wisdom. It has been the strength of the conservative movement that it’s been so self-assured, but it’s rapidly becoming it’s weakness, as it has plowed itself right into a number of non-negotiable realities where the strength of the Republican will can serve to entangle as much as break it free of its problems”

I really don’t think much of any of them. But, as a former Republican, now very independent, the predominant reason for me leaving the party was the vomitous spewings of the Republican leadership and the likes of Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh. They all started out advocating conservative viewpoints, put morphed into self-righteous, self-important, me-before-the-message TV personalities. The Republican Party and we conservative have no current hero. They have all either turned in Hannity or have left.

“A couple of stories of academia caught my attention today. The University of Colorado is firing a professor for what he said”.

Wonder what history would be like if a few people from history were fired, let go made to depart the contry for what they were saying, preaching, or otherwise spewing out.

I do hear about the Republician Leadership and how some people have left the party due to them. Well that’s there choice, no one makes people stay in a political party. But then you may think that the R Leadership needs to be fired for beleving in what they are saying or doing. Strange but this does sound familer. Kind of like “The University of Colorado is firing a professor for what he said”.

Some my not find the R leadership as hero’s, but a bunch of us still do. Just who do you suggest we elect. Kerry (Don’t think so), Dean (Just another Mr. Bean). I joined the party because of what it stands for not for it’s leadership. I have always been a Republician. Even during the bad old days of the late 60’s and early 70’s. You may remember the time fram I am talking about.