Search
Home  |   About  |   Q & A  |   Archives  |   Credits  |   Contact  |  
« Andrew Sullivan is Not a Conservative…
More Fires Set in Senate Buildings »

The Worst Lists Ever

Yesterday I touched on the Telegraph’s (UK) list of the Top 100 Most Influential Conservatives and Liberals.

Today the lists are complete. And the end result are the Worst Lists Ever Createdâ„¢.

Here’s their Top 10 Conservatives:

  1. Rudy Giuliani
  2. Gen. David Petraeus
  3. Matt Drudge
  4. Newt Gingrich
  5. Rush Limbaugh
  6. Dick Cheney
  7. Robert Gates
  8. John Roberts
  9. John McCain
  10. Mitt Romne

And the their Top 10 Liberals:

  1. Bill Clinton
  2. Al Gore
  3. Mark Penn
  4. Hillary Clinton
  5. Nancy Pelosi
  6. Barack Obama
  7. Michael Moore
  8. Arnold Schwarzenegger
  9. Oprah Winfrey
  10. Evan Bayh

The complete lists of 100 are only “mostly bad” because of who’s on them. The rankings make them absurd.

Some of my bigger nits (starting with the Conservative list):

Rudy Giuliani (1) — very debatable that he’s even a Conservative at all. And how a guy who is merely a candidate for President is listed above the actual President (21), or the Chief Justice of the United States (8), or the most conservative Supreme Court Justice (62) is insane.

Gen. David Petraeus (2) — very little is known about this man’s politics. He’s a career military man who’s opinions and decisions are based on military strategy and policy. There is no evidence that his personal politics have in anyway “influenced” his job.

Andrew Sullivan (33) — as previously noted, is not a Conservative. He’s a an HIV-positive gay man who consistently opposes everything on the Right, routinely endorses Democratic candidates, and echoes nearly every Liberal-talking point issued from the Left.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (47) — Sigh. Again….not a Conservative. The man is a Democrat, and has a consistent Liberal voting record in the Senate. Just because the nutroots hate him, doesn’t make him a Conservative.

Richard Land (65) — The President of Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. Who? I would at least replace him with Joel Osteen from Lakewood Church in Houston.

Erick Erikson (69) — Swap this blogger with Michelle Malkin (92).

Sen. Larry Craig (89) — Prior to his wide-stanced foot-tapping in an airport bathroom, nobody outside of Idaho had ever even heard of this guy. There are at least 30 other Conservative Senators not on this list who should be ahead of Sen. Graig. Hell, I’m at least as influential in the Conservative world than Sen. Craig is.

From the Liberal list:

Bill Clinton (1) — if you mean influential as in “influencing young ladies (and certain Canadian mistresses) to do dirty deeds upon you…then maybe.

Hillary Clinton (4) — Bill and Hillary should be combined into Billary Clinton, and then listed somewhere collectively around#16.

Arnold Schwarzenegger (8) — The Republican Governor of California. Right…I think an argument can be made that he’s much more liberal than most Conservatives. But he’s not a Liberal, and definitely not one that should be this high up on any list.

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (12) — The Daily Kos. I’m not questioning that he should be on this list — I’m just questioning his ranking on this list. I would move him up to #2. He’s the person actually driving the Liberal Crazy Train these days. When he says jump, Democratic politicians ask “In which direction?”, while his KosKiddies simply instinctively jump without asking why.

George Soros (15) — Much like the Kos, George should be much, much higher on the list. In fact, just a slot below Markos at the top of the list. His money has more influence on the rest of the people on this list than the entirety of the list itself.

Colin Powell (23) — This former General and Commander of the Joint Chiefs and Former Secretary of State is not a Liberal. By any stretch of the imagination. Did the editors at the Telegraph just assume since he’s black he must be a Democrat?

Maureen Dowd (36) — There are seriously people out there who are influenced by this lady? Really? And even if so, do you really believe she has more pull than the House Majority Leader (50) or a Supreme Court Justice (64)?

Barbara Streisand (77) and George Clooney (82) —if your political world is actually influenced by singers and actors, then you should probably expand your sphere of influences.

Cindy Sheehan (98) — I’ll bet even most true Liberals don’t want her on this list.

_______

Lots of others discussing this at Memeorandum.

Posted by Robbie Cooper on Friday, November 2nd, 2007 | Trackback |

34 Responses to “The Worst Lists Ever”

While this list has absolutely no impact on my views of the people named, and probably not most Americans, I’m sure the readers in the UK will take this info, and be even more uninformed about life in America.
I don’t view Soros as a liberal, only as an influence peddler, using the liberals to destroy the traditional values of America, so he can see his Open Society become a reality, before he dies. Of course, you would have to be able to speak Esparanto, to be able to fully understand what he is up to.

Left by no2liberals on November 2nd, 2007 at 12:34 pm

Well, I certainly couldn’t name even 10 of the most influential people in the UK if it wasn’t for the Royal Family or rock/movie stars. Come to think of it, those rock and movie stars have been pretty influential in my life…The Stones, The Beatles, Eric Clapton, Sean Connery and the 007’s (I especially liked Pierce Brosnan)…Gee I could make a very long list .

Well, at least they’re more fun than George Soros.

Left by Dianne on November 3rd, 2007 at 5:47 am

“Barbara Streisand (77) and George Clooney (82) —if your political world is actually influenced by singers and actors, then you should probably expand your sphere of influences.”

Those actors have probably a far better knowledge of politics than those who bought themselves into the whitehouse.

But maybe you’re right.. I always wondered why a majority of those clever Americans voted for the man with the big hat and the white horse starring in all those great b-movies.

Left by Jacques on November 3rd, 2007 at 6:11 am

What would you know about it Jackie?
You can’t even put out the car fires.
Ronaldus Maximus Reagan appeared in his last movie in 1964, “The Killers.” He then was elected Governor of California in 1967, and served until 1975, in that office. Then he became our greatest President in 1981. If you think that because he once was an actor, and that equates with the mushheads in Hollyweird today, then you are a bigger idiot than I had given you credit for.

Left by no2liberals on November 3rd, 2007 at 11:51 am

Our greatest President? Honestly?

Left by Preston on November 3rd, 2007 at 1:49 pm

The Greatest President by far!

Left by no2liberals on November 3rd, 2007 at 4:42 pm

I can’t decide if this is a just a game of goad-the-liberal or I-slept-through-history-class-during-lessons-on-Washington- Jefferson-Jackson-Lincoln-Roosevelt-Roosevelt-and- maybe-30-other-presidents.

Left by Preston on November 3rd, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Or it could be an opinion based on historical events, that you don’t agree with.
It’s okay to have different opinions, step away from the groupthink.

Left by no2liberals on November 3rd, 2007 at 10:28 pm

“What would you know about it Jackie?”

Don’t blame me, blame Robbie for the quote…

Barbara Streisand (77) and George Clooney (82) —if your political world is actually influenced by singers and actors, then you should probably expand your sphere of influences.

So, y2l, expand your sphere!

(Can’t put out car fires.. You’re are really a smart guy… ha! Go travel, see and feel the world)

Left by Jacques on November 4th, 2007 at 3:17 am

Hey- I’m all for diversity of opinion. But in what world does Reagan come anywhere near the importance of- say- Washington, Lincoln, or Roosevelt, and really, quite a few others?

I think you may have confused the concept of ‘greatest president’ with ‘former president whose legacy most benefits my current political goals’…

Left by Preston on November 4th, 2007 at 5:16 am

No, I stand by my statement. It is my considered opinion. If, in your opinion, you believe another President is the greatest, then say so. Is it really so difficult for you to just acknowledge someone elses opinion, without picking a fight?
Or is it you are so thoroughly indoctrinated into the LLL ideology, that any notion of Reagan’s greatness has to be impugned?
BTW, I didn’t say there weren’t other great Presidents, just who I believe was our greatest.

Left by no2liberals on November 4th, 2007 at 6:32 am

Jackie, step away from the hash pipe.

Left by no2liberals on November 4th, 2007 at 6:34 am

Jackie, just because I haven’t encountered the excitement of a Dutch Car-B-Que in Amsterdam, doesn’t mean I haven’t traveled.
/henh

Left by no2liberals on November 4th, 2007 at 7:00 am

“No2Liberals”:

Whatever- you’re free to believe what you like yet there are a handful of presidents that without their leadership there would not be a United States. I just don’t know how you balance that with a President whose greatest accomplishment is a series of tax cuts.

Left by Preston on November 4th, 2007 at 8:28 am

Henh…yes, yes I am.
Oh…I could overlook his accomplishment in bringing down the Berlin Wall; the optimism he gave this country after the four years of malaise Carter provided; his sincerity about patriotism, which inspired renewed patriotism in this country after Viet Nam; his challenges to the activist about the Constitution and the Supreme Court, and reminding us that the job of judges is to interpret the law, and not make law…he joined the battle of judicial activism versus judicial restraint, and reshaped it to the better defined battle of originalism versus the living constitution, and the originalists have grown exponentially since.
You don’t think the tax cuts were significant?
His economic policies stimulated the economy, creating seventeen million new jobs, and cut black unemployment in half, this just after an administration that had seven million unemployed; the inflation rate of 1.1% in 1986 contrasts starkly to the 12.4% of the previous administration, an astounding rebound by any measure, and many economists thought it would take decades to bring the inflation rate down. His belief in America and it’s people, his economic policies, his tax cuts, while encouraging new investment in jobs and saving, and his promotion of Democratic principles, all contributed to his big picture outlook, and helped many Eastern European countries overcome the failed socialist policies. Not one country fell to communism under Reagan, while three had done so under Carter, not to mention Carter’s involvement in removing the Shah, ushering in the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and the era of modern terrorism.
What he accomplished, in such a short period of time is simply astounding, and I would say the challenges he faced in his time, were vastly different than the challenges other Presidents have faced.
Thus my belief that he is the Greatest President…ever!
You have a favorite? If so, I will say that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, as I have my own.

Left by no2liberals on November 4th, 2007 at 9:35 am

Speaking of Carter’s involvement in the removal of the Shah, here is a reproduction of an article published years ago in Defense and Foreign Affairs.
Jimmy Carter’s Illegal Demands on Shah.

Left by no2liberals on November 4th, 2007 at 9:47 am

In short- the amazing powers that a drop in oil prices had on the American economy and the invasion of small countries had on American morale.

As for Communism- I find it amazing the the name Gorbachev is so rarely mentioned in these Reagan hagiographies.

I don’t know if he knew that his subordinates were breaking the law by selling arms to Iran and funding the Contras. His admission to the public however sadly showed that by 1987 he was not physically fit to be President. Honestly, it’s frightening that he seemed so lost and confused yet remained President for over a year. His subsequent diagnosis explains his problem though the problem inherent in the office remains unaddressed.

All that said- I vastly prefer Reagan to the the proponents of a calcified Reaganism that crowded the stage for the Republican debates. Reagan was an advocate of tax cuts and big business yet he realized that corporations were taking advantage of loopholes in his first tax cut and fixed the problem. Reagan believed in big militaries and confrontation yet he repeatedly negotiated with our greatest adversaries. If only contemporary conservativism was indeed ‘Reaganism’.

As for my own favorite president- I find greatness in the actions of some of the ones I’ve already cited though no one is perfect of course. I’m pretty partial to Lincoln. My estimation of FDR has risen during the last 7 years due to the favorable comparison with the current occupant of the White House. Washington’s achievements are remarkable though as a historical figure he doesn’t capture my imagination as well as some of the other founding fathers.

Left by Preston on November 4th, 2007 at 10:23 am

As you said, no President is perfect.
There were things Reagan did I didn’t like, though much less than most.
I have bones to pick with all the memorable Presidents, but don’t even get me started on Andrew Jackson…the only President to ignore a Supreme Court decision, and evict the “Five Civilized” Indian nations from the east, creating the Trail of Tears, because his buds wanted the gold and other minerals found in their land.

Left by no2liberals on November 4th, 2007 at 10:59 am

It’s true- I hate Jackson too. Yet he is certainly ‘historic’.

Left by Preston on November 4th, 2007 at 11:44 am

We’re in a whole diff country and world than we were in under Lincoln, FDR and even Reagan. What worked then, won’t work now.

First of all, we have a massive population explosion due to immigration, legal and otherwise. For the most part, those immigrants are uneducated and the opportunities are not the same as they were in 1900, yet they need and want social system support. There is very little open land to farm or opportunities to succeed based simply on rolling up your sleeve and grit, unless you cheat the system. The social programs that were enacted beginning with FDR and up through welfare/medicaid are beginning to overwhelm the middle class who supported them in the past. Our warfare enemy doesn’t have a country..there are no spoils of war, …only costs and more costs.

Lincoln, FDR, even Reagan wouldn’t or couldn’t handle the problems in the USA today the way they did in the past. I’m beginning to think there isn’t a person running for President who can do it either.

I just depressed myself…time to plant tulip bulbs

Left by Dianne on November 4th, 2007 at 12:08 pm

“Dutch Car-B-Que in Amsterdam”

I know what you’re talking about when you mentioned the car fires, but you, usual, obviously don’t. But feel free to try to educate me on what’s happening in my home town. It’s always funny. Ever thought about a job as a stand-up comedian y2l?

“Jackie, step away from the hash pipe.”

In Holland we have the freedom to buy and use soft drugs legally. It has a positive effect on keeping down the hard drugs usage and is an example for many countries. I know you’ll throw another ten links at me, but before you do try to educate yourself how your country is doing on this..

I don’t do drugs though, except for a Heineken or two, but it (nederwiet) smells rather nice.

Left by Jacques on November 4th, 2007 at 1:00 pm

I know you are an idiot, Jackie, but slowly, ever so slowly, you are starting to catch on.

But feel free to try to educate me on what’s happening in my home town. It’s always funny.

Right back atcha.
As for your understanding what is going on in your hometown, according to one Dutch source:

Have the fire brigades in recent days become the target of the Amsterdam ‘youth’, like so many emergency services in France and in Sweden (to name just a few examples)? But if that is the case: Why haven’t we heard about this harassment?

One would be forgiven for feeling that the Amsterdam authorities are doing everything within their power to control the flow of information around the goings on in Slotervaart and surroundings. They give off a stunning impression of an old-fashioned soviet themselves. In their desperate attempts to shield the Dutch population at large from finding out the truth they seemingly have organized a total clampdown. Not on the ‘youth’, who are still able to roam the streets of Slotervaart, Geuzenveld and Osdorp, setting fires wherever they please, with impunity. But rather on the reporting coming out of that besieged part of Amsterdam.

The ineffectiveness of the Amsterdam police and authorities in the face of this ongoing harassment is beyond disgraceful. Words like ‘feeble’, ‘incompetent’, ’spineless’ or ‘clueless’ don’t even begin to describe my opinion of both. They might be men, but they give off a stunning impression of aging, feeble women.

But there’s a reason for this. In Trouw today the lack of reaction is explained as ‘avoiding giving the moroccan youth a podium’. That’s right: If we don’t do anything, or say anything, the scum’ll get bored with it soon enough. We are going to bore them into behaving themselves. And untill then ‘tough luck’ to any well-behaved citizen who sees his sweat-and-toil go up in flames. That’ll show them!

I added the bold in that sentence for emphasis. That approach wouldn’t work here, as the police would be arresting people, so the punks wouldn’t be shot by the property owners. That approach, of “boring them” just seems like…hmmm…I don’t know, appeasement, lack of enforcement, and weakness. But, hey…if you like it there, and you are happy, it’s just hunky with me.
Now…isn’t that funny?

Left by no2liberals on November 4th, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Dianne, I understand, which is why I made reference the challenges Reagan faced as President, they were unique and of his time. Certain things do translate well, though, and that is a strength of character that will accept those challenges, devise a way to overcome them, and communicate the approach clearly. No President will ever have complete support for any policy or initiative, which is what makes Reagan’s Presidency so remarkable, as he carried all but one state in his reelection in ‘84. When you look at the narrow margins of victory for every President since, it is astounding, and speaks to his belief in America, and his optimism.
What would he do today, faced with the current challenges and opportunities, no one can say. I do believe, based on history, that men for the times, always appear when needed most.

Left by no2liberals on November 4th, 2007 at 4:18 pm

“according to one Dutch source” is key here but because you quoted it, it’s the whole truth, the only truth and nothing but it. At least according to our know-it-all, been around the world, mister perfect himself, living in his perfect country: yes2liberals. And therefor we all love him deeply.

Your an example to all of us y2l! You should be the next president of the US!

For the rest of us, please notify me when I start to share his opinions so I can shoot my brains out and stop wasting O2.

Left by Jacques on November 5th, 2007 at 12:25 am

So, from your reaction, Jackie, I gather it isn’t funny, then.
Hey, you are but one source, but you have a history of idiocy, so I will take his word over yours.

Left by no2liberals on November 5th, 2007 at 5:31 am

“but you have a history of idiocy”

You think everybody who disagrees with your ultra right wing narrow minded vision is an idiot, so I’ll take that as a compliment y2l.

Left by Jacques on November 5th, 2007 at 3:36 pm

Henh.
No, I have many liberal friends, but they aren’t idiots, unlike you.

Left by no2liberals on November 5th, 2007 at 8:08 pm

You have many liberal friends NO2LIBERALS?

Left by Jacques on November 6th, 2007 at 5:59 am

You know liberals- people who favor bombing Iran- but oppose using nuclear weapons for the job…

Left by Preston on November 6th, 2007 at 11:35 am

Henh…are you referring to Hillary, Preston?

Left by no2liberals on November 6th, 2007 at 12:59 pm

One of your liberal ‘friends‘ y2l?

Left by Jacques on November 6th, 2007 at 4:05 pm

No, jackie boy, one of your socialist commie idiot friends.
But she did vote for the U.S. to take action against Iraq, before she voted against it, and she did vote for naming the IRI’s IRGC a terrorist organization.
So are there any Car-B-Ques tonight?
By the way, there was Dutch style school shooting in Miami today.

Left by no2liberals on November 6th, 2007 at 7:42 pm

“..Dutch style school shooting..”

Are your talking about the first (and ’till today only) fatal shooting in a school in the Netherlands in January 2004, almost 4 years ago?

Dutch Style he..

Wake up to reality y2l.

Left by Jacques on November 7th, 2007 at 8:46 am

Henh…you telling me of reality? Now that’s funny.

Idol of idiot-worshippers! (Troilus and Cressida)

Left by no2liberals on November 8th, 2007 at 5:11 am

Got something you want to say?

Quicktags:


Notes:

You have 10 minutes after you submit your comment to edit it. Simply click the E(dit) link above the countdown-counter at the bottom of your comment. You can only edit a comment from the same IP address from where the original comment was submitted.

If your comment does not appear immediately, it has been sent to the moderation queue for approval.

Your comment either contained more than 2 hyperlinks, or it used a word(s) that are on my Spam blacklist. Comments awaiting moderation will usually be approved within a day.

And, being that it's my blog and all...I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.