The U.S. Justice Department is not expected to intervene before Tuesday’s election in a dispute about verifying new voter registrations in Ohio, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner said today.
“That is our clear understanding,” Brunner said a press conference to discuss preparations for the election.
House Minority Leader John Boehner had asked the Justice Department and President Bush to seek an order to force Brunner to release details about discrepancies in registrations, arguing it’s necessary to weed out any fraud.
[…]
Republicans are accusing Brunner of trying to conceal potential fraud by refusing to release details about the database mismatches, which she has estimated to be about 200,000 of the 786,000 people who have registered since Jan. 1.
Brunner and other experts have noted that many of the mismatches are caused by typos or other legitimate discrepancies and not fraud.
She also said there are concerns the database could become unstable by trying to provide mismatch details and must be rebuilt. Neither she nor her staff could say what that could cost or what the state paid to build it in the first place.
But Monty Lobb, the assistant secretary of state under Blackwell, said the database and matching system was working and that Brunner is trying to shift blame for any problems now.
“To me, much easier to project (blame) onto someone else,” he said.
Meanwhile, Brunner downplayed news that SysTest, the Colorado laboratory used to test Ohio voting equipment as part of a major study last fall, could have its accreditation suspended for “failure to create and validate test methods, improper documentation of testing and unqualified personnel.”
“Whatever the difficulty is, SysTest has been very good to work with and I’m sure whatever the problem is, they’ll remedy it quickly,” she said.
Translation: strong evidence of voter fraud to be ignored by the DOJ, to the benefit of one of the candidates.
I’ll leave it to you all to guess who.
Meanwhile, on another topic entirely (and one that I raised a week or so back), there’s some talk now about the remaking of the conservative blogosphere in light of all of the failures of the current model to bring about anything other than a solid, Republican trouncing (if indeed that turns out to be the case).
Not surprisingly, the piece — linked at Hot Air — makes no mention of pw (note: the cited parties are all part of what has quickly become the new media GOP mainstream), or the persistent suggestion raised here that the key to “conservatives” winning elections is championing classical liberalism, a project that includes learning how to take back language, how to thwart identity politics and muticulturalism, and how to steer debates back toward the primacy of the individual, the plurality of choice, and the idea of natural rights that are not subject to state interference.
But then again, I’ve been frozen out of the club. Making the discussion rather like one of those periodic investigations by major news outlets about their own objectivity that seem always to conclude with an exoneration for any wrong doing.
I sense a splinter movement happening, folks — though sadly we’re that dreaded fringe party. And we’ll be gone in a K-LO minute if we don’t man the barricades.
C’mon, man… it’s not a popularity contest. This isn’t highschool. Your readers are here because they want to read you, man. You.
If you want a splinter movement. Start splinting. There’s a part for your goals of reclaiming language in all this. And if “the others” don’t get that – fuck ’em.
…the key to “conservatives†winning elections is championing classical liberalism, a project that includes learning how to take back language, how to thwart identity politics and muticulturalism, and how to steer debates back toward the primacy of the individual, the plurality of choice, and the idea of natural rights that are not subject to state interference.
Have you considered taking Ayers on directly? His education theory, I mean? That would be very productive and could garner quite a bit of attention, I would think. His terrorist past have actually served to shield his truly nefarious present, I think, and someone needs to shine a spotlight on his little pestilent crowd.
Fuck! Fuck those fucking fuckers!
All I could come up with on short notice.
Maybe you just scare the shit out of a lot of people, Goldstein. What with all that word-fu and snatch wrestling and stuff. You’re a mystery wrapped in a riddle deep-fried in an enigma with a light dressing of Cobra Kai leg-sweep.
That said, while much of what you say rings true with a wide variety of right-leaning types, there might be a perception that you’re more commentator than activist. I look to you for inspiration because you make a point and drive it home without a lot of hemming and hawing and waffling, and that kind of certainty is reassuring in a world where people hedge their bets.
But I’m a f’n weirdo like that. So probably not the mainstream accolade you’re looking for.
Is it because of all the profanity? ‘Cause I’m not much help there.
I doubt very much, Jeff, that they are actually interested in anything you just proposed. It looks like they want another Kos-type machine, just for the other team. And if I’m not mistaken, Kos said that ideology means very little to him or his “movement”. He just wants democrats to win, and will say or do most anything to make that happen. Why would you want to go down that road with these guys? To help republicans? Who have shown very little interest in doing what you prescribe when given the chance?
Yeah, I agree with B Moe. One of the prime targets for reform– which dovetails into thwarting the polemics of multiculturalism– is taking on the far-left bastion of higher ed.
You miss my point.
I don’t care about popularity. I care that the same people who’ve been controlling the conversation on the right side (though to a far less degree than what happens on the left) are now claiming the mantle of reconfiguring what’s wrong.
This is like the government, having fucked up the mortgage industry, now earnestly having a “discussion” about how it can fix the health care industry.
It has nothing to do with popularity or anything so petty. It has to do with what I’ve been increasingly noticing — that a new conservative pundit class in the new media has arisen, and those who make it up are wagon circlers much like their counterparts on the left (though again, to a lesser degree).
Of course this a broad generalization — many individuals don’t fit the description — but the point remains. The GOP big tent is often only welcoming when it is convenient to bring people in. But in the end, the “real” elephants control the door.
I talked about the dangers of this in the presentation I gave at Sam Adams Foundation. “Conservatives” shouldn’t be emulating the left model. In the longterm, a more ideologically coherent model should win out.
You want to see splintering? Just wait – if Sen. Obama does win I predict that the various groups in the left wing blogosphere are going to gun for each other. Everyone is going to want their pet project given fast-track and I don’t doubt that many are going to feel disappointed when they are told ‘no’ or ‘maybe later’.
Of course PW isn’t welcome – PW is ideologically consistent. For instance, if the Dems embraced classical liberalism more fully than the Reps, would you vote for the Elephant? Of course not. Me neither. Because we’re not team players that way.
This problem we have here is the best example of why we need to change the voting system in this country. Having only two meaningful candidates sucks. I want to vote for Goldstein and for McCain, without helping Obama by making Goldstein my first choice. We all do.
Once the electoral system if fixed you won’t have to convince the GOP of anything. You just broadcast your message directly to the electorate and they’ll make the call.
Your posts do get linked by many people, Jeff. Open up a conversation with them on what you think should be done. Who said there has to be just one conversation on the subject matter?
Jeff –
If it makes you feel better
–
http://img386.imageshack.us/my.php?image=68024948bf4.jpg – safe for work/rest/play
–
Serious people having serious discussion will always be a “part” of the conversation. OTHO, when we’re talking about the GAY PORN COCK OF LIES? Not so much.
But, if they can’t take a joke, fuck ’em.
It’s kinda like why I always hated the corner. They were pretending to have a “conversation” with us, but really they were just talking among themselves while we listened in. “I” don’t always have something interesting to say (dang, I almost rarely have anything to contribute) but a LOT of other people do, and usually have much more interesting things to say than anyone at NRO.
Which is why I’m here and rarely there.
They’ll come around, or they won’t. If they want to appeal to the sizeable contingent of Shutupocrats and Leavemealoneicans, they’ll have to look for voices like yours who appeal to that audience. If they’re really only interested in being Rush-Over-IP, then they can just caulk the echo chamber ’til it’s airtight.
There’s a major shakeup coming in the next few months: win or lose, Obama’s Army will soon start eating their own. Meanwhile, the traditional media have sacrificed all of their credibility and most of their audience, and without a good war or national election to buoy them, their days are numbered.
All of this means that there’s going to be a heck of a lot of upheaval, and a lot of talent looking for a home, and some innovators looking for a good way to fill the vacuum. Regardless of what the pajama guys and their hangers-on decide to do, I’ve no doubt that your talent will find a good home somewhere in the new media landscape.
Or you could just ask Cato if they’re willing to waive their No Dick-Jokes policy. Either way.
“Right’s netroots movement”?
Wha-? Thats just silly co-opted Lefty talk.
I think that’s about right. Small wonder when given the opportunity to flaunt their elitism like precious little word peacocks, many of that muster pecked at Sarah Palin’s ugly duckling eyes and head until they were sure they’d mussed her hussy hair and knocked those wannabe stylish spectacles askew.
BS–
Heh. Thanks for that.
If I seem cranky today, I am. I’m starting to sound like the later Lenny Bruce. Soon I’ll be found naked on a bathroom floor, stuffed full of pills and bitterness.
Best go play with my son. Get some perspective back.
I mean, shoot, I’m not part of a ‘movement’ nor part of a ‘grassroots’ BS thinger. I’m the Base, the Party Itself. To say ‘roots’ anything, you’re implying a separation into elites and not-elite that Republicans should be wary of in their fkn bones.
Wait. Ruffini, Henke, Hawkins, and Moran? Those four, you’re talking about?
Pffff. They can do their starboard-side dKos to their heart’s content. I’m always suspicious of formal movements anyway, because no matter how well they start out, they start getting weird in the end. Because any ideologically based group will naturally trend toward its extreme: that’s human nature. Or it will get wrapped around the axles by “ideological purity” or internal politics or personalities and schisms.
The formal organization is fine, but infusing the populace with good sound ideas is also important, and that can be an osmotic thing, if need be.
Look: you, Burge, the AoSHQ morons… y’all can be the humor side, the idea side (same thing), the South-Park conservative side. They can be the button-down contingent, you can be the informal, free-wheeling, fountain of unfettered creativity side.
You really want to be part of those four above-named stiffs?
I wouldn’t either.
Feds burst into a small room and find a State Official(D) standing over the hacked body of the UnVot, blood dripping knife in hand.
Feds,
“Freeze”
State Official(D),
“It wasn’t me it was that evil Rethugglican that just slipped out the window” “I just picked up this knife to look at it.” “I’m a little stupid not evil like they are”
Feds,
“Okay, that makes sense to us”
This whole election is a bad drama that makes a better, but still pretty bad, farce.
If both the left and the right are going to run on scripts they need better writers.
Hawkins is full of shit on his 2 points.
-The Left has talk radio. They’ve got NPR, and in true govt-does-it-best fashion, thats all they need.
-The Lefty anger is b/c they resent not being in what they regard as their rightful place, in power. Not merely being ‘out of power’, as he says.
There’s at least a realization on the Right that you can’t keep the Dems out forever. In those times, we function as a safety valve or as white blood cells. Resistance to their BS that will drive the country over a cliff.
Those are all those people what run shrieking like little girls when they see an immigrant and are fraught with abortion consternations and zomgzomg on cue at the words earmark and gay marriage while capitalism is dying like a halal butchered pig. I piss on you head all yous bitches. You too, Cap’n Ed. I’ll be over here not scheming how best to counter Baracky’s dirty socialisms with new more better groupthink.
I wouldn’t feel too bad about it. The RWNH psot has 24 comments in it, including mine. You’ve got almost 200 on one of the other threads. I’ve been to a number of sites this week, and most of them have what seems to be very little traffic compared to PW. This place is much funnier, as well as thought-provoking.
You can’t make them understand classical liberalism, Jeff.
But you can put them in a headlock.
Ultimately Jeff, you will have to decide whether you want to work inside the establishment or outside the establishment, or just say fuck it and let the establishment decide without your input. I’m not here to argue for one method or the other, but there will be an establishment that will always be a roadblock, or at least a speed regulator, on whatever direction Conservatism moves. Heck, that’s partly why we call them Conservatives. Of course, as I’m sure you have noted before, Conservatives, or at least the current batch of Conservatives, aren’t really defenders of classical liberalism to the extent we would like them to be.
I’ma go all Hunter Thompson on their asses.
I am anti-Establishment.
Funny that classical liberalism has become the outlaw class. I need a leather vest, and more ink.
Stupid Establishment.
Establishment is boring, Jeff.
Can’t spell shit without, ah too easy
OK gotta go shop and stuff. yip.pee.yay.
Funny that classical liberalism has become the outlaw class. I need a leather vest, and more ink.
It’s the new punk rock.
ANARCHY!!!!
Jeff,
I think you might have better luck combining with those more your style and focus, like David Horowitz, Frontpage magazine and the Horowitz Freedom Center.
And a Colt .45 auto or a S&W .44 mag. Drugs are in the couch I think.
I’m a driver. I’m a winner. Things are gonna change I can feel it.
First, Carin #13: I want to marry you for that comment (or at least help put your kids through college). My morning coffee used to come w/ a side of Corner. Goldberg went awol after the book and so did Fredosso. The rest is Lopez- “what color was the Pope’s poop today” and bullshit. Fuck ’em.
Second, Charles post (#26) should have come with a slide tackle.
Funny that classical liberalism has become the outlaw class. I need a leather vest, and more ink.
I already have the bike and leathers and I’m retiring at the end of the year. Lets form a 3 piece patch kickass Sons of Liberty MC. My chops are a bit rusty having carried a gun these many years, but you can get me back up to speed with your Neo-Fu. I did learn some decent ground fighting and inside work with Jeet Koon Do. I can teach pistol combat and room clearing.
“I need a leather vest, and more ink.”
Get a chinese character tattoo near your ear that you think says “peace and love.”
But actually translates to, “Fuck me here.”
Awesome conversation for Thanksgiving dinner.
Just saying…
I think that many of the folks looking to start the net-roots of the right would say that we here at PW are too ideological. And, they would go on to say, that most American voters neither understand or are loyal to “ideology“…
The beauty here is that some of the folks that would say this, consider themselves elite, or at least above the cut-so to speak, and probably would say that they hold their particular beliefs based on ideology! What delicious irony…
Some of the folks involved in this mean to drum up some kinda of Obama derangement syndrome (I confess, I’m partway there!), reduce issue arguments to simple slogans for the purposes of shouting down the opposition-and for easy adoption by the “great unwashed“, and to generally engage in the diminishing of the Democrats-and anything Obama says or does-for the next few years; although Moran has already written a piece eschewing this behavior. But if the GOP engages in this kind of behavior, then they too will be assembling a cadre of nut-roots of their own instead of a grass roots communication network…
People can understand more complex, regardless of their education level, if one takes the time and expends the effort to not only explain the issue, but why it is important in their lives! And that’s where talented guys like Jeff G can come into play; and why we should all take a few moments occasionally and mail links for his pieces to the tip lines at other sites…
And, satire aside, make sure to engage in cogent commentary, that gets to the point where you can. We should all do our part to ensure that the Classic Liberalism front doesn’t engage in the vile and hateful palaver that the Kos kiddiez do…
Best Wishes…
Splitter!
Couple of thoughts here:
1) To the extent that Conservativism has adopted Classical Liberalism as a part of its foundational principals, you have fit somewhat under their umbrella. But I would argue that that’s not so much. In particular, for example, you argue against Roe v. Wade, but from a linguistic, strict-constructionist point-of-view. Most modern day Conservatives don’t take that approach, except in that it offers additional support to their religious arguments. Since you are not necessarily supportive (‘though not arguing against it, either) of that premise, you fall outside the tent.
I would argue, like you, that, under a strict-constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, RvW is unconstitutional. But I would also be very supportive of pro-abortion rights (to a certain extent) at the State level, where those decisions should be made. And I think that’s completely consistent under Classical Liberalism, as would the opposite argument. There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of a State’s rights pro-choice argument being made by someone like K-Lo or Ponnuru.
2) If there is any branch of Conservativism that matches up with your thinking, I would argue that it is Neo-Conservativism, which has been a reluctant step-child of Conservativism anyway. Which makes sense, because the roots of the Neo-Con movement lies with Leftists who “woke up”, so to speak.
3) In a larger sense, I think what’s available for you is some type of manifesto. I think I’ve said before that the work that you’ve done here could be turned into a magnificent textbook on linguistics, intentionalism and Classical Liberalism. I think it would suit you well to take what you’ve written and codify it. You could probably throw together a series of extended essays on these subjects, much like Bill Whittle at EjectEjectEject, and post them here as a rallying cry.
Fuck Classical Conservatives. Let them go their own way. Start your own movement, Jeff! You know you want to. Just make sure the liquor cabinet’s stocked for the weekend. I don’t want to have to hunt you down.
Ok, Bob, I hear you. But one set of nutroots doesn’t pay taxes and/or is criminal/or is still living off the parental tit, felching all the “stoopid” available in college.
The other “conservative” netroots works their ass off, pays too much tax, wants their government to leave them the hell alone, let the goddamn free market be, and protect the nation.
I just don’t see ours ever being like theirs.
We (bust our ass working, pay tax, take care of our family) got too much shit to do keeping this country what it is.
Fuck Obama and all that he represents.
Oh, and you’d probably get at least a nudge-and-a-wink from Allah. I think he’d have your back on a lot of issues. Maybe not the rest of the staff at HotAir. But … so what?
I think there are a lot of “conservatives” and “liberals” and “libertarians” and “independents” who are looking for answers that are outside of the box. The system as it is today is totally fucked. Exhibit A being the two final candidates we get to vote “for” on Tuesday. I can’t even begin to measure the disgruntlement (except from the Obama true-believers, like my sister and her husband–ugh) being expressed by people I know. It’s so far beyond 2000 or 2004.
There’s such a strong sense of disenfranchisement in the public. That can be tapped into. I think rather effectively. Especially given how ubiquitous the ‘net is.
Web 2.0 gives us a chance to reach out and effectively (and cheaply!) touch a whole lot of people. Hell, get me some funding, and I’ll start another Youtube. All you really need is a solid connection to the cloud and major redundancy. That’s not expensive at all these days. And if enough people tap into it, then it starts to pay for itself.
It’s there for the taking, Jeff. All you would need is the desire, the drive, and a few people to give you a hand with the heavy lifting.
I’d sign up.
Do you mean we will have to say what we mean and mean what we say?
It would the Mad Hatter party!
“Do you mean we will have to say what we mean and mean what we say?”
No, no…the one’s that pretend that shit are the “Libertarians.” They’re over at Reason.com
Be patient with ’em… they smoke a lot’a weed.
Lamont – I began my political-online reading with the Corner. I was addicted, and it was interesting. Then, I discovered Ace and Jeff, and I’ve been hooked ever since. Mostly Jeff’s – I usually only go to Ace’s when it’s slow here.
I think I’ve said before that the work that you’ve done here could be turned into a magnificent textbook on linguistics, intentionalism and Classical Liberalism.
I’d be glad to lend my expertise for the chapter on poo humor.
Yeah Carin, I’ve moved to AoS/HotAir/PW for my morning cup. I hit the Corner only for VDH and Steyn and occasionally Hemingway and Geraghty (Campaign Spot). The crap among the natives has apparently pissed off Mark Steyn, because he’s posting there WAY more than usual. And his middle finger is up when he’s posting.
Secure in my sexuality, I have a total man-crush on Mark Steyn.
But only because, ya know…well…Johnny Depp wouldn’t really appreciate me and probably wouldn’t treat me that nice…
…& whatever.
I’m off to a strip club.
There’s always Richard Grieco…
I saw Mark Steyn on tv last night … and … well, that accent you know. It’s yummy.
Especially, when the accent is attached to someone who is not a metro.
But then again, I’ve been frozen out of the club. Making the discussion rather like one of those periodic investigations by major news outlets about their own objectivity that seem always to conclude with an exoneration for any wrong doing.
So, like Krauthammer says, all you need to do is get your MD.
hell-i’d vote for myself..if i was running
could vote twice if i was cunning
walk the line-cuz the cop said to…
all humor is poo
If you’d just sell out to the man like all of the sixties radicals and seventies punks did you’d be on easy street with your own line of action figures! The Jeff G. with head-severing action! The armadillo with his own armament pack! The Protein-Mobile, with dirt bike launcher for Chuch! The Martha Stewart Prison Cage!
It is all within your grasp, and can make next year’s holiday season if Obama wins! A Joey Hair-Plugs villian, with the Light-Worker and the Fruit-Gatherer! The tie-ins are endless!
Just give in to it…
I’m still goin to the nudie bar…
…I’m just sayin’
Grieco was hot.
21 Jump Street.
One of ya’ll had a poster of him on your wall. Probably a dude.
Admit it.
Fuck You! DON’T SAY IT WAS HOLLY ROBINSON!!
It was Grieco and you know it.
Just own it and vote with a clear conscious.
“Especially, when the accent is attached to someone who is not a metro.”
A (good) trouble making, back woods, smart as hell, conservative Canadian Irishman?
Agreed…that sumbitch ain’t metro.
oh. Have you seen Grieco lately?
No feets but I heard it’s awful. I was riffing off an old Family Guy sketch there, but I hear he hasn’t aged well.
But then again, I’ve been frozen out of the club. Making the discussion rather like one of those periodic investigations by major news outlets about their own objectivity that seem always to conclude with an exoneration for any wrong doing. — Yes, they have also grown to love the sight of their own prose, and their seats in the blogger tent at the conventions. Maybe they are really planning for the securing of admission tickets to the White House Press Room, so a certain degree of reverence for their brethren has become necessary. Reaching across the aisle on the press bus.
I betcha hf sold Grieco some stepped-on tofu
it was a back-alley deal, you know…
“Hey kid – say, ain’t you Greico? Howsabout some, you know, sod?”
The good Doctor would have recommended nothing less than a .50 caliber Desert Eagle and a vial of adrenochrome freshly extracted only from the noisier psychotics found on the 16th St Mall. The only club you need is the one you hit them between the eyes with.
You know who looks like he hasn’t aged a day? Adrian Zmed. Ok that might be exaggerating a little but still.
Who the heck is that?
I’d hate for him to google his name and see where I said well nobody really he just didn’t age that bad is all.
oh OT yay me stuff: Got my stitches out, looks OK. No lasting nerve damage, not a whole lot arthritic right now. Bunch of water on the elbow, though, which kind of made it squish like a rotten tomato does after you lost in the fridge for a week, b ut otherwise, not bad
heh I *did* google him and I still asked
Me and the Democrat Mom are going to see “The Moose Hunter” tomorrow in Latrobe. Shit is happenin’ folks.
I missed this today til now. Those people have my respect and thanks.
[…] More Yes, We Can’t! [Ohio SoS Jennifer Brunner] also said there are concerns the database could become unstable by trying to provide mismatch details and must be rebuilt. Neither she nor her staff could say what that could cost or what the state paid to build it in the first place. […]
re: Hunter Thompson.
If you’ve not read it yet, Curse of Lono is a terrific Hunter Thompson book. It’s a relatively slim volume, non-political, more of an extended travel piece to Hawaii and is flat out terrific. I’ve read (almost) all his work and Curse of Lono remains vibrant.
Apt artwork by Ralph Steadman as well.
–
Did you give up on that Zazz Report thing? Because, really, that site blows. As does The Establishment.
And do you see a single gigantic puppet?
A big old VHS tape with legs would have been perfect.
u can take my head for ur mountain of skulls-but please shoot the rest of me out ur cannon/
over a canyon..
in colorado/natch
I have always thought that a conversation between Nordlinger and Goldstein would be fascinating. And alppuccino.
…”If you’ve not read it yet, Curse of Lono is a terrific Hunter Thompson book. ”
I’ve read Elmore Leonard.
Same stuff, less weed.
And peyote.
And ‘shrooms.
And acid.
And chloroform.
Ya know, come to think of it, Curse of Lono was a helluva book.
The “morality” Republicans have been running the show and now here we are, electing a leftist to the Presidency as well as large Democratic house majority and possibly a Democratic fillibuster-proof Senate. If this comes to pass, it will represent an epic fail for morality Republicans. We need to demand that they step aside and let the freedom Republicans take the helm, and BTW, STFU. We’ll do our best to sensibly restrict abortion, but it will stay legal so get over it. And gay marriage? Required by the Fourteenth Amendment, get over it. The state needs to get out the “marriage” business altogether; the “definition” of marriage should be ceded to religious institutions and let the state deal with the contractual side.
There are only three modern governiing philosophies: the morality government, the social justice government and the freedom government. The problem is we get to choose only one. By choosing one we necessarily discriminate against the other two. The Dems represent the social justice constituency while freedom and morality attempted a coalition within the Republicans. That coalition is at the end of the road. It either needs to change leadership or it needs to split.
Anyway that’s my frame and I’m sticking to it. And as far as the Next Right is concerned, you know Jeff you could always walk over there, drop your brass balls on the bar and take over the joint. It’d take you what? Fifteen minutes a day?
We need to demand that they step aside and let the freedom Republicans take the helm, and BTW, STFU
In reverse order of presentation;
No, I will not shut up! ;P
Is there a history attached to “freedom Republicans”? Because I would feel more comfortable with “Constitutional Republicans”. That OK?
I’m not sure how you “demand” the morality Republicans step aside, other than the democratic process set in the Constitution. I suppose you could ask a few million voters to give up their representation in government, but it would be hard to force them. It’s because of that secret ballot thing is why.
I think things are at the point where a third party could become a real player. I don’t think a three party system could be maintained for long though, alliance being the nature of the beast. One would be absorbed by one of the others eventually. That kind of scenario is a longer term project than just demanding, but is a more likely possibility to accomplish what you are talking about IMHO.
All this voter fraud talk blows my mind. We live in the 21st century, i can pretty much totally conduct my entire business from my phone wherever i am in the world. How can we not get this voter crap right. The liberal illuminati are going to come out on top of this one again but i don’t think it’s really going to make a big difference. Obama has this thing wrapped up! Sorry
Nah, Obamas ass is grass. Sorry.
Yes, that’s why you guys are still out concern-trolling.
Because Obama has it wrapped up.
Allah used to be here. He was funnier then.
(And he said my first-ever comment here was “great, great.” Fool!)
Herding cats. I always thought that was the most apt analogy for the cyclical attempts to homogenize the right blogosphere.
And who better to lead the push for conformity that Mr. Moran, whose response to a reader revolt was to turn off comments? No pudding for the peasants!
I prefer cats. You can’t cross-breed them with sheep.
Voter fraud seemed to be a huge deal in 2000 when Bush won, now not so much. Funny how things work out when you care for nothing besides “winning”. Speaking for myself, I can not see how subverting our electoral process is winning in any way, but that is just me.
Not like anyone gives a shit about my opinion but if “our” netroots (by the way what a gay name) becomes anything like the Kos kiddies who just parrot eachother, spread lies, and condone anything in order to win, then count me out. Seriously are there any diaries or articles on any left wing site complaining about ACORN voter fraud or do they just totally ignore that shit? They probably just cry about how evil and racist we are for bringing it up I guess. I ain’t in college anymore and I do not want to sit around whining on my computer about how unfair life is cause some evil “demoncrat” did blah blah blah. What kinda life is that? I rather shootmyself.
God I cut off half my sentence.
“I do not want to sit around whining on my computer about how unfair life is cause some evil “demoncrat†did blah blah blah while I sit around condoning shit the same thing as long as it is done by the political party I support blindly like a lemming.”
I feel better now:
(via Lucianne.com)
“What you were never intended to know in this election”
I’m going to let you in on a few secrets here, and this is not because I enjoy the gossip or the attention directed my way. I’m doing this because I doubt much of you know the true weaknesses of Obama. Another reason for my doing this is that I am lost faith in this campaign, and feel that this choice has been forced on many people in this country. Put simply, you are being manipulated. That was and is our job – to manipulate you (the electorate) and the media (we already had them months ago). Our goal is to create chaos with the other side, not hope. I’ve come to the realization (as the campaign already has) that if this comes to the issues, Barack Obama doesn’t have a chance. His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans. It has worked up until now. Joe the Plumber has put the focus on the issues again, and this scares us more than anything. Being in a position to know these things, I will rate what the Obama campaign already knows are their weak links from the most important on down.
http://tinyurl.com/66cx6v
Read the whole thing
That piece is a minor bombshell, N. O’B. Nice.
This truth speaks to the problem Jeff lays out in the second half of the post. Allah Is In The House was a fucking riot and it turned the blogosphere on its ear. Now it’s down the memory hole. Allahpundit is still a pretty funny dude and he’s one hell of an analyst with an ability to find, gather (and link) relevant information on a topic that is unequaled anywhere in the ‘sphere. But in order to run with the big dogs of the rightosphere he had to reel in the edgy and teh funnee and become more “respectable”. A deal with the devil to be sure, though I’m glad to have Allah vs. no Allah which is what we had before Hot Air.
That, Mr. Goldstein, is the choice before you. You will necessarily limit your exposure with what might be looked upon by many as the more “tasteless” aspects of your blogging. pw would not be what it is if you were to suddenly start worrying about who you might be offending. It would also be a huge concession to those conducting the rape of language that you rightly rail against. I, for one, would consider a leashed Goldstein to be a minor tragedy. But then, I’m a selfish prick so take that for what it’s worth.
There’s a dirty socialist on my tv and I think tasteless doesn’t mean what it used to mean.
If you Americans don’t wake up screaming you won’t wake up at all I think.
Hey, there’s a dirty socialist my TV too! What are the odds?
Oh wait, now it’s Rudy. That’s better.
Pablo wrote what I was thinking yesterday. Allah’s original stuff was da bomb. I wish it existed somewhere. Sob.
It could be argued that reigning-in was the way to “make it” (for Allah)… but if we’re talking new media and changing the tone of conservative bloggers, who says changing into what is already THERE is the way to go? I’m not knocking Hot Air, but if we lose this election, can we honestly say that their way was “the way” to go? I’m not pinning blame, I just don’t see the point of conforming into something that allowed (under it’s watch) Obama to be so close to the highest office.
care that the same people who’ve been controlling the conversation on the right side (though to a far less degree than what happens on the left) are now claiming the mantle of reconfiguring what’s wrong.
Afucking100%men.
Yeah, I got mad props from Allah here once. I loved his independent blog. Which is why I think he would be a good fit for whatever Jeff decides to do. Allah’s kinda the outsider over at HA. I don’t think he fits the “traditional” conservative image over there, but he’s so frickin’ good at what he does, they put up with him. Maybe I’m way off base in my reading between the lines, but that’s my impression. I know his atheism grates on many of the fundies in the commentariat.
It’s better if it sort of evolves on it’s own I think. It’s not broken except I’d say we need more serious econonomics talk in the mix and maybe less screeching about problems what are really not very important when faced with dirty socialists what are trying to validate every anti-American NPR meme of the last decade. I’ll never get over that gaywad at Polipundit who kicked all his guest blogger people to the curb like they were foul and smelly or something just cause they wouldn’t carry his immigrant-bashing water. Fucking nazi freak. Less of that. More humor.
I spelled economics wrong. Yes I did.
Also it’s. I think I will go to my quiet place for awhile.
*We need to demand that they step aside and let the freedom Republicans take the helm, and BTW, STFU. *
Good luck with that. Unfortunately (for you) “religious” republicans in the Republican party far outnumber the non-religious so you can forget about us “stepping aside” and certainly not “shutting the fuck up” (thanks for that though). Though a somewhat religious conservative, I agree with many of you that social issues should be regulated by the states, who are a better reflection of individual citizens morals and values, which admittedly vary widely throughout the country. Unfortunately, the nature of state’s making decisions will be veto’d by both sides of the aisle. Democrats will complain they won’t be able to get abortion on demand in every state or gay marriage may be recognized in California but not in Georgia. Religious conservatives are similarly stubborn, believing the way to influence morality is to legislate it (to some extent anyway – less so now than it was 20 years ago). If either group would accept the fact that this country is big and not everybody is going to have the same values, no matter what, I think we could solve alot of the problems in terms of differences in this country, because people could migrate to states with laws, morals and values they agree with. In that way, every person can have their cake and still be an American.
Its a pipedream though but its better than “STFU and get out of the way.”
Well said, Matt person. If religiousy people want to play they are more than welcome I think but a lot of their shit has just gotten stale. Too many times you already know what they’re gonna blah blah blah say before they say it. Bleating is just never attractive I don’t think. They need a more better patois.
I think there’s a middle ground here. I should also mention that I don’t begrudge Allah a bit for doing what it takes to make a living at this blogging thing. I don’t think he’s become quite what was already there, though he did have to get the haircut and shave the scraggly beard and put on a suit and tie to get the gig. And some of that has to do with who he works for. Given the rabid criticism that anything having to do with Michelle Malkin gets, there’s an abundance of caution on her part that leads to a fairly strict set of rules of decorum. HA is a great, comprehensive news source and it’s my go to site for keeping up to speed. They’re doing a great job over there with a lot more flavor than PJM and they’re getting significantly more traffic.
Overall, I think it’s a good thing for both informing readers and building a new media paradigm. But I still miss the old Allah.
I’m with you, Carin.
I come here because I’m NOT going to read what I can read anywhere else, written in the way I could read it anywhere else. Words mean things and the way words are used matters to me. Humor and intelligence and creativity matter to me. Everyone here has their own unique voice. I LAUGH when I’m here, which is important when so many serious things are being discussed. Many other blogs are simply boring. There is no one type of conservative. We know what we like. If sites become too cookie-cutter they become some sort of consortium. Meh.
I just moved to Ohio recently. It’s a hot, sticky mess here with all the voter issues. Does nothing to boost one’s confidence in the current system. We just have to get louder and more visible if things don’t go as we hope next week.
I’m not-really religious and don’t vote on religious lines, but many of my domestic policy views are determined b/c I force myself to take into account the guy in the pew that I never met. That guy is a citizen and if I don’t take him into account then I’m just ruling from on high rather than ‘by for and of the people’
That, BTW, is MY definition of a ‘freedom Republican’
Speaking of Thomas Hobbes, Leo Strauss says [Natural Right and History, Chapter V., Modern Natural Right, p. 169]:
I miss the golden age of Allah and blog start-ups in general, Pablo, but agree with everything you say about the benefits of Hot Air, and was never more pleased than to see Allahpundit resurrected from burnout. Not only what you said, but also, glimmers of the golden age remain beneath the modesty panels of the format. Though most of the schtick has boiled off, he’s got the clarity of old. THe commenting there is mostly awful, though. I think it had something to do with the closed off registration.
There are only three modern governing philosophies: the morality government, the social justice government and the freedom government.
This is absurdly nonsensical. I may not agree with, nor support, a social justice approach to governance, but I’d be blind to not see that it stems from its proponents sense of morality. Likewise those who value freedom, not just their own but everyone’s, also do so for very closely held moral reasons.
Although many conservatives, and many republicans share libertarian sentiments the Libertarian party remains a fringe element. Somewhat surprising considering that large swaths of the electorate do not see daylight between the two ruling parties. The Democrats have been able to go hard left with only slight misgivings from the electorate (slight, but possibly just enough to cost them the Presidency.) Meanwhile, amid all this disgust with the current state of the Republican party the Libertarian party remains nothing more than a fringe element. There are multiple reasons for this, but the blatant antireligious and pro-progressive moralist tenor ranks highly among them.
Frankly, i don’t see a workable solution, but I’m not much of a leader anyway. I’d like to see a heavy re-focusing on the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence, coupled with a plain English reading of the entire Constitution leading us to less government and more freedoms for all (and specifically in that very order.) But i just don’t see anyone even starting that process in the current environment.
*cough*
*cough*
Point taken.
So long as we define ‘start’ as some really bitchin bull sessions.
And upon further reflection, I think it apt to view PW as an old world coffeehouse circa 1750.
And upon further reflection, I think it apt to view PW as an old world coffeehouse circa 1750.
Nice! I’d say more like 1650 — around the time the Enlightenment really started to ramp up.
What little knowledge of our political forebear’s intellectual antecedents I have had to come from somewhere, I think you’ld agree. And yours I think. Books. Schools wherein those books are introduced and taught (sort of).
More than bull sessions, really. What we want (and to some extent, what we still have here and there) are serious educational curricula based on serious treatment of serious materials. Hobbes, as noted. But he got his ideas from somewhere too. So them. Locke who leaned on Hobbes. Madison, Jefferson, Morris, et al who in their turn leaned on Locke, Montesquieu, etc. Far from a coffeehouse, we want many more serious educational institutions.
For one concrete example among many, see this.
Let’s get going with the pamphleteering!
SBP, that was my original thought too, but 1650 to 1775 is a damn looong time.
Locke who leaned on Hobbes. Madison, Jefferson, Morris
Yes. It would also be good to study those who, starting from Locke, went down the wrong road. Rousseau, Hegel, Marx…
we want many more serious educational institutions.
Here I tend to disagree. I don’t think we want or need institutions. x
Institutions concentrate power. In such an environment, it’s very hard for those who have other goals (scholarship, say) to compete with those whose only goal is power. Alinsky tactics don’t work well on individuals.
For an alternative model, see this book.
Well said SBP. Given the state of where we are today I cannot place trust in educational institutions – less so in government run ones.
Institutions of higher learning existed during those historic times and, for the most part, turned out dullards and apparatchiks of the status quo. The best were the exception, not the rule.
We should continue to value their contributions – use them and teach them – but the onus is on us. Perhaps one of the reasons we’ve come to the point where we are at is precisely because we ever entrusted something so sacred to a government institution.
Doesn’t mean my kids won’t go the public school, but it does mean lots of deprogramming sessions and a healthy home library.
Did you bother to look at the link SBP? If you do, click on the link (more) beneath the list of authors names at the top and read the rest of the lists, focus on Junior and Senior years.
What is wrong with institutions as a word to stand in for “colleges”, “universities”, “high schools”, or what have you? The whole point was the curriculum, not the bureaucracies unlaying them.
One exception does not obviate the general rule.
Or more to the point, rather than the curriculum, I ought to have said the philosophy of education standing behind the curriculum. For more on that, see the views of the two founders of the Program, here and here.
There are a number of other schools like this one, albeit not in every detail. But they agree in their views of the intent of Liberal Education. I think that this number has been multiplying over the last forty years and will tend to increase over time. Just how fast and how broadly is the thing. I have the opinion that the more people exposed to Liberal Arts education of this sort the better off, not only they, but everyone in our polity will be.
In the old days, there were many practical reasons for institutions.
Scholars and scholarly resources (such as libraries) had to be located in one physical location for knowledge to spread.
That’s no longer the case; all that stuff can be distributed (the only exception that comes to mind would be those physical sciences which require expensive lab equipment).
So: why have an institution at all?
Again, with emphasis if you like, I do not give a fuck whether “you” have “institutions” or not. Read what I have written. I care about the Philosophical underpinnings of the education I and my fellow citizens receive. And the particular philosophical underpinnings I hold are before you already. Take the time to familiarize yourself with them and you will have my meaning entire.
Sdferr: lighten the fuck up.
You’re proceeding from a flawed starting point.
Currency.
Truly judging the education of a person requires an investment of time and effort that isn’t always practical. A document from a generally recognized authority provides for this purpose what a Federal Reserve Note provides for judging a prospective customer’s ability to pay for merchandise. Authority means institutions.
In an ideal world people would have no need for potentially gameable (or, as in the case these days, corruptable) system of authorities and documents, but in an ideal world people would also have no need for governments and laws.
For those of us whose only interest is being educated rather than in parlaying that education into economic benefit, SBP, institutions of education are unnecessary. But we are in the minority.
Truly judging the education of a person requires an investment of time and effort that isn’t always practical.
Nowadays a diploma (even from an “elite” institution) isn’t even a guarantee that the person can read, write, or do arithmetic.
As for how you judge the education of a person — you look at what that person has produced and what that person can produce. That’s also much more practical now than it was in the past.
Which would give you a better picture of a potential employee: a transcript with a letter grade, or an actual {piece of literature/computer program/piece of graphic art/original music composition/bridge design} that that person actually created?
And upon further reflection, I think it apt to view PW as an old world coffeehouse circa 1750.
Leonard Libertarian: Say, you know what this place could use? Some buxom wenches to bring my tasty beverage!
Oh, and a brothel upstairs!
You guys gotta check this out! An Indian out in my hemp field showed me…
In that case please, by all means spell it out for me, SBP. Do show me where I’ve gone wrong and I’ll be more than happy to concede the point.
In the meantime I’ll be inclined to believe that human beings will tend to continue to congregate in large groups when bent on achieving a common purpose. And that not all such congregations will be twisted into pseudo-marxist power grabs.
Your flawed premise is that there should be a curriculum, whether set by a formal institution or by some other group (who? how?), the absorption of which (measured how?) somehow guarantees that the student will become a responsible citizen.
BTW, I will continue to believe that virtually any group which is granted power will come to be dominated by those who are driven by power. The rest of us have other concerns.
See, for example, your nearest condo board or homeowner’s association.
I suggest that we discuss this on the Pub (after the election, by preference). It’s an important issue.
There are no guarantees that any given free person will become a responsible citizen, SBP and neither I nor anyone else would make such a claim.
There may however be a greater likelihood of achieving responsible citizenship through the practice of the liberal arts and through a well established familiarity with the political antecedents of our polity. And a familiarity as well with the paths not taken, and why, which you have explicitly cited. But do you think that there is no necessary connection between what our political forebears wrote and what they read (in common) and discussed one with another? That they too had no common educational experience?
Do you actually believe that there was no worthwhile educational tradition, decided upon by no-one in particular, no “power center” to point at, but one that grew organically as any complex endeavor of the sort must, bit by bit, trial by error, eliminating the useless and preserving the useful, taught for centuries before it was overthrown for the sake of “progress” at the beginning of the 20th?
Look back at what I believe started the gist of this whole discussion, namely Peter Jackson’s assertion that:
STFU he concludes! I find this sort of thing ridiculous, particularly in the light of our political foundations, which, it seems to me, must have momentarily slipped P.Jackson’s mind. There simply is no such thing as STFU in America, as far as I can see, and if such a place ever does come to pass, America will have disappeared.
Hey. My wife and I stayed at a BnB across the street from St. Johns a couple of years ago. We got an earful about the school from the cook. Sounds like a fabulous place to go. We’re actually interested enough that when our oldest son start high school, we’re going to take him on a tour. He’d be a great fit there.
I learned about the place because my mom and dad ate a restaurant in downtown Anninoplace and were waited on by a student who wouldn’t shut up about the school. They knew.
Not ridiculous, just testy. After Tuesday, shame should shut up the morality Republicans. I can’t possibly imagine what they will have left to say.
Peter, they will defend their positions and beliefs as they ought to do. They cannot shut up about them can they, at least not until they have been persuaded that they are mistaken and should follow some other path? Why would you expect anything less of them?
I don’t believe they’ve met that condition yet, do you, at least if we are to give any credence to the brief responses of lee and Matt above or pause to imagine another response we may have heard from some other self described “morality republican”?
And all that, while leaving aside (or without treating) ThomasD’s reasonable question as to whether your articulation of these divisions falls naturally upon the make-up of the body politic or no. Seems to me we’d have a long way to go before crediting your assertions as prescriptive.
Which in turn is not to say that you’ve run out of the usual human way of things. I think I probably had thoughts very similar to yours, though mine were with regard to the American socialist crowd when the Soviet Union fell — finally, I thought, once and for all these idiots will have seen the failure of their long awaited utopia and they’ll go away in shame and be heard from no more.
Well. We can see how long that lasted.
Somehow I missed ThomasD’s comment.
Moral is as moral does, so yes, most people’s political beliefs have a moral dimension. But that moral dimension is derived from the political worldview, not the basis of it. When I say “morality” Republicans, I’m talking about those who, say, don’t support stem cell research because they think the Bible tells them so.
And even if most people experience all three of these political urges to one degree or another, we will still be biased toward one and thus one will be dominant over the other two. Up to this point the Republicans have upheld a bias in favor of morality. And here we are.
Peter, I think the reason “here we are” is not because of Republicans voting on morality issues, but because of elected Republicans not standing behind what they said to get elected — regardless of which alleged “brand” of Republican they pandered to.
Even “morality” Republicans disapprove of that shit.
I don’t understand how you mean this Peter. It seems to me prima facie that it must be the other way around, at least for the most part.
I don’t mean to say that people can’t change both their moral views and their political views over time, for I certainly think they do, must even. What I do mean is that we humans begin to develop our moral sense, bearings, what-have-you, much earlier in life (as children) and that for the most part, these sentiments stay with us howsoever much they may alter around the edges or be developed through a more nuanced understanding of the human condition through experience and education, whereas contrarywise, our political understanding comes to us much later in life and depends greatly on higher education, reading, wider socialization, etc.
But perhaps I simply misunderstand your intent. If I’ve gotten you wrong here, please straighten me out.
Sorry, I’m getting my butt kicked here at work. I wrote this on my blog recently that might explain it better than I can right now…
Hey, found your site by accident doing a search on Google but I’ll definitely be coming back. – Anyone who has lost track of time when using a computer knows the propensity to dream, the urge to make dreams come true and the tendency to miss lunch. Attributed to Tim Berners-Lee