In response to my post yesterday about how to fight the Democrats on judicial filibusters, Moneyrunner writes:
Sorry to disagree with you on this, but it’s not the Republicans that were the first to raise the issue of religion. This issue is NOT “histrionics.†I refer you to the hearings for William Pryor in 2003[…]
[…] If it is your contention that Christians should just shut up and take it, let’s hear the reasons why.
I responded in the comments, but just so as there is no misunderstanding on this matter, I’ve decided to post a slightly expanded version of my reply here, as well.
First, I did not say Christians “should just shut up and take it.†What I said was, the Senate Majority leader should not be aligning himself with James Dobson, et al. to argue that Democrats are against people of faith, because the perception such an alignment creates will be exploited by the Dems (indeed, it already IS being exploited by Dems), and will weaken the cause of getting the President’s nominations through, particularly inasmuch as it reinforces a connection, in the minds of many moderates, between religious zealotry and the judiciary—which is just what Democrats want to do.
Instead, I’ve argued that Frist should force the actual filibustering of these nominees and go on a media offensive, challenging the Democrats on their characterization of these 10 federal appellate court nominees as “radical†by touting their previous experience, their ABA ratings, and their (in many cases) bi-partisan support among Democrats not currently playing Senate obstructionist. Such actions seem—to my way of thinking, at least—more likely to sway public opinion than does Frist’s current strategy of joining up with the same type of activist Christian groups many in the public grew wary of during the Schiavo matter. Throwing around clumsy and loaded accusations seems to me the worst way for Republicans to proceed—particularly when they have both right and tradition on their side.
In short, my post was about strategy. It had virtually nothing to do with religion qua religion. And I must say (and this is more of a general comment than it is specifically aimed at Moneyrunner), I’m beginning to tire of suggestions that anyone who doesn’t agree with every plank in the strategy platform of Christian conservatives is somehow either directly or indirectly seeking to oppress people of faith.
Fucking Christophobe.
Turing Word: “showed,” as in you showed your true Jesus-killing colors, Jew.
But Jeff, if everyone doesn’t completely agree with the Christians all of the time how will they convert us all and turn us into mindless zombies? Don’t you want to join the borg? Come on, It will be FUN!
I have faith … and am totally unrepressed.
“I’m beginning to tire of suggestions that anyone who doesn’t agree with every plank in the strategy platform of Christian conservatives is somehow either directly or indirectly seeking to oppress people of faith”.
Ig fucking zactly! I’m way past the beginning to point.
Hmmmm.
I’m not a religious conservative but I frankly don’t see much coming out of the GOP other than talk. For all the blather about the Schivao case, the final effect was singularly ineffective.
Perhaps there are people hiding in basements waiting for the jack-booted thugs who’ll come to their house and force them to keep a disabled person alive. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Frankly I think the reaction, or perhaps over-reaction, by religious conservatives is due to the dawning realisation that they’ve been shafted yet once again by the GOP.
Let’s face it, for all the complaints by moderates and libertarians, what exactly *haven’t* you gotten? The Republican party, supported by moderates and libertarians, were for decades a minority party. It takes conservatives to make it a majority party, but that doesn’t seem to matter much so I suppose it’ll take making the Republican party a minority party again to finally get some changes.
*shrug* we’ll see.
Jeff, don’t you know anything? Hugh Hewitt says Dobson is in the political mainstream. He’s written a book and stuff so how dare you question him?
Nevermind…I’ll just go back into my cage and fling dung at the tourists.
From my northerly perspective, ed, we have Conservatives, small c conservatives, small l liberals, Liberals, NDP (far left) and in Quebec, the Partie Quebecois (separatists) and of course the standard communists and green party. Hash Party too!
Any relief for right of centre here is only a wisp of a dream. We have rotten corruption, failed national health and education systems .. but I digress.
“Minority” gets NOTHING done.
Must be a nouvelle Chinese gourmet dish I haven’t tried yet.
Scott,
Yeah, new Hunan dish. Great with fried wontons.
Let’s face it, for all the complaints by moderates and libertarians, what exactly *haven’t* you gotten?
1) federal judges who want treat the Constitution with respect—not as an open text waiting to be folded to a particular social agenda like some origami dove.
2) An end to race-based affirmative action
3) A repudiation of campaign finance reform laws
4) Tighter control of the borders
5) Fiscal restraint
6) An end to corporate welfare (Farm Bill, Canadian lumber fiasco).
But at least the Pledge of Allegiance is safe.
Listen: I have nothing against social conservatives or people of faith, etc. But my vote for Bushco was a vote in favor of the Bush doctrine, better national security, a stronger military, an end to the entitlement culture, fiscal restraint, lower taxes, tax reform, social security reform, etc.—you know, things having to do with government and governing. And one of my biggest hopes was that Bush would be able to stock the judiciary with judges who’d uphold law.
So I don’t know that I’ve really gotten what I wanted, Ed.
You need wood? We got wood.
I guess the small “l” libertarians and traditional conservatives are in agreement – all of the items Jeff lists in his comment, are items that traditional conservatives want as well. It seems to me that the RINO/Rockefeller types are the ones getting their way. The repubs are trying to take the middle away from the Democrats.
Maybe the GOP is shafting both of us??
TV (Harry)
Jeff, “Some” Christians may look at it that way. After all the ones such as myself who don’t see it that way aren’t yelling. So it just seems that there are quite a few because they are the loudest.
That having been said. In defense of Dobson, he is not your “hands on the head “BE HEALED” kind of evangelist. In fact, he is not a pastor. He has Doctorate and has written EXCELLENT Child rearing books that are VERY mainstream. In fact, he takes NO money from his Christian organization “Focus on the Family” that he runs and never has. (And believe me, that could have made him a rich man) He has always lived modestly on the money made from his books. If anyone has ever heard him on TV they could not point to ONE thing that is over the top. He believes strongly in Christian theology, of course, but has never advocated anything but love and compassion.
The left in this country has literally FORCED the religious to come out of the closet, so to speak, by continuing to push the morality envelope. And now that they have not won too many elections, they want to control the judicary. And that is where they feel they have the most power.
Fine, let them fight. This is a democracy after all. But the James Dobson’s of the world have just as much of right to voice and fight for what they believe in as the Democrats.
Jeff, I would hope you would want judges who would strike down unjust or just stupid laws as well.
That is what I wish for. And I think with Bush we both will get what we want.
Sparkle —
Again, I am not passing judgment or even really commenting on the type of men Dobson and the others involved in this filibuster protest are.
I am simply pointing out that Dobson et al are loaded political signifiers; attaching yourself to them is attaching yourself to a particular religio-political point of view. And when the fight in question is over judges that the Democrats are already claiming are too religious for the federal appellate courts—a claim I personally find insulting and dangerous—the answer is not to surround yourself with religious conservatives and screech about being oppressed (particularly when your party controls the House, the Senate, and the White House). The answer is to allay the fears of moderates (including moderate liberals), by pointing out that the faith of these nominees is beside the point—and that the nominees in question are quite objectively qualified for the federal bench.
In fact, this is precisely the argument the Dobson coalition is making; but when they do so by playing victim and accusing Democrats of being “against people of faith,” that just strikes me as a strategy that is likely to backfire. It’s gimmicky.
Do the work. Make the Dems filibuster. Bring your case about the qualifications of these nominees to the American people. Force the Harry Reid to explain how folks determined to be “highly qualified” by the ABA are somehow “radical.” Force Chuck Shumer to explain why he thinks it appropriate that judges tell him how they’ll rule first before he allows them to receive a vote. If that isn’t legislative bullying, I don’t know what is—and further, such testimony would force these judges to later recuse themselves from any such cases.
You are right that the left wants to control the judiciary. And I am—and have been—determined to see Bush get his judges through. I am appalled by the obstructionism going on in the Senate. But I think Frist is taking a wrong tack. And that’s my opinion.
Hmmmm.
“But at least the Pledge of Allegiance is safe.”
Malkin
Is it?
“So I don’t know that I’ve really gotten what I wanted, Ed.”
*shrug* need I point out all the various issues and schemes desired by social and religious conservatives that have not been implemented?
I suppose we’ll all have to take a spot on the Shafted-O-Meter. Then perhaps the question then is what are you going to do about it? Are you going to continue supporting a party that doesn’t actually provide an adequate resolution? Is the explanation that we should continue to be patient sufficient for you? It’s been five years with nothing done.
How much are you willing to be patient? And what are you planning on doing when your patient finally runs out? Just curious.
Jeff,
I appreciate your reply. I love your writing, your humor and your politics. But please don’t put words in my mouth. And try to understand that people other than minorities have their sensitivities … even Christians. I have written on this subject on my own blog.
You say: “I’m beginning to tire of suggestions that anyone who doesn’t agree with every plank in the strategy platform of Christian conservatives is somehow either directly or indirectly seeking to oppress people of faith.†Nowhere did I make that suggestion, although both ends of the political spectrum have people like that.
I state as a fact that deeply faithful Christians who are up for judicial appointments are being opposed by the Left because of their fear that they will bring their religious principles to the bench with them and make judgments based on their religious beliefs rather than the law.
This is a religious litmus test.
Your political judgment tells you that Christian fundamentalists have been so demonized that actively aligning yourself with them is a losing political position.
I disagree. However, even if you are right, I believe that in politics the principled position is – in the long term – the right position. Discrimination against anyone, whether it is based race or religion is wrong. The Constitution specifically excludes a religious test for any office. I am, frankly, proud of the courage that Bill Frist has exhibited. And rather surprised.
Peace.
There seems to be a lot of over-the-top reaction to my comments. First Bill from INDC tries to make me out to be a religious bigot with is “… fucking Christophobe†comment.
Shinobi joins in the fun by accusing Christians of wanting to turn everyone into mindless zombies.
Lloyd chimes in with: Ig fucking zactly! I’m way past the beginning to point.
So far there is a lot of hate being exhibited by people who dislike Christians. And we are not talking about the Kossaks here.
Blackjack reads Dobson out of the political mainstream.
Finally, Rightwingsparkle gets it right. James Dobson is as mainstream as Red State America. Sorry about that Bill, Shinobi, Lloyd and Blackjack. If you don’t think so, it’s probably because you have never heard or read him; you think you have gotten to know the man from his demonization by the MSM.
There is the possibility thatyou have a problem with Christians, I’ll just have to live with that.
I agree with Jeff’s 4th paragraph @ 12:11pm. There’s too much finessin’ goin’ on here. Dems outclass Reps in painting fanciful word pictures intended to obliterate reality. Way back when, the response to the army of TV linguists spouting, “It’s all about sex.”, should have been, “Right. It’s about a President engaging in a sex act with an immediate subordinate in violation of the law. The law that this very President’s signature enacted.” Then and now, have the argument. Make the argument. Head on. Don’t crawl into a rathole other’s have dug.
moneyrunner – FYI – INDCBill wasn’t referring to you.
Shinobi was being sarcastic.
Lloyd was being Lloyd.
Don’t read us wrong!
Oh, sorry Blackjack … well, you know!
Ok, not I’m in a lot of trouble, again.
Diana,
I know they were being sarcastic, but please re-read their comments. Their sarcasm had the intent of attributing their comments to me, and to Christians in general.
I’m well aware that some Libertarians have as little use for conservative Christians as the Left. Like Blacks on the Liberal Plantation, they are useful at election time, but get the cold sholder (or the rabbit punch) at other times. This thread has brought that out. It’s not pretty.
Ed asked Jeff earlier what moderates and Libertarians haven’t gotten from government. So, let me ask the social cons/Dobson fans a question—what have YOU not gotten?
Did you get arrested going to church last weekend?
Did government agents break into your house and rip your bible from the bookshelf?
OK then, what are you not getting?
I admit—some of the ACLU stuff goes over the top. I don’t believe in beating up on Christian stuff just for the sake of beating up on it. I’ve said countless times on my own site that Michael Newdow is a media whore who needs to get a life.
Again, what are you not getting?
A complete ban on abortion? I’ll fight you on it.
The ability to censor any entertainment that you personally find offensive or indecent? I’ll fight you on it.
The ability of any other branch of government to perform a hostile takeover of the Judicial branch? I’ll fight you on it. Make no mistake—that is exactly what was happening with Schiavo. Greer was not a 9th circuit hippy wacko. He was somebody who was following Florida law, but because he wasn’t saying what some conservatives wanted to hear, they wanted him iced.
If having these positions on these issues makes me a “Christian Hater” or somebody who has “a problem with Christians”, so be it. You said it, not me.
The middle grounders who leaned to the right for exactly the reasons that Jeff listed in the comment above will snap back to left of center faster than you can say Nellie Oleson if they think that mainstream Republicans are jumping on the Evangelical bandwagon.
Most Americans are all about “God Bless America” and “One Nation Under God” just don’t try to legislate all of the rules laid out in Leviticus. I’m not smiting my neighbor when he offends me or making my wife sleep in another bed when it’s the wrong time of the month.
The LAST thing most Evangelicals want is for mainstream America to actually read the Bible and figure out the product that they’re selling isn’t fun, doesn’t make you thinner, and would outlaw their favorite TV shows.
It’s OK, Diana. There is no good explanation for me
moneyrunner –
Well, I’m a Christian and a very strong conservative, but I construed the intent, obviously, differently.
Moneyrunner —
I noted in the post that I wasn’t directing my comment at you in particular—rather, I was jumping off from your comment to point out a disturbing trend I’ve begun to see (and something I discussed a bit on the radio show this week), namely, that those who disagree with certain strategies for the party being pushed by social cons or Christian conservatives are being branded as anti-Christian, much like progressives have branded those against racially motivated set asides or who support welfare reform “racist,” or those who oppose the mandating of gay marriage by state courts “homophobic.”
Personally, I think the principled position for Frist to take is to advocate for the nominees based on their positive qualifications, not based on a very likely correct—though quite tough-to-prove, and, to be frank, whiny—suggestion of their victimhood at the hands of a zealous secular minority.
As I said in my post yesterday, I’d be willing to support the nuclear option once Frist showed me he is willing to put in the tough work of advocating positively for these nominees and putting the Dems on the defensive. After all, they are better at playing aggrieved than Republicans are, and playing the victim when you control the House, the Senate, and the White House just strikes me as a losing strategy.
Jeff, quit making so much damn sense.
mmmm … strawberry or kiwi … with a lime sucre dip.
Jeff,
I realize that your comment was not specifically directed to me. But I find myself in the Christian camp. You are in the Jewish camp and I expect you to be sensitive to anti-Semitism when it rears its ugly head. You will find me right there with you. For example, I find the actions of the Presbyterians, the British AUT, and now the United Church of Christ (all Liberal bastions) to be blatantly anti-Semitic and you will find me on the rhetorical barricades with you.
What I find … how shall I say it … less than helpful is your rhetorical blast at conservative Christians when you will not find many who use rhetorical over-kill. When you speak out against anti-Semitism I’ll try to avoid calling you “whiney,†please give me the same courtesy.
Finally, that “whiney†card is most often played when someone complains about being treated unfairly. The alternative to speaking our and being called “whiney†is to just suck it up and pretend that nothing happened. Well, for most of this century, that is what we did. We were a majority, what could our attackers do? Well, we found out. After 200 years, our traditions are mocked, we are told to take out displays off the public square. Children are being punished to taking a bible to school. Our speech is free as long as we don’t profess our beliefs in public. And now we’re told that we are not good enough to associate with public officials. It is not uncommon for a minority to establish dominance over the majority. It happened in Russia, hell, it even happened in Iraq where the Sunni minority lorded it over the Shia majority. So forgive us for starting to get a little sensitive.
Still love your humor, and glad to be on your side of the political divide.
MR,
Regarding the issues you mentioned in the post above:
After 200 years, our traditions are mocked, we are told to take out displays off the public square. Children are being punished to taking a bible to school. Our speech is free as long as we don’t profess our beliefs in public.
I’m not against you on any of those. I don’t side with folks who make a game out of eliminating all traces of Christianity or any other religion.
You talk about putting things in perspective. I agree with that, which is why I would like a little perspective on issues from my side, as opposed to “having a problem with Christians” for disagreeing on some of them.
If I’m reading Jeff right, that is kind of what he is saying too, but obviously he can speak for himself.
I mean, it is his site and all. Ahem…are those Tinkertoys?
I have not directed a rhetorical blast at conservative Christians as a group. I have chastised those conservative Christians who have attacked me as anti-Christian, or who have a sought to diminish my strategy arguments by attributing them to some kind of virulent anti-religious secularist sentiment.
I have no problem with de minimis expressions of religious faith in the Pledge. I have no problem with calling the last week of December the “Christmas” holiday. I have no problem with manger scenes on public property. I have no problem with voluntary prayer in school. I believe the Boy Scouts should be able to set their own creed. In fact, you’ll find I have no problem with expressions of religion in public just so long as that religion is not being forced on me—and that I am about as staunch a defender of free speech as you’ll find. This includes, necessarily, religious speech. And I positively abhor intellectual and behavioral tyranny, whether it comes from the majority OR the minority
Having said (and, at one point or another on this site, argued for) all that, I find it a bad strategy to play the victim card when you have better options to play. Republicans are in power, put their by the people. Act like it. Calmy and rationally make the case for these nominees. Make the case based on their qualifications as potential federal appellate jurists.
And because I want these nominees put through as much as you do—and perhaps more, who knows—I am going to offer my opinion on how I think that can best happen. Frist’s current position is no more “principled” than the course of action I’m advocating. And indeed, I think arguing for judicial nominees <i>positively, based on what they have accomplised, rather than based on how they are being targeted by Democrats for their religious beliefs, if this is in fact the case—is the proper course of action.
Damn … there goes that broad brush again. First time I’ve ever been called anti-semitic.
And I {Jeff Goldstein} positively abhor tyranny, whether it comes from the majority OR the minority
— Blog Notes: –
time – 4/23 2:53 pm
Jeff Goldstein begins to exhibit first symptoms of Sullivan Syndrome, a contagious disease that causes the sufferer to live in a bipolar state, swinging wildly between ‘abhorence’ and ‘dudgeon’
other symptoms include refering to one’s own religious beliefs, though all expressions of said belief are made in the past tense and conducting a fund drive.
n-Stage Sullivan Syndrome sufferers begin to lose perspective, frequently use the words like ‘gobsmacking’, and generally work themselves into a tizzy. Eventually becoming tolerable only to their significant others… and beagles.
Whatever.
For the record, I wasn’t really joking all that much. So send me nasty e-mails and I’ll laugh at them.
I think Jeff is above reproach in this matter though, unlike myself.
Jeez moneyrunner, you’d almost think I was commenting about you. Sorry, I wasn’t. There are people that I do know, to comment about. Really good people, just kinda whiners. Oh Well.
Thanks Diana. I tried being someone else one time, didn’t work worth a shit :o)
Thanks for the defense Diana. I just find that most jokes are based on truth. I guess I would say I was using hyperbole, not so much sarcasm.
I really shouldn’t comment on Saturdays, my brain feels all fuzzy.
Oh, crap … now Bill’s going to tell me he’s an Episcopalian.
Jeff said ”I have no problem with de minimis expressions of religious faith in the Pledge. I have no problem with calling the last week of December the “Christmas†holiday. I have no problem with manger scenes on public property. I have no problem with voluntary prayer in school. I believe the Boy Scouts should be able to set their own creed. In fact, you’ll find I have no problem with expressions of religion in public just so long as that religion is not being forced on meâ€â€at that I am about as staunchest defender of free speech as you’ll find. This includes, necessarily, religious speech. And I positively abhor tyranny, whether it comes from the majority OR the minority”
But you see BLACKJACK, The left DOES Have a problem with all of the above, so NO , while we are not being arrested for going to Church, we are feeling that the dems are trying to force us out of the public arena of ideas and policy.
The things you would supposedly fight us on…How about NOT letting our 13 yr old daughters have a surgical procedure that will affect her the rest of our lives without our KNOWLEDGE or consent. (abortion) How about adult content on prime time TV and cable where our kids are exposed to things we can do NOTHING ABOUT. Because we can “turn off the TV” at our house, as we are always told we can do, but we CAN’T turn it off a Johnny’s house down the street where our 9yr old plays. We can buy filters for our computer, but we CAN’T buy filters for Johnny’s computer or Chris’s computer down the street, so our child can be and our exposed to the filthest things imaginable at the click of a mouse. So you just fight us all you want blackjack, because we are going fight back.
So get the gloves out big boy, cuz we aint going anywhere……
What kinds of presumably red-blooded American males spend the afternoon arguing about who is insulting whom over religion when some smartass Canadian has let fly an implication like that?
Sparkle —
I am for reasonable checks on a woman’s right to choose—including some parental notification ideas, a ban on partial birth abortion, etc. But you’re on your own with the decency stuff. Adults who are interested in adult programming should not be punished simply because you can imagine hypothetical scenarios in which your children get around good faith efforts to keep minors away from certain kinds of adult content.
You have a problem with Johnny’s parents, tell your son he can no longer play at Johnny’s house.
Ditto for Chris and his wicked hard drive of bestiality. But your children’s intransigence shouldn’t affect my freedom to see adult content on TV.
Hmmmm.
When being a devout Christian in America is a political *negative*, that does not constitute a victory by any reasonable standard. Perhaps the jackbooted thugs aren’t coming to our homes to rip the Bible out of our hands. But that is practically the ONLY place where the Bible can be.
Now I’m not a religious conservative, primarily because I’m an *Animist* and not a Christian. But I’ve known and been friends with devout Christians all my life and I admire and respect Christianity.
So what haven’t religious conservatives gotten?
The end of the judicial push to excise Christianity, and it’s moral and ethical framework, from America.
A properly ethical legal definition of a “person”. This is the primary engine that drove the Terri Schivao case. The issue primarily, and in abortion, is the definition of a person. If you’re not a person, then you are property and thus can be disposed of at will. A lot of people are looking at this as a reversion to slavery.
The complete cessation of the manufacturing of Chimeras. A serious act of utter foolishness. And in case anyone doesn’t know what a Chimera is, it’s a human/animal hybrid.
A complete ban on human cloning. Becasue what we really need in this world is more human property.
A complete ban on embryonic stem cell research. A research that has generated little more than cancerous tumors. Right now all of the advances are coming from adult stem cell research with nothing coming from embryonic stem cell research. IMHO the only reason this dog is still being funded is because it offers a commerical justification for abortion.
Members of the Church of Scientology are allowed to deduct the cost of their kid’s education in their church’s schools, but my devout Catholic friends cannot. A great many religious conservatives want a tax rebate for those that choose to send their kids to their preferred schools.
I suppose I could keep going on but I’ll let someone else step in. It seems what America really needs, according to Jeff, is for a younger Charlton Heston to hang from a net at St. Peter’s yelling out:
“Get your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty Christians!”
As for adult stuff on primetime tv, frankly the more skin, the less plot. If I want to watch a skin-flick, there’s always something around. I find it curious that you, Jeff, can’t do without it even for just a few hours a day.
IMHO I think conservatives are far stronger, and far far more cohesive as a group, than libertarians. In my experience getting 5 libertarians into a single debate will generally result in 15 widely differing opinions. On the other hand conservatives generally don’t have such issues. For the most part we all agree with one another on core issues and differ in varying degrees on the secondary issues.
It’ll be curious to see how it all plays out. I’m not convinced that moderates and libertarians don’t have influence far in excess of their actual contribution to the GOP. There is a standard meme that, should libertarians or moderates jump ship, that the GOP is doomed. If that is true, and if the numbers are there, then the GOP should be able to achieve election victory without conservatives.
I’ll be interesting to watch.
Moneyrunner –
There seems to be a lot of over-the-top reaction to my comments. First Bill from INDC tries to make me out to be a religious bigot with is “… fucking Christophobe†comment.
No, I was just kidding about the crap that Jeff has been taking generally, from individuals that interpret him as being hostile to religion. I wasn’t referring to you specifically.
This is a humor site, best to understand that a good percentage of comments are tongue-in-cheek.
Everyone seems to be missing the central point here: Frist’s leadership sucks balls, as does his political judgment. He consistently does things virtually guaranteed to drive away moderate Republicans while gaining no ground whatsoever on any of the principle issues for which the Republicans received so much support in 2004.
Christians/Christianity hardly enters into it, except insofar as it’s relevant to the political equation which, again, Frist seems radically ignorant of.
I’d be very interested in seeing the mental pruning that had to go on in order for that supposition to flower.
The more skin = the less plot? I’m not sure that’s a hard and fast rule. Have you ever seen “Full House”?
For the record: I don’t watch porn. I don’t even watch much prime time television. But that’s kind of the point. This isn’t about me. Just like it’s not about RWS’s kids sneaking peaks at R-rated stuiff over at her libertine neighbors, with their naughty channels and their dereliction of parental responsibility. It’s about the government stepping in and trying to parent adults, while claiming that they are parenting children. And the really shouldn’t be doing either when it comes to programming.
Ditto for Chris and his wicked hard drive of bestiality. But your children’s intransigence shouldn’t affect my freedom to see adult content on TV.
This will change when Satch comes at 7yrs old having seen some “cool S&M” either on TV or the internet.
Trust me on this.
We lived for 200 yrs without “adult” programing. If anyone wants porn, fine. Go buy a video. Just don’t bring it in our living rooms. Is that too much to ask?
Jeff, see, the problem is there are DOZENS of Johnny’s and Satch aint gonna tell you what he’s seeing once he sees you don’t like it. Trust me on that one too.
The 200 yrs is referencing our country’s age, not like… the world’s age…just so ya know.
We lived for 200 yrs without “adult†programing. If anyone wants porn, fine. Go buy a video. Just don’t bring it in our living rooms. Is that too much to ask?
um, i think it probably wasn’t talked about as much, but it was definitely available. and as far as bringing it to the living room, that strikes me as the same as saying “i don’t like pizza so they shouldn’t deliver it to anyone”
Hey, where are all these free day time porn channels all the kids are watching? Because I’ve gotta be honest with you, I can’t find them. And I have satellite.
But seriously, just so you know, RWS, I have no illusions that I will be able to prevent Satchel from seeing boobies or bad words. I was playing sick from school so I can sneak into my Dad’s dresser and look at his Penthouse Portfolio by age 12. Dad also had a sex novel in there called Gay Blowers (it meant “happy” at the time, evidently), which I read 5 or 6 times all the way through over the course of several formative years. And look at me! I’m just fine!
Lest you labor under the delusion that my parents were some kind of hippie libertines, they were anything but—and they kept their bedroom door locked; but I was able to get it upon by sliding a butter knife between the molding to pick the lock.
In addition to my parents’ stash, I would read Mad Magazine, which in the seventies and early eighties was still fairly subversive. And the older kids would always have Playboy mags and the like, which we’d store in our forts or tree houses.
The point being, that you cannot unroll a condom over the world and expect that your child will be fully protected. Where there’s a will, there’s a way—and the education is out there, even if it’s delivered in the form of scribblings on men’s room stall walls.
With these proposed “decency” statutes, though, we’re not talking about porn. We’re talking about adult situations running on shows during prime time. If that’s what worries you, account for your children during prime time and shut off the TV, or apply a filter. You have options.
On the indecency issue on prime time TV, Jeff, I usually agree with your position that if you don’t like what is on the air, turn the TV off. However, some people Jeff have the opinion that the public airwaves ought to provide safe harbors for their families. And yet I find myself at times offended that those people are ridiculed – not necessarily by you – in the debate as a bunch of snake-dancing, speaking-in-tongues, Pentacostal rubes.
There is a core of anti-religiousity out there and despite being an atheist myself I don’t care for it.
“And look at me! I’m just fine!”
Aha! Now we find the real mistaken assumption.
Er, well, I hope it’s not too late to post a non-porn comment…
I understand & accept your opinion, Jeff, except for this:
No. No more moral victories. That’s so 80s. I mean, what? After the Republicans scored the trifecta in 2004–winning the White House, expanding majorities in both houses of Congress– for the first time since the McKinley presidency, isn’t it time for them to start using their majorities? Or are they going to wait until they get 80 senators before they drop the hammer?
Turing = else, as in Republicans better start producing, or…
RWS – if you talk to and discuss issues with them (all the time), they’ll tell you anything. Mine does.
Don’t know if you saw it in my original post, but I’m all for the nuclear option if the actual filibuster fails to break the Dems will.
At this point, though, why let them get in the first punch? I’d much rather see the nuclear option as a first strike, along with a deft PR campaign insisting that it’s the Dems’ filibuster that is the real unprecedented escalation of partisanship.
Well, because the nuclear option is polling badly, and Republicans are coming off as the party wanting to force religion into the judiciary. Both of these problems can be rectified.
The same is true of indoor plumbing. What’s more, pornography didn’t’ suddenly come into existence with the advent of cable TV, it’s existed in one form or another for much longer than this fine nation of ours.
There’s another problem–I’m not sure this Republican leadership is capable of deft PR. Thus far, they’ve demonstrated a distinct lack of any such deftness.
Hmmm.
“I’d be very interested in seeing the mental pruning that had to go on in order for that supposition to flower. “
Actually that was a joke.
Jeff, It seems whenever I bring up the stuff that our kids are exposed to I get that same line that you gave me. But this aint the 80’s and what you saw in your father’s closet is bugs bunny compared to what any 8yr old can click a button to see.
Who needs porn channels when you have showtime and HBO? I just recently saw “Sex and the City” episodes on reruns on cable. The show was bad enough to be shown only on HBO, but suddenly the reruns are fine for cable. Any 10 yr old can catch it at 6pm. Have you seen this show? Full of GRAPHIC sexual references, graphic sex scenes, and the message of slutty sex being perfectly normal.
The point is there is simply NO way to protect your young child from seeing this. Trust me. I Did it all. We never had cable for 13 yrs until we had the V-chip for blocked channels. I only let my kids go to friends houses that I knew had my values, but kids get older and get their own friends and unless you build them a convent to live in, they will be exposed to things you wouldn’t want your dog exposed to. I don’t want to protect them forever, but can I protect them till they are like 11 or 12? Would that be too much to ask?
In other words, we aint talking pictures of the pretty naked ladies you looked at.
It’s frustrating. It’s not like we need to see these things. It’s not like people can’t be free to see whatever they wish. But why does it have to be so freely out there that kids have to be exposed to sexually graphic images that they are not mature to handle. It’s just wrong.
Forbid your kids to watch TV. Or give them TVs that are hooked up only to VCRs / DVD players and record or purchase the programs you allow them to read.
And you’re right. There’s no way to prevent your kids from seeing it. Like I said before, where there’s a will, there’s a way. And you cannot police the entire world. With rapid information dissemination and images digitized, you aren’t going to stop the possibility of your children seeing these things. And trying to legislate it out of existence has never worked.
There is no such thing as Christian Conservatives. They are the radical right, there is nothing Christian about them. They just call themselves that in an attempt to imbue them with a modicum of legitimacy to which they are not entitled.
I find it funny when our culture defends the right for adults to be given free access to ‘creative’ adult entertainment when the entertainment industry manufactures entertainment designed primarily to attract an audience of 18 to 25 year old males.
The entertainment industry cannot be considered a free market when the product sold is restricted to a specific age group which has yet reached adulthood.
’no such thing as Christian Conservatives. They are the radical right, there is nothing Christian about them. They just call themselves that in an attempt to imbue them with a modicum of legitmacy to which they are not entitled.’
Does this ‘radical right’ included the Rev. Jesse Jackson or Ralph Nader? How about the American Catholic? Or the Quakers? Is there nothing Christian about them?
When I read the words ‘radical right’ I think of members of the KKK whose philosophy is based upon much of what is found in Hilter’s National Socialist Party which, ironically, is compatible to the philosophy found in the rhetoric found in the radical left. Afterall, the radical left does consider themselves the ‘progressive thinkers’in our culture much like the progressive thinkers who belonged to the 1930’s National Socialist Party in Germany.
In other words, the radical right exists in the same spectrum as the radical left. For example, calling for the extermination of Republicans is the same thing as calling for the extermination of Blacks and Jews.
Or, advocating Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s belief in aborting the unwanteds, the ‘clef-palate’ disabled and blacks in order to create a perfect society is no different than advocating the killing of Jews and blacks in order to create the perfect Aryan society.
The practice of distorting or limiting information and ideas in order to manipulate the political landscape is also another commonality found in the radical right and the radical left.
The radical right believes blacks and Jews to be evil much like the radical left considers white Christians to be evil.
So, when I read the words ‘radical right’ I think of ‘radical left’.
Jeff, so where are we going to draw the line? When hard core porn is on channel 3? When 14 yr old boys start insisting that 13 yr old girls give them bj’s on the school bus? (oh wait..that’s already happened)
We reap what we sow brother, thats all I am saying.
Come back and see me in a few years, Knowing you the way I think I do ( and I realize that is only by your writing) I think you will seeing things just a bit more my way….
Jeff, I also realize that we got off on another point, and to get back to your original one, I agree with you with the Republican tactics being wrong in this case.
But if associating yourself with Dobson is a “political signifier,” who’s fault is that? Dobson’s false “reputation” as a religious fanatic comes from the left. Should the right ignore those passionate about issues just because the left has demonized them? Just something to think about.
Talkleft, Just so you know. Your statement is totally offensive to me.
And knowing this site the way I am sure you do, my being offended is a difficult to do.
Your attitude about those such as myself is why ya’ll lose and will continue to lose.
Thanks Jerilyn for bringing in an example of the bigotry against religious people that we are often accused of inventing.
Oh, and the idea that they are not even “legitimate” is the usual left form of dehumanizing its opponents.
I couldn’t write a better parody.
For those of you, ( munching on your ketchup/tubesteak), while going towards the church of your choice to wait, howzabout washing it down with some of this here nifty cherryflavoured coolaid?
And trying to legislate it out of existence has never worked.
I don’t want to legislate it out of existence, I just want a very seperate distinction between what adults see and what children see. When I was little the more adult themed shows came on after 9:00 when the kiddies were in bed. That kind of thing.
We don’t let kids buy guns. We don’t let them buy beer. There has got to be a way to not let kids get to porn or graphic sites with adult content. Somehow we must PROVE we are adults before we enter those kinds of sites. I know that just like buying beer, some kids will get around it, but at least we have put some kind of barrier there. And, trust me, what we TRY to do sometimes speaks volumes to our children.
We already have V-chips, parental lockout, advisory warnings, filters, etc. The rest is up to the parents.
If you don’t want kids entering porn sites on the computer, don’t let them use a computer without a porn filter, or else unsupervised.
Some 77% of the United States identifies themselves as Christian- the notion that Christians are an oppressed or repressed minority is absurd, at least in the UNited States.
No one is firebombing churches. No one is claiming Christians can;t practice their faith. No one is rounding up Christians and beating them or executing them. No one is refusing to hire Christians because they are Christian.
What is happening is that the majority of the conutry rejects the attempts by a few, loud, organized, and radical ‘christian’ groups from attempting to pose their legislative agenda on the nation.
The fact that there is the difficulty in mustering 51 votes when for the ‘nuclear’ option is a product of timing. A lot of moderate and libertarian folks, people who normally support Republicans 90% of the time, are still a little pissed about Schiavo and the demonization of the judiciary. So don’t act so surprised when some people normally would support the GOP out of party loyalty balk, because maybe Pryor and OWens are the type of judicial activists DeLay and company want in power, just so the next time there is a Schiavo case, they can ignore the law and intervene.
I am against activist judges. On both sides of the aisles, and in light of the events of the past few months, Bill Frist and Tom DeLay have no credibility in my eyes, so excuse me if I am not out there screaming about Democrat perfidy.
I think these judicial nominees should be given a floor vote. BUt I am not going to lose any sleep if they don’t get it.
Jeff, Jeff, you are just not getting it. But that’s ok, you will…
Well, the main fact is this….To win Southpark Republicans need Conservative Republicans and vice versa. So it would do us all well to try and support each other whenever possible.
Anything is better than a Hillary presidency and a Democrat majority, so we need to stay on this bandwagon TOGETHER!!!!
Well if John Cole thinks that Christians are being unreasonable then it must be true. After all, he’s not hostile toward them at all.
And before I go just let me say that I agree with everything Jeff has said and anyone who doesn’t is being totally unreasonable. Or they just don’t get his humor. You know, because of the IGNORANCE.
IF ONLY I COULD GET MY NOSE FURTHER UP JEFF’S ASS HE MIGHT NOTICE ME.
Hmmm.
“Anything is better than a Hillary presidency and a Democrat majority, so we need to stay on this bandwagon TOGETHER!!!!”
Actually I think that’s exactly what is needed. A reminder to the GOP of where their base actually is.
And it’s probable that Hillary could reach out to conservatives with relatively little effort. Her supporters are solid enough that she could follow Bill’s lead and have a “Sista Soulja” moment. Most conservatives can’t stand her, but if it’s a choice between a solid offer on a set of core issues and Republicans continuing to goof off, I think a lot of conservatives would be forced to think very hard about continued support for the GOP.
I know a few conservatives that would vote for her if she would close the damn borders. But then again I’m fairly disenchanted with the GOP to begin with so take all of this with a grain of salt.
Hmmmm.
“Well if John Cole thinks that Christians are being unreasonable then it must be true. After all, he’s not hostile toward them at all.”
Really? A situation where conservatives must give up on every single principle, issue and desire in order to cater to the “moderates” and “libertarians” is a good thing? Conservatives are part of this coalition, as long as they don’t actually demand anything of substance?
I’m sorry but that doesn’t make any sense to me. Seriously, what’s in it for conservatives? For example, what would be in it for RightWingSparkle? He would like to have less soft-core porn on primetime TV, but that’s too great an imposition.
So what exactly is the payoff of belonging to this coalition? If you were you trying to sell this to conservatives, then what’s the catch? The gimmick? The draw?
Isn’t the definition of a fair deal where, if everyone isn’t happy, at least everyone is equally unhappy? Isn’t the current situation where conservatives have been required to surrender on every single point, without anything in return?
Just curious as to what your answer would be.
I think you need to check the batteries on your sarcasm detection meter, ed. I suspect Brendan wasn’t really serious about the John Cole love. And he’s probably not as big a fan of mine as that comment indicates.
Oh. And RWS is female.
As for conservatives having to give “every single principle, issue and desire in order to cater to ‘moderates’ and ‘libertarians’,” that—like the invocation of “soft core porn on primetime TV”—is hyperbolic nonsense mixed with a bunch of belly-aching. I gave a list of issues above on which I’m aligned firmly with conservatives. And just about every TV made in the last decade provides parents with the ability to block channels (though, having actually seen soft-core porn, I can say with perfect certainty that there is no soft-core porn on prime time TV—at least not on any of the free stations).
If conservatives think that voting for Hillary will teach the GOP a lesson, they’re nuts. The GOP will interpret that as even more of a reason to move toward the middle. And anyway, who can respect anyone who would allow Hillary Clinton to take office in the midst of a era that calls for strong and determined foreign policy just because they can’t get people to agree with them about what needs to be banned from network television
Sparkle at least sees the big picture, politically speaking. But if the conservatives stay home in order to allow Democrats to win, I for one would agitate for the Republican party to drop them like they did Buchanan and pick up the moderates who don’t believe in nanny-statism or “progressivism” and who do believe in a strong military and a proactive foreign policy.
Not to mention, Ed, I never said Christians were being unreasonable. I said some Christians are unreasonable.
I am a part of the coalition too, Ed.
Let’s see what I am getting:
Deficit reduction- nope.
Exlpoding budgtes- yep.
Massive entitlement programs- yep.
Congressional intervention in personal matters- yep.
Brent Bozell’s coalition attacking any programming that does not adhere to shaira- yep.
Villification of the judiciary- yep.
Sensennbrenner trying to institute more mandatory minimumns, including on people passing a joint to someone who was once in rehab- check
Sensennbrenner floating the idea of crimiinalizing ‘indecency.’ -yep.
Outrageous charges that if you don’t go along with everyone of the Family Research Council’s legislativeagenda, you are a Christian bigot (“After all, he’s not hostile toward them at all. “
– yep.
Outright hostility to homosexuals- yep.
DeLay and other leadership members catering to the far, far right, and meanwhile furthering the possibility that my party will be in the minority for the next few decades- yep.
Limits on stem cell research- yep.
Gee- you are right. I am getting a lot out of this coalition!
Dobson and his like have every right to push for what they want- I don’t have to go along with it, and I certainly don’t have to like it. Since some people can’t tell the difference between Christians and religious extremists, I guess that just makes me a bigot, right ED?
YOu know, it is kinda like have roomates that have 2 different ideas of clean.
Sometimes we have put up with some mess to get the rent paid.
John Cole,
If you don’t have the Repubs, who do you have? Let’s look at your comment:
Deficit reduction- nope. (Imagine how the Donks would handle this)
Exlpoding budgtes- yep. (See last item)
Massive entitlement programs- yep. (See last item)
Congressional intervention in personal matters- yep. (Under Donk control, we have Judicial intervention in personal matters. Roe v Wade, anyone? At least you can vote Congress out)
Brent Bozell’s coalition attacking any programming that does not adhere to shaira- yep. (This is a bit of an over-reaction – please give me an example)
Villification of the judiciary- yep. (And understandably so, if you ask me. See the “Personal Matters” comment)
Sensennbrenner trying to institute more mandatory minimumns, including on people passing a joint to someone who was once in rehab- check (It’s simple – if you break the law, you go to jail. If you’ve served time, then get out, then break the law AGAIN – you don’t deserve a second chance – I don’t see anything wrong with this).
Sensennbrenner floating the idea of crimiinalizing ‘indecency.’ -yep. (I agree with you on this one)
Outrageous charges that if you don’t go along with everyone of the Family Research Council’s legislativeagenda, you are a Christian bigot – yep. (An overreaction once again – give me an example of this, please)
Outright hostility to homosexuals- yep. (This one is just a creation – what on earth are you talking about? When has this happened?)
DeLay and other leadership members catering to the far, far right, and meanwhile furthering the possibility that my party will be in the minority for the next few decades- yep. (Maybe you’ll disagree, but the Repubs need the far-righties a LOT more than they need the mushy middle – If the Christian Right leaves the party, your party will DEFINITELY be in the minority)
Limits on stem cell research- yep. (You have no excuse for this one – a right to life was in the Republican party platform for the last 8 conventions – you can’t claim suprise or ignorance when it’s part of their platform).
Go ahead and vote for Democrats, or stay home. Just don’t whine when they do things, that you dislike, to a larger degree than the Republicans.
TV (Harry)
Hmmm.
1. “I think you need to check the batteries on your sarcasm detection meter, ed. I suspect Brendan wasn’t really serious about the John Cole love. And he’s probably not as big a fan of mine as that comment indicates.”
I know it was sarcasm, but it was a nice lead-in.
2. “Oh. And RWS is female.”
Not a clue, never cared about the gender of any specific person on any specific blog.
3. “is hyperbolic nonsense mixed with a bunch of belly-aching.”
I frankly disagree with your characterization. I don’t believe I am “belly-aching”, if I am, then I’d suggest you’ve been doing far more of your share. What I am doing is exploring exactly what are the positives for conservatives.
You’ve outlined a number of issues that conservatives cannot have any influence on in order to keep you in the coalition. On the other hand you have decried any attempt by conservatives to do the same. This doesn’t strike me as an equitable situation.
Certainly you’ve outlined a few items of mutual interest, which amusingly enough seem to be mired in the “when Hell freezes over” category. But really, so what? There is a great deal of discontent by a lot of conservatives. If you don’t want to acknowledge that, then that’s ok by me.
4. “If conservatives think that voting for Hillary will teach the GOP a lesson, they’re nuts. The GOP will interpret that as even more of a reason to move toward the middle.”
*shrug* I think that Hillary has a lot of room for maneuver, given to her by the GOP.
As for the GOP moving to the middle, where do you think they are now? They’re certainly not on the right. If the GOP wants to move to the middle, then go right ahead.
“banned from network television”
Now you’re being hyperbolic. I used that as an example only and you very well know it.
5. “Sparkle at least sees the big picture”
And what is the “big picture”? Keeping the GOP in power to do what the libertarians want? Again, what is in this for conservatives? If the only things the GOP is doing are libertarian/moderate positions, then how is this a plus for conservatives?
As for “picking up moderates”. What makes you think that there are moderates to be picked up? If you’re angling for the non-voting and politically uninterested moderates, that’s a hard sell. Perhaps there is The Great Mass of Moderates out there. *shrug* then somehow we’ll reconcile that with the fact that more people are tracking conservative.
—
6. “Not to mention, Ed, I never said Christians were being unreasonable. I said some Christians are unreasonable.”
Congratulations! However I wasn’t responding to you, but since you’ve decided to join in. How unreasonable is it for people to stick with what they think is right? The process of negotiation is that you don’t get everything you want, but you should get something.
7. “I am a part of the coalition too, Ed.”
But a more reasonable part I assume? Or would you object if I started deriding some of your points as “unreasonable”? I don’t plan on it, but it should be an option. Good for the goose … gander sort of thing.
8. “Deficit reduction- nope.”
And what exactly is the point of this list?
Can I add “date with supermodel of my choice”? A few of the things on your list are frankly ridiculous.
9. “Gee- you are right. I am getting a lot out of this coalition!”
Then do what I’m doing and leave the coalition.
I figure most conservatives are sticking with the GOP, for the moment, due to the GWOT. But that’s a shaky reason that can be changed due to any number of circumstances. A successful domestic attack by terrorists having walked across the Mexican border would do that immediately. A resurgence by a centrist DNC with a reasonable GWOT policy would be another.
One of my points is that the loyalty of conservatives to the GOP is very shaky at best.
10. “Christians and religious extremists, I guess that just makes me a bigot, right ED?”
As I haven’t oriented any sort of response or debated a point towards/with you, I think this sort of response is pretty useless. As I haven’t called you a “bigot”, making this sort of characterization is quite frankly unimpressive.
If I had desired to call you something, I can assure you that there would be no question about it and it wouldn’t devolve to anything as tacky as “bigot”.
…
My point, as it has ALWAYS been, has been to ask the libertarians and moderates on this blog to outline why conservative should continue with a coaltion that doesn’t actually either accomplish any of the conservative agenda, and in fact actually opposes quite a bit of the conservative agenda.
The entire point behind a coalition is that all parties of the coalition are represented by their contributions to the coalition. And I don’t believe that the conservatives are being properly represented and are actually being very much undervalued.
Jeff seems to think the GOP would do swimmingly without conservatives. *shrug* heck that might be true. It might actually work out for the better for the GOP. Ditch the conservatives, angle for the moderates and make for a stronger party. My point, which dovetails with Jeff’s, is that the GOP might be forced to do this because conservatives will end up jumping.
*shrug* we’ll see.
code: until. Tomorrow! Tomorrow! I’ll vote against ya tomorrow! Tomorrow’s only a vote awaaaaay. heh.
Actually I think that’s exactly what is needed. A reminder to the GOP of where their base actually is.
Hah! That’s a laugh. If you guys think that moderates are the base, go ahead and do what you think best. When we have national health care, 60% tax rates, increases in social security taxes, we’re all driving electric cars or riding bikes to work, and the minimum wage is raised to $10 an hour, I hope I hear no whining from the moderates regarding the dwindling economy.
What kills me over this whole rift is that the moderates and conservatives have a lot in common. That you’d throw it all away over religious issues shows that it’s YOU guys that have your priorities mixed up.
TV (Harry)
Instead, I’ve argued that Frist should force the actual filibustering of these nominees and go on a media offensive, challenging the Democrats on their characterization of these 10 federal appellate court nominees as “radical†by touting their previous experience, their ABA ratings, and their (in many cases) bi-partisan support among Democrats not currently playing Senate obstructionist.
Jeff, he’s a Republican. Everything he says is by definition evil. Going out in public will only make things worse.
In a logical, reasonable world, perhaps resembling a novel by Piers Anthony, your plan would make sense. Sadly, we live in a world that generally capricious and arbitrary, if not deliberately hostile.
You’ve got to remember, it was a major victory just getting the press to stop rooting for Communism. Giving Republicans a fair public hearing is, I’m afraid, too much to expect from them.
This kerfuffle reminds of how offended Charles Krauthammer was by “The Passion of the Christ,” going so far as to call it anti-Semitic.
Charles is a great columnist, and I love his work. But he was way off, mostly I think because he viewed the movie from a Jewish perspective. From a Christian perspective, it’s a historical fact Jesus was killed by Jews, but the Jews are blameless for Christ’s death, or at least no more to blame than the rest of us; Christ died for all our sins. Also, the whole “dying for our sins” part doesn’t work unless he, you know, dies, so it’s hard to blame them for fulfilling fundamentally necessary Christian prophecy. But Charles sees one scene with the devil behind the faces of the Jews and reads that as some kind of identification. I thought he was way off, but I can understand his sensitivity so I don’t hold his getting upset against him.
I think we just have to accept religious feathers are going to get ruffled now and then, and just shrug it off and get on with our lives.
ed,
When those things start to bother you, think how much worse it would be with a Dem majority.
Ed-
The point is that it is the ‘conservatives’ that are violating all of their principles.
It is ‘conservatives’ who are doing all the damage.
It was ‘conservative’ Tom DeLay who had an ethics rebuke for strong-arming votes for…. THE BLOATED PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN.
It is the ‘conservatives’ who are writing all of th ebloated appropriation bills.
It is the ‘conservatives’ who are decrying judicial activism- because they can’t fins activist judges of their own to intervent in personal matters.
The ‘conservatives’ just aren’t very conservative anymore.
It’s worth remembering that some conservatives did jump to Perot, and got 8 years of Clinton for their trouble.
Hmmm.
1. “When those things start to bother you, think how much worse it would be with a Dem majority.”
Is there really that much of a difference? Prior to the Prescription Drug Plan I had no idea the GOP could pass a $1 trillion dollar entitlement without even a blink. Even *Clinton* didn’t do that.
2. “The point is that it is the ‘conservatives’ that are violating all of their principles.”
Exactly. Conservatives have had to abandon their principles in order to work with the GOP coalition. The demands of the libertarians and moderates have driven the GOP agenda, much to the cost of conservatives.
So the question is whether the moderates or the conservatives are the ones that have the control. Currently the moderates have the control because of legacy. But will that change? In order for it to change conservatives must be convinced that they can change it from within the party, which will induce them to continue supporting the GOP.
But that very process will either force moderates and libertarians to qualify their opposition to some conservative issues, or else face their own set of political choices.
The end result is that there are some fundamental differences in agendas between conservatives and moderates / libertarians. If the conservatives are the ones who must defer to the moderates / libertarians, then how long with that last?
3. “It was ‘conservative’ Tom DeLay who had an ethics rebuke for strong-arming votes for…. THE BLOATED PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN.”
Which was driven by Bush. So your arugment is what? That conservatives are bad because conservatives tried to follow the direction given by the GOP and work within the structure of the coalition? Or are conservatives bad because some, like myself, don’t like the GOP’s direction and want to find a different arrangement?
Is your issue with conservatives or with the GOP? Because you can’t tell me that conservatives wanted that nonsense legislation. Conservatives were persuaded to accept it. Much like the same arguments that Jeff constantly proposes. That conservatives are the ones that have to accomodate the moderates.
So do you agree with Jeff, or do you disagree? Because right now I’m not sure what your position is.
4. “It is the ‘conservatives’ who are writing all of th ebloated appropriation bills.”
Really? Conservatives are the one writing all the bloated appropriations bills? Name the conservatives doing this writing. To my knowledge Delay is notable because he’s one of the very few conservatives actually in positions of authority.
So what conservatives are writing these appropriations bills? Or are you just calling them conservative because they’re in the Republican party, and it’s convenient to call them conservative because it supports your argument?
Need I point out that not every Republican is a conservative?
5. “It is the ‘conservatives’ who are decrying judicial activism- because they can’t fins activist judges of their own to intervent in personal matters.”
Complete and utter nonsense. Without proof, truth or any validity to it whatsoever.
Conservatives want strict Constitutionalists, not activists, in the judicary. That doesn’t preclude viewing the judicary with great suspicion. Nor does it preclude a desire for a serious investigation and reformation of the judiciary. A judiciary which has incredibly run amok.
Nobody with any sense wants an activist judiciary because they can neither be controlled nor do they view themselves as having limits.
Frankly if this nonsense is an outgrowth of the Schivao case, then it frankly shows a considerable misunderstanding on your part. The primary desire by all, but a few extremists, was for the Schivao case to be fully reviewed. For Schivao to get the same level of review a serial killer would get. For all the ridiculous blather about the Schivao case the singluar fact remains that the “right to die”, or perhaps the “right to kill”, is a very dark grey area of the law. In no other instance is a person allowed to legally kill another person. Particular when there are issues of money, property and inheiritance involved, as it probably is in many cases.
At the heart of the Schivao case is the definition, or perhaps redefinition, of what makes a “person”. Terri Schivao was effectively determined to not be a “person” and thus could be killed without legal penalty. This grey area can, and by the efforts of ghoulish activsts like Dr. Cranford, probably shall be extended to many other cases. It’s frankly disgusting that Dr. Cranford advocated the harvesting of Terri Schivao’s organs, along with doing the same to any other non-cognitive disabled people.
I prefer to treat every human being as a person, without distinction. There are a lot of people who prefer to define a “person” as a human with cognitive abilities. Obviously I disagree.
6. “The ‘conservatives’ just aren’t very conservative anymore.”
I am very conservative thank you and don’t require your judgement on the issue. That I am conservative is why I’d rather leave the GOP than put up with it. I have my morals, ethics and agenda. Where the GOP’s concrete actions intersect with my interests, there will be a commonality. Where they don’t, there will be an opposition.
7. “It’s worth remembering that some conservatives did jump to Perot, and got 8 years of Clinton for their trouble.”
And, like I said before, is there all that much of a difference? The nice thing about the Clinton years was the deadlock in government. Considering what a complete fiasco having the GOP control each portion of govenment has become, a deadlock is certainly something to think about.
And quite frankly President Bush hasn’t been all great for conservatives either. Let’s face facts. That whole “Compasssionate Conservative” nonsense is just that. Nonsense. It’s nothing more than being a big spending moderate with a different label. If, as Cole has determined, I must leave the GOP to remain a conservative, so be it.
Which of course means nothing for anyone else. Though I do know about twenty other conservatives who feel the same way. That’s not an extraordinary number. *shrug* maybe I’m part of a very small group. Maybe there’s a lot more people who feel similarly, but haven’t vocalised it.
We’ll see I guess.
code: club.
– I have been, and it seems will continue to be, amazed at the conservatives inability to just use the power we elected them too. Wtf is the freeking holdup. Just drop the damn bomb, force the up or down votes and be done with it already. What are we trying to accomplish here. see how long we can tetter on the edge while the Dem’s are given even more time to feed piles of total bullshit rhetoric into the chipper of public gulibility. Onward Senate soldiers. Lead for christs sake. Or all of our sakes for that matter.
wordup: “which” … I wonder if the Whiches union is behind the Dem movement…
ed,
And, like I said before, is there all that much of a difference?
Yes, 8 years of liberal judges, Elian Gonzales, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Monicagate, higher taxes, weaker defense, gutted intelligence agencies, a humiliating defeat at the hands of a two-bit gangster in Somalia, numerous unanswered attacks by Al Qaeda, and, ultimately, 9/11.
Considering what a complete fiasco having the GOP control each portion of govenment has become
Huh? What fiasco are you referring to? I think it’s been pretty good, relatively speaking.
1. “When those things start to bother you, think how much worse it would be with a Dem majority.â€Â
Is there really that much of a difference? Prior to the Prescription Drug Plan I had no idea the GOP could pass a $1 trillion dollar entitlement without even a blink. Even *Clinton* didn’t do that.
He tried. Remember HillaryCare?
LOL Ed, you’re forgetting that had Dems been in power, they would have passed a $10 trillion entitlement program. They would have nationalized health care.
I didn’t like the Medicare plan either, but at least it got Bush elected and preserved some free-market competition.
In short ed, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Or you might end up with something far, far worse.