She is that latest in a long line of media conservatives that have figured out that they can either fight for crowded space on Fox News, or land an easy job on one of the hate networks by bashing conservatives and claiming to be one. I think her motivation is pretty clear. $$$$
Why doesn't she call out Glenn Beck? It's interest she goes after another radio talk show host in Rush while being on the Beck payroll. I think most ppl kind of think Beck is similar to Rush so it seems a bit hypocritical for her to attack Rush.
At the end of the day, she just wants to look cool for her liberal friends. Instead of actually digging into the books and turning to history for the great conservative leaders of old.
Hey SE, you hang around a trash dump long enough, you begin to smell like one. Ask Joe Scarborough, and David Brooks...
I am losing faith in this web site because you seem to be worshiping at the Rush alter rather than the reason alter. SE is perfectly free to criticize Rush as he can be a little off at times and he is not the know all end all of conservative thought. Nor does he need a thought police to defend him. Back off and widen the tent a little before making it so narrow that you can't even include me, who I consider to be 100% Reagan and 100% Tea Party.
First time you ever graced us with your presence, and already, you are losing faith in this web site. Pardon me while I puke.
Where do you people come from, actually? On the one hand, I am tempted to engage you in conversation, on the other hand, I have to ask myself, "Why would I want to engage in conversation with an absolute Idiot?" You're the Idiot. You tell me.
Based on the fact that you stopped by here for your very first Disqus comment ever, to play the role of a Reagan concern troll, I'd say it's highly likely that you are 100% phony.
No bigger tent exists than the tent of Unalienable Rights guaranteed by our Individual Sovereignty. IF that's not wide enough for you, then you are probably lost.
First off...majority rules. Bedrock of our society. Rush has the majority, and he has that majority for a reason. Next up S.E. Cupp used criticism of Rush as self aggrandizement. It's akin to shooting someone in the back and calling yourself a hero. Third, her criticism was incorrect. Fourth, it was way late and after the party was over which circles right back around to self aggrandizement.
I respect your minority opinion however it is just that. I also suspect if you are a as you say then it isn't what Rush is saying but perhaps the manner in which he says it. That's okay since it is impossible to please the entire planet.
Rush as he can be a little off at times and he is not the know all end all of conservative thought.
Straw man. No one has said Rush is the be all and end all. Even Malkin criticized him at the time. Think a little deeper. Why is she bringing it up now and on a Leftist network? Maybe, her intentions aren't so pure. Have you thought of that?
It is not her criticism of Rush that is the issue.It is her squishy middle of the road moderate republican attitude.Moderate conservatism does not work.Look to the last two presidential elections as proof.
So you're ok with Cupp going onto MSLSD to criticize Rush while ignoring the sickening comments made by Bill Maher, Letterman, and countless others on the left?
ALso, what was wrong with what Rush said about Fluke?
How do you respect someone who begs Congress to force taxpayers to pay for her to whore it around campus???
If you want to be a slut, do it on your own dime, not mine.
For an educated person like Cupp, she surprises me. When the liberals lost to George W. Bush in 2004, did they collapse and give up and say that they had to become more conservative and more "bipartisan?" Absolutely not. If anything, they became more liberal and dragged the Democratic party even more to the left. The result? They not only won the midterm elections in 2006, but the White House in 2008 AND again in 2012. And the liberals, in getting even more low information voters addicted to government benefits and entitlements, now make up roughly 50% of the population. Once that happens, you set up a system like in Britain where liberals will control government forever, with conservatives being just like the liberals only spending money at a slightly slower rate. Once in a hundred years you will get a politician like Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan, but they certainly will be the exception and not the norm, before the country slips back into its addiction of massive public spending and eventual bankruptcy. So Cupp is just plain wrong. If EVER we needed a Ronald Reagan, a person that is NOT willing to compromise his or her conservative beliefs, it is now, when we really ARE about to go bankrupt. Cupp should know that by now.
"If anything, they became more liberal and dragged the Democratic party even more to the left."
After they ran to the right to gain the majority. They ran a conservative campaign on fiscal discipline. That was the cudgel used to beat Republicans over the head and the masses fell for it because they didn't know the opponent. Democrats used SunTzu and it worked. Once again they were three steps ahead of Republicans proclaiming a recession so loudly and repeatedly that it became a self fulfilling prophecy used to hide their wrongdoing that actually brought the real recession to bear. They began the minute Dubya and McCain called for reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. They simply couldn't have the press digging into that any deeper let alone the pay off voter scam known as CRA.
As to educated...says who? I see no critical thinking skills coming out of S.E. Cupp. What I see and hear is moral relativism which is low hanging fruit and an easy pick'ins.
Also take note that Hollywood and the media are in hyper overdrive to help cement their status. For example I have stopped watching three tv shows due to the depiction of conservatives and Christians as evil. This is yet another example once again of Democrats three steps ahead.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well may be) but I took her criticism of Rush to mean that we need to speak out louder against missteps when they happen so that we're not tainted by them like in the case of Akin and the guy form Indiana and that this should be all inclusive and there should be no sacred cows (Rush).
I felt that she was hot under the collar about issues like this costing us the election and that addressing them and clearly standing against them when they happen was a better course of action then to just let it slide or sweep it under the rug.
Why didn't Romney do better with the female vote? My conclusion is that they must have fallen victim to the false War on Women the Left perpetrated and incidents like Rush's use of the word Slut substantiated their claim.
I didn't take her actions to be an attack on Rush at all but on her fellow members in the media spotlight for not reacting to it the way they might have had Rush been not such a venerable icon.
Really? "We need to speak out louder against missteps" by Republicans? A ton of Republicans spoke out against Akin, Rush, and others. Rush even apologized the next day for the "slut" comment, but that doesn't satisfy the left. It will NEVER satisfy the left. No matter how loud we speak out against fellow Republicans, it only makes them clamor for more.
But when do Democrats ever speak out against their own when they misstep? Have they criticized Obama for being AWOL the night 4 Americans were killed in Benghazi? Do they speak out against Bill Maher when he, like Rush, refers to women as four-letter words but, unlike Rush, refuses to apologize? Do they speak out against Bill Clinton for sexually harassing a White House intern and then lying about it in court and to the American people? No, they never speak out against him; they speak out in praise of him. They circle the wagons around Democrats who misstep and then turn them into heroes. They don't form circular fire squads like Republicans like to do. Yet somehow they never get "tainted" by it. How is that possible?
I'm not saying we should be hypocrites, like the Democrats, and never fault our fellow Republicans when they step out of line. But first, we need to make sure they are not being misquoted. That happens more often than not. And once they apologize or correct their mistake, we should let it be. We don't need to beat a dead horse by bringing these things up years later and rehashing them over and over again like S. E. Cupp and Carl Rove want to do. You cannot calm those sharks on the left by chumming the waters!
Isn't Se Cupp essentially a RINO? -AND- Was it on this site that there was a somewhat passionate defense of RINO paradigms? I could be mistaken. Also, I wonder what Glenn Beck thinks of her commentary?
Sure you can criticize Rush S.E, but over the Sandra Fluke thing? Sorry, but people shouldn't be paying for birth control because Fluke and keep her legs closed. Being on MSNBC everyday must have fried S.E's brain or something.
S.E.Cupp railed against republicans for their party platform against abortion and gay marriage. She stated that we need to move to the center if we plan to be relevant. She is not that conservative, other than maybe a fiscal conservative, but Reagan said that true conservatism stand on three legs: strong moral values, strong fiscal conservatism with free market values, and strong on defense. She is wanting the republicans to ditch the moral issues. Not only that, but she appears to be enjoying the 15 minutes of fame that the left is giving her by allowing them to goad her into criticizing republicans. We have WAY TOO MANY female (so-called conservative) writers who have already sullied themselves trying to please the left, not to mention the men who adore adulation from the left. Republicans are not losing because they are not moderate enough. They are losing because the candidates that have the means to win are the moderates and not the conservatives.
This isn't politically correct to say but it is my opinion that it is her atheism that lets her dump morals so easily and readily to move into the center. Conservative Christians refuse because they worry far more about the next life than this one.
Concentrating on the "fiscal conservative" side of the house is the only way Republicans will ever occupy the White House again.
I'm going to take some heat for this. I know that, going in. But, here it is.
One of the things that absolutely had to happen, in the Liberal Indoctrination of America, the move toward Socialism, was that we had to become a more Feminine nation. Believe it or don't, they succeeded in doing just that.
The females among us, are the Mothers, the Nurturers. They give birth to new life, and they protect it. When these Mothers and Nurturers, these protectors of Life, gained political office, the world as we knew it, changed dramatically.
This is what the Socialists needed. Because they presented a world to all of us, where everyone loved everyone else. The strong males among us, knew that was a crock, from the beginning. So the Socialists concentrated on the females. Damned if it didn't work. We are now a more or less, feminine society.
We don't want guns. We don't want wars. We don't believe we have enemies. We just believe everyone just has to just get along.
It was brilliant. It was so brilliant, that now most of our children are educated in elementary school, the most formative years of any child, by Liberal female Idiots.
They then hand them over, to College Perfessers, who are more Liberal than the Idiot we have, for a President. This has the effect, of putting the final, finishing touch, on their Liberal Education. By the time they finish Graduate School, their heads are so full of Liberal mush, that they are absolutely worthless, to the rest of us, so they go to work as journalists, for the major media networks, and the cycle begins all over again.
Part of what I just stated, is humor, but most of it is reality. You know it, and I know it. We have to stop ignoring the obvious, and start confronting it. Otherwise, all of this is just a worthless exercise.
I should have done this much earlier. My mistake. I took a look at your profile. Every single comment you ever made, was a comment of confrontation. You are really not a very happy person, are you?
I guess the most apparent thing here, is that we are not even going to come close to having a conversation, because of your anger. As for your question about when was the last time I went to a public school, well, I don't know what to say. You obviously have an agenda here this evening, that will not be denied, in spite of anything I have to add to the conversation.
For the record, I have raised three sons, who are now contributing citizens of this great country. I am in the process of putting the finishing touches on the fourth.
I have been inside a classroom. I have talked to the teachers of my children. I have met with the worthless administrators of our worthless public school system. I find them lacking, in the abilities required, to educate our children.
As do many others, who live in absolute abhorrence, of what our government calls a School System.
Laurel, I suggest we keep a respectful distance. I have done my level best to have a conversation with you, but I am wise enough to realize that sometimes that is simply not possible.
I wish you well. I really do. But I will no longer respond to your posts.
In reality it isn't just the women they are going through. it is the weak minded. Ignorance is the easiest thing in the world to exploit. It wasn't most men that rejected the idea since it was actually introduced by men to begin with. Read Frankfurt School of Germany. Men! Every one of them. Most of academia that introduced this pablum into society...Men! Catholic Church helped with it in the 1920's...and they are run by what? MEN! Education is still a male dominated field. I'm not here to have a war of the sexes with you. I'm here to point out you formulated an opinion based on fiction and in total and complete error backed up no facts what so ever.
Male teachers are not a rarity by any stretch. When is the last time you went to a public school at any level including college? Even for a visit?
How is my confrontation of you evidence they have succeeded? Another ridiculous statement.
Just when you start to dig out of that hole you fall right back in.
Laurel, you can attack me all you want, for the statement I made. Problem is, I totally agree with everything you just said. I'm not your enemy. The Progressives are your enemy.
Although your comment was eloquent in defense of women's rights, it had nothing to do with what I just said. What I said was this. The Communists knew that in order to introduce Communism to America, they had to make it a more feminine country. They had to get rid of the male machoism attitude of the country. They had to soften the political attitude of the country. They had to make it more feminine. To their credit, they succeeding in doing so, to the detriment of those females among us, who enjoy the presence of a strong male influence.
Whatever your feelings are, relevant to whether men or women control the future of our country, one thing is fairly certain. The Progressives who want to take us to a New World Order, prefer women. Because most men reject the very idea. Women, not so much. That's why they, "feminized" the country.
We are now living with that result. Our schools are dominated by female teachers who have all had more than one glass of the Kool-Aid. A male teacher in any Elementary school in America, is a rarity. What we are witnessing in America right now, is the total success of what began many years ago. "The Progressive Indoctrination of America." It is almost complete.
Your imagined confrontation with me here on this most Conservative site, is evidence they have succeeded.
In closing, I will say this. Any Christian family knows that it takes both a strong Father, and a strong Mother, to raise a Family. In that Christian Family, both are equal. They both decided to do this thing, and in that decision that they made, they both assumed responsibility for the outcome.
I despair, at those among us, who still want to fight about the roles we play in this drama, called Life.
God decided those roles a long time ago. Some people just have trouble living with it.
My dear you have gigantic gaps in your history so you have formulated an opinion on misinformation. The reality is feminization began in the culture with the advent of communism in the 19th century for starters. I know many women who are strong women that are very much against socialism...myself included. Do not confuse the first wave of feminism of the suffragettes with the bra burners of the 70's. Your post is misogynist that smacks of ignorance. And let me tell you something...MEN OPENED THE DOOR TO THAT FEMINIZATION BY CONSTANTLY AND CONTINUALLY RAISING TAXES. Did you think you were going to thrust women in the workforce to get more revenue and not let them benefit from their labor? And don't tell me men didn't because the US Government along with every university and think tank in this country has done studies on this. Large tomes have been written about this very topic. The late 1960's and early 1970's forced women to work to maintain a standard of living that otherwise would never be had. Pre-Boomer generation was hardest hit by this. My mother was born in 1940 and worked my entire life. She was only retired three years when she died. Her mother also worked her entire life due to being a widow, then a major property owner. She was self made millionaire. I don't recall my adopted grandfather complaining.
I could go on and on but what is the point? I will end with this... and that is real women want real men...PERIOD! I am disappointed in what you wrote. Yes men are getting gelded by these idiot feminists but not all women throw in with them and most of us appreciate the hard work we put into our education as well as our families, and men with any amount of testosterone value that and do not feel threatened by it. They certainly know how to benefit from it if they have a brain cell.
You can try to blame the ills of the world on women but somehow I don't think that is going to pass muster at the pearly gates. Your little Adam and Eve version of modern history is a crock.
and BTW...the bulk of my daughter's idiot liberal teachers and professors were liberal radical leftard MEN! I personally gelded more than one of them. she gelded the bulk of them herself...BECAUSE HER MOTHER AND FATHER RAISED HER TO BE A WARRIOR.
Laurel, you know I love your comments and your presence here on Scoop. I knew I would take some heat . I just didn't think it would come from you.
You want to talk about it, just let me know.
I could be wrong on this, and if you can prove I am, I will be glad to take the heat.
I don't believe there is any such thing, as a, "New Conservative." You are either a Conservative or you are not.
The Liberals' bag of tricks knows no end. I believe they are now infiltrating Conservative sites and Conservative venues, with Liberals who are pretending to be Conservatives.
I would even guess we have some of those, "unwelcome" guests, here on The Right Scoop.
I don't really know who s e cupp is. I've read a few of her comments. I didn't really see any intelligence above normal. I surmise she works for MSNBC. Does that mean she is as smart as Maria Bartinelli? If that is true, then God help us. Maria Bartinelli could get lost on the way to the bathroom, and have to call 911.
I think it ties into the equating republican and conservative.
you can be one or the other as well as both, but they are not the same thing.
instead of labeling her conservative we should label her republican.
Hope you're still here, dmacleo. I would trouble you to explain that. How can you be one or the other, as well as both, but they are not the same thing? I believe you, as the author of that statement would have to agree it is a little confusing.
you can register republican and vote democrat.
republican is a party while conservative is a philosophy.
you can be a registered independent while always voting for the most conservative candidate. while lately that has been republican its not always the case, especially in local elections.
whatever party you are registered as has no bearing on whether you are conservative or not, and way too often I see people assuming republican equals conservative.
No, you are correct. They are infilitrating the Tea Party ranks as well.
It's a play out of the same old playbook. Rush calls them "seminar callers". I've seen them at meet-ups and on here.
It usually starts with "I'm a lifelong Republican, BUT........."
"I'm a conservative, BUT........."
When in fact they aren't conservative, never will be, never could be.
They are the left. The have no scruples, no rules, no class, and no values. They will do anything and everything to advance their agenda...including having "spies" as it were.
On the internet, they are 10 years ahead of us and have organized campaigns (by people who have nothing else to do) to sit and web troll all day. Some of them even get paid for their efforts.
Sorry to get back to you ten hours later, but I am one of those rare Americans who still runs a business and works for a living.
I just had the pleasure of reading your comment, and I totally agree. Most of us think we are safe from Liberals here on these Conservative sites like Scoop, but we are not.
Because the Progressives spread their wings wide, and seek out any venue where they can plant their poison. That's why I take so much fun with Trolls, and you should do the same. We all should. Because if this is not War, then I don't know what War is.
The little exposure that she had on Glenn Beck has gone to her head, and as I stated in my earlier statements here, you either are a conservative , or you are not, it's as simple as that.
She likes to talk and like to create an aura of authority about herself, and if you ask her if she's ever been wrong, I doubt you'd get the answer you'd expect.
'I don't believe there is any such thing, as a, "New Conservative." You are either a Conservative or you are not.'
BOOM!! right there, THAT is it in a nutshell...for SECupp or any other usurper of the Conservative mantle (Rove, et.al.) ...you ARE or you AREN'T