CNN:
South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint on Friday became one of the first high-profile Republicans to publicly criticize John McCain following his electoral defeat, blaming the Arizona senator for betraying conservative principles in his quest for the White House.
The conservative senator, speaking to a group of GOP officials gathered in Myrtle Beach at a conference on the future of the Republican Party, described how the party had strayed from its own “brand,” which, according to DeMint, should represent freedom, religious-based values and limited government.
Strip out the moralistic sounding “religious-based values” and replace it with “an objective standard of ethics,” — which is readily differentiated from the situational and subjective ethics of progressive multiculturalism, a paradigm that promotes the breakdown of uniform standards of justice — and so far, so good.
[…]
DeMint offered a long list of complaints about McCain’s record in the Senate and on the campaign trail.
“McCain, who is proponent of campaign finance reform that weakened party organizations and basically put George Soros in the driver’s seat,” DeMint said. “His proposal for amnesty for illegals. His support of global warming, cap-and-trade programs that will put another burden on our economy. And of course, his embrace of the bailout right before the election was probably the nail in our coffin this last election. And he has been an opponent of drilling in ANWR, at a time when energy is so important. It really didn’t fit the label, but he was our package.”
Bush and Stevens, he said, had corrupted the party brand by expanding the size of government and engaging in wasteful government spending. Had Republicans not strayed from their core beliefs in recent years, DeMint argued, the election results might have been different.
“Americans do prefer a traditional conservative government,” he said. “They just did not believe Republicans were going to give it to them.”
Of course, it’s easy to pile on to the defeated (witness the McCain campaign shifting blame onto Sarah Palin) and an unpopular lame duck, so I wonder where DeMint was when the GOP was handing McCain its leadership crown. Too, while I criticize Bush for not using his veto pen (and for conceding too much to liberals as part of his “compassionate conservatism” approach), I continue to believe that he used the entirety of political capital to keep steadfast on the GWOT — the dividends from which, provided Obama is unable (or, more likely, secretly unwilling) to undo the progress — we’ll see in the decades to come, forcing honest historians to re-evaluate the Bush legacy.
McCain was always a bad choice. Palin, at least, energized the base, and could have been groomed, as VP, to bring conservatism (of the legal, rather than the “moral” stripe) back to the White House.
That McCain’s final bit of work, after running an ostentatiously “honorable” campaign that guaranteed he’d lose, will be to reach across the aisle to Obama while his staff anonymously tries to destroy Palin’s political future, is further proof that those of us who saw McCain for what he was (and were willing to say so during the primaries) — a progressive whose policy positions oftentimes ran conservative, but for the wrong reasons — cannot be disappointed in their own judgment, but only in their failure to keep the GOP from making yet another colossal blunder.
Mea culpa.
Here we go again. Do you really believe that any other Republican could have won in 2008? Ronald Reagan would have lost in this political climate, and by a wider margin. This fantasy that if only we’d nominated a “real” conservative–like Mitt Romney, heh–we would have won is moronic and self-destructive.
Oh, and it’s “undo”, not “undue”.
Well Jeff, he wasn’t my first choice either, but let’s face it, the entire republican presidential primary slate didn’t leave too much to pick from. I liked Fred Thompson my self, but he didn’t have a chance. As for the rest? Thin gruel indeed.
If anything, it underscores the fact that the republicans are in desperate need of new blood within their leadership.
Just curious, who would you have liked to see as the republican candidate?
I dunno, Brainster. Maybe the fact that Proposition 8 passed in California offers a Clew, as they say?
You and the rest of the self-congratulatory Brights keep telling us the country is moving left, and the Party must follow. Somehow I doubt that a party slogan of JUST LIKE DEMOCRATS, BUT WE CAN DO IT CHEAPER! is going to lead to overwhelming success.
Regards,
Ric
So America picked the liberal instead of the crypto-liberal. Quelle Sorprise!
If Republicans want conservatives to win, they need to run conservative candidates.
Did I make a typo, Brainster? Thanks for catching that. Otherwise people might think I don’t know the difference.
Oh — and we outlaws dig our “moronic and self destructive fantasies.” You, on the other hand, are welcome to your pragmatic GOP boosterism — and the complete loss of every facet of government that has come along with it.
But at least you get to keep the name “Brainster” and the editing corrections that go along with it.
Enjoy!
Me I don’t know nothing about economics. Hey! You want I should be president? Put your hands in the air and wave em like you just don’t care! oh. I don’t know nothing about that either.
DeMint is spot on about McCain. However, no other Repub candidate could have won this year, either. When the economy goes south, the incumbent President’s party gets blamed. Period.
The only small chance the GOP had was this: When the ‘credit crisis’ caused the stock market to tank after the GOP convention, the Repubs should have gone up to every single microphone available to hang the blame on Frank, Dodd, and Obama. Commercials explaining their culpability should have been made immediately. At every debate, McCain and Palin should have hammered the Dems who are up to their neck in pushing Freddie and Fannie risky loans. The Dems opposed every attempt to head this thing off for years and the Repubs were virtually silent about that. None of this “corporate greed” bullshit.
When they didn’t do that, and when they did not oppose the bailout scam, the election was lost.
You can’t beat something with nothing. Socialism may suck, but at least it’s a plan. Mccain had nothing, zip, nada.
Not only does DeMint stand out among Senators, the stark contrast between DeMint and Lindsey Graham, McCain’s best bud these days, couldn’t be farther apart. South Carolinians may be beginning to wonder how these two will be able to cooperate effectively on their behalf for the next two years.
If anyone wants an honest election we’ve all got to quit ceeding the selection of the candidates to the media.
I’m convinced that had the media not been manipulating the outcome the candidates would have been Romney (outside chance Thompson) and Clinton. But the media, like the BCS, decided that this was the matchup people would pay to see.
How to fix it: Cut the crap out of the process. All primaries take place within a one month window, better yet, just like the General election they all take place on the same day. The Federal government can’t do this without an Amendment, but the parties can and they don’t have to both do it. Imagine the advantage if the nominee is all but chosen a few weeks after New Hampshire, but the other party is still wading through months of primaries with the ever helpful press prodding the choice.
Now if only South Carolina would get themselves another DeMint and drop Senator Gramnesty McCain’s Mini-Me.
Also closed primaries only.
Well, except for the fact that they just now re-elected the chump, sure geoffb.
The RINO’s in the RNC would NEVER have attacked their “brothers from another party” like that, they are MUCH more interested in being nice, and saying “Thank you sir, may I have another!” when the Dems kick them in the ass. Why they still have so much power in the national party is beyond me…
I’m not sure what Brainster has been smoking. The moderate Repubs have put party over principle and campaigned targetting identity groups in order to retain power, like soccer moms and the middle class, rather than campaigning on policy based on conservative principles, and the base stayed home, just like they said they would. If you want party over principle, go join the Democrats. They got that one down.
We tried it the way the moderate LOSERS told us to by running a moderate Republican appealing to the “middle” (whatever the fuck that is) and we LOST. I am really tired of the LOSERS of this election trying to tell the rest of us how we can win next time by doing the exact same thing that made us LOSE this time.
Shut up, fucking losers.
The GOP suffered the same fate the democrats did in 2000 and 2004.
The Democrats ran shitty candidates and deserved to lose.
One note stiff Al Gore
Noted douche/wind bag Kerry with preening Edwards
The GOP gave the nomination to McCain because he’d been runner up to Bush 2 times “Hey John… you’ve been beat twice in a row by one of the least popular people in America, and we think that means you’ll win now. Nevermind the base of the party thinks you suck..”
Then they brought in Palin because the base was threatening to sit the election out rather than hold their nose and vote for a McCain/Ridge ticket.
By the way, Karl Rove has a great line about Joe Biden out in an interview.
I’m going by memory but it is something like: Joe Biden has a blend of long windedness and longevity that passes for wisdom in Washington
That the Democrats were able to win with any ticket with a VP choice of Biden should be a source of shame to the GOP… I am actually sorta shocked that the Democrats haven’t just let Biden go home now and just ‘fess up to the reality that it is Obama/Emmanuel
Thompson, I’m convinced, would have crushed Obama. The debates alone would have been priceless.
And even had he lost, he’d have lost planting a conservative message in people’s heads.
(Yes, I’m aware he’s friends with McCain, and gave him his endorsement. I’m friends with Stevie, the very earnest bowling alley janitor, but that doesn’t mean I’d like him as President — though were he to win the primary and he was my friend, I’d probably say he was, just so as not to hurt his feelings. I mean, he’s a bowling alley janitor. He deserves at least one moment of joy, no?)
No, I don’t believe the country is moving left. But the Republican brand has been devastated, and our only hope in 2008 (but maybe not in 2012) was to nominate someone who could appeal to moderates.
Prop 8? Passed because of huge support by blacks, those same blacks who voted about 99-1 for Obama. If you can figure out a way to get them to vote for the GOP, let’s hear it.
“Also closed primaries only.”
If you can swing it. You won’t get me on board for that. I’m generally opposed to the idea of parties to begin with. I don’t like being pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed ,de-briefed, or numbered and believe that people should be able to move freely between parties, if we are to have them.
Fred Thompson? Look, I like the guy, but he was terrible in the primary season. What makes you think he would have gotten energized in the general? This argument boils down to the notion that the base of the party can deliver in every election. We all recognize how stupid this argument sounds when the lefties deliver it about the Democrats; why on earth should we believe it about our own party?
SGT Ted’s exactly right about this: the Republicans have been mistaking tactics for strategy for the past 8 years. Also, Christie Todd Whitman.
Ferchrissakes, that’s exactly what the Party thought they were doing, and got their hats handed to them. Haven’t you paid any attention, or do you think the GOP needs to run someone even more like the Democrats?
Why does a candidate have to “get energized?” What does that even mean?
The GOP can’t run any more like the Democrats. In McCain’s name, the most pernicious memelets about Governor Palin were approvingly revisited. Yup. The McCain people took that ball and ran with it and what they didn’t see was, by doing that they validated every half-assed slur Baracky’s people ever cast against McCain. Creepy septuagenarian dude can reflect on that in his dotage at his leisure, with puppy dog Lindsey curled up at his feet. The McCain imprimatur is on this sort of politics now, my friends. Thank you for your service sir.
So:
Have solid principles that will work in the world as it comes to be.
Find a candidate who agrees with those principles and can articulate them clearly and consistently.
Run the candidate.
Win.
Don’t forget to govern successfully with the principles you ran on, rather than some ad hoc horseshit you make up on the fly in order to line the pockets of your “constituents” and close family and friends.
My favorite one was that the Vietnamese conditioned McCain to compromise. I suspect that one’s gonna get harder and harder to knock down.
John McCain didn’t run an honorable campaign, he ran an incompetent campaign. Does anyone honestly believe that had he at least tried to hang the mortgage mess around the neck of Democrats, he might have picked up more than a couple votes? It’s not like he didn’t have a couple years’ worth of quotes from everyone from Chris Dodd to Barack Obama himself praising the efforts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to bring subprime mortgages to the poor masses to use in campaign commercials. Private groups and individuals were making the ads themselves so it’s not like he had to expend a lot of efforts to get them to the air.
No, his campaign was run by hapless boobs who were more entranced with the idea of rubbing shoulders with the politically-connected than they were with getting in the face of their boss and telling him that if he didn’t get into the game he was going to get embarassed by an untested rookie socialist.
Give inspiring speeches, jump up and down like a trained chimp for our amusement, that sort of stuff.
I figure that at least three of the Republicans in the primaries could have beaten Obama. Too bad that Republican pundits decided to nickle and dime them out of the race.
Also, the moderate/lib wing of the Repubs got its hat handed to it too this election. Yes, lets run more candidates like that.
We did everything Brainster saiys we “should” have done. McCain is no Conservative; he is a Pro-life Moderate who has done nothing but alienate the Conservative base by signing on to patently liberal policy on immigration, environmental, Government bailouts and the list goes on. He only parts ways with them on National Defense, taxes and abortion. Conservatives said they would stay home if McCain became the nominee. It looks like they did just that. I held my nose because of National Security alone pretty much, but I am glad he lost. Time to reaffirm principle over party and use a winning strategy like Reagans. But it looks like the modlib wing of Repubs will just ignore it and trash Palin and repeat loser mistakes.
oh. My #23 was supposed to come after someone said hey happy that is tacky and unfair of you at #6 but then I kinda got the feeling I might be waiting a long long time for someone what is eager to defend McCain. This is because he is a lot indefensible. And creepy. And old. And erratic. And also he verbally abuses his wife. A man of notably poor character. It’s cheering that we can’t not do better than him in the future.
Ok he did upport Offshore drilling and nukes. But he opposed ANWAR with Palin as his running mate.
Without closed primaries the Democrats get to choose who they will run against. Open primaries and the support of the “BM™” will insure that the weakest Republican candidate will be the nominee every time from now on.
To the Democrat, leadership and base, politics is war and they play it that way. That means using any means to win.
Examples abound just from this Presidential election. ACORN, turning off credit card fraud controls, going after “Joe the Plumber” using government agencies, etc, etc, ad-infintitum. Picking the enemies “leaders” for them is a way to win and so it will be done.
If you look through the candidates in the primary season, none stand out more than Duncan Hunter as far as following the limited government model. Democrats appeal to the children, Republicans should try to appeal to adults, who vote in much greater percentages than do the children. The McCainiac lost, big deal, we shall have four years of Obama, okay, we had four years of Jimmy Carter, too. We also know why Jimmy was such a big Barry fan. Jimmy is tired of being the worst president in our history. Now, we shall have a new worst president. Let’s deal with that and fight the ideological fight.
Resting on the sidelines is fine if we want to lose the battle of the minds, but don’t we want to win? The victories in the future rest upon drawing all people into the smarty people’s tent. Personally I prefer the majority of those to be hot chicks.
SSG Ratso, you must have missed the primaries, where the meme became “Lazy Fred doesn’t want to do more than one campaign event a day.”
Yes, we got crushed this year. We would have gotten crushed even worse with any of the other candidates.
This is the mirror image of the Nutroots’ fantasy that if only they’d nominated Howard Dean in 2004 they would have beaten Bush.
How exactly is it that the base of the party would have delivered the election to Thompson if they couldn’t even get him nominated within the party?
Geez Brainster, you are an obtuse one, aren’t you? How did “appealing to moderates” work out for McCain? If you are going to have a take, pick an original one. Repeating what you heard on MSNBC doesn’t contribute a whole lot here.
Obama won partly because he won the independents, not Maverick. Obama also delivered his party’s base. McCain did not deliver his, and actually lost some repubs to Obama. The “appeal to moderates” never, ever fucking works for the GOP.
Wow, Jeff. I’ve always loved your stuff, though just as a lurker. But if I may, you can find out much more about Senator Demint and his stand on every issue at Youtube. You will find he is probably one of the most if not the most conservative senator. His record reaches back far beyond the primaries and I am proud to say he represents me in Washington. It seems we South Carolinians have always had an identity crisis of some sort, though. For years we elected Ernest Hollings(D) and Strom Thurmond (R), it seems, just so they could cancel each other’s votes. So now we elect a RINO and a conservative because we can’t learn from our own history. Hell, it’s all I’ve ever known from a 48 year life in South Carolina. We elect and re-elect Mark Sandford (Conservative Libertarian running as a Republican), but can’t see Graham for the liberal he is and put him out to pasture. Damn, it makes my head hurt!!!
Hey, don’t throw up your hands and say uncle so quick, Storybec. Go to work on the problem (why S. Carolinians elect near opposites) and find a satisfying account for it. Maybe then we can all learn something from the weirdness.
McCain lost because too many conservatives stayed home and too many undecideds couldn’t see daylight between the two candidates so chose the guy who the media told them everyone loved and who wasn’t affiliated with Bush.
My wife and I went to the McCain rally in Blountville the day before the election. Thompson showed up to help rally the crowd. My wife and I are big Fred heads and share Jeff’s opinion – win or lose Thompson would have been the better candidate to have run. IMHO Thompson/Palin would have crushed O’bomber on all fronts.
Before he actually spoke, killing time waiting for McCain’s plane to arrive Fred actually got out into the crowd. I swear you could see the look in Thompson’s eye, even he knew it was over, and he was clearly thinking of what might have been. He also looked much better physically than he had during the primaries, but even back then it was clear that the media was doing their level best to over light him and use the lens to make him look old and frail.
This party better butch up if they want my support in the future.
Brainster and Jimmie
One very reason that McCain ran an incompetent campaign and why he deliberately avoided going after Dems on Fannie/Freddie was because he let the Dems define the narrative: IE running on the Freddie/Fannie debacle was teh racist!. McCain’s campaign wonks deliberately pushed it off the table because of that (and they thought it too complicated to explain to voters) in order to go for the “character” issue vis a vis Ayers.
If the economic glitch had not happened and McCain tried to run with the ginned up by the media panic, he may have pulled it off.
But face it… this really was a vote for “authenticity” and when voters saw an authentic Democrat running against a Democrat wannabe, they went for the authentic one.
Palin just kept McCain from being a political footnote as the candidate that lost every state in an election.
A huge contributor to these squishy Rinos getting into office is the Open Primary. Conservatives need to get involved in their state GOP commitees and get rid of this vile rule. We can thank democrat and indepedent crossovers in the early primaries for helping saddle us with Maverick.
Why a party would allow others to determine their candidate is beyond me. Again, this quest to seem ‘open-minded’ and ‘inclusive’ fucks us over again!
I’ve had enough of wonkery. I don’t want government to do things for me. I just don’t want it to do things to me.
Absolutely untrue. The argument is that the principles of classical liberalism, rather than a “moderate, caring, compassionate conservative who loves the earth, too!,” are what needs to be marketed.
And doing so will likely infuriate some of the conservative “base” (the social cons who like to legislated “decency,” for instance); but it will appeal to those whose only idea of politics is that of a team sport.
Ideas. Principles. Clearly articulated: Freedom, self-determination, smaller government, less government intrusion, an end to subjective ethics, a fidelity to the rule of law, a conservative judicial philosophy, a strong national defense, a colorblind society, equality of opportunity over equality of outcome.
But if you want to try to game the electorate and win in the short term, Brainster, go for it. I happen to think that, more than anything, gave us a GOP leadership in Congress that cared not a lick about conservative principles, and so squandered enough good will that we’ve now elected a trojan horse socialist.
YMMV.
Didn’t miss it. Just don’t know why it matters. Which was my question. Which you didn’t answer.
The magic of the all-powerful puppeteer’s hand works as a sub-text with the Wizard of Oz crowd, not so much for most.
The majority of Republicans voted for McCain in the primaries. That’s how he was “handed” the nomination. The puppeteer was the collective, as always. As for Palin, you really have to believe in hokey wizardy to go there. I think she’ll be lucky to hold her place in the backwaters of Hicklaska.
This country was founded on protecting the majority from power-is-God minorities through principles of democracy. Can the majority be wayward, yes, but George Bush thought so much of democracy that spent trillions of borrowed money to spread democracy around the world. So which is it? Should the hand of plutocracy prevail or a plurality from the citizenry?
Rejection is a bitch.
Sure, thor. And a Socialist, to hear you say it, is just the thing to restore free markets.
Consistency much? (Ya obscene bigot.)
Exactly so, Jeff G.
When the Republicans can field a slate of candidates that care more for first principles of conservatism than for cozying up to a “base” that defines conservatism only in narrow (and divisive) terms, then they may actually be a party worth having some excitement for and fidelity to. Until then, they’ll be adrift and unsucessful in the long term. Republicanism used to be about something; now it’s just about the next election, and whatever bread and circuses it’ll take to try and win.
Time to rally the true classical liberals and conservatives (two value sets not necessarily at odds, by the way) and push back against the Alinsky tactics of a left that is willing to impress its will on a populace by any mean necessary.
I’d argue that the media is the left’s primere weapon in the immediate fight, and should be the primary target for focused pushback.
Wrong and ironic. A twofer.
And doing so will likely infuriate some of the conservative “base†(the social cons who like to legislated “decency,†for instance)
But really only those social cons who happen to like big government telling people what to do with their lives. Which is only a subset of social cons and one that, due to their lurv for big government, really doesn’t belong in the party anyway.
Let them think about caucusing with the left for a while, or political oblivion – they’ll pipe down and see the light.
Thomas D said,
I have to agree.
I too think many republicans didn’t vote or voted democrat (though for the life of me I don’t know why) because they were disgusted with the republican’s sell out of their own avowed principals, e.g. they spoke of freedom of speech, they helped deliver McCain-Feingold, they spoke of limited government and delivered “No Child Left Behind,” they spoke of fiscal responsibility and under their watch congressional pork expanded exponentially and other than a few voices nobody really said anything about the impending Fannie-Freddie crisis because they were too busy swilling at the trough. They came into power talking about term limits (which I am totally against), then once there decided that perhaps that was a notion whose time had passed.
They got it right on the GWOT, but that was mainly Bush. The congressional republicans would have wavered on that too had not Bush dug in his heels on that one and most important of issues.
In short, the republicans stopped being republicans and morphed into democrat-lites. We need to get back to the core principle’s and this time walk the walk. That is if our credibility hasn’t been ruined beyond repair.
How’s that Republican manipulated “free market” for ethanol working out, JHo?
I like you seethers who hold yourself out as free marketeers. remind me again why Republican Bush borrowed more trillions to save you free market mouseketeers from the free market in real estate?
How about the oil market? $147 to $57 in five months. Did you enjoy sending trillions over to the Arabs because the free market was being manipulated right under the nose of Bush?
Understand where the free market works and then where it doesn’t and why it doesn’t. We’ll talk more then, because your slogans are dumb, sort’a like them Commie slogans.
Hey, today you’re merely stupid. Where’s that pathetic name-calling we’ve come to expect from ya?
I got some new names for ya. Dick chigger! Twat garnish! Loincloth lump! Stoic houseboy!
Balls.
I say again, “Just like Democrats but cheaper” is not a winning strategy. If you run as a conservative you might lose. If you run as a “moderate” you are GUARANTEED to lose. No matter how hard you try to pander, Democrats can pander better because they aren’t troubled by the cost to do so.
Item: If Latinos had voted Republican in this election in the same proportions that they did in the last two, we’d be talking about President-elect McCain. Why did they not? — because they perceive the Republican base as being hostile to them. That’s a lie, promulgated by Democrats and trumpeted by the Press, who would. not. utter. the word “illegal” in conjunction with any “discussion” of the issue. If the campaign had settled on something like “We want you here, we need you here, we understand why you left home, but dammit, we’ve got to do it in an orderly fashion so nobody gets hurt, and we don’t want to import the system that made you leave home in the first place”, and repeated it with one voice until the Press were forced to acknowledge it, the Mexicans and Central Americans I know of would have gone for it — and since that’s what the Base (absent a few dispensible idiots) wants, they’d have gone for it, too. McCain was ideally placed to issue such a statement. Why did he not?
Item: Both Republicans and Democrats appear to have accepted the Conventional Wisdom that the 2006 elections were a referendum on Iraq. That’s a lie — as proven by the fact that, even with de facto control of both houses of Congress, Nancy and Harry weren’t able to get their impeachment/withdrawal/apology/compassionate-head-tilt agenda even before the houses, let alone pass it. 2006 was about Republican misfeasance, in part the scandals trumpeted by the Press, but in large part Republican abandonment of fiscal responsibility in favor of “grab with both hands, and don’t shove the other piglets away from the trough.” Ted Stevens belonged under the bus two years ago, literally if necessary. The earmarks mess ought to have Republicans screaming from every available pulpit. Instead they went along with <sneer>their colleagues across the aisle</sneer> to make the earmarks as impenetrable and unassailable as possible.
Item: Judges. We live in a litigious society, and any randomly selected individual is far more likely to interact with a judge than with any elected official. One of the reasons a lot of us don’t like McCain is the Gang of Fourteen nonsense, which effectively traded one, count ’em one, Supreme Court appointment for a Democratic party veto over any judicial appointment. In effect, all judges have to be Democrat partisans to be approved, and since Bush won’t appoint any such the Bench is getting damned empty. It’s a minor issue, but it’s one that resonates with the Base and with people who can’t get their day in court because of the shortage of judges. Why wasn’t it addressed in any way?
I could go on. The bottom line is, “moderate” Republicans including McCain have bought the Democratic Party Line and are insisting that Republicans run on the “Me too but cheaper” ticket. Again, I don’t know if a conservative could win; I do know that “me too but cheaper” is a guaranteed loser in the long run.
Regards,
Ric
?
It’s not hard to figure out geoffb. He lost his last whipping boy SBP and now is in search of a replacement. You’re just the latest attempt.
Ronald Reagan would have lost in this political climate, and by a wider margin.
The short bussers are out in force.
Dear Republicans: How to articulate a clear, coherent point of view.
JeffG
With all due respect, I do not believe the so-called “social cons” are the problem that some think they are. Social conservatives like Palin believe that the public square should tolerate listening to them, but that doesn’t translate into social con legislation (example – Palin vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to same-sex couples). Certainly the thuggery going on right now in California against even the smallest, private donor to Prop 8 demonstrates where the real hate and intolerance is located.
[Darleen — I’ve differentiated between Palin and those who, for instance, tried to initiate “decency” legislation for TV. In general, social cons are less likely to use the courts; but when they do, as with Schiavo, it worries people. There are plenty of social conservative readers here, but those I consider social conservative by temperament. Like Palin, of whom I was clearly a big supporter. But those social cons don’t let their own beliefs assume a position above the law, so they aren’t the contingent I’m talking about – ed]
If you’ve read his other comments on this thread, you should’ve realized thor has been consuming some sort of distilled beverage. Treat him like the local drunken homeless man ranting on the street corner, and just smile at his outbursts, and continue on with your life.
Thor comes close to reality in #49, but ultimately whiffs.
The problem isn’t that the planners are Republicans, it’s that the Republicans became planners.
So astro is a thor sock puppet.
How “gleen” of him. Is he moving to Brazil now? Oh wait, Obama is bringing Brazil here.
Shorter JD: Conservatives are losers and retarded.
That is some insightful commentary there!
um, Log Cabin?
JD’s first line is Brainster’s comment in #1.
What’s that got to do with the principles of conservatism, junior? Last time you and I spoke you tried then too to lie your way into something only worth lying your way into. Thanks for taking one for the side.
My challenge to you still stands. Weeks later.
Fixed that for you. But sure, junior: The Democrat senate. Who’s most notably on the Senate banking committee, junior? Fiscal conservatives?
Watching you experiment with the revolver o’ narrative to your head is fun and all, but maybe stop wasting my time.
Possibly the most blindingly ironic comment yet attributed to the resident Socialism apologist yet. Does lying through your teeth actually serve you all well out there, thor?
If only the world required a sloganeer to solve its problems, I’d vote for ya twice, JHo.
“Everything you read, swallowed, sucked, admired, proclaimed, refuted, defended was made up of hate-ridden myths and grinning masquerades, phony to the hilt.”
Do I really have to cite the author who above is describing a American circa 1914?
Have at it, junior. Start with NPR. When that bastion of conservatism says you’re wrong and implies conservatives called it, well…
A Booosh gangpile impresses me about as much as your pertinence. Lose your place a lot, do ya, ya liar?
Oh, and another thing:
Read, as they say, the rest of it. (h/t Orrin Judd)
The achievement of Ronald Reagan was the assembly of the Reagan Coalition consisting of fiscal, Governmental, and social conservatives. The three groups together make a formidable counterweight to the Proggs, and Democrats realize that and have been trying ever since to break it up. The easiest place to insert a wedge is between the social conservatives, largely churchgoers, and the rest, and they’ve been working at that for twenty-odd years; it’s the force behind Bush Derangement Syndrome, and the drive behind the character assassination of Sarah Palin. The point of that wedge is to depict social cons as stupid knuckle-draggers and themselves as intelligent, thoughtful, nuanced sophisticates, and one of the major forks of the strategy is to seduce fiscal and Governmental conservatives by holding out the potential for including them as “intelligent, thoughtful, etc.” if they will only kick out the snaggle-toothed snake-handlers. Prime example: thor.
If your goal is to save money on the 2012 Republican Convention, just keep it up, guys. No, a phone booth won’t be enough, but a good-sized Starbucks will accommodate you, especially one of the ones with an outside porch or balcony.
Regards,
Ric
Celine “Journey To the End of Night”
As always.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
John Adams,’Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials‘, December 1770
I’ve got a lot of mileage out of this quote lately; but if the shoe fits…
I’ve heard lots of arguments about how McCain is the only Republican who could have won this year…
And, while I supported him as the party’s nominee-he was not my first choice…
But just because the MSM and the Democrats have, at least for now, successfully vilified conservative Republicans, that’s no excuse for drifting back towards the liberal Republican ideology of the past…
The vast number of moderates could be satisfied if the Party would adopt a more libertarian outlook with respect to some social issues. Although there are many religious social conservatives that may breathlessly hand wring about this, but it is more in line with the classically liberal political philosophy that the founders of this nation envisioned…
For instance, many Catholics like myself abhor abortion-period. But, in a society where religious belief is quintessentially private property, we people of faith must accept the fact that others will not subscribe to the same set of values. Therefore, the best we could hope for is that the government not fund this practice…
Bottom line is the Republicans need to get back to their most base values; classical liberalism, federalism, limited government, and fiscal restraint. While there may need to be some policy accomodations made, the party must stop being Democrat lite…
To finish it.
I thought DeMint backed Willard Mitt Romney in the Republican primary.
Hardly the most conservative guy in the race.
sufflepagus
Right-o cheerio, outside of the “as always.”
I can’t say I’m sold that your post, JHo, is directed at me, seeing how I agree with what’s written by the (Socialist un-American Academia! NYT! NPR! MSM! God Save Us!) good professor.
Suck on this tidbit:
It’s part of the Repub platform from 1908. 100 years, buddy, and the slogans haven’t changed much.
That’s lovely, junior. Then for starters, reconcile it with your Obama-lust, praising the socialistic component all these weeks while having no ability to so much as identify it. Then I’d ask you to reconcile your pathological BDS with normal but I know how to quit when I’m ahead.
Well Wilson was the first fascist leader in the world. Democrat, leopard, spots.
Though the topic has been ventured before, Baldilock’s post and the follow-on comments on McCain’s faithlessness with Gov. Palin deserves a read.
Those “slogans” are over 230 fucking years old! With creepy Christianist overtones, no less…
Thor, you are the complete idiot. Congratulations.
sdferr: I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be, thor’s “whipping boy”. Thor does not have the talent, accomplishments, education, or social status to compete with me on any level, much less win any such contest.
I choose not to participate in any environment that contains thor for much the same reason I don’t hang out at fratboy bars. Sooner or later, some drunk freshman would pick a fight or vomit on me, then I would beat his ass, then I would be in trouble.
I note in passing that thor is completely ignoring Jeff’s mandate to post under his own name.
Anyway, back to writing and prepping for my spring course.
By the way, thor, if anything still penetrates all that pissiness intact, ostensibly liberal voices on finaces I’ve linked for weeks called and continue to call for what are conservative monetary principles — spending restraint, a responsible, transparent Fed with reliable divisions between it and the private sector’s financial markets, realistic controls and regulations, etc., almost to the point of my citing Ron Paul, the Republican’s favorite punching bag.
In fact, up until recently a number of “conservative” commentators like Ace and Reynolds appeared to promote the idea that the 2008 financial meltdown was entirely the work of the media. Some of those voices ran soft-Keynesian pump-em-up narratives but in the end, it was the financially conservative left and the libertarians that called this mess (at least as much as the right-blogosphere and media did) months and even years back. You’ve seen me link a number, including Mish, Calculated Risk, Iacono, the more neutral iTulip group, and others like the unpopular Lew Rockwell group — even the occasionally unhinged RGE Monitor. They all pulled the alarm way before the Republicans did. They out-conservatived the Republican establishment.
All of which has little to do with Jeff’s editorial … and at least one subsequent comment:
So nice job, junior. Although supporting a Marxist-style, pig-in-a-poke Socialist to fix markets because you can’t see a thing yourself does have a certain consistency to it.
Me, just expect more slogans.
“Comment by thor on 11/15 @ 12:13 pm #
How’s that Republican manipulated “free market†for ethanol working out, JHo?”
You’re a fucking idiot, thor.
The question for McCain and Graham, are considering that we are only two seats away from no filibuster, what Republican principles and legislation will they not join it to support Barry’s dem supermajority?
The second issue is whether there is now a fifty eight percent majority for big gov’t (forty eight percent from the dems and ten percent from the repubs) that will be deadly to election potential in 2010 and 2012?
“Understand where the free market works and then where it doesn’t and why it doesn’t. We’ll talk more then, because your slogans are dumb, sort’a like them Commie slogans.”
The free-market component of our economy always works when the culture is right. Do you think that people can defend themselves from greed when for their entire lives they have been coddled by the nanny state?
I believe that regulation should only be used to facilitate more transparent exchange between parties. Essentially this comes down to not modifying behaviour, but making the behaviour and to a degree, the motives behind the behaviour more well known to the public.
Does that sound like a Commie slogan?
Well, thor, can I take it from your posting of that quote that you and I can agree that the Democratic party has had a centennial infatuation with socialism? It’s a good thing that we’ve had a party that has been prepared to stand athwart of those designs all that time.
Actually I’m not so obtuse as to not realize that probably wasn’t your point, but it’s hard not to point it out with a certain level of gleeful schadenfrude when my ideological foes display a wonton talent for self injury. By all means, keep making the points you’re making.
btw, I do not think that you can have full transparency in markets without the enforcement of contracts and agreements.
“After four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war….humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities…â€Â
Democratic Party platform for 1864
The Democrat Party has always been the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and socialism.
So all those folks proudly waving the Confederate battle flag voted for Obama in the last election, N.O.?
Thanks for sharing your political insight with us.
I see thor’s not the only one here playing a nice Saturday round of rhetorical roulette.
Do you really believe that any other Republican could have won in 2008? Ronald Reagan would have lost in this political climate, and by a wider margin.
Hey, the media had the most liberal candidate in history to elect. No one was going to be allowed to defeat Him this election — not Hillary, not McCain, not Newt or Romney or Fred. Big Media would’ve seen to it that He went thoroughly unvetted, while everyone knew that the GOP nominee was mean to a girl on the playground in grade school. Again, using the media as a propaganda tool is common amongst despots the world over. They don’t use it because it isn’t effective.
don’t forget about the 4 dwarves walt disney left on the cutting room
floor
slinky-slippery-shouty -and shutuppee
I see many Republicans here are embarrassed by DeMint’s definition of Conservatism, JHo:
Strip out the moralistic sounding “religious-based values†and replace it with “an objective standard of ethics,â€Â
It’s easy for DeMint to say whatever he wants to from his safe seat down in Mayberry, the question is whether the Republican party will jump off his fringe right cliff in the name of authenticity?
I so can’t wait for 2012.
snuffles, you win the Golden Phallus for committing the most egregious fallacy of the thread. To wit: trying to argue away the historical fact of the Democratic party’s past embrace of racist policies with a singular unsourced contemporary example that is not representative of anything or anyone except the individuals involved. Further, you flavored it with the guess as to who those people voted for, when it isn’t known for whom, or indeed even if, they voted. Bravo!
God save us from leftist “logic”.
God save us from leftist revisionism. Must go with all the projection. You can hand them aaa-prime material and still it’s Republican derangement syndrome 24/7.
God save the Queen
we mean it
man!
God save history!
Heh. This blazingly “specific” whole-market analysis from the one-note tin whistler who believes in political Santa’s while raging at Republicanism because he can’t evaluate conservatism and doesn’t understand his own voting mind. Celine.
thor
“The jist of your problematic dementia is that you don’t know any details of those problematic specifics salient to what you tout. Just as Darleen can’t answer a simple question of CDO’s or CMO’s yet she fervidly slogans her political fantasies onto them while, like you, is unwitting to the nonsensical nature of her slogans.
You and I agree often on economic basics, it’s when you hide your lack of specificity in the spider web of political two-team narratives where/when you run afoul.”
For every Saint on the surface, there is a devil in the details. It is hard to support specific ideas in politics because they often aren’t implemented as they are put forward to the public, though though specific ideas to help to elucidate the motives of the pol.
What troubles me about the incoming administration (and many, not all, of the people that support them) is that they seem to have little regard for private property. I am not going to give specific references, but I am sure that you have heard what they have to say and you, apparently, have a different take.
In my opinion, we are going from an era of good principles and bad politics to an era (really don’t hope that it will be long enough to call it that) of “good” politics and bad principles.
You service don’t ask don’t tell Army wang, with their boots on, yes Sir!
Yay! Stupid insults! Amore!
What troubles me is the redumblicans mixing of public money and public companies, as if it’s the same contextual “public.” Arf.
What do you define as “public money” thor? Would you consider personalization or even, gasp, privatization of Social Security mixing “public money” and public companies?
And there you have it, blackrockmarauder: A pathological derangement syndrome that defends the problem you just pointed out and calls it,I guess, conservatism.
That is some mighty fine
Yeah, and just like that.
I only wish it had been Rudy, because I think Rudy the Rock would have ridden O! like a pretty pink pony in each debate. A pretty pink pony with long silky ribbons in mane and tail! and pretty pink polish on its delicate little hooves!
thor, how can we miss you if you won’t go away?
Understand where the free market works and then where it doesn’t and why it doesn’t. We’ll talk more then, because your slogans are dumb, sort’a like them Commie slogans.
Oh.Man. That’s funny. Coming from the wit by half who voted for the Marxist who is,as we speak, filling his cabinet with Clinton cronies.If possible a new admonistration that has even less grasp of economics.
“And there you have it, blackrockmarauder: A pathological derangement syndrome that defends the problem you just pointed out and calls it,I guess, conservatism.”
That doesn’t seem very civil. thor seems to air genuine concerns, but is ignorant. And I don’t mean ignorant in a particular bad way, just that he lacks my perspective. I am ignorant too.
We mustn’t get angry at ignorance. If our ideas are strong enough and our perspectives seem true enough, they will stand on their own in open discussion. We have not had particularly robust discussion about the issues in this country for a while and there is one main culprit: legacy media. How are we supposed to have a civil discussion if facts are obscured by bias?
Apologies Spies, if by this “I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be, thor’s “whipping boyâ€Â.”, you took me to mean that I believed you saw yourself as such, when to the contrary, I believe that view of you only pertains to thor. It is not my opinion of you, nor so far as I know, anyone else’s either.
BLM, yes. It’s fundamentally wrong on all levels to be forced to pay SS tax and then be made to choose from legal and approved incorporated entities in which to place your taxes. What a load of Socialist finance. What a fool’s prop. What a economic-political nightmare. What corruption would ensue, and so predictably so. Might as well live in France, they play that game well, as you undoubtedly have deep knowledge of. Banque Paribas, monsieur?
spies rocks!
Demint[sc]
from the whimdimdimlimdim$*##$*:*ratchetwallawallabingbongsillywilly
party
thanks asshole!
what? u couldn’t blow some intern to get on some tv show somewhere
to get ur pasty white middle market news anchor botoxed face
on tube and say this? u say this now!
pioneers get the arrows-
brave sir robin![clop-clop]
i’m right behind ya!
“BLM, yes. It’s fundamentally wrong on all levels to be forced to pay SS tax… ”
If only you had stopped there. Or if you had modified the second part:
“and then be made to choose from legal and approved incorporated entities in which to place your taxes LIKE CONGRESS”
Strip out the moralistic sounding “religious-based values†and replace it with “an objective standard of ethics,â€Â
Why? What basis are you going to use for your “objective standard of ethics” if not religious? I hate the term “values” when they mean ethics, but this fear of religion is just sad to behold.
The easiest place to insert a wedge is between the social conservatives, largely churchgoers, and the rest, and they’ve been working at that for twenty-odd years; it’s the force behind Bush Derangement Syndrome, and the drive behind the character assassination of Sarah Palin. The point of that wedge is to depict social cons as stupid knuckle-draggers and themselves as intelligent, thoughtful, nuanced sophisticates, and one of the major forks of the strategy is to seduce fiscal and Governmental conservatives by holding out the potential for including them as “intelligent, thoughtful, etc.†if they will only kick out the snaggle-toothed snake-handlers. Prime example: thor.
Amen, Ric.
It’s the Noonan-syndrome, the coastal, urbanite conservatives who want to hang on to the crumbs they are fed by the self-proclaimed Beautiful People – brittle, cynical, nihilistic and Oh So Popular.
Hang on Darleen. I thought Ric cited Pres. Reagan as an example of the consummate practitioner of conservative coalition builder. Was this sort of speech “It’s the Noonan-syndrome, the coastal, urbanite conservatives who want to hang on to the crumbs they are fed by the self-proclaimed Beautiful People – brittle, cynical, nihilistic and Oh So Popular.” the way he went about it?
Sdferr
I guess I’m just out of patience for Noonan and Chris Buckley. It’s as if they have supped long and with great relish at the banquet, then get with their non-conservative friends and mock the table settings and mannerisms of the hosts.
I have little patience for them either Darleen but it seems to me we all, no matter our conservative stripe (if such a thing will be allowed) ought to begin to focus on points of firm agreement and less on semi-dear difference, if, and it is a big if, we hope to piece a strong coalition back together.
The very problem with Sen McCain that forms the backbone of this blog post is that he isn’t on board with those ostensible points of firm agreement, nor are some of his allies, as noted.
I think mccain really mocked his own slogan “country first” and that’s what cost him. Not really any partisan principles.
“Maybe the fact that Proposition 8 passed in California offers a Clew, as they say?”
If you’re looking for that a sign that the country is moving in a particular direction, I’d look at the numbers of how this initiative fared compared to previous ones in california. Or compared to the fact that gay sex used to plain ole criminal.
How so meya, or maybe better, what examples of this mocking, when or what-have-you?
I’d look at the numbers of how this initiative fared compared to previous ones in california
Yes, and look at the dishonest No-on 8 campaign, led in no small part by CA Attorney General Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown who rewrote the voter guide pamphlet this summer to claim Prop 8 as “taking away a right” from gays rather than an amendment to keep the historical definition of marriage as one man/one woman.
Like Senator and Governor Ernest Hollings(D),
From, Dems Need to Houseclean By Deroy Murdock
I’d say 5 “S’s” add surrender to slavery, secession, segregation and socialism.
Back in 1960, Richard Nixon won California, geoff.
Times change.
The Hispanic vote will soon turn Texas into a Blue State.
If the Dems stand for anything today, it’s “V” for Victory.
And it’s hard to see that changing if the Republicans allow someone like DeMint to define who they are.
“Yes, and look at the dishonest No-on 8 campaign, led in no small part by CA Attorney General Jerry “Moonbeam†Brown who rewrote the voter guide pamphlet this summer to claim Prop 8 as “taking away a right†from gays rather than an amendment to keep the historical definition of marriage as one man/one woman.”
Wasn’t the explicit goal to overturn the court decision that said there was a right? But that is a quite interesting about CA. How can it be that a constitutional right can be overturned with a simple majority vote? Odd system.
But if you want to look at where the country is going, you don’t have to just argue about the wording on an official pamphlet ( I read those, dont’ know how many others do). You can look at all sorts of trends showing greater tolerance and less acceptance of the anti-rights position. Its only a matter of time. I have the privilege of waiting. My friends, however, dont.
Wasn’t the explicit goal to overturn the court decision that said there was a right?
Prop 8 was written and submitted to the ballot BEFORE the court decision. Moonbeam REWROTE the ballot description.
Dishonest.
Tolerance of homosexual behavior has nothing to do with marriage, which is NOT A RIGHT.
Good lord, you can call a cat a table but that doesn’t make it so.
“Prop 8 was written and submitted to the ballot BEFORE the court decision”
Oh then I’ve totally misunderstood the debates. So does that mean it doesn’t overturn the right?
Sdferr —
Not only does DeMint stand out among Senators, the stark contrast between DeMint and Lindsey Graham, McCain’s best bud these days, couldn’t be farther apart. South Carolinians may be beginning to wonder how these two will be able to cooperate effectively on their behalf for the next two years.
DeMint is one of the (very few) good guys, (and he’s not my Senator, or state). He votes consistently for freedom, even when his vote is in the freakin’ infinitisimal minority of those who don’t reach across the damn aisle.
Oh, and snuffleluffagus — stuff it. The guy obviously brings out the worst in y’all.
If marriage isn’t a right, what is it, Darleen?
Define victory, snuffles. If you don’t why I ask, don’t bother.
It overturns the 4 judge decision, which had overturned Prop 22, and found a previously unknown “right” that never existed prior to May 2008. Until May 2008, one man/one woman was law on who qualified to contract for marriage. No where in the law did it ask sexual orientation or state of “love”. Gays and straights had equal access to marriage, as long as it was one person of the opposite sex.
Adults who didn’t wish to participate or were unqualified to participate in marriage were not forbidden to form other relationships and, indeed, could become registered domestic partners.
one man/one woman marriage law is not discriminatory.
sniffy
It’s not a “right”, it is a contract.
Yes or no… Society has the right to define marriage.
I wouldn’t tell any gay friends to marry heterosexually, but I’ve known quite a few that have, for various reasons.
meya
are you arguing in bad faith? How can a “right” be discovered 5 months before election day and suddenly you seem to think that “right” has always been there?
Do you have the “right” to join the US military? Sure you do, as long as you meet the parameters they set in place (age, physical ability, etc). Marriage is a public institution. Even if one doesn’t meet the requirements it does NOT interfere with the one’s private relationship.
Simple question to you. Does society have a right to define the institution of marriage. Yes or no.
Does society have rights Darleen? Or do individuals have rights? Does it matter?
“How can a “right†be discovered 5 months before election day and suddenly you seem to think that “right†has always been there?”
I didn’t say its always been there.
“Does society have a right to define the institution of marriage. Yes or no.”
Sure. Society has just about everything. It can pass constitutional amendments and it can make or take away rights.
Non sequitur in 5, 4, 3…
Sdferr
I’m looking for the correct word for how society can or cannot define things like contracts. What is the proper province for law? For instance, adultery is immoral, but we don’t have laws against it nor is it the proper province of the law. Is marriage the proper province of the law? (IMHO, it is –because it deals with protecting and promoting a public institution that has a significant impact on society)
Can society define the public institution of marriage, like it defines the age at which we consider a minor becomes an adult or age of consent to sex laws.
Wow, didn’t even take five seconds! Impressive!!!
Hmmmm. So what happened to that unalienable thingy I heard tell of?
it can make or take away rights
Um. No.
See Declaration of Independence, Second paragraph.
Have to agree with Darleen here. Marriage is a legal construct defined by collective agreement. And further, it belongs with the states, not the federal government.
I don’t know that I can articulate the problem well enough to help. It just seems to me that society is a pretty fuzzy word for a thing, whereas in contrast, an individual person is a bit easier to define (or point to). And that we conservative sorts are always going on about individual rights, as we are often reminded here. And further I have the sneaking suspicion that just as soon as we feel comfortable talking about “societies rights” we’re going to be led into a box-out wherein we’ll be invited to talk of “the will of the people” and “social justice” and other such nonsensical stuff (at least, nonsensical to me).
“Does society have a right to define the institution of marriage. Yes or no.”
That was made by society too.
Sorry, wrong cut and paste above.
“See Declaration of Independence, Second paragraph.”
That was made by society too.
What do you think about the federally-standardized child custody and support industry?
“Do individual states
es societyhave a right to define the institution of marriage. Yes or no.â€ÂThis I think clarifies the matter.
Ground control to majorette tammy
Sez you. :-)
It’s also a permanent part of the human condition, sez I. :-)
See what happens when you bring society (like God pace Rorty) into the room? You can make it say anything you want it to.
“What do you think about the federally-standardized child custody and support industry?”
Not much. The federal gov’t should stick to it’s knitting- limited gov’t.
Sdferr
I try to write clearly over what I mean by micro/macro, public/private, individual/society/government. All natural rights are inherent in the individual. There are no collective “rights”. However, to secure those rights, individuals voluntarily bond together (society) for strength and institute government charged by individuals with the responsibilities of protection of rights (military, police, judiciary).
Society can and does exert a certain amount of non-government pressure on the individuals in it. We see that by fashions trends, popular music, etc. Such pressure can be benign or not, good or not.
It’s that “broken window” thing.
Individuals can decide what is or is not the proper areas in which the law can have a say. That is the value of open, honest, sober, deliberative debate within society.
Is defining the parameters of marriage proper for society and then law? Does society (as I defined it) have a role to play in promoting institutions that strenghten its values?
Anyway, back to the main point, there has been some good back and forth here. I was honestly astounded that McCain was advanced as the Rep candidate, and I really cringed during some of his appearances, because I truly like and respect the man. I think if you could put McCain, Thompson, and Tom Tancredo in a blender and make a smoothie with a kick I would pay close attention. Hope you guys don’t rip each other’s guts out over this.
JHoward
The federal government, IMHO, has no business in “standardized” child support. But I have no objection with states having interstate agreements to honor judicial orders re custody and support across state lines.
Otherwise, we might have even a worse problem with parental child abduction then we already do.
DArleen,
The motives of the anti-Prop 8 people were more honest than the pro-Prop 8 folks.
Many people admitted to voting for Prop 8 just because they “wanted to stick it activist judges.”
I’d say at that point, “society” should lose the right to decide an issue.
Just for clarity’s sake, since there are at least a couple of “broken window” memes floating around out there, you mean the one that involves cleaning up the graffiti and fixing the broken windows, so the bad guys don’t get the idea that no-one cares what they (the bad guys) are up to?
#142 JHowie: Uh, oh, here he comes, on his steed of righteous indignation. Actually, I think the whole child custody and support calculation is rather capricious, but I think we’ve discussed this. But we lefties err on the side of the most helpless; and until you can prove that deadbeat dads are an aggrieved class, there you go.
It’s also a permanent part of the human condition, sez I. :-)
Granted. But it is part of the one’s animal nature which we are all charged with tempering with reason, morality and ethics.
Just cuz we can doesn’t mean we should. :-)
sniffy
for the anti-8 folks it was never really about SSM. SSM is a means, not an end.
Answer the question, or is it too hard for you?
Doesn’t mean we should is right, just means we will.
“But we lefties err on the side of the most helpless;”
You folks like to suck out the brains of babies.
Sdferr
Yes, I meant “broken windows” in that ignoring bad behavior just means more of it.
“Many people admitted to voting for Prop 8 just because they “wanted to stick it activist judges.â€Â
I’d say at that point, “society†should lose the right to decide an issue.”
Bow down to our leftard overlords.
But we lefties err on the side of the most helpless
“He who is merciful to the cruel is destined to be cruel to the merciful.”
sniffy sez “I’d say at that point, “society†should lose the right to decide an issue.”
Yet, I’d bet dollars to donuts he believes in jury nullification.
dre: As usual, the fugly side of the failed party sticking its reptile tongue out. Yes, we eat babies, and you sell them. Profit wins!
Darleen: I reject your premise.
“dre: As usual, the fugly side of the failed party sticking its reptile tongue out.”
Mr. O!’s first act is FOCA. Mr. O! doesn’t want to penalize his daughters with babies. Face it you lefties are pre-Christian Romans.
Darleen,
I’m not a fan of jury nullification, but I agree with you that the pro-Prop 8 vote was like jury nullification.
Save us from the self-righteous prigs of this world.
“but I agree with you that the pro-Prop 8 vote was like jury nullification.”
No it was an exercise in direct democracy you idiot Demorat.
dre: I suppose there are worse things to be.
dre: Don’t your knuckles hurt?
“#Comment by cynn on 11/15 @ 7:24 pm #
dre: I suppose there are worse things to be.”
I thought you guys didn’t like imperialists like the Roman Empire.
Darleen: I reject your premise.
On what grounds, cynn?
“#Comment by cynn on 11/15 @ 7:28 pm #
dre: Don’t your knuckles hurt?”
I like “punching” leftard knuckleheads.
but I agree with you that the pro-Prop 8 vote was like jury nullification.
Where did I say it was?
Interesting how the Leftcultists here are always reading things that have never been written, then agreeing or arguing with their own invented assertions of others.
This whole cruel to the merciful shit, Darleen. Goes the other way. Don’t subscribe.
Says the woman who just wrote this:
Yet, I’d bet dollars to donuts he believes in jury nullification.
Darleen, buy a sense of irony for your own good.
OK, I get where this is going. Time for a game of Taipei.
This whole cruel to the merciful shit, Darleen. Goes the other way.
Oh? Two words:
Jimmy Carter.
sniffy
you’re reading comp is as good as thorbot’s. YOU stated that “society” should not be allowed to “stick it to judges”, and I observed YOU probably also held a belief in jury nullification (ie “sticking it to the judge”).
Please link to where I said I believed the pro-Prop 8 supporters were “sticking it to the judges”.
“#Comment by cynn on 11/15 @ 7:38 pm #
OK, I get where this is going. Time for a game of Taipei.”
Are you sucking out a baby’s brain in this game?
crap
you’re = your
(I following fire coverage in So. Cal)
Oh, that would be merciful to cruel. Yah, that damn Carter and his christianist prism.
dre: The wrong baby got its brains sucked out. One of them is posting. Have a good night.
Cynn
Carter never met a cruel dictator he didn’t find something wonderful to say about
then he writes nasty, horrible things about Jews
yeah, REAL Xtian, him.
Well, of course #153 is bullshit, cynn, but there we are again, aren’t we? What I asked, apropos the whole state-rights and marriage thingie you were so intent and erstwhile about until queried on a natural extension of that very principle, was tacitly whether state’s rights meant a damn thing in the face of, oh I don’t know, an entire federal program of cradle to graveism concerning pretty every damn thing to do with, you know, divorce.
As if, silly me, rights going in had any bearing on rights coming out. The coming out part having everything in the world to do, legally, with, um, marriage. And those rights.
Is it Jack or Beam tonite, you meaningless diversion mill?
cynn
Or how about Mike Farrell? He was like, all about trying to save Tookie Williams but he couldn’t name one of Tookie’s victims.
“#Comment by cynn on 11/15 @ 7:45 pm #
dre: The wrong baby got its brains sucked out. One of them is posting. Have a good night.”
How’s come you abortionists don’t like what actually goes down in this “medical” procedure. Oh right, the Caribou Barbie shooting wolves is more important.
mash
an endless squirrelly apology 4 vietnam
a side note
never name your boy
brian james
or bob jones
or barthought a lot jimmy jammy
nicknames people!
BJ?
I think the ease with which the media convinced so many people that Fred wasn’t serious was the most ominous thing about this election. Those of you who bought that load of shit need to go take up needlepoint or basket weaving or some such and leave politics to the sentient.
Hey, BMoe, agreed for other reasons. I can’t sleep through this, so what the hell else is left?
JHowler: It’s all about injecting liquidity, or haven’t you heard, exceptionalist pig?
BMoe, my other reasons notwithstanding, Fred Thompson had a minimal presense, and that was his fault. Sorry, it’s all about the media manipulation, and not the other way around. Your brief is that the media drove the Obama campaign; but I would argue otherwise. Thompson’s and McCain’s failing was to manipulate the media as effectively as the Obama campaign did: I have said this before and been excoriated: the media simply delivered what was most palatible and digestible. That’s how they make money anymore.
the media simply delivered what was most palatible and digestible
They helped create a pre-digested, artificial pablum of The One and never seriously vetted him.
Your continued ignoring of that is very telling.
“Yah, that damn Carter and his christianist prism.”
Liberation Theology like our dear Pastor Rev. “Wright” was a Carter era “feel good” policy. Face it leftard your ideas suck a Jeff G. haircut.
The difference between ignoring and ignorance is important; I prefer the latter.
“Sorry, it’s all about the media manipulation, ”
Gawd you are a stupid dick wad. Did you go to Chicago Public Schools or maybe DC or NYC?
“ignorance is important; ”
Suck the brain cynn
BJ?
Elvis.
turtle on!
u shamwow!
if rocky marciano and the turtle were in a plane
and it ran into foully weather
and tragically went down…
who would survive?
the turtle…
still undefeated!
Ah.
You planning on reconciling that racket you made about marriage yet tonite, cynn? Between shots?
cynn has home court advange when it comes to ignorance.
At work, can’t see the left edge, gotta type quickly. *sigh*
No Republican has to ’embrace conservatism’ – its become a badge now, and as useless. Just be conservative/libertarian/etc and let others do the talking. I mean, Hell, we all know O is a socialist, but did he come out say ‘vote for me, I’m the socialist?’ Nope.
Second, the whole Hispanic thing is very badly dealt with. We need bilingual campaigns, sorry, and we need to address – loudly – not just immigration but CRIME among Hispanics, esp. illegals. B/c some illegals are the family of legals and b/c – like it or not – some illegals vote.
That crime is often from illegals who are gangs. They’ll kill and rob, rape and maim, at will. We don’t want them, but the workers. Its OK for us, the supposed law and order guys, to say ‘hey, we’ll work to get these scum off the streets while trying to find legal ways to make you legal’. That will sell better than amnesty to everybody involved.
No, we don’t have to be dem-lites, but we do have to be smarter and come up with new solutions. I worked the polls and for a lot of people it was a no-brainer to vote O. McC was a clown in the campaign, with stupid catch-phrases and a doddering aspect. Psalin wouold not have been frightening to the voters if it were not for that.
Fred Thompson had a minimal presense, and that was his fault. Sorry, it’s all about the media manipulation, and not the other way around. Your brief is that the media drove the Obama campaign; but I would argue otherwise. Thompson’s and McCain’s failing was to manipulate the media as effectively as the Obama campaign did: I have said this before and been excoriated: the media simply delivered what was most palatible and digestible.
If Fred had fallen out against Obama in the general election your point might have some merit, but it was against McCain and Romney, neither of which would be considered energetic or charismatic.
Especially fucking McCain.
In fact, the only energetic and charismatic Republican, Huckabee, got continually hammered by the media.
Gays can already get married at their churches. Nothing in any law anywhere can take away their ability to associate freely. However, the government doesn’t have to recognize those marriages as a civil matter, as a matter for the disposition of government survivor benefits, etc.
There are two facets to the dispute. One is that gays want their marriages to be honored socially at the same level as heterosexual marriages. The other is the disposition of government benefits.
Since libertarians are against government interference in the development of society, it’s perplexing to read them defending the the social status of gay marriages. Since libertarians are against expansion of government benefit programs, it’s still surprising to read them defending the second.
What gives?
Strip out the moralistic sounding “religious-based values†and replace it with “an objective standard of ethics,† which is readily differentiated from the situational and subjective ethics of progressive multiculturalism, a paradigm that promotes the breakdown of uniform standards of justice  and so far, so good.
Well not really. You can’t strip out the sound of religionism because that’s exactly what DeMint meant. He doesn’t understand that between “freedom and religion-based values” we only get to choose one. At some level they will invariably conflict, and Republicans will be forced to choose to defer to one or the other.
To date Republican deference has been biased toward religious-based values, and the result, well, the GOP is now soaking in it, as Madge would say, and the party’s future under this model is painfully clear as well. In a new GOP, there’s no reason that the social conservatives can’t compromise; the classical liberals have been doing it for years, and if they (we) can do it, so can the social conservatives.
Peter, can you give me an example of something a social con should compromise, and what that compromise would be?
#141
No it wasn’t.
I don’t really remember Huckabee getting all that hammered by the media. Maybe this was more of a tv thing and I missed it. The sorta out-of-bounds thing I remember was about how his kid killed a dog at summer camp, as I remember it anyway. But I thought he got more than a fair shake really.
Baracky’s bigbrothery little youtube yesterday was disturbing. He’s on about the you will sacrifice and everyone will have to work harder and I think he means it. Other than that it was just more hopeychangey teleprompter fodder. He’s such a fucking canned piece of shit ham he already has this stale Boy Who Cried Hope feel about him and he hasn’t even pretended to take the oath yet.
Interesting piece by Jonah G.:
“It should be noted that it’s also difficult to be fiscally conservative and socially conservative if you’ve jettisoned the conservative dogma of limited government. We saw this in spades as President Bush embraced “activist government†and ended up wildly increasing government spending over the last eight years.
And that should serve as a warning to those, on the right and left, who would like to see the GOP defenestrate millions of actual, living, breathing members of the party  e.g., social conservatives  in order to woo millions of largely nonexistent jackalopes.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjRlMDEyZDcyYTNlODliYmRhZWRkNjc2OGE2YjViOWI=
Social conservatives need to fix themselves I think. It’s not the Republican Party’s responsibility. On a basic level evangelical Christians are a communications and messaging and public relations train wreck. All on their own. They did that. Fail. And it’s no one’s problem but their own. They are adults what are perfectly capable of going into a voting booth and looking at two bad choices and picking the least bad one. A lot of the focus on social conservatives is cause the media uses them to define the right and frame issues. And way too often they are happy little tools what are happy to give NPR the exact sound bite it went looking for.
Hmm. I have opinions again. All day yesterday I didn’t have opinions on anything. I thought the shuttle looked pretty at night was about it.
Too many libertarians cannot distinguish between “libertarian” and “libertine”.
A lot of the focus on social conservatives is cause the media uses them to define the right and frame issues. And way too often they are happy little tools what are happy to give NPR the exact sound bite it went looking for.
That is kind of what I meant by hammering, although that was a poor word choice. You are right that he brought much of it on himself, but the “check out the goofy God-botherer” slant of their coverage was obvious. I really think they kind of wanted him to win the Republican nomination so they could hammer him in the general race.
Yes. I agree. From a not watching tv anymore limited perspective I think losing Ralph Reed and Rick Santorum and who knows how many other able and attractive spokespeople hurt big, and the media is not inclined to cultivate new able and attractive ones. Quite the opposite really. This is what they learned from Lakoff.
I get the same sense, ‘feets, especially coupled with all these post-election press nolo contenderes. If anything good comes of this next era it’ll be a textbook backdrop of failed leftism against which to paint a vivid, renewed conservatism. Couldn’t ask for a better incubator for what’s already striking a heck of a lot of people as the next Resistance.
Yes, but they know that going in I think, Ten. They will fail precisely just so I think … how we will ever unwind all the ridiculous carbon credits they plan on selling is one example. Damage done. Entitlements grossly expanded. Damage done. Cuba subsidized and legitimized. Damage done. We’ve never had an Administration deliberately set out to take America down a couple notches before. The Magic 8 Ball says be a lot terrified I think.
“You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” *
We’re in for at least two years of this as a core tenet of government. The war with Eastasia has begun.
lucky lee,
The big ones are these:
The Republican Party should actively support legal abortion for the first 90 days of pregnancy. They should support limiting government involvement in marriage to the issuing and enforcement of civil union licenses to all consenting adult couples regardless of sex. A new “freedom first” GOP should also seize the lead by initiating an honest public conversation evaluating the effectiveness of our current war on drugs, and whether the nation would be better off letting the states regulate drugs in the same manner they already regulate alcohol and tobacco.
Don’t forget the FairTax, peter.
The problem, peter, is that you’ve just pissed off a major portion of the party and given them no reason to hang around. What are you willing to give the religious conservatives in exchange?
And, FWIW, I’d argue that having the religious conservatives in a coalition with those less interested in their issues is a moderating influence on the religious conservatives. Kicking them out won’t create a more successful Republican party; it’ll create two, less successful parties, one even more socially conservative and likely more successful on the local level.
Why limit civil union to couples?
If there is a compelling state interest I’d like to hear it.
What i find remarkable is libertarians who are not only are willing to swallow judicial activism/bad jurisprudence like Roe v. Wade because the net result is socially acceptable, but also argue that conservatives should ‘actively support’ it in order to achieve political power.
peter jackson
He doesn’t understand that between “freedom and religion-based values†we only get to choose one
Freedom is not “libertine”. Liberty demands an examine set of values and ethics and an internalized plan of how to live them. In other words, morality. What set of values and ethics one adopts is a matter of societal debate, but please don’t think that somehow “Freedom” demands an abdication of morality.
examine = examined
Rob Crawford @ 212
Too many libertarians cannot distinguish between “libertarian†and “libertineâ€Â.
oops… I hadn’t read your comment before I wrote #223. :-)
To be clear, I don’t want to kick social cons out. Many readers here are socially conservative. Hell, Palin is such, and I was a big booster. Thing is, she knew how to separate law from her own beliefs.
Social cons are welcome to try to change laws. That’s cool by me. What I’m counseling against is using the courts the way progressives do.
The media creates the caricature of godbotherers, and nishi, thor, et al, further that depiction. I don’t think of social cons that way. But I do sometimes think that POLITICALLY they act too much like nannystatists or progressives. And this is what needs to be avoided.
I never tired of pointing out that Palin, a social conservative, vetoed a GOP bill that would have denied same sex couples certain rights — because she knew it to be unconstitutional.
That is admirable. And precisely the kind of thing social cons need to show they are willing to do to give lie to the caricaturing. Soon, people will see the essential disconnect between the depiction and the actual political activism. And on that front, social cons are essential: they should be challenging laws that go against their principles, but they should ALWAYS DO SO USING THE PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS.
That would create an object lesson, and differentiate them from their progressive counterparts who rely on fiat, and so will be shown as more “religious” in a certain sense than the so-called snaggletoothed biblehumpers.
Good for conservatism.
pj,
The Feds regulate Tobacco and Booze, hence ATF. Which should be a department store, not a Federal department.
test
Well I tried to post a response but it doesn’t show up, yet when I try to repost it WordPress tells me that I’ve already posted it…
I can get on board with that, as a federal law that says you can’t have one after 90 days, and the states are free to limit it further if done in a constitutional way, as Jeff advocates.
Here I disagree. I think marriage is what it is, and is separate from civil contracts. It is a distinction with a difference. Civil contracts are subject to broadening (why only two consenting adults?, can there be a pre-negotiated life of the union?), marriage is all about societal stabilization.
Conversation is always good, but where do you compromise with the fact that Pharmaceuticals are being created everyday, with devastating consequences (meth, for example, is so destructive it can never be legally condoned)? There has to be federal limits, and therefore there will always be a “war on drugs”
The larger point Jeff already addressed. My moral views are as valid as anyone’s, and as long as I use Constitutional methods to achieve what I believe, I don’t see the problem. Prop 8, for example.
Peter, that has happened to me before. Try closing PW and re-opening, and if that doesn’t work, try with a different (made up if necessary) email addy.
Don’t forget to save your work before closing!