[Among conservatives] there's been too much pseudo-populism, almost too much concern and attention for, quote, 'the people'.... After all, we conservatives are on the side of the lords and barons.... We...are pulling up the drawbridge against the peasants.
If we free the people of Iraq, we will be respected in the Arab world... and I think we will be respected around the world.
Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single Democratic primary. I’ll predict that right now.
[the war in Iraq] "could have terrifically good effects troughout the Middle East
White women are a problem, that's, you know - we all live with that.
Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for the world's sole superpower.
We can remove Saddam because that could start a chain reaction in the Arab world that would be very healthy.
Whenever I hear anything described as a heartless assault on our children, I tend to think it’s a good idea.
American power should be used not just in the defense of American interests but for the promotion of American principles.
The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.
If the American people really come to a settled belief that Bush lied us into war, his presidency will be over.
I've always rebelled a little when people say, 'My Jewish values lead me to really care about the poor.' I know some Christians who care about the poor, too.
Republicans can also point to an alternate path. They can draw upon genuine experts to explain what should be done.
And on this issue of the Shia in Iraq, I think there's been a certain amount of, frankly, Terry, a kind of pop sociology in America that, you know, somehow the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular.
Patriotism is an indispensable weapon in the defense of civilization against barbarism.
I mean, obviously, one of the strongest arguments against evolution and selection of the fittest and progress, which is part of evolution, is the current field of the presidential candidates. We started off with Washington and Adams and Jefferson and then we had Lincoln, and now we moved ahead and look where we are now.
Iraq's always been very secular.
That's always been the case in America; there's been a big spectrum in how much people are interested in American politics.
The media claimed to be non-partisan, centrist. It's not been that way for a lot of history.
There's a sort of romanticizing of the past. When you actually think about the past, you know it's a little different.
Tax credits instead of a huge bureaucracy. This is the question for me.
Many of Bush's defenders have praised him for keeping the country safe since Sept. 11, 2001. He deserves that praise, and I'm perfectly happy to defend most of his surveillance, interrogation and counterterrorism policies against his critics.
Yuppies don't have loyalty. They have useful relationships and meaningful encounters.
Lest conservatives be too proud, it's worth recalling that conservatism's rise was decisively enabled by liberalism's weakness.
I don't think [Mitt] Romney can sit there and wait to win because perhaps people are disappointed with President [Barack] Obama.
![[Among conservatives] there's been too much pseudo-populism, almost too much concern and attention for, quote, 'the people'.... After all, we conservatives are on the side of the lords and barons.... We...are pulling up](http://cdn.quoteddaily.com/images/william-kristol/among-conservatives-theres-been-too-much-pseudo-populism-almost-too-much-concern-and-attention-for-quote-the-people-after-all.jpg)
