Roger L. Simon

Richard Dreyfuss and the name of the non-rose

Because I don’t really cotton to political nomenclature – too restrictive and who’s defining what anyway – I should be a candidate for the “No Labels” movement, but I’m not. It feels phony to me somehow. So I’m going to have to endure some calling me a conservative, some a RINO, others a libertarian, others a classical liberal and still others calling me late for lunch and worse. (If you check the post below, you’ll find all of the above and then some… Hey, I can take it. I’m a big boy… sort of.)

Anyway, I got a big kick out of my old buddy Richard Dreyfuss explaining to folks at CPAC that he was NOT a liberal. He was a libo-conservo-middleoftheroad-o something or other. Wazzat? Actually I should let him explain himself, which he does in his interview with me here.

Traveling about CPAC with Richard it was reassuring to see how well he was received. Most everyone admired him for coming and I did too. Richard was supposedly in the land of the enemy, but he really wasn’t. He was just a guy looking to be part of the dialogue and, admittedly in part because of his celebrity, succeeding at that pretty well. `

Will Dreyfuss become a dyed-in-the-wool conservative? I doubt it, but who knows? He was
in the land of the partisan and he is not one. Well, most of the time anyway. Like all of us, he is a work-in-
progress. And more power to him. When we stop being a work-in-progress is when we stop thinking.

This is all my way of recommending the interview I did at CPAC with Richard. If you missed it, you can find it here.