“Warren Kinsella's book, ‘Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,’ is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.”

- The Washington Times

“One of the best books of the year.”

- The Hill Times

“Justin Trudeau’s speech followed Mr. Kinsella’s playbook on beating conservatives chapter and verse...[He followed] the central theme of the Kinsella narrative: “Take back values. That’s what progressives need to do.”

- National Post

“[Kinsella] is a master when it comes to spinning and political planning...”

- George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC TV

“Kinsella pulls no punches in Fight The Right...Fight the Right accomplishes what it sets out to do – provide readers with a glimpse into the kinds of strategies that have made Conservatives successful and lay out a credible roadmap for progressive forces to regain power.”

- Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics

“[Kinsella] deserves credit for writing this book, period... he is absolutely on the money...[Fight The Right] is well worth picking up.”

- Huffington Post

“Run, don't walk, to get this amazing book.”

- Mike Duncan, Classical 96 radio

“Fight the Right is very interesting and - for conservatives - very provocative.”

- Former Ontario Conservative leader John Tory

“His new book is great! All of his books are great!”

- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD

“I absolutely recommend this book.”

- Paul Wells, Maclean’s

“Kinsella puts the Left on the right track with new book!”

- Calgary Herald


No biggie. His finger would only be on the button, is all.

Moral: don’t support conservatives.  They’re dumber than liberals.



54 Responses to “No biggie. His finger would only be on the button, is all.”

  1. Harith says:

    Him and Cain or the GOP itself must have orchestrated this gaffe to distract from Cain’s abuse allegations.

  2. snip snip: “Starving the beast” is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives to use budget deficits via tax cuts to force future reductions in the size of government. The term “beast” refers to government and the programs it funds, particularly social programs such as welfare, Social Security, and Medicare.

    A well-known proponent of the strategy is activist Grover Norquist who famously said “My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

    Some empirical evidence shows that such a strategy may be counterproductive, with lower taxes corresponding to higher spending.

    An October 2007 study by Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer of the National Bureau of Economic Research found: “[...] no support for the hypothesis that tax cuts restrain government spending; indeed, [the findings] suggest that tax cuts may actually increase spending. The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases.”[10]

    http://www.dominionpaper.ca/weblogs/geordie/2339

    • Gord Tulk says:

      So, if taxes are cut to zero spending will skyrocket?

      Reducing the ability of government to generate revenue in a deficit adverse political climate will ultimately reduce spending.

      The entitlements you note are indeed beasts that left unreformed will devour all room for discretionary spending regardless of govt revenues. Most on the left think that higher taxes will be enough to satiate the beast, those on the right see the demographic trends and the unfunded liability and recognize that that is the road to ruin, that entitlement reform is the only solution. By reducing taxes and govt revenues the nexus ftthat will make these reforms politically salable happens sooner as does the long term benefit of reining in the entitlements happening sooner.

      • scot says:

        Jeez Gord, you’re a veritable fount of right wing dribble. It’s almost amazing.

      • Cameron Prymak says:

        On the jobs question -his claims about being responsible for huge jobs growth iand deficit reduction in Texas ignore a important facts.

        His predecessors, including W, generated more jobs.

        He kept taxes down because he used federal $ to offset the state deficit.

        A large proportionof new jobs in Texas resulted from larger state government.

    • Jan says:

      Tax cuts certainly didn’t restrain Bush’s spending. Conservatives talk a good game about cutting government but they always fall down in the implementation.

  3. ed says:

    Crime: Boy I don’t know. As a grad in criminology, that is my favorite.

  4. Dan says:

    I don’t know who had the worse night. Perry or Ashton Kutcher

  5. bigcitylib says:

    So after he’s nuked the first two countries, he’ll be open to suggestions.

  6. Ted says:

    President Perry: General, you have my authorization to commence bombing of… um… uh… Iraq.

    General: Iraq, sir?

    PP: Sorry, no. Relay, er, belay, er, cancel that order. General, you have my authorization to commence bombing of… um… uh… Israel?

    General: Israel is an ally, sir.

    PP: India?

    General: No, sir, not India.

    PP: Italy?

    General: No, sir. That’s where the Pope lives.

    PP: Gotcha. Lotta Catholic-y voters in the CPAC. Can’t be bombin’ them. Let’s see. I- I- I- I- Iceland?

    General: No, sir. Iran, sir? Did you mean Iran, sir?

    PP: You got ‘er there, General ol’ buddy. Let’s drop somma them bomb thingies on Eye-ran. There the ones ‘at gave us Celine Dion, hay? Now, by bombin’ them Eye-ran-ans, will the explosion be big enough to take out Moscow? I would sure luv to take out Moscow, too.

    General: No, sir. They are not proximate to each other.

    PP: Blast it, General. No usin’ those high fallutin’ words. If yous mean they ain’t close, just says so. But ja sees how I made one a them puns by sayin’ “blast it”? Get it? We’re talkin’ about bombin’ and I said blast it. Get it?

    General: I got it, sir. Very funny, sir. Shall I proceed to give the order, sir?

    PP: Ya. Go ahead. [Pause.] Do the bombs come with them cameras on? I’d a luv to see the faces of those there Eye-ran-ans as we blow them to bits.

    General: No, sir. There are no cameras on the nuclear bombs. You are thinking of the smart bombs, sir.

    PP: Too bad. Say, why don’t we get some cameras on those nuclear bombs too? Can’t anyone think up smart stuff like that, ‘cept for me? What’s wrong with our learnin’? We got to get the Secretary of Learnin’ onto that. What’s his name, again?

    General: Education, sir? Did you mean Secretary of Education?

    PP: Education, Learnin’. You know what I mean. Don’t be givin’ me no guff. Ya, Secretary of Education. What’s his name?

    General: There is no Secretary or Department of Education, sir. Remember? You got rid of them when you came into office.

    PP: Righto. Forgot ’bout that. No need for no Department of Learnin’ anyway, is there?

    General: Clearly not, sir.

  7. Giovanni says:

    Wow! What an embarrassment!

  8. Finn says:

    The winner last night?

    Obama

  9. frmr disgruntled Con now happy Lib says:

    Weve all had brain farts, but if the idjit didnt have the wherewithal to make a few notes, he doesnt deserve to be the Republican candidate….He probably got further on his looks than his brains….
    Besides, he’s giving gay men a bad name…..lol

    Looks and brains ARE a deadly combination……Mr. Kinsella is living proof…….

  10. Mark McLaughlin says:

    It’s a bit of an overstep to make general stereotypes based on THIS guy. He’s a fool no doubt, but the Conservative movement has no more oratorical idiots than the Progressives.
    Exhibit A – John McCallum
    Exhibit B – Joe Biden

    • Cameron Prymak says:

      for sure, but you have to admit that in this election season the situation on the right is truly unprecedented. each candidate is trying to outdo each other in appealing to the Tea Party and people with actual experience and qualifications like, Jon Huntsman, can’t get any traction.

  11. pomojen says:

    Come on out Gord…I’m waiting for you to say something. I swear, you are half the reason this site is more interesting to me than all those drunk or kid forums. Ex: http://www.forumopolis.com/showthread.php?t=95864

    These are interesting forums Gord. But instead of being sucked into those during coffee break, I am sucked into this non-blog, always wondering at times like these “Now, what will that funny old Gord say now?” And then you come on out, swinging your brain around and saying things I never IMAGINED you would say! It’s fascinating!

    You know what? Someday when people don’t have recent memory to help them figure it out, this could be a Drunk or Kid moment for Perry. Was he Drunk? A Kid? No! He was a (failed) GOP Candidate!

    New game: Drunk or Conservative.

  12. sharonapple88 says:

    Just don’t give him more than two options and Perry will be fine.

  13. steve says:

    The scary part, is even he thinks the Harper crime policy is stupid.
    http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_harpers_cruel_crime_bill/?cl=1378420300&v=11036

  14. Gord Tulk says:

    Perry clearly has difficulty with the debate format – he is chronically inept at it. Not sure that he suffers the same issues in other pressure situations but, it clearly disqualifies him for POTUS or VPOTUS. Too bad he stumbled on the particular point – eliminating those three depts over time makes perfect sense – such responsibility belongs directly with the politically elected legislative bodies.

    Apparently there were two winners last night Gingrich, who flourishes in the format and is easily the best versed on policy and more significantly is a driving force on policy for the GOP in his own right. His ‘stock’ continues to rise and a new super PAC has just been created for him. And Romney who sails the choppy heckling waters of these debates with ease for the most part. He is the safe harbour for most in the GOP if a solid conservative option doesn’t materialize. (I bet Tim Pawlenty is kicking himself now for dropping out)

    About 80% of GOP caucus and primary voters want someone other than Romney to arise between now and the convention. Because of that resistance i doubt any of the other candidates will drop out – content to hold onto what they earn for delegates in the hopes of brokering them at the convention – either for them to get the nom or facilitate someone else getting the nom and being rewarded for it once Obama is defeated. Gingrich is currently the most visible option but there may be a dozen or more others: Christie, Paul Ryan, Jindal, Guiliani, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, its a long, long list.

    • Philippe says:

      I think you’re right Gord that 80% of the GOP primary voters are looking for someone more conservative than Romney. It’s a “shoot yourself in the foot” strategy, as Romney is clearly the most electable vs Obama (he would appeal to independents). I’ve said it before – the highjacking of the GOP by extreme elements (tea party) may in fact rip them apart. Just now, they’re just itching to nominate an unelectable candidate (that’s not my opinion, it’s the polls). The tea-partyers’ simplistic and uncompromising style is not doing your side any good- I happen to think it will cost you the election. Am I wrong?

  15. Gord Tulk says:

    As for conservatives being dumber than liberals – Gingrich would make mincemeat out of Obama in a debate.

    • Torgo says:

      Well, he might if the only topics during the debate are alternate history and getting your wife to sign divorce papers while she’s the in the hospital for cancer treatment.

      • Gord Tulk says:

        I would study that story a little more if I were you, apparently it was his wife who initiated the divorce process.

        That said, there is no doubt Gingrich has his flaws, everyone does. I don’t think they disqualify him for potus – certainly he is far better than Obama – the least vetted potus nom in the last century. Time will tell if he is thought to be the best option for the GOP.

      • Gord Tulk says:

        From Wiki:

        ” In 2011, their daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, said that it was her mother who requested the divorce, that it happened prior to the hospital stay (which was for the removal of a benign tumor, not cancer), and that Gingrich’s visit was for the purpose of bringing the couple’s children to see their mother, not to discuss the divorce.”

        • Bruce from Etobicoke says:

          That is your most pathetic post yet GT. The lines immediately preceding the quote you posted from Wiki are the part where the woman who was actually involved – Newt’s wife – said he surprised her by asking for a divorce while she was recovering from cancer surgery (note: often you find out it was benign after the surgery, but who wants to get picky with rewrites of history…)

          So you chose to skip over the actual words of the woman who was asked for the divorce while in her hospital bed in order to post the words of the daughter covering for her Dad after the fact. Smooth. Very smooth.

          • scot says:

            That is standard right wing modus operandi.

          • pomojen says:

            Probably thinks no one checks Wiki except him. Gotta say Gord, that was pretty small and dirty.

          • Gord Tulk says:

            I’m saying that the MSM line on this is hardly undisputed. An ex-wife is often not ones best source for accurate info. I didn’t quote the first part because that is what was being cited in the post prior to mine.

      • Jon Adams says:

        WK should post this:

        “We’re looking for someone with a big-kneed pedigree, significant knowledge of players at Valley Lodge, great taking-care-of-the-place skills, and quavering inflection wouldn’t hurt either. El Paso location.”

        • Gord Tulk says:

          Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about.

          • Jon Adams says:

            Pal, I was making a joke about Torgo’s name. A Mystery Science Theatre 3000 joke intended for *him*. But because we weren’t talking about you, you had to go and make all about yourself because god knows we can’t have a comments section where Gord Tulk doesn’t put himself at the freakin’ epicenter. Kindly take your parchment thin skin and your desire to White Knight for whatever libertarian cause célèbre Dave Rutherford gives you and just put them back into the suitcase for the next thread. Is that alright with you, Mr. Blogging Tory Celebrity?

      • Dan says:

        Nailed it.

    • smelter rat says:

      “As for conservatives being dumber than liberals – Gingrich would make mincemeat out of Obama in a debate.”

      Careful Gord, you’re edging right up to the batshit looney line.

      • Gord Tulk says:

        Gingrich is saying that he wants more formal – more detailed and in depth debates between POTUS candidates this time around. If Obama is so sure that he can beat newt (or whoever wins the nom) let’s see him agree to that right now.

        And Im pretty sure that the vast majority of GOP members my opinion that newt would beat Obama easily. Unless you think they are all “batshit crazy” it is you who self-marginalizing not me.

    • Philippe says:

      Jesus Gord, enough with the man of the past. Enough imploding candidates has left you with… Gingrich? Are you being serious…? It’s like diving into an old bin to re-use the old sponge that’s well past it’s useful life. Your only shot at Obama is Romney but your tea-baggers won’t vote for anyone that isn’t on their nutsy tree. It’s a tough situation – all the while Obama is swimming in cash.

    • Cameron Prymak says:

      It’s beyond ironic to think that a man who has/had a $500K revolving line of credit at a jewelery store somehow aligns with the Tcommon sense/grass roots/populist Tea Party.

      If it’s Gingrich’s turn to be the next anti-Romney saviour you can bet the media scrutiny on him will be brutal.

    • Derek Pearce says:

      No way. Obama would make Gingrich look like a joke. I’d LOVE to see a debate between those two.

  16. “They’re dumber than liberals.” (WK)

    I wonder if you are applying that liberals are dumb. Da-dum!

  17. Ted says:

    What left-wing bigotry?

    The problem with ideological zealots is they think everyone thinks like them, sees the world in black and white, and any criticism or attack or joke is motivated by deep partisanship.

    The problem with ideological zealots is that they don’t see the world for how it is.

Leave a Reply

*