VDH, “Why Did Republicans Lose Their Appeal?”:
It was not Rush Limbaugh, for example, but Michael Moore who announced that the 9/11 killers wrongly selected a blue-state city, or that the al-Qaeda insurgents were Minutemen-like patriots. Moore, remember, was no marginal figure but the darling of the Democratic establishment, who flocked to the gala opening of his crude propaganda film Fahrenheit 9/11.
Indeed, if one were to follow the logic of this new Powell doctrine that public expression of extremism sinks a party, then the Democrats would never have won back the Senate and the House. Senators as diverse as Dick Durbin, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy shrilly compared American soldiers to terrorists, Nazis, Pol Pot’s thugs, and Saddam’s Baathists.
The most inflammatory public figure of the last two years was, in fact, Barack Obama’s own minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who uttered vile racist characterizations of everyone from Italians to Jews, as part of his generic “G-d damning†of America. So far we have not seen a conservative version of Nicholson Baker’s novel Checkpoint, or anything like Jonathan Chait’s New Republic essay that began, “I hate President George W. Bush.†Colin Powell himself has been demonized in scurrilous terms, but the epithets have come not from Rush Limbaugh, but rather from such observers as that old cultural icon of the Left, Harry Belafonte, who once quite unapologetically compared the secretary of state to a “house slave.â€
[…]
John McCain was ahead of Barack Obama when the September meltdown occurred. Had the financial panic not transpired until December, there was a 50-50 chance that McCain would have won — despite deep defections from the conservative base. In that case, we would be talking now about the continued Democratic propensity for self-destruction by nominating liberal northern presidential candidates like Obama, Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, and Mondale.
[…]
On nearly every campaign issue — offshore drilling, nuclear power, NAFTA, guns, abortion, capital punishment, Iraq, the war on terror — candidate Obama hedged or triangulated in favor of the more conservative view. Had he in late October outlined a $1.7-trillion deficit, the need for serial apologies abroad, and the nationalization of the banks and the auto industry, he would have lost.
[…]
But the above are peripheral issues. The real cause of unhappiness with the Republicans was simply that they could not make a convincing case for conservatism to a changing electorate because so many of them were not acting as conservatives.
Take the seminal issue of spending and expanding government. The last Republican to balance a budget was Dwight Eisenhower. Had President Bush — despite 9/11, Katrina, and two wars — simply limited spending increases to the rate of inflation and natural growth, then he would have entered his last years of office with balanced budgets.
In contrast, once Republicans started talking about federal deficits only in terms of manageable percentages of GDP rather than as real money, they forfeited the entire issue of fiscal responsibility, and lost the moral high ground. Barack Obama can get away with unprecedented and astronomical of projected deficits, in part because the Republicans are not credible any more on spending.
Compassionate conservatism was supposed to show the middle classes how, even with small government, lower taxes, and streamlining of existing programs, social protection was still ensured for those who did not do as well as the wealthy during the boom years.
Instead, it ended up as a rather crude quid pro quo on things like No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. Bush’s embrace of big old-fashioned spending was supposed to be a demonstration of bipartisanship that might extend to united congressional support for the war. Instead, Democrats cherry-picked the Bush overtures, increased their anti-war rhetoric, and then, mirabile dictu, attributed the ensuing deficits not to the profligate spending but to “tax cuts for the rich†— despite the yearly increases in aggregate federal revenue.
[…]
If the Republicans think they can outbid the Democrats for the support of feminists, gays, and growing numbers of minorities, then they will only add embarrassment and permanent failure to the present natural cycle of political correction. Instead, they must be ready to show that deficits of the present magnitude, when added to existing debt, are unsustainable and will sap the vitality of the entire American society.
Most people dread going to the DMV; that such a state-run blueprint will now be superimposed on manufacturing, energy, health care, and banking should scare the landscaper and the roofer alike. Precisely by showing to gays, women, minorities, and the young that none of us gets an exemption from the iron laws of nature — you cannot spend what you don’t make; you can’t apologize to unsavory characters and end up respected and safe; you can’t expect government bureaucrats to make better decisions than private executives — conservatives can become inclusive.
Conservatives should remind the electorate that the very wealthy, the Wall Street big money, and the elite in the universities and foundations are now consistently voting Democratic. It was the nexus between Wall Street financiers and lax liberal Democratic congressional overseers — the former wanting profits, the latter able to cloak lavish campaign contributions with populist rhetoric about caring for the poor — that got us into the financial mess.
The reason Sarah Palin earned real hatred was the populist nature of her appeal. Her rallies did not draw many of the government-dependent poor, true; but they also did not draw the rich and liberal elite. If Palin had survived the press demonization, she might have been able to show the electorate why the current leadership of the Democratic Party is at odds with the middle classes, who do not require most of the government entitlements that liberals love to dispense, and yet don’t share the aristocratic tastes that the elite in the media, foundations, universities, and Wall Street see as requisites for paternal governance.
If the Republicans can offer a sane alternative of balanced budgets to the current mega-deficits; if they demonstrate the nexus between those who don’t pay taxes and those who have so much money that they don’t worry about taxes; and if they can talk without braggadocio of the tough choices abroad that are not solved by apologies, then they will win again in 2012.
Conservatism is the political belief that best mirrors human nature across time and space; but because its precepts are sometimes tragic and demand responsibility rather than ever-expanding rights, it requires adept communicators — not triangulators and appeasers whose pleasure is only for the moment.
Gee. All this sounds familiar, somehow.
— Although in my formulations, I’ve called out the GOP “pragmatists” more specifically.
Guess that’s why VDH has a wide audience, and I get banned from commenting at certain ostensibly conservative sites.
Well, that, and he’s not just some dude scribbling on free blogging software…
(h/t Silver Whistle)
Well, that, and he’s not just some dude scribbling on free blogging software…
…he’s a dude with a huge vineyard.
There’s your shortfall, Jeff: huge tracts of arable land. But because the landed class will never give up so much as a square inch of its bounty to People Like You, you’re pretty much SOL.
I was only half-joking. Maybe the nabobs do hang out here. Slip in come code words, see if they pop up in NRO.
“Guess that’s why VDH has a wide audience, and I get banned from commenting at certain ostensibly conservative sites.
Well, that, and he’s not just some dude scribbling on free blogging software…”
You just need a mre distiguished jawline, silver hair at the temples and, perhaps, a Charleton Heston like voice.
I know you have been all over this for…rather a long time.
Conservatives should remind the electorate that the very wealthy, the Wall Street big money, and the elite in the universities and foundations are now consistently voting Democratic.
People need to know that the hippies have grown up, gotten rich, and now want to finish the job they started in college. Not too many people outside of the elitist circles would be happy about that.
I like the idea just now expressed on the Limbaugh show by Mark Belling (I believe).
The “Big Tent” applies to the voters, not the politicians they elect. The politicians should have a clear coherrent Party message of freedom which will then draw the voters not a melange of politicians with no clear message, in fact conflicting messages, they all espouse.
Let the voters be “pragmatic” in their choice, and make that choice a clear one to make.
I may have heard that here too. Seems familiar and right.
The reason Sarah Palin earned real hatred was the populist nature of her appeal.
I think the skanky left like Garafalo and hairy-legged dirty socialist NPR propaganda hoochies and fat low self-esteem sluts like Meghan and shriveled harpies like Katie Couric and Gail Collins and Maureen really just for real hate Republican Sarah Palin-type bitches what don’t offer them any validation. I don’t think it has anything to do with the populist nature of her appeal.
It’s the PhD, I think. It doesn’t hurt that VDH nails it in one sentence:
“The real cause of unhappiness with the Republicans was simply that they could not make a convincing case for conservatism to a changing electorate because so many of them were not acting as conservatives.”
I just heard Mark say that, too. It’s like what Jim DeMint said, that they need to build a tent with a sturdy POLE, which is liberty and all that stuff. And if you build it, they will come.
Was Rush also the one to observe that it’s stupid to pander to the squishy middle because they, by definition, don’t have really strong principles to begin with? The pols need to understand that the middle will follow the strong horse.
But then, too many of the pols are themselves devoid of strong principles beyond “I should be in office,” so it’s hard to sell the elected class in the GOP to embrace something that is beyond their comprehension.
That is the deal. Here’s another look at the same thing from Pat Santy, posted last Wednesday.
Well and not to be an ass or anything but you’re not the only one who’s been saying all of this. VDH isn’t the first either. Most conservatives who are not one issue voters know exactly why we lost the last election and exactly why we lost Congress in 2006. Its not that the foot soldiers in the conservative movement don’t get the big pictures, its the greedy republicans in washington, who will do anything they can to stay in power, including giving dems reach-arounds just so they’re invited to the right parties. I read something the other day that I thought was spot-on- as long as being in politics is wildly profitable (see, Dodd, Chris, Murtha, John), these assholes will never be doing the “people’s work” as they should be – they’ll be doing their own work for their own gain and their own profits. How many republican senators are so grossly out of touch with conservative principles are elected again and again – why ? Because they bring home the pork and they know the right people so they keep going back and as they breathe in that rich washington air (smells like … BS), they become more and more used to it and become more likely to do anything to get back to Washington the next time around.
I support term limits- somebody on this blog a few days ago said they didn’t because you’d have a lame duck in the last term – I say who cares. They’re not representing me and you anyway and I’d rather have a senator that did nothing than a senator who does everything.
We need citizen-politicians, who are citizens first. What we have are just politicians, who are politicians first and last.
Keep the faith. OUTLAW forever.
See, the thing about VDH is that he doesn’t rhetorically throttle you at your own house, in front of your friends and family. That way, you never have to pretend that he threatened one of your friends who had an awful lot to say, but nothing at all to argue. Goddamned embarassing, that.
Then again, I don’t suppose you’ve ever appeared at the VDH Estate and offered to debate his thesis with anyone other than him.
You really should think about the gray hair, also. I could maybe spare you a few if you want.
Thanks, MarkD! I think from here on out, rather than writing myself, I’ll just redirect the site to NRO.
Thanks for pointing this out. Its a great article.
Lol on the last part.
Somehow, Democrats managed to distance themselves from Moore, while still paying to see his work. Meanwhile, Limbaugh magically became the embodiment of the GOP.
Magic!
I’m not too enamored of either of them, but I’d take Rush over Moore if forced to make a choice. It wouldn’t even be a choice I’d have to ponder over.
Oh, bullshit. Yeah, the overall spending was bad, but the Republicans lost power due to their Abramoff and earmark corruption, as well as (your friend and mine) “purity”.
Aside from fielding Ned Lamont, the Democrats generally fielded (“bluedog”, etc.) Democratic candidates that best fit their districts/states.
Crack down on earmarks, corruption, and “Club for Growth” purity (in other words, don’t run Chaffee and Specter out so we can have even more “liberal” Democrats there), and we might AT LEAST be able to contain the damage.
No, we wouldn’t want to vote the Big Government, vote-with-the-Opposition-more-often-than-with-their-own-Party saboteurs out of office. That just wouldn’t do…
Sure Chris S., whatever you say.
I think one of the biggest hammers the left has and continues to use to beat over the head of the Republican party is the Iraq war. Many of us, Jeff of course included, have been repeatedly supporting the reason why we went to war in Iraq in clear and certain terms that were reasonable and strategic to the survival of our country. The problem that drives me crazy is that the Bush administration failed MISERABLY to frame the war in Iraq in these same clear and and certain terms, and because of that the left has had a field day with the inevitable second-guessing that comes with any large military-caused regime change. To this day it remains a minority of Americans that are proud that our country deposed a violent tyrannical dictator who had apocalytpic intentions for the free world while he practiced genocide on his own people. This is depressing to me. Why aren’t more Americans proud of this?
I think the reason is -and one that VDH misses that Jeff has been more of the leading voice in detailing- is the way in which these messages have been grossly manipulated by the messengers. Every time I would debate the logic of the Iraq war with someone and use http://www.husseinandterror.com as a fact source I would win the argument easily before it devolved in to ad hominem garbage. But the media never framed the war in these terms, and Bush let them get away with it, which in my opinion was for more damaging to the conservative movement than whatever has happened with the economy.
Jeff, please keep hammering away at the message part of your argument. I’m not convinced that anyone else is framing it properly other than you, and this is easily the biggest obstacle to reversing this trend of leftist success.
I think by “the damage,” Chris S means “our team not having the power to act like Democrats while wearing the big R on their chests.”
Pass.
Chris, let me just say fuck Lincoln Chafee. And I can do that because I voted for him. But not before I voted for Steve Laffey.
If that was an effective strategy we’d be complaining about President McCain right now. As for the earmarks and corruption, I agree.
Buddhapundit (Chris S) at least partially identifies as a classical liberal.
And yet he doesn’t want somebody like Specter gone from the ranks of a party that purports to champion conservative principles.
How dare classical liberals run off (by challenging him politically) a GOP politician who has come out and said he has more in common with Dems, who these days represent a progressive agenda COMPLETELY AT ODDS WITH CLASSICAL LIBERALISM. How unconscionable! How “extremist”! How committed to purges and “purity” are those who insist that messengers and lawmakers actually commit to the ideology they purport to represent!
Methinks Chris S is suffering from the Tao of Stupid.
in other words, don’t run Chaffee and Specter out
If they want to be Democrats, they should declare themselves as such.
Specter has, of course.
Why do all these “purity” and “you ran them out of the party” people seem to magically have forgeten the fact that the Repubs nominated JOHN FUCKING MCCAIN?
Or George Bush, for that matter.
That I approve of his handling of the WoT doesn’t mean that I didn’t have serious problems some of his other policies.
You know, I’m pretty tired of this “The party ran him off…” nonsense. He bolted because the vast majority of his electorate…the same people who’ve been sending him to DC for decades, decided they’d had enough of him. These are the people who elected him over Toomey 5 years ago. This is not an ideological cabal, this was PA Republican voters who’d been asked if they’d reelect him and answered overwhelmingly in the negative.
That’s how it’s supposed to work.
John’s middle name is actually Sidney.
Hey, what’s not to love about the Republican who cast the deciding vote for Porkulus?
Whoever said it first, second, or last, it doesn’t matter. It’s a theme that needs to be repeated until it sinks in with these skulls full of mush. The Democratic Party has been completely dominated by the far left, and yet it has managed to win two consecutive national elections. Who exactly have been the erudite purveyors of “moderation” on the national stage? Jonathan Chait? Really? And for every Heath Schuler out there there’s two Sherrod Browns. The myth of the “conservative” Democrat is just that, a myth.
The Dems put their looniest clowns forward and celebrate them, but the media manages to convince the electorate that somehow it’s us whacky conservatives that are just waaaaaay out there. The sad thing is I don’t think the media comes close to accomplishing their task without the complicity of squishes like Brooks, Frum and others who beat their chests and lament, “Thank you God that I’m not like these foul sinners to the right of me who are just so extreme.”
Reagan won an election 24 years ago with 60 percent of the vote, holding views that were, to put it mildly, far more conservative than any GOP nominee since. People can sputter on about changing demographics all they want, but you cannot tell me that the country has changed so dramatically that conservatism is simply unacceptable to a huge majority of the public. I ain’t buying me.
Those that sneer at the strawman “purity” are basically saying “fuck principals, do what it takes to win”.
They completely miss the fact that winning without the principals has no prize, just a big ‘ol box of pandering platitudes.
Kinda removes the motivation to compete, speaking for myself.
Of course, that’s the point.
Crack down on earmarks, corruption, and “Club for Growth†purity
You just don’t get it, do you? the CFG WAS trying to crack down on earmarks and corruption. That’s what purity means….
Crack down on pork barrel spending, but let’s me “moderate” about it. Gee, what a great rallying cry. Not.
It’s not about politicians, it’s about policy. Liberty, privacy, responsibility, self-sufficiency. If a politician can’t see fit to support these things, then I don’t care which party designation he claims — he doesn’t represent me and I won’t be complicit in any charade that suggests he does.
I sit here in the middle of true-blue St Paul, surrounded by people who wouldn’t be caught dead voting for a Republican, and you know what? They’re sick to death of high taxes and expanding government. These people know that the current trajectory cannot be sustained, but they’re not gonna embrace Michelle Bachmann because she has the crazy eyes.
The GOP cannot be viable on social conservatism alone. There just aren’t that many teatotallers in the electorate to make such a thing practical. If they don’t figure out small-government fiscal conservatism right quick, they’re liable to be supplanted by another group who will. And that group will gather in a significant portion of the current Democratic voters who don’t subscribe to redistribution and class warfare.
Granted, it’ll take two generations for this coalition to rebuild the smoldering remains of our once-proud nation, but at least they’ll be on the right track.
PURISTIST!
The only reason I tend to vote Republican is I believe for the most part they are the politicians most likely to
A)Take less of my money
B)While in office vote away less of my freedom
C)Do not tend to run campaigns based on taking one person’s money and doing ______ with it in favor of whatever group he or she happens to be speaking in front of that day.
If the Repubs start running to the left then WTF is the point of voting for them?
I sit here in the middle of true-blue St Paul, surrounded by people who wouldn’t be caught dead voting for a Republican, and you know what? They’re sick to death of high taxes and expanding government. These people know that the current trajectory cannot be sustained, but they’re not gonna embrace Michelle Bachmann because she has the crazy eyes.
If she was a “fiscal conservative, social liberal”, they would still hate her anyway. The Left destroys the “uncool”. And Michelle Bachman will always be “uncool”.
Moreover, the “fiscal conservative social liberals” have this uncanny way of becoming fiscal sell outs too. Having no solid principles has a lot to do with that. See also Governator Ah-nold.
The GOP cannot be viable on social conservatism alone. There just aren’t that many teatotallers in the electorate to make such a thing practical. If they don’t figure out small-government fiscal conservatism right quick, they’re liable to be supplanted by another group who will. And that group will gather in a significant portion of the current Democratic voters who don’t subscribe to redistribution and class warfare.
SINCE WHEN was any current social conservative abandoning the fiscal conservatives? (Bushyrovies don’t count, they are gone). It is currently entirely the other way around.
Indeed, so many of the so-called “social” issues have VERY deep fiscal impacts, and you and your ilk are going to learn that in the years ahead.
Curmudgeon,
I think you missed the point Mr.Pink was making. There already exist a large portion of voters who are indeed socially-liberal yet fiscally conservative. And conservatism, or classical liberalism, has at its core more to do with protecting the rights of the individual more so than enforcing a social code of conduct.
Well, no, in a way it is about politicians. We’re never going to get reliable policy choices from unreliable politicians.
Unfortunately, “unreliable politicians” is a textbook redundancy.
Maybe we need a system where society as a whole doesn’t have to depend so much on policy in the first place.
So am I far off base here by defining what the media deems a “social-conservative” as someone who is pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-traditional marriage?
Curmudgeon,
I think you missed the point Mr.Pink was making. There already exist a large portion of voters who are indeed socially-liberal yet fiscally conservative.
Honestly, I don’t think I did. That large portion of voters you describe are indeed there, but they are either:
(1) Squishes who will back the strong horse,
(2) People who have begun to realize that the Left is toxic, but still wanna go to all their cool hip parties, or:
(3) People who have begun to realize that the Left is toxic, but can’t quite make the connection that actions and beliefs (about the family, nation, the spiritual aspects of life) have consequences. They will learn this the hard way as time goes on.
And conservatism, or classical liberalism, has at its core more to do with protecting the rights of the individual more so than enforcing a social code of conduct.
It is a good idea to *promote* (not necessarily enforce) a social code of conduct. There is a reason that those from what they used to call “broken homes” are many times more likely to be criminal, damaging, or otherwise pathological.
The Left promotes the belief that a person has the right to put anything in his or her mouth or anus without consequence, and that the same person has a right to take from you or I once the consequences occur. You want to grant them the first right but warn them of the consequences. I am telling you that discouraging the first makes the whole mess of the second a lot smaller and easier to clean up. Because you and I will clean it up, one way or another.
*They’re sick to death of high taxes and expanding government*
Sorry squid, I don’t see it myself. Anyone with half a brain saw what Obama was and they voted for him anyway. Whether they voted for him because he was black or because he was liberal or because they hated George Bush, it doesn’t matter. Any democrat knows their party is the party of higher taxes and bigger government. A dem that doesn’t know that is too stupid to vote, imho.
They will have their chance to vote against their party in 2010 and we both know they won’t do it. Since a vast majority of dems don’t even pay taxes, why should they care if the middle class gets bent over ?
Curmudgeon,
The idea that we can “discourage” individuals from behavior that doesn’t violate my own constitutional rights but does inevitably cause social ills is commendable. But the problem is that you can’t legislate away stupidity, and the idea that we can trust the government to properly manage this social engineering is laughable on its face. And the idea itself of social engineering through government legislation has nothing to do with small government conservatism.
No, you’re banned because you can be an abrasive ass, and VDH doesn’t do that. You’re both right as to the issue, but he doesn’t kick people is wrinklies with it.
Andrew Carnegie wrote a book you might want to check out.
Indeed, so many of the so-called “social†issues have VERY deep fiscal impacts, and you and your ilk are going to learn that in the years ahead.
My ilk? Who the hell are you talking about?
My ilk think that the government is too damn big. My ilk think that it takes too damn much of our money and squanders it on feel-good projects that don’t get any positive results.
My ilk thinks that the Constitution does not grant rights to people, but grants limited power to the government. My ilk thinks that if the State didn’t fund expansive social programs, the costs of people’s poor decisions would be contained. My ilk thinks that without the State encouraging people to fuck up their lives without paying any price for it, we’d have fewer people fucking up their lives.
But you know what? My ilk has a lot of fucking trouble convincing anyone to renounce the Democrats, no matter how much they disagree with the party’s tendency to increase the size and scope of government, and no matter how uncomfortable they are with wealth redistribution and class warfare. And that’s in large part due to the fact that the current alternative to the Dems is known more for its efforts against abortion, drugs, and gay marriage than on its reputation for fiscal restraint.
My ilk think that given a choice between a party that spends way too much and says we’re wonderful people and a party that spends too much and says we’re going to Hell, we’ll choose the one that doesn’t scold us like a Sunday School teacher while it’s emptying our wallets. My ilk would like to make that a false dichotomy.
My ilk would really like to have a party that stands for limited government and enhanced personal freedom. And yes, the responsibility that comes with such freedom. My ilk would like to see limits on State power trump limits on personal behavior when it comes to political principles.
Frankly, I thought my ilk were well represented in this community.
And we all know the Democrats are utterly innocent of any corruption, earmarking, or forcing their pols to toe the party line.
The reality is, all of those are bigger problems for the Democrats.
They are. But you’ve missed something — and it’s something important.
“Social conservatives” (which appears to be the media-inspired NewSpeak for people with religious beliefs) exist, and they are going to vote for somebody. It passes my understanding how anybody has missed the implications of Mike Huckabee’s run, which is that if “Social Conservatives” know they can’t get anything they want, they’re just as happy as anyone is to vote themselves goodies from Washington. Oh, they know it won’t get anywhere in the long run — the story of Naboth’s Garden is in the Old Testament — but “git while the gittin’s good” is a universal human value.
The Reagan Coalition of fiscal conservatives and “Social Conservatives” was a juggernaut, and the Democrats and Leftoids have been trying to destroy it for the last thirty years. You and your ilk are helping them do it — and Rahm Emanuel grins and smiles.
Regards,
Ric
But you know what? My ilk has a lot of fucking trouble convincing anyone to renounce the Democrats, no matter how much they disagree with the party’s tendency to increase the size and scope of government, and no matter how uncomfortable they are with wealth redistribution and class warfare. And that’s in large part due to the fact that the current alternative to the Dems is known more for its efforts against abortion, drugs, and gay marriage than on its reputation for fiscal restraint.
Oh puhleeze. Overwhelming majorities disapprove of gay “marriage” no matter how much the homosexual dominated media may propagandize to the contrary. Why? Because is clearly is a Trojan horse to undermine the family and make people less family-reliant and more nanny-state-reliant. Overwhelming majorities aren’t happy with their kids getting all fucked up on drugs either.
Abortion, I will grant you, varies from place to place. But maybe, just maybe, a less sexed culture might have less of them?
Moreover, see your preceding comment:
My ilk thinks that if the State didn’t fund expansive social programs, the costs of people’s poor decisions would be contained. My ilk thinks that without the State encouraging people to fuck up their lives without paying any price for it, we’d have fewer people fucking up their lives.
Uh, gee, isn’t that what the “social issues” are about? That they DO have economic impacts?
Don’t get me wrong, I am with you “one hundred percent” on fiscal responsibility. But I am telling you that it *is* linked to personal and social responsibility (REAL social responsibility, not the Commiecrat “socially responsible” crap).
I can understand that you might want to tweak the mix, but the two *do* go together, and the Frummies are “dead wrong” when they claim otherwise.
There you go. “problems” would be the correct word if they didn’t now control 2/3 of the government.
Thank you, Ric Locke. Somebody gets it.
The Left promotes the belief that a person has the right to put anything in his or her mouth or anus without consequence, and that the same person has a right to take from you or I once the consequences occur. You want to grant them the first right but warn them of the consequences. I am telling you that discouraging the first makes the whole mess of the second a lot smaller and easier to clean up. Because you and I will clean it up, one way or another.
This is exactly why so many of us see the Republicans and the Democrats as opposite sides of the same coin. The Democrats feel responsible to clean the shit off of you after you fuck up, the Republicans want to deny you the shit to fuck up with- what ever happened to expecting people to clean up their own fucking shit?
Chris, let me just say fuck Lincoln Chafee.
Well, thanks but I don’t swing that way (not that there’s anything wrong with that…).
And I can do that because I voted for him. But not before I voted for Steve Laffey.
…and we’ll probably never get a Republican elected in Congress from Rhode Island ever again. It’s not like Chafee was “holding us back”- he was an R in Rhode Island that could help us maintain a majority and maybe even convince and cajole into voting our way sometimes.
If that was an effective strategy we’d be complaining about President McCain right now.
It wasn’t always my position, but I have to say I’d rather have McCain as President and Palin as VP at this point in time, because this situation just sucks eggs like a next-generation cyber-Hoover.
As for the earmarks and corruption, I agree.
Well, good. Unfortunately, someone like Tom Delay would’ve passed your frickin’ “purity” test and I have to say that Tom Delay was a bigger liability to us than Arlen Specter ever was (and I’m not talking about his “voting record”).
Comment by Jeff G. on 5/8 @ 12:13 pm #
Buddhapundit (Chris S) [Dude, get it right- it’s “Buddha Patriot”. I got the idea from the Gay Patriot blog.]
at least partially identifies as a classical liberal.
Great, because I “at least partially” identify you as a jackass.
And yet he doesn’t want somebody like Specter gone from the ranks of a party that purports to champion conservative principles.
It’s not like I have some “attachment” to the guy. It’s clear that he switched parties so he could run again. It’s also clear that he was forced out by our very own (yes, a lot less crazy) moveon.org: the frickin’ “Club for Growth”. If Tom Ridge can actually run a successful campaign in Pennsylvania, then more power to him, but I’d rather not take those kinds of chances in the world of Obama.
…and we’ll probably never get a Republican elected in Congress from Rhode Island ever again. It’s not like Chafee was “holding us backâ€- he was an R in Rhode Island that could help us maintain a majority and maybe even convince and cajole into voting our way sometimes.
Did we ever? Really? When? There comes a time where the mask and the charade drops. The vote on Porkulus was one of those times.
Well, good. Unfortunately, someone like Tom Delay would’ve passed your frickin’ “purity†test and I have to say that Tom Delay was a bigger liability to us than Arlen Specter ever was (and I’m not talking about his “voting recordâ€).
You *do* know not one indictment against DeLay has stuck, don’t you? And that the prosecutor there is an utter Demunist hack?
My point is, they’re only going to hate and smear us anyway, and “making nice” so they won’t go after you won’t work. Because they will go after you. They’re Commiecrats. It’s what they do.
Curmudgeon,
We have plenty of Social-conservatives in the GOP. Frankly, I don’t think that any of them would claim to be otherwise. But the problem is that this is all that’s left of any “conservative” bona-fides. I am not going to to support a party that isn’t fiscally conservative. The social question to me is secondary, and should be because that isn’t the governments job.
Reagan didn’t win elections by promoting his social agenda, because he believed that Governments shouldn’t HAVE a social agenda. Reagan won by telling people he would get the government out of the way and let people live their lives as they so damn please.
It’s also clear that he was forced out by our very own
No, it’s clear that he cut and run because he realized he would not win his own party’s primary.
“Forced out” and “quit because he knew he would lose an election” are two different things.
Entirely.
Reagan won by telling people he would get the government out of the way and let people live their lives as they so damn please.
Word.
the Republicans want to deny you the shit to fuck up with
It’s not that Republicans want to “deny you the shit.” In most cases, it’s simply a matter of, as the very person you quote puts it, “discouraging” you from doing something that will wind up having long-term negative consequences. Unfortunately for too many people they bristle at anything like a suggestion and interpret it as a command.
Reagan didn’t win elections by promoting his social agenda,
Yeah, it’s not like the guy ever wrote abook, while he was President, denouncing abortion. Oh. Wait. He did.
This bullshit libertarian revisionism of Reagan as some kind of social moderate, or simply as someone who didn’t give a fig about social issues, may be convenient for their talking points, but it doesn’t make it any less fictional.
the Republicans want to deny you the shit to fuck up with- what ever happened to expecting people to clean up their own fucking shit?
I dunno. Ask Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and a whole host of other professional “victims” (parasites) that always fuck shit up, and shuld thus be denied shit.
More seriously, given that some factions are hell bent on shitting things up, my policy would be to annilhate those factions if possible, and if that isn’t possible, contain them and give them no ground at the very least.
Bullbleep, Chris. You are relying on the magic “(R)”, and not paying attention to reality.
Specter was somebody who would reliably vote with Democrats on every issue that is at all important to us. That being the case, we lose nothing but the chance for self-deception by his decamping to his true spiritual home, and as it’s actually worked out we gain — nobody trusts a traitor, especially the people who tempted him, and he is no longer a reliable Democratic vote as Chairman or high-seniority member of the committees he’s on.
Bulking up the numbers of (R)s accomplishes nothing if the supposed (R)s vote with Democrats most of the time. Group pictures of the Republican Caucus have zero effect on governance.
Regards,
Ric
Paul,
I didn’t say that Reagan didn’t have an opinion. What I said was that wasn’t what got him elected. I have no misconceptions that Reagan was a “social moderate”.
You are making a strawman out of my point.
Rob:
And we all know the Democrats are utterly innocent of any corruption, earmarking, or forcing their pols to toe the party line.
The reality is, all of those are bigger problems for the Democrats.
Sorry, the “but the Democrats do it, too, Mom!!” is not acceptable in the era of Obama (or just in this media atmosphere).
Look, I’m not saying the “big tent” should be an end unto itself, or otherwise put up in some vain attempt to please the Today Show.
I’m saying: just run the Republican candidates that fit their districts and that are to the right of their opponents, because all the Ron Paul newsletters in the world are not going to save us from this crrraapp.
Chafee like Lympia and Susie is a diseased media whore except he was even stupider than the Maine hoochies. Just didn’t have a lot to work with upstairs. He knew a lot about shodding horses. Bless his heart.
That pouty little book Chafee wrote was probably the most enduringly pitiful political artifact to have originated in my lifetime. Mostly cause it assumed relevance what was nonexistent.
I’m saying: just run the Republican candidates that fit their districts and that are to the right of their opponents, because all the Ron Paul newsletters in the world are not going to save us from this crrraapp.
Believe it or not, I do agree. However, there are sine qua non issues. Moreover, if a primary challenger comes up who is *better*, I am voting for him or her.
Senators with an (R) after their names voting reliably (D) isn’t going to save us from this crap either, Chris, which is a prominent point in this thread that you are studiously ignoring.
Unfortunately for too many people they bristle at anything like a suggestion and interpret it as a command.
I got no problem with suggestions, I got a problem with laws and arrest warrants.
I suggest Meghan shut her fat stupid mouf.
More seriously, given that some factions are hell bent on shitting things up, my policy would be to annilhate those factions if possible, and if that isn’t possible, contain them and give them no ground at the very least.
I am not talking about factions, I am talking about individuals, and their rights to do as they please until it starts affecting other people. I am talking about blue laws in the South, ridiculously restrictive alcohol laws. Drug laws, gambling and other vices. These things are just as much the government intruding in peoples lives as much that the Democrats do.
I suggest Meghan shut her fat stupid mouf.
At the very least, she could put my penis in it and I could give her protein without the fat.
I think that is a most meritable suggestion Mr. curmudgeon. I do indeed.
Curmudgeon,
“she could put my penis in it and I could give her protein without the fat.”
“The Left promotes the belief that a person has the right to put anything in his or her mouth or anus without consequence, ”
Uh huh.
*sigh*
Why is it so hard for some to understand that Arlen Spector has always been about … Arlen Freakin’ Spector? He is a transcendentally narcissistic arrogant camera hog who couldn’t spell “principle” if your fronted him the “prince.” He embodies everything that is absolutely killing the Republican party. Let’s not forget that in his primary campaign in 2004 both “conservative” George Bush and real conservative Rick Santorum supported him over Toomey. Spector, as was his want, repaid the favor by screwing Bush on judicial appointments and other key issues and throwing Santorum under the bus in 2006.
Let me say it again: Spector is all about Spector.
The idsea that the Republican party is further right than it was under Reagan is ludicrous and laughable. Spector defected because he knew he couldn’t win. Period. All of that high talk about party principles was the slop to the hogs, iced with a hearty F*&% You! to PA Republican primary voters. He said it himself when he said that he wasn’t going to leave himself to the mercy of primary voters!
Principles still matter, whether its Spector or Snowe or Chaffee or anyone hitching their wagon to the party that is supposed to be behind limited government, lower taxes and individual liberty. I would stay home rather than vote for someone of their ilk because holding down my vomiting principles is not an option causes too much angst.
A number of people have seemed to have forgotten the fact that most social cons are also fiscal conservatives. You might also be surprised to learn that fiscal aspect of their views tends to outweigh abortion and other hot button social issues except for a minority cadre, one that will not sway elections.
Arlen Spector left the party to seek his own personal electoral satisfaction. I’ll cheer loud and long if Sestak beats him the primary and then work my ass off for Toomey to beat the admiral in the general.
“The Left promotes the belief that a person has the right to put anything in his or her mouth or anus without consequence, â€
Uh huh.
But my consequences for Meghan are benign. >-)
“But my consequences for Meghan are benign. >-)”
Im just playin. But it does seem rather hypocritical.
Meghan I think relishes the hypocritical ones mostest of all. guzzle guzzle guzzle
About that (virtually non-existant) McCain candidacy:
John McCain wasn’t “annointed” by anyone. He was simply the last comic standing after an inept & unserious, “purist” candidate (Fred Thompson) and statist preacher candidate (Mike Huckabee) divided the anti-McCain vote, with anti-Mormon bigotry among the base denying Romney a real chance (I liked Guiliani, but he didn’t really campaign).
It was indeed obnoxious for the party “elders” to accuse us of “McCain Derangement Syndrome” for initially opposing the “Mac”, but when push came to shove I made phone calls for him because of my (now proven) fears of an Obama administration.
Of course, all the Libertarian and Ron Paul kooks who voted for Obama on the premise that he’d screw up the country so much that the voters would cry out for another “Reagan” (like, uh, Huckabee?) didn’t help matters much, either (and they should’ve left “heightening the contradictions” to the Communists).
Huckabee isn’t anything like Reagan, Chris.
Simply making the comparison shows that you don’t Get It.
The only remotely Reagan-like figures in the Republican Party today are Thompson (who as you noted doesn’t seem to have a real desire to run) and Palin.
Both of whom get shit on regularly by the “moderates” you argue that we should support.
We may need a separate thread to discuss “What bummed us out about 2008. Jeff?
Question: Am I more of an abrasive ass than someone who declares somebody he doesn’t know to be an abrasive ass?
Besides, wasn’t I banned for making death threats?
But am I an “abrasive” jackass?
There seems to be some question as to degree.
You two huddle up and get back to me.
Can I join your club, Jeff? Because I seem to have morphed into a Frummie since breakfast.
You know you’re going down hill when your readers don’t much like you.
Huckabee isn’t anything like Reagan, Chris.
Gee, ya think? Fer sure?
Simply making the comparison shows that you don’t Get It.
So why pretend I made the comparison?
The only remotely Reagan-like figures in the Republican Party today are Thompson (who as you noted doesn’t seem to have a real desire to run) and Palin.
Well, I just may get behind a Palin candidacy if she’s nominated in 2012. By the way, what’s your Fred Thompson doing these days (besides taking a rather long afternoon siesta)?
Both of whom get shit on regularly by the “moderates†you argue that we should support.
That was kinda my point- that y’all threw your support behind the “pure” Fred Thompson (even though he barely “ran”) and drew votes away from the more viable candidates (like Romney- yeah no “difference” between him and Obama, rriiight?). Thing is, Fred Thompson would actually have to BE AROUND for me to poop on him, get it?
The only remotely Reagan-like figures in the Republican Party today are Thompson (who as you noted doesn’t seem to have a real desire to run) and Palin.
Both of whom get shit on regularly by the “moderates†you argue that we should support.
I wish he would run again here in Tennessee. Thompson was the lone dissenting vote against lowering the DUI laws nationally to .08, and not because he was pro-drunk driving but because the law proscribed was a clear over reach of federal power over the states which was a direct violation of the constitution.
We need more people to vote for who understand the constitution and why you should adhere to it when legislating.
And btw Chris, Thompson has his own syndicated radio show right now, where he interview people like Victor Davis Hanson, since you were wondering.
fredthompsonshow.com/
Voting for whom you feel is best suited for the job is so PURISTISTIC! Get practical, people! Identify someone who is just slippery enough to win, and throw your weight behind him.
Party uber alles!
Buddhapundit and the Tao of Pragmatic Surrenderism.
My. That’s rather abrasive.
But am I an “abrasive†jackass?
AT LEAST PARTIALLY, Jeff! Who are you to declare me only “partially” classically liberal? You sound like an English Lit professor I once had who just went ahead and assumed I wasn’t “interested in other cultures” because I wasn’t particularly drawn to transgendered poetry by “people of color” (hell, maybe it’s because I wasn’t into “gendering” Japanese history, or “queering” Korean culture).
Assumptions, assumptions . . .
“You know you’re going down hill when your readers don’t much like you.”
I like you Jeff. But, then again I’m a sycophant.
By the way, what’s your Fred Thompson doing these days
You might try actually reading the sentence you quoted, jackass.
Reading. It’s sort of fundamental.
like Romney
Romney is a weasel, and no, it has nothing to do with him being a Mormon. Some of us don’t want to be ruled by a corporate kleptocracy any more than we want to be ruled by the doletariat.
As I said before, you Just Don’t Get It.
Doletariat.
I thought that might be a new coinage for a moment, but Google turns up other examples.
Only eight, though. Too bad there are no prizes for place and show when it comes to originality.
That was kinda my point- that y’all threw your support behind the “pure†Fred Thompson (even though he barely “ranâ€) and drew votes away from the more viable candidates (like Romney- yeah no “difference†between him and Obama, rriiight?). Thing is, Fred Thompson would actually have to BE AROUND for me to poop on him, get it?
We can all agree that the primary “process” is too front loaded, too rapid, and utterly asinine. Fred would have done better in a saner primary process.
Voting for whom you feel is best suited for the job is so PURISTISTIC! Get practical, people! Identify someone who is just slippery enough to win, and throw your weight behind him.
Oh, bullshit (partII)- I’m not suggesting that the Republicans in 2009 are any more “right-wing” than they were under Reagan or that we need to “moderate” the party platform (& kick out the social-cons, etc.). I’m saying- look at Maine, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island and take what you can get from those demographics.
Party uber alles! Sorry- Ich spreche nur ein bischon Deutsch.
Buddhapundit [non, non, non! C’est “Buddha >Patriot<“!] and the Tao of Pragmatic Surrenderism.
Aahhh . . .that’s awfully cute, Jeff- maybe I’ll make a t-shirt out of that (after I make my “Down with Lin Biao and Confucious!” one to piss off all the pro-CCP partisans in my department).
I rather doubt you’re disliked by your readers, Jeff.
Squishy pragmatists seem to find you threatening though.
i’m a moderate teapot
not quite cool..
but..eh..
not so hot
Pragmatist? Is that latin for “lack of conviction”? I think that’s the thing. Jeff isn’t as interested in the “sport” of politics as others, while he is interested in true classical liberal ideals being offered and adhered, too. That’s why this place rawks…
Chris S., valuing principals in our political representatives isn’t being “purist”, it’s being true to your core beliefs.
What is the point of telling Republican voters to shut up and keep Specter, when he is no different than the Dem challenger?
What is the point of taking what you can get from whatever demographic if what you get is someone that doesn’t represent you?
Having a majority in government is of no value if they are no different than the ones you voted against.
Can you tell me where Specter, in the way he governs, is any different than any generic Democrat?
Tell ya what, for Mothers day, buy her some fake dog poop and put it in a rose box. See if it has the same effect as a dozen roses would.
I didn’t describe you, Chris. You did. From your site’s banner:
What I wrote:
Partially, because “Neocon Tibetan Buddhist from the Midwest” seemed also to be part of the identification process, as well.
Seems to me that I’m not the one making assumptions here.
How can one be Tibetan and from the Midwest?
Or was that from the midwest of Tibet?
Duel citizenship?
Too clever by half?
Sorry, I just don’t want to assume anything here…
The Four Noble Truths of pw
1. Life means suffering. (Politics as a team sport is unpleasant.)
2. The origin of suffering is attachment. (It is your unconditional attachment to a large, amorphous GOP that causes your suffering.)
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable. (Look at happyfeet, he has “happy” right in his name.)
4. The path. (Well, we’ll leave the eight fold path for tomorrow.)
Partially, because “Neocon Tibetan Buddhist from the Midwest†seemed also to be part of the identification process, as well.
Well OK, then!
Seems to me that I’m not the one making assumptions here.
No, Jeff- I think you just weren’t clear earlier (and not in a “postmodern” sort of way).
How can one be Tibetan and from the Midwest?
Well, we do actually have quite a few Tibetan immigrants (refugees) in Minnesota, but I’m a caucasian Tibetan Buddhist the same way a Roman Catholic doesn’t go around speaking Vulgar Latin in a tunic and sandals.
Or was that from the midwest of Tibet?
No, the “Peoples Republic” incorporated that into the “Chinese” provinces of Qinghai and Sichuan decades ago.
Duel citizenship?
No- as Mark Steyn has mentioned, America is pretty much the “end of the road” for me (though I may retire in Japan).
Too clever by half?
Yeah, I’ve been that way from time to time.
Sorry, I just don’t want to assume anything here…
Well OK then!
At this point, I’m very much a member of the “leave me the fuck alone” party, from both the fiscal and social ends. If I have to compromise, I’ll do it from the social end, simply because if I’m allowed to have the cash, any vices I want WILL be available.
bh: The Four Noble Truths of pw
1. Life means suffering. (Politics as a team sport is unpleasant.)
Never forget the “politics is the art of the possible”, Grasshopper.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment. (It is your unconditional attachment to a large, amorphous GOP that causes your suffering.)
No, it’s being a thirty-something Republican (non-traditional!) college student in Minneapolis trying to fight off Critical Mass bicyclists (and trying to explain to one’s classmates how the Rwandan genocide is slightly more significant than the Battle of Okinawa in terms of body count and moral depravity).
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable. (Look at happyfeet, he has “happy†right in his name.)
G-d, I hope so, because if the Democrats pick up more seats next year, I’m jumping off the Hennepin Avenue Bridge . . .
4. The path. (Well, we’ll leave the eight fold path for tomorrow.)
Well, OK- just as long as you’re not one of those half-baked, aged-hippie “Euro”-Buddhists hawking Krishna Mirti DVDs…
No, not a Buddhist, just a joker. The eight-fold path was going to mention beer seven times and right speech was going to involve Fugazi and Minor Threat.
*Some of us don’t want to be ruled by a corporate kleptocracy any more than we want to be ruled by the doletariat.*
Only thing I’d say is at least Romney is a manager and understands the market. If he was president, the economy would not be tanking BECAUSE of him. Obama is killing the economy because any investor knows in this climate (political, economic) investing in practically anything is suicide. Look at what’s happening to chrysler.
And just for record, I like you Jeff, quite a bit- you’re bordering on brilliant and your ability to explain how language is used is why I come here. But this
*Guess that’s why VDH has a wide audience, and I get banned from commenting at certain ostensibly conservative sites. *
sounds like sour grapes. I think Simon and Co. dont understand you. Move on. Do what you do. Don’t worry about that crap. You have people here who get you and enjoy your writing. THat type of thing just lowers the bar and unfortunately for you, you’ve set the bar very very high.
Plus my personal opinion is, somebody on the interwebs is going to figure out you’ll make them money. It just takes time.
also I dont agree with Chris on pretty much anything so far but I think he’s more thought provoking then say thor or meya.
By the way, I believe it’s Jeff’s theory that “the art of the possible” involves outreach along the lines of freedom. As a party, the GOP might want to trade some of their bigger government types for some of the Dem’s (and independent) bigger freedom types. Make the division one of statist vs liberty rather than the very awkward mismatch of today.
It makes sense to me as well.
105 was for Chris.
I’m a reader and I like you bunches.
Hope that helps. The weekend is nigh.
Matt:
I’m not banned from PJM. That’s not what I was talking about.
I have, however, been banned from commenting at at least one conservative site. This was pretty widely discussed.
Not sour grapes at all. Statement of fact.
Chris S: One of your problems, here, is that you’re trying to approach this from the sports-team analogy. That doesn’t work with us. Whatever we may be, as a group we are not banner-waving Republican fanboys and -girls. I myself have voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my life (we won’t discuss buyer’s remorse at this point).
Even if we were Republican fanboys, I don’t think any of us would be much interested in how many bodies there are in the Republican Caucus group pictures. If a Representative or Senator consistently votes with the Democrats — as Specter has — he or she is not an asset to Republicans, just as a wide receiver who consistently fumbles and allows turnovers is not an asset to “our team”.
If the goal is to get what you want, trusting people who won’t give it to you is stupid, regardless of the labels attached. Yeah, I know — politics is the art of the possible; you have to go with the nearest approximation, not the exact match. But when you can’t tell the difference without a DNA scan and an atomic-force microscope, “nearest approximation” isn’t any better than “maximum distance”.
Regards,
Ric
I know where you were banned. My point, poorly stated, was every once in a while the edge due to the pjm mess comes out.
Personally, I thought being banned was a badge of honor. He’s a lawyer and we hate to lose, ever. I long ago discovered I’m not the smartest person in the room and I’ve learned a ton from reading your blog. I just maybe think you shouldn’t snark – its beneath you.
Just my opinion. I hope you see my post was mostly complimentary- I consider your writing to be amazing and its helped me be better at my job.
oh as an aside, Happyfeet is on ABC. /toast feets
On this we agree except I would work my ass off to get her elected. Anyone who read my pub post would know that.
You shouldn’t have bought the Democrat’s media narrative there. They also pulled a smear job on Romney, and Guiliani.
The Democrats fought the election as much in the primaries as they did in the general. Making sure that the weakest candidate(s) was/were the one(s) left standing. Huck and John. Palin was a complete shock and that brought out the dirtiest of smears. Laid on fast to stop her from pushing McCain over the finish line.
The big tent is a good idea for those who vote, not so much for a party. If you have politician, on the air, talking, who express everything from conservative to socialist you are no longer a Party, which should be a “brand”.
Would you buy Coke if it varied from batch to batch, sometimes like 7up, sometimes like Pepsi, and only once in a while like Coke? Wouldn’t be a brand then, just a bottle of whatever.
I wish I’d been here earlier to hate on all of VDH’s useful idiocy. There’s nothing good there, and much very bad. But it’s late, so — just this:
I’m not sure what that means, exactly, but anything it could mean is stupid and/or bullshit.
The whole of “time and space” contains maybe a handful of years, total, over a few thousand square miles, at most, of governance that even vaguely approximates the U.S. Constitution — presumably the sort of “conservative” thing being pointed to.
“Human nature” is “best mirror[ed]” in politics by the Holocaust.
“Conservatism” — as politics — is an unnatural “belief,” an aspiration based on nothing.
what you do when this happens and I know cause we had the HBO growing up is you take your passion and you make it happen I think and then in a flash it takes hold of your heart. Yes. Your heart. You.
cause de proggs principle are what other than being stalin/hitler/mao lite?
dem proggs be stupid mfers
yea i like HBO put dat hussein thing up front. take a bow hussein to the keeper of mecca.
Quibble about the metaphor there at the end — VDH does like his rhetoric to soar — but he’s right about strategy, and about the failure of triangulation when conceived of as a replacement for ideals as a selling point.
you be proggs say ain’t no progg?
#113
Yeah. It was kinda labored. Maybe he just saw the latest star trek movie. They use the -time and space- analogy a lot.Star trek does.
That would be a good essay contest, wouldn’t it? Consrvatism is………………
It’s late. I’m tired. I got cookies in the oven. I know what you’re thinkin’. They’re “outlaw” cookies.
I’m not sure how to say this, but to a degree, I hear what psycho is saying.
Jeff cuts part of it away by explaining the rhetorical excesses.
Yet, psycho might be making a fundamental point, along the lines of “nasty, short, brutish”. That’s certainly my read of history as well.
What I’d say to psycho is that individuals can be restrained by having to act as individuals. Better a Lizzy Borden than a Hitler. Lizzy Borden is built into our monkey-ness. Hitler we can try to protect against.
My God, our nation is being run into a socialist ditch, the last instance of a nation dedicated to liberty is being literally dismantled while a hundred years of tribalism threatens to descend on us, but Republicans just can’t get over the fags, who, for their part, are only doing their best to (gasp!) have the legal right to live more socially conservative lives. Can you guys get over the fags for just five fucking minutes and pay attention to what’s happening here?
Peter, you might be a little loose on those pronouns. I have no problem with gays and some here have don’t want the government involved with marriage contracts for anyone.
I think peter wins the WTF award for this thread.
Actually, let me rephrase that less personally, as many regulars aren’t commenting and many readers never comment.
Many here sit somewhere between friendly and apathetic regarding gay issues.
But, if you had to rank it? I’m guessing gay issues rank somewhere between 2 and -1 around here compared to fiscal sanity.
I don’t know. I certainly liked the decision to film the Lord of the Rings in New Zealand though. That has to count for something.
Okay, this is far off topic, but Makewi, this is a question I’m very curious about: Do you know if Hawaiian words are exclusively syllabic? As in, consonant vowel, consonant vowel? Any exceptions without an obviously outside source?
One thing I noticed in the new Star Trek movie: we don’t get to hear “Beam me up, Scotty!”.
Nary a peep.
There were no gay, or ghey, scenes in the Star Trek movie. That’s a good thing.
Okay, thought experiment, serr8d, between Obama spending 48 trillion a second and gay dudes.
If, on a scale of 1 to 10 and Obama spending $48 trillion a second = 10, rank your negative thoughts about gay dudes.
Of course Obama’s spending can destroy our lives (and my as-yet-unborn grandkid’s lives). Gays can’t do squat.
As a matter of perspective, there’s no comparison between the two concepts. But, still, Marriage as a concept and a covenant, is, and will forever be, between a Man and a Woman.
And look at what I did there: I’m concerned about my as-yet-unborn grandkids; about a future where I’ll be missing. Gays, who don’t normally procreate, how do you think they feel about the future? It’s all a ‘now’ thing…a narcissistic thing I think, for gays to live for the moment and not consider the future, for the unborn generations. How can gays make that leap when they usually don’t contribute to it?
That’s within stone throwing distance of my position serr8d.
I think the marriage issue tends to magnify things in a wacky way. The Burkean tradition says, what’s the hurry? I tend to agree with that. People can live however they want. That’s the basis of liberty.
More importantly, was the new Star Trek any good? I’m thinking about going tomorrow.
Liberty has to have moral constraints, bh. If you discount all faith, every aspect or even the possibility of the basis for religion, there goes with it the framework of morality; you’re left with purely secular, man-made laws, then sure. Whatever you can get away with, constrained only by boundaries that are purely linear, two-dimensional. Because you are then defining yourself as no more than a biological construct, an animal with a big braincase what evolved from disorganized carbon atoms that maybe got struck by lightning. But add any religious ‘taint’, and there are…expectations…that can’t met on a horizontal, secular, purely human-alone playing field.
No matter how hard one tries, one cannot really separate one’s faith from one’s conscious. Animals can, I suppose; I can’t.
Yes, it was very good. Kirk gets a green woman. All is well in the universe. )
Towards the gay marriage issue, I was saying Burkean in the societal change should be slow and reflective sense.
As to morality and it’s underpinnings, I’m not sure.
Really, I’m not. I think 1 in 200 people act from conviction and 199 out of 200 act out of convenience. I’m a bit of cynic that way. Or, well, we’re all sinners.
Kirk!!! Cool, I’m dragging my girl to it tomorrow. We’ll get dinner first so she’s at least partially happy.
I think guys were having the most laughs and funs during this particular movie. There’s no painful, drippingly emotional, Deanna Troi or Capain Janeaway (!) sorts of moments in this one. But I’ll shut up now before I give anything away.
(Heavily influenced by Star Wars, for better or worse. George Lucas shoots last, and doesn’t miss.)
“I think guys were having the most laughs and funs during this particular movie.”
Sweet. That’s what I’m looking for.
bh
I’m not sure I can give you the answer you are looking for, being so new here. I can tell you that in Hawaiian every letter is pronounced. If I had to make an educated guess, then I would say no. There are a number of location names here in which there are no consonants involved. Hope that helps.
I think peter wins the WTF award for this thread.
Yay! I won an award!
Just for fun, let’s do a mix-and-match to create a neat-o syllogism:
Gee, that was fun. And unedifying.
Oh, but wait. That can’t be altogether right. Since,
So, if “conservatism” may be taken to be an identification of some sort with the U.S. Constitution, then, returning to our mix-and-match syllogism as a beginning, therefore, transitively:
That’s more funner still!
But hang on a second, what about that “unnatural ‘belief'” part? You remember, this thing:
What are we to do with, to make of, an “unnatural ‘belief'” as opposed to what, say, some something [the “something” because we’ve still got that “nothing” hanging out there, waiting offstage in the non-wings to be dealt with] of an undefined, “natural” belief? Ok, now we’re getting somewhere.
bh, Makewi: there is a suburb of Honolulu, out by Pearl Harbor, called “Aiea”, pronounced approximately “Ah-ee-ay-ah”. So the answer to bh’s question is “No”. There are no consonants in that word, not just in the spelling but in the pronunciation.
Regards,
Ric
Conservatism is the political belief that “will to power” sociopaths should not be the “by default” leaders of anything.
The “by default” position is our inheritance from the million’s of years it took to crawl up from the slime to become civilized. It is what we fall back to/on whenever a generation or two fail to raise the next one up to be civilized.
Children are born in the “by default” mode. Civilizing them is the main task confronting, well, civilization. Mom/Dad families are the best answer we have found so far. Reaping what has been and continues to be sown is what we are getting now.
Hint: If someone keeps asking the same question, over and over and over, and all I do is answer it, I am not the one obsessing about it.
It’s a major award!
Makewi and Ric, thanks.
Forget, please, “conservatism.” It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
“[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
PS – And “Mr. Worldly Wiseman†Rush Limbaugh never made a bigger ass of himself than at CPAC where he told that blasphemous “joke†about himself and God.