What Has Happened To Cal Thomas?

[Terri]

By Christopher G. Adamo
July 19, 2007

Few Americans, back when first subjected to the insipid banalities of Jimmy Carter, presumed him to be a deliberately malignant force striving to wreak horrendous harm on the country. Rather, he was perceived as a naive imbecile who was had merely gotten in over his head after having fallen into the presidency in the wake of Nixon, Watergate, and the lackluster administration of Gerald Ford.

Yet over time Carter continued to degenerate, and especially in recent years, arrived at a point where he consistently calls good "evil," and evil "good." As a result, he now holds a prominent position as spokesman and apologist for any vile entity that seeks to justify itself on the basis of America's faults. Clearly, at some point Carter crossed over to the "dark side."

More

[jack virtus]

Mr Adamo, i hope your wrong. I have always considered Cal Thomas one of OUR more eloquent spokesmen. I will be reading and listening to him more closely in the future. (just in case)

[pnyikos]

I found Adamo's commentary very frustrating. He quoted almost nothing of Cal Thomas's column and drew what looked like amazingly sweeping conclusions from the few statements of Thomas that he quoted or paraphrased.

Does anyone have a link to an online copy of Thomas's July 4 column?

[schillerbjr]

Could be he wants to appease the MSM!!!

[Terri]

Peter, here's a link to the Cal Thomas archive. I haven't read the column yet but will be interested in your comments.

[WhyNotWin]

Cal Thomas speaks for all the self-absorbed egomaniacs when he writes:

And still we love America for opportunities that do not exist in such proportion in any other nation.

I don't identify with that kind of love for America. America doesn't mean more "opportunities" for me. This motivation never brought anyone to pay the ultimate price for the defense of the Republic.
He goes on:

A person who criticizes a particular policy does not necessarily love his country less than one who supports that policy.

He undoubtedly means to refer to the policy of defending our country against the Islamofascists worldwide and in Iraq. Here, CT shows that he has indeed "gone to the dark side" as was alleged about him. The defense of the Republic isn't a "particular policy" about which lovers of the Republic can disagree. If a congressman fails to defend our Republic against its enemies when he has the opportunity, he is a traitor and someone who has broken his sworn oath of office. He also has our blood on his hands from embracing our bitter enemy.

[Charie]

I don't believe Cal Thomas has gone over to the "dark side" but he has gone astray in some of his conclusions.

Barack Obama said that religion is not the exclusive property of conservative Christians. He is right. Neither is patriotism a trademark of the Republican Party.


As with religion, some people on the right have used patriotism, which should be a unifying theme, to divide Americans

The problem is he's taking Democrats' words for what is going on. Obama says religion isn't the exclusive property of conservative Christians. Hillary says, "Some people (Republicans) say we're not patriotic!"

I've never heard anyone in the White House say that those on the left aren't patriotic. And I've certainly never heard the president claim conservative Christians have a lease on religion. No one with the power to make a difference has said that and Thomas is buying into the lie.

I think this is a tempest in an Adamo teapot but still, Cal Thomas should get out of Washington D.C. for a year and hang out at Washington Indiana. He might get a new perspective.

[qrayjack]

It seems that the strident left-wing rhetoric of liberal columnists and newsfolk has increased in direct proportion to the rabid rantings of the Democrat Party that have increased in direct proportion to the hate-driven blather of MoveOn.org. But I'm confused. I thought Cal Thomas was basically conservative. Maybe I'm thinking about the wrong person.