The Problem with Socially Liberal Republicans...

MattB. writes:


I still ask - aside from Abortion and Gay Marriage, what social issues do these people have in mind?

guns? Amnesty? Sex education? condom handouts? needle handouts? What? And, where do things like entitlement programs fall? People who are socially liberal would probably support entitlement programs to "help those less fortunate" but then what about their supposed economic conservatism? these issues don't exist in a vacuum.

I personally am not a social issues voter, but I find that I trust socially conservative politicians to remain conservative much more than I do the opposite. I can't recall, for instance, a socially conservative politician or jurist who "grew" in office to a leftward tilt. I can, however, name a slew of socially liberal GOPers who "grew" once in office to embrace ever more leftist positions.

I would bet that in the base there are a lot more conservative voters like me, who do not have a lot of intensity for abortion / gay marriage issues in their voting, but who trust socially conservative politicians much more than the opposite. If social conservatism is removed from the GOP, it will drift further and further left. It is unlikely that I (or most of the base) will ever get excited or passionate about a politician who is "socially liberal" and "economically conservative" because I would never really trust such politician not to move to the left on every issue. Indeed, wasn't Paul Tsongas the epitome of such a politician? How does one get excited about Paul Tsongas?

One need only look at libertarian to see this as true. Libertarians are allegedly "socially liberal" and "economically conservative". However, in the last 8 years the main Libertarian magazines, writers, etc., have moved ever further left, finding new rationales to embrace liberal politicians and positions. And, if there was a truly a huge bloc of "socially liberal" and "economically conservative" voters, wouldn't the libertarians do better electorally? Wouldn't dems race to embrace economic conservatism? The fact that neither is true demonstrates that this is not a winning strategy.

I completely forgot about this -- one of the reasons I'm much more supportive of social con politicians than I might otherwise be.

It's true: Once you've crossed the Rubicon and declared yourself pro-life, by and large you're stuck being a conservative. The New York Times hates you and there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to curry favor with them. There is little chance of "evolution" in office once you've already declared yourself a hopelessly devolved troglodyte.

The pro-life position is not for me a position I favor in and of itself -- but a proxy for other positions I care more about. Judicial restraint, for example: Look, if I were playing the Wishing Game, I might suggest that conservative judges give a pass to Roe v. Wade (just to not upset the political applecart) while ruling conservatively on every other issue. But I'm not playing the Wishing Game. In reality, judges who favor Roe v. Wade favor just about every other example of liberal judicial legislating, and judges who are against Roe v. Wade are against every other example of liberal judicial legislating.

As a general matter (with many exceptions, of course), I'm more comfortable voting for pro-lifers than pro-choicers because pro-choice Republicans seem to be eager to find lots of other shared values with Democrats.

There are, again, exceptions. Most most pro-choice readers of this site, for example. (Reading this site is also crossing the Rubicon.)

Rudy Giuliani, as an example of a leader who was pro-choice but otherwise un-evolvable: I knew he was so despised by the liberals (and enjoyed being so despised) that he would never "evolve" into a liberal in office; there was no point to doing so, and he knew it, too.

But as for most pro-choice Republican politicians... well, Bill Weld enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama, for example. I used to like Bill Weld. In some ways I guess I still do. But here was an example of a liberal Republican, whom we were told was the template for a nonjudgmental, socially liberal style of Republicanism that constituted the Future of the Party... endorsing socialist Barack Obama.

To the extent I bought into the idea that Bill Weld was the "Future of the Party" (PS: I didn't, really, though I liked him well enough as the Future of the Northeastern Liberal Caucus of the Party), it seems I was wrong.

Culture and class is overwhelmingly important in this, and most refuse to acknowledge it. The Christie Todd Whitmans of the party love Bill Weld and hate Sarah Palin. Of course they love Bill Weld-- a liberal Northeastern establishment patrician country-club Republican.

But Sarah Palin? Not quite our class, dear.

I do think Sarah Palin gets too much support for culture/class identification issues -- but, as I think she's a terrific politician, I can't fault people too much for perhaps making the right choice for the wrong reasons. But I do assign some fault; I really wish the base of the party were not so high on supporting people "just like me." Perhaps there's something to said for the "just like me" voting bloc; it's easier to trust someone "just like me" to make decisions that, um, me supports. But "just like me" is merely a proxy for that, and shouldn't tell the tale all by itself. Mitt Romney, for example, was just about as not "just like me" as a politician can get, but I think he would have been a pretty strong conservative president. And Huckabee, with a high "just like me" quotient, would have been a weakly conservative president.

On the other side of the ledger, though: I wish the party's Ivy Axis would stop despising Sarah Palin for having been born blue-collar and daring to be proud of that.*

And that is a major component of their hatred. They're just not comfortable with her class and culture in the way they're comfortable with, say, Barack Obama's class and culture. He may not be of their party, but he's of their class, and class will out, Old Man.

* Or despising Mitt Romney for "selling out his class and cultural cohort."

Pretty Much: lmg writes--

There were enough unusual aspects to this election - a black candidate, a female candidate, the MSM openly campaigning for one side, massive vote fraud, massive contribution fraud, and a massive financial meltdown - that it is probably useless to draw any conclusions from the outcome as to what policy direction to take next time.

'Zactly.

Posted by: Ace at 02:22 PM



Comments

1 Social cons also assault popular media in attempts to censor and ban entertainment with which they do not agree because of their morality, usually based on their religion. It's been going on my entire lifetime and it's retarded. It's the ONLY thing that kept me a Dem when i was younger. It inspires a passionate hatred in me to this very day.

I get more viscerally angry over some dipshit Senator trying to pass yet another law designed to shackle the porn industry, game creators or musicians than i do about billion-dollar tax boondoggles. The Republicans come *this* close to losing my support every few years with this shit, and it;s the thing that keeps me from praising Lieberman, no matter how right he is on the WoT.

Social cons (left or right) need to STFU about movies and TV and games and so forth. Like who I sleep with, what I choose to distract myself with in the privacy of my own home is none of the government's god-damned business.

So there's another issue that can inspire some socially lib/fiscally con people to action. Maybe it shouldn't. But it does.

Posted by: JimK at November 14, 2008 02:35 PM (+ojig)

2 No, Ace, lmg is wrong.

If we had run a conservative candidate who articulated conservative principals and why they were good for voters, and THEN lost the election 52/48, then we could say, gee, maybe the party should lean a little to the center.

You were right the first time. Look at the success of socially conservative issues like Prop 8. Voters weren't given a choice in this election between two philosophies, merely two clowns. Not surprisingly, they chose the more charismatic of the two.

Posted by: xbradtc at November 14, 2008 02:36 PM (aQVcu)

3 Social cons just need to backburner their big government solution crap. Let the fiscal ones have the reins for again. You know, this party won a bunch of elections on fiscal conservatism. People started to hate the party when social cons took it over and started preaching to everyone.

Posted by: lorien1973 at November 14, 2008 02:38 PM (IhQuA)

4 "that it is probably useless to draw any conclusions from the outcome as to what policy direction to take next time."

Well...I think we can draw at least one conclusion: McCain's simpering honorable loss strategy is a big fat loser and he's pretty much the dick we thought he was before we started following the 11th commandment. Trying to appease your enemy more often than your own supporters results in low turnout on your side and a big fat loss. Also, McCain/Feingold was exactly the big fat albatross we all thought it was gonna be. His crowning bipartisan achievement is a prime example of precisely how the next Republican leader should NOT behave.

Posted by: JimK at November 14, 2008 02:39 PM (+ojig)

5 And, if there was a truly a huge bloc of "socially liberal" and
"economically conservative" voters, wouldn't the libertarians do better
electorally?

Libertarians are too focused on pot legalization. That's all they seem to care about.

That's their problem. Plus, look who they nominate. Is there not a single charismatic libertarian on this planet? Really?

Posted by: lorien1973 at November 14, 2008 02:40 PM (IhQuA)

6 There is a tendency when discussing "social" issues to put them into shelfs. Then go along and pick and choose which ones "resonate" with you. To me, these positions must derive from an underlying values. C.S. Lewis's explores this concept of the Tao from The Abolition of Man.

There has been a war waged to undermine the concept of objective value and natural law these last 75 years. But without an underlying concept of natural law, it will lead to the world we live in now. The mores and values and defined by a very small group of people (mostly based on whims or sexual orientation). That is why gay marriage is discussed but not polygamy.

The appendix to The Abolition of Man lists a number of basic values that Lewis saw as parts of the Tao, supported by quotes from different cultures.


Posted by: Mike H at November 14, 2008 02:40 PM (hn7Rm)

7 People started to hate the party when social cons took it over and started preaching to everyone.

Which is why we won the last two elections? I'm not fond of big government social conservative "solutions" to what are essentially personal moral decisions, but let's not get silly here - the GOP has not been a fiscally conservative party for some time. Pretending we are will only keep us in our current hole.

Posted by: Slublog at November 14, 2008 02:41 PM (R8+nJ)

8 "Which is why we won the last two elections?"

We won the last two NOT because we were better. We won them because Kerry was a dickhead who no one trusted and Gore was a bag of hot air who no one trusted.

THEY lost them. We didn't win a damn thing.

Posted by: JimK at November 14, 2008 02:43 PM (+ojig)

9 Slublog at November 14, 2008 02:41 PM (R8+nJ)

I forgot delineate that, I suppose. GOP became preachy -and- lost their fiscal conservative message.

Posted by: lorien1973 at November 14, 2008 02:43 PM (IhQuA)

10 MattB great post, I am prolife though I did back Rudy because of defense I felt even though he was prochoice he had conviction for keeping this country safe. RINOs no conviction, they continually move to the left. Not voting for one ever.

Posted by: lions at November 14, 2008 02:43 PM (KJ7XN)

11 Tell us about Michael Steel, and his agenda...Is he the right guy? The Governors sniping at Sarah at governor's conference is beyond stupid. She is the goose that laid the proverbial egg for the gop. Jump on her train...they could all use her charisma...Why is the O's charisma cool and Sarah's is yuk...

Posted by: free at November 14, 2008 02:45 PM (cFwGO)

12 I think Weld is still smarting from getting boned out of the ambassadorship to Mexico which was done by conservatives in the Senate, particularly Jessie Helms. This after being one of Reagan's favorite federal prosecutors.
Payback can be a big ol' bitch.

Posted by: JackStraw at November 14, 2008 02:46 PM (VW9/y)

13 I agree that the pro-life declaration is pretty hard to go back on. Its like saying you thing AGW is crap, or evolution might need some debating. It is sort of like a litmus test for conservatism. If you're far enough right that you'll submit to being publicly condemned for saying that women don't deserve the right to choose everything then chances are you're not going to suddenly pop up somewhere on the left fiscally or with defense. At least that's what I think.
We're steering too far to the right though if we pander to Christianity specifically, rather than social conservatives. Christian principles have such a firm root in conservatism (I would argue it actually goes the other way around) that I can't imagine Christians being presented with a social con and snubbing them for any reason other than them being too ignorant to look past their favorite pastor's recommendation.


Posted by: blankminde at November 14, 2008 02:47 PM (Js18c)

14 THEY lost them. We didn't win a damn thing.

I might agree with you regarding 2004, but Bush was well on his way to a victory in 2000 had it not been for the DUI October surprise.

Posted by: Slublog at November 14, 2008 02:47 PM (R8+nJ)

15 oh and we lost the election because the economy, we had a candidate that had the opportunity to make difference and negotiate a better deal as the dems(no conviction) would not stand alone, so what happened he had none either.

Posted by: lions at November 14, 2008 02:47 PM (KJ7XN)

16 I am a small l libertarian, fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and am in favor of being pro-active in the war against terror and in destabilizing tyranical regimes. That said, MattB can go Fuck himself. If MattB can't understand having the same fervorfor theFourth Amendment as some have for the Second, then he will never 'get it.' I do not believe that the Constitutionconfers a right to abortion. However, outlawing abortionwill not succeed, and has many negative consequences. So go ahead, keep alienating me. I would never vote for Marxist Obama, but I couldvote (someday, maybe) for a Democrat who is closer tomy beliefs.

Posted by: Gordon Marock at November 14, 2008 02:47 PM (Tclz8)

17 Why is the O's charisma cool and Sarah's is yuk...

In part, because she's a woman. I had not realized the depth of the misogyny in this country until I watched this election cycle.

Posted by: Popcorn at November 14, 2008 02:47 PM (V9H7a)

18 I don't want to hop on the SoCon bashing wagon (since to some considerable degree I am one), but I get pissed off when Republican politicians generate a wedge issue (Terry Schiavo anyone) and think that because they showed their SoCon bona fides that they can spend money like it's going out of style.

I know that RvW isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I'd like to see some chipping away at it, no so much because abortion is a hot button issue for me, but I'd like to see the stage set for it to be overturned because it was judicial activism of the worst kind.

In the meantime, what Republicans can and must do to remain politically relevant is to impose fiscal discipline. Low taxes aren't the objective. They were intended to be the vehicle by which the growth of government was retarded and eventually reversed. When the Republicans became the party of "Borrow and Spend" they became less fiscally responsible than the "Tax and Spend" Democrats.

Posted by: xbradtc at November 14, 2008 02:48 PM (aQVcu)

19 My primary desire is a small and non-intrusive federal government that does what it's supposed to do and keeps its grubby, thieving fingers off things it isn't supposed to do. That's the primary appeal libertarianism had for me, and the primary appeal conservatism has for me. There are other issues that are important to me, but that's the big one. That's why I'm not interested in compassionate anything. It's just a phrase to mean 'more government subsidy', which means a bigger and more expensive government. If my tax money isn't going towards the military and interstates, it's not being used correctly. (Yes, that's a simplification. Congratulations for spotting it.)

Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at November 14, 2008 02:50 PM (ltwze)

20 Lorien1973,

Us Libertarians are not just about the pot. We are for drug legalization across the board.

It was that ass-clown Biden that got steroids classified as schedule III drugs.

Man, it was so easy to score some good gear before the Controlled Substance Act was put into effect.

Now if you could get a social con to champion steroid legalization, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

Posted by: McLovin at November 14, 2008 02:51 PM (RwvN1)

21 "I still ask - aside from Abortion and Gay Marriage, what social issues do these people have in mind?"

On all other issues, SoCons are pretty libertarian...they just want to keep the government out of regulating their lives and business (e.g., guns, education, etc.) SoCons and libertarians are natural allies on 90% of the issues, and are the basis of a natural coalition. The problem is the purists in both camps. Don't know how you get past that one.

And when was the last time anyone tried to put greater restrictions on popular entertainment? The 80's?

Posted by: Nosferightu at November 14, 2008 02:52 PM (F/qWZ)

22 Why can't we get someone that is genuinely conservative across the board? A small-government/socially conservative hawk would clean up. Unless they presented themselves like Biden.

Posted by: blankminde at November 14, 2008 02:53 PM (Js18c)

23 Is it cool if we lean a little liberal on some issues? For instance, I don't support or oppose gay marriage. Frankly, I just don't give a fuck either way. I'm not gay or religious and so I don't really care. When I look at abortion, I consider the rights of the kid, but if a woman's in a situation where the pregnancy is killing her, I'd rather just the unborn die as opposed to the unborn and the mother. But certain things on the social scale I fall heavily on the conservative side. Firearms? You better believe I want the biggest gun I can get. If it's good enough for the military, it's good enough for me. I like immigration as I see it as the lifeblood of this country in many ways, but I do not want people entering this country by breaking its laws.

Look, I consider myself a more Libertarian member of the right. Frankly, when it comes down to it, I want the freedom to do what I want and be left alone by the government. In exchange I'll pay my bills, but most of it better be going to those guys in uniform who are keeping other countries from coming in here and touching my stuff. Stuff like censoring games and movies...fuck off, if I want to watch my violence then I should get to watch my violence. But from what I see in the folks I talk to, this isn't a perception of the conservative movement. When folks I talk to that are my age bring up conservatives, they're thinking folks that burn Harry Potter books and want wiretaps in every home. They think we're all religious totalitarians. I think we need to work to dispel this image, because frankly we're not. Sure, we want our defense to run its A game, and some of us get a bit heavy on the censorship side(which is bullshit that we're the only ones getting blamed considering how many Democrats want to ban my video games), but THAT AIN'T THE ENTIRE CONSERVATIVE SIDE!

Hell, we'll just have to wait and see if anybody on our side actually starts listening to us.

Posted by: ack at November 14, 2008 02:53 PM (xYQyu)

24 Sarah Palin is nothing like me personally. I admire her for her guts, what she has achieved politically, and the fact that she has run businesses. I'm an atheist and I am not family oriented though I am against gay marriage because I believe the traditional family is too important not to promote. I am not going to vote for anyone who disparages me or whose followers disparage me because of my family background or because I did not go to an ivy league school. They can all suck my barbed cock of satan.

Posted by: YourAssIsTooBigForTheTent at November 14, 2008 02:56 PM (P1Evy)

25 And when was the last time anyone tried to put greater restrictions on popular entertainment? The 80's?
Yeah, I have no clue what JimK is talking about here. The last time a national politician made entertainment censorship a hobby horse, it was Hillary Clinton (along with Lieberman, I believe) trying to put the clamps down on GTA IV. It simply does not happen with anywhere near the regularity (or temporal proximity) that he suggests.

Posted by: VJay at November 14, 2008 02:57 PM (gQ+XA)

26 "And when was the last time anyone tried to put greater restrictions on popular entertainment? The 80's?"

I guess the idea that some people pay zero attention to things that don't interest them is very true.

May I recommend perusing gamepolitics.com sometime? Eye-opening on occassion, the laws that some politicians try to get passed in this country. Laws that can be expanded later and have some serious unintended consequences.

Posted by: JimK at November 14, 2008 02:57 PM (+ojig)

27 Sarah Palin leads the highy scientific 2012 Wolverine GOP Presidential Poll with 60%, Jindal 21%, Newt 13%, Romney 0%.
http://tinyurl.com/5luxsv

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 02:57 PM (/Zcox)

28 The censorship aspect of social conservatism has never made sense to me. That is an unusual thing to be pro big-government on.

Posted by: blankminde at November 14, 2008 02:57 PM (Js18c)

29 For instance, I don't support or oppose gay marriage. Frankly, I just don't give a fuck either way.

You going to be comfortable calling some guy a wife?

Posted by: YourAssIsTooBigForTheTent at November 14, 2008 02:58 PM (P1Evy)

30 $ocial liberalism takes MONEY.

Posted by: CJ at November 14, 2008 02:58 PM (9KqcB)

31 Social cons also assault popular media in attempts to censor and ban
entertainment with which they do not agree because of their morality

Strawman much? I mean, are there really a lot of social cons who necessarily favor censorship. oh sure, there is an element that seeks this, but is there really a big constituency for massive censorship. And last I checked it was the left that was most prominently pushing a censorship regime - ever heard of the fairness doctrine?

I think the problem that conservatives face is not the positions we hold, but it's the demonization of the positions we hold. Take illegal immigration. For 90 percent of us it had nothing to do with immigrants per se, but our opposition was rooted in the lawbreaking - hence our opposition to illegal immigration. The same is true with abortion. Pro-lifers have been successfully caricatured as busybodies who want to send sex police into the bedroom.

The sad thing is that this demonization comes from the right. It's one thing when morons from the Daily Kos speak about conservatives putting chastity belts on our women and sending Jose and Maria back accross the border while we throw stones at them. But when the Wall Street Journal starts attacking, then it lends that demonization an air of credibility.

Again, I am at a loss as to why this has to be an either/or thing. Conservatism is a political philosophy that encompasses a wide range of core principles. When you start hacking away at a large swath of those principles, what you're left with can no longer properly be defined as conservative.

Posted by: crankycon at November 14, 2008 02:59 PM (mMvsk)

32 I think the govs ragging on Palin at their conference will regret it, they are making her more of a rock star, not less.

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 03:00 PM (/Zcox)

33 Huh. So Terry Schaivo...which happened years ago and *once* is a
perfectly acceptable wedge issue to get angry about, but the idea of
getting mad when social cons come after art and expression every few
years is a bad thing?



That seems...contradictory. And self-defeating. But I get it.
Someone like me isn't wanted in the GOP. I'm getting the message loud
and clear.

Posted by: JimK at November 14, 2008 03:02 PM (+ojig)

34 #1: Social cons (left or right) need to STFU about movies and TV and games and so forth.

By "left or right", you meant what, exactly?

Posted by: Loren Heal at November 14, 2008 03:02 PM (oVyLV)

35 ack @ 23: Instead of leaning liberal on gay marriage, why not lean federalist. Others have brought this up in other threads and I think it is a winning strategy. Let Connecticut have gay marriage and let California have drive-thru abortions if that's what they want. We in flyover country should have the power to decide we don't want those things.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 14, 2008 03:03 PM (wy+AE)

36 The censorship aspect of social conservatism has never made sense to me. That is an unusual thing to be pro big-government on.
It's also largely illusory. You guys are complaining about fighting a misconception and then go on to assert that we need to make the misconception less accurate.
There is no significant movement to "censor" anything on the right. Are their SoCon constituencies that rail on about this movie or that game? Yes. Are they embraced by politicians and pundits outside of Stump City? No.
Stop torching strawmen when there's a 500-pound gorilla named "Fairness Doctrine" sipping tea in your living room.

Posted by: VJay at November 14, 2008 03:04 PM (gQ+XA)

37 Huh. So Terry Schaivo...which happened years ago and *once* is a
perfectly acceptable wedge issue to get angry about, but the idea of
getting mad when social cons come after art and expression every few
years is a bad thing?

Dude, seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? So occasionally some guy from the Baptist Church of St. No Video Games starts leading the charge against the unholy evil that is Grand Theft Auto, and that signifies that there's a mass movement of conservatives against art and expression? Give me a break.

Posted by: crankycon at November 14, 2008 03:05 PM (mMvsk)

38 That seems...contradictory. And self-defeating. But I get it. Someone like me isn't wanted in the GOP. I'm getting the message loud and clear.
Clean the sand out of your vagina, JimK. And get off the cross because some lonely fringe member of the North Dakota state assembly wants to pass a law to expunge the Hot Coffee mod from San Andreas.
Drama queen.

Posted by: VJay at November 14, 2008 03:07 PM (gQ+XA)

39 Is it just me or is Sarah Palin looking even hotter?

Posted by: blaster at November 14, 2008 03:07 PM (BiphJ)

40 "By "left or right", you meant what, exactly?"

Conservative Democrats, naturally. They do exist and as many have pointed out, they lead the censorship movement in Congress 99% of the time. Republicans tend to do it from "watchdog groups" outside the government proper...then the Republicans in government buckle under to threats and demands from these "watchdog" groups.

Frankly all of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but apparently I'm the only one, so...off I wander hoping for a Libertarian or a REAL small-government conservative with some god-damned sense and charisma.

Posted by: JimK at November 14, 2008 03:08 PM (+ojig)

41 Social cons just need to backburner their big government solution crap.
Let the fiscal ones have the reins for again. You know, this party won
a bunch of elections on fiscal conservatism. People started to hate the
party when social cons took it over and started preaching to everyone.

So basically, if we'd run a candidate who'd expoused some touchstone social liberal positions, like, say, amnesty or campaign finance reform, we might have had a better chance?

Posted by: Phil at November 14, 2008 03:08 PM (C0GT4)

42 Jim,
I'm trying to think of when social conservatives came after art and expression. Honestly, it seems to me that a lot of the "coming after art and expression" comes from social liberals thinking that's the way to pander to social conservatives (it ain't).
The driving force in the "Hot Coffee" incident? Chuck Shumer, Hillary Clinton.
What about the"Sensation" elephant dung thing? Rudy Giuliani.
Gangsta rap / ACDC? Al Gore, with Tipper Gorefronting,baby!
I can think of one exception: the fights over the NEA. But that's subsidized expression...

Posted by: TomM. at November 14, 2008 03:08 PM (dr1s2)

43
The games and movies thing is complicated because 1) many adults like this stuff but alas 2) many more underage kids like this stuff.

Cast it as "restricting the entertainment options for adults" and it's bad.

Cast it as "stopping unscrupulous merchants from selling unsuitable material to children" and it's good.

The trouble is it's both.

Let's look at the hidden sex easter egg in Grand Theft Auto. Now, what adult is going to get all excited about that and tell his friends? Very few. Who cares? It's a minor "ha, ha."

On the other hand, this sort of thing appeals to kids, not so much for the porn content but because they like the feeling of getting away with something their parents don't know about and wouldn't approve of.

So forgive me for noticing that a lot of rated-m-for-mature games are really being marketed to kids. Many R-rated movies, too.

Some R-rated films appeal almost entirely to adults. Some appeal to a mix of adults and minors. Some appeal largely or even exclusively to minors.

I don't believe in censorship but I do believe in browbeating and enforcing rules against selling movie tickets or games to underage minors.

Posted by: ace at November 14, 2008 03:09 PM (8T2pi)

44 Rather than pick each part of the coalition apart we should be looking for ways to synergize the strength of each part of the GOP coalition, and present that agenda in a positive format. For all the talk ofthat they tryto control the GOP, it seems the SoCons pretty much took a back seat this year, still doing alot of the ground game, while the campaign was all over the place on everything.

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 03:10 PM (/Zcox)

45 ...the idea of
getting mad when social cons come after art and expression every few
years is a bad thing?

Hell yes it is a bad thing. If ever the slippery slope fallacy of reasoning applied, it applies here. When does this whole idea of regulating thought become scary to people? I have always thought that conservatives have the right idea regarding the morality of things, but the wrong idea on enforcement. Let the free-market decide what lives and dies.

Posted by: blankminde at November 14, 2008 03:10 PM (Js18c)

46 Hey, can I throw the entire career of the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan in there? Did he have anything to do with the MPAA? I have a grand overarching thesis to stuff every fact I can into! Work with me!

Posted by: TomM. at November 14, 2008 03:11 PM (dr1s2)

47 Yeah, calling me names and attacking *me* for the shortcomings of the social con movement is REALLY going to build a consensus that will defeat Democrats at the polls.

Fuck, no wonder we nominated John McCain and got spanked. We're a party of douchebags and assholes who can't have a civil god-damned discussion without attacking each other. We're EXACTLY what we claim to hate about Kos Kids.

I'll take my sandy vagina and my vote and be over here. Call me if you ever care to hear my opinion and need to convince me for my vote someday.

Posted by: JimK at November 14, 2008 03:12 PM (+ojig)

48 "Social cons also assault popular media in attempts to censor and ban
entertainment with which they do not agree because of their morality,
usually based on their religion. It's been going on my entire lifetime
and it's retarded. It's the ONLY thing that kept me a Dem when i was
younger."

So you chose the party of Tipper Gore?

Say what?

Posted by: someone at November 14, 2008 03:12 PM (zHoxL)

49 ack @ 23: Instead of leaning liberal on gay marriage, why not lean federalist.

How about leaning full on libertarian, and getting the state out of the marriage business all together?

Posted by: Farmer Joe at November 14, 2008 03:13 PM (z4es9)

50 I am trying to think of a SoCon arts/entertainment related censorship issue that ever took on national backing and prominence.

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 03:14 PM (/Zcox)

51 First post here, but I thinkof myselfone of those critters in the title of this post. And I'm tired of getting lumped in with the wreckage of the good ship "compassionate conservative" - which was as stupid and insulting aconcept as any that has ever come out of a politician's lie-hole.
So I'm going to address MattB's points one by one - then you can decide where I fit in. If anywhere.
Abortion-don't particularly like it, but certain extreme versions of it aside, it appears to have majority support in this country. So as long as nobody forces me to have one or pay for one, I'm OK with it. If you want to fight it, convince enough people and put it up for a vote.
Gay Marriage -I fail to see how this affects me in any way, and I fail to see how it "damages" the institution of marriage. Again, as long as nobody forcesa given church to perform the marriages, I'm OK with it.
guns - aConstitutional guarantee and a foundational issue.
Amnesty - Our borders ought to have been secure all along... butas it stands, I think a guest worker program might be the only *realistic* way to attempt damage control on a situation that we allowed to go on way too long. But *ONLY* after ther borders finally are secured - and guest workers already here illegally go to the back of the immigration line.
Sex education - yes, but parents should be able to opt their kids out.
condom handouts - in schools? No. By the govt? No. But if some private organization wants to do it, knock yourselves out. ID check and noone under 18.
needle handouts - see above.
where do things like entitlement programs fall? People who are socially liberal would probably support entitlement programs to "help those less fortunate"...
BZZT!! I'd be happy to support private programs to help those less fortunate, especially if the government would let me keep more of my own damn money. But government-run entitlements are the root of all evil. Nobody can support them and claim to be a fiscal con. Period.

Posted by: RC at November 14, 2008 03:16 PM (vUlAq)

52 Frankly all of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but apparently I'm the only one, so...off I wander hoping for a Libertarian or a REAL small-government conservative with some god-damned sense and charisma.
Good luck, Jim. Your retreat from the fight just helps to get statist socialists like Barry elected, but at least you're willing todie on the hill of blurry, low-production-quality porn easter eggs in Rockstar sandbox games.
Courage.
I'll take my sandy vagina and my vote and be over here. Call me if you ever care to hear my opinion and need to convince me for my vote someday.
If you want to avoid being mocked, maybe you should stop inventing some conspiracy to deny you your arts and entertainment pleasure. Find a, you know, legitimate complaint to hang your hat on.

Posted by: VJay at November 14, 2008 03:16 PM (gQ+XA)

53 "So you chose the party of Tipper Gore?"

Tipper is exactly what drove me to look for an alternative. When Dee Snider testified...my mind flipped a switch. It was that and gun control. I soon discovered I was on the wrong side as a young person.

Now I'm starting to feel that way again, only there is no side for me to move to.

In part this points to what I love about Palin; She is PERSONALLY a social con, but she governs like a libertarian and respects that *I* am not a social con. More. Like. Her. Please.

Posted by: JimK at November 14, 2008 03:16 PM (+ojig)

54 Hell yes it is a bad thing. If ever the slippery slope fallacy of
reasoning applied, it applies here. When does this whole idea of
regulating thought become scary to people?

To be fair, a good deal of the ire directed at arts and entertainment comes from places that are at least defensible from a conservative POV - 1) public funding for the arts, and 2) the ability (or lack of) of parents to regulate what their kids see. For example, I oppose any attempts to regulate the availability of porn, but I have exactly zero problem with trying to make it inaccessible to kids.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at November 14, 2008 03:17 PM (z4es9)

55 I am trying to think of a SoCon arts/entertainment related censorship issue that ever took on national backing and prominence.
It's best not to. Jim skipped right over that part and went straight to the righteous indignation, and it seems to work for him.

Posted by: VJay at November 14, 2008 03:18 PM (gQ+XA)

56 I'm trying to think of when social conservatives came after art and
expression.

When it's art and expression that doesn't require taxpayer funding to be made because someone actually wants to pay to see it--e.g., video games, rap--the complaints about the content are always from liberals.

OTOH, conservatives do get pissed when the federal government gives art grants to people to make statues of Christ out of human feces, do interpretative dances about vaginas, etc. But this isn't a "SoCon" thing as much as a realization that federal funding for is inappropriate.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at November 14, 2008 03:18 PM (yG+tb)

57 I can only speak for myself as a social conservative, JimK. But I spend extremely tiny amounts of time lamenting the state of our mass-media culture, and a lot of time thinking about culture-of-life issues. The "watchdog groups" organize boycotts, mostly, which is a legitimate thing to do in a free society. They don't strike me as the driving force behind government restrictions on speech.
You know perfectly well where that's coming from.

Posted by: TomM. at November 14, 2008 03:18 PM (dr1s2)

58 Re: censorship not coming from social cons,
What about religion? What about the weight that pastors put behind certain agendas based on their worldview? I agree that it is a liberal move to seek censorship of something you don't agree with, but SoCons are doing it. The Da Vinci code is a great example. Churches tried to ban it, fortunately failing because it was absurd.
I sort of look at Iran as the pinnacle of social conservatism trumping all other thinking if that helps. If there isn't a healthy dose of libertarianism in the application of SoCon ideals I think its dangerous.

Posted by: blankminde at November 14, 2008 03:19 PM (Js18c)

59 So Terry Schaivo...which happened years ago and *once* is a perfectly acceptable wedge issue to get angry about, but the idea of getting mad when social cons come after art and expression every few years is a bad thing?Oh puhleeze. The next Robert Maplethorpe has no right to government money with no strings attached. That was NOT about "art", it was about paying for it.
Instances like this are why I think the "fiscal Conservative, social liberals" are lying.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 14, 2008 03:20 PM (ujg0T)

60 JimK makes a good point -- a LOT of people who would otherwise vote Republican are very turned off by what they see as as a preachy focus and disproportionate interest in matters they think are both trivial and better left to individual choice.

I don't know how to square this circle. My suggestion -- run on these issues, but don't push them too hard, and not into the forefront except in regions where they sell really well -- is something the GOP already sort of does but it doesn't help that much. I guess more of that, then.

Posted by: ace at November 14, 2008 03:20 PM (8T2pi)

61 MattB gets it exactly right for me...I'm not religious/churchgoing at ALL...haven't been for eons...but I find myself agreeing with SoCons way more often than I do with other varieties of Republicans...they're just more, well, conservative. And even when I disagree with them (for instance, on the anti-gay marriage stuff...at least on the amount of energy/emphasis they put on that one issue), I still respect their position because they come across as being *sincere* about what they believe and why.
I think the sincerity factor (disagreeing with someone but respecting them and even voting for them despite disagreements on particular items/issues) is vastly underrated by the "moderate" (not to use the less neutral term for them that actually comes to mind) Republicans...you simply can NOT make everyone in the great muddled middle of American politicslike you no matter how much you move away from your own core beliefs...you only make yourself look as though you don't have any real core beliefs, and no one respects that, not your base and not the people you're trying to cozy up to either.

Posted by: davidingeorgia at November 14, 2008 03:21 PM (YFLgX)

62 Barry Goldwater's instincts were sound: the marriage between the Christian right and the GOP would be conservatism's undoing one day. We're reaping his prescience. For the Republican Party to be held hostage by a vocal minority in the party that wants to be my self-appointed guardian is a damn shame. Focus on The Family? Focus on your own damn family; I can look after mine, thanks much.

It's high time the Republican Party cut adrift the busybodies and scolds who make a full-time job distracting us from core conservative principles with their nanny-state crusades.

Posted by: railwriter at November 14, 2008 03:21 PM (XcsD4)

63 What about religion? What about the weight that pastors put behind
certain agendas based on their worldview? I agree that it is a liberal
move to seek censorship of something you don't agree with, but SoCons
are doing it. The Da Vinci code is a great example. Churches tried to
ban it, fortunately failing because it was absurd.

Private groups protesting and boycotting something they disagreed with is not the slippery slope to sharia law. No one tried to use governmental means to "ban" the DaVinci Code.

Posted by: Slublog at November 14, 2008 03:21 PM (R8+nJ)

64 Look, there is a problem. Huckabee ran on a Nanny state Right platform, and did frighteningly well, and in my opinion, lead to McCain as the powers that be were terrified of Huckabee and reluctantly backed McCain.

If Republicans don't do an about face, and move towards individual liberty and away from Nanny state Right and right-wing corporatism, we won't win elections.

The libertarians and social cons can find major common causes in school choice and strict constructionism, but those issues seem to take second fiddle to having the proper religious credentials amongst our primary voters.

It'll be interesting how Palin attempts carve her niche -- if she stresses her populist strain of libertarianism rather than social conservativism, she could unite the party because the social cons are already on board with her.

Posted by: Cedric at November 14, 2008 03:22 PM (lnz0F)

65 I am trying to think of a SoCon arts/entertainment related censorship issue that ever took on national backing and prominence.

Piss Christ? Mapplethorpe (the one with the gay sex, not the one with the landscape photography)? But again, that was less about the expression and more about the inappropriateness of federal funds being used to produce/support art that offends most taxpayers.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at November 14, 2008 03:22 PM (yG+tb)

66 "If you want to avoid being mocked"

Oh please. Like your ill-considered and somewhat childish insults matter to me. But your attack proves something; You cannot play nice with someone who doesn't agree with your wedge issue. You react like a Kos Kid and drive people away with childish insults. And you seem to be in the majority on my side of the fence. We just got our asses kicked at the polls TWICE in the last two major elections and handed the entire shooting match to the left...the FAER left at that. But hey...keep pushing me (the royal "me" so to speak) away and see how many votes you can lose for 2010.

Speaking of strawmen: This is NOT my most passionate issue upon which I base my vote (that would generally be guns and/or personal liberty, a facet of which would be artistic expression). Nice assumption you made there, though. Way to be precisely the thing against which you are railing. The discussion was about what other social issue can bug cons/libertarians...I offered one example and you went ballistic trying to slap me down.

Not effective consensus building, and it shows you've personally learned nothing from the recent losses.

Posted by: JimK at November 14, 2008 03:23 PM (+ojig)

67 The Da Vinci code deal was never a part of a GOP platform, as ctizens they have a right too oppose something, just like gun rights advocates (and I am on) push for their idelas.

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 03:24 PM (/Zcox)

68 Many points wll taken.
Off topic a little: Ace and others have been asking about a conservative value that would score with 55% of the people. What about Open Government as a single, yet multifaceted, principle?
Some folks say they don't like Bush because of their perception of secrecy in his administration. To the extent they're being honest (that is, they might like Bush more if not for all thesecrecy) then our side can win over some people. Then again, their side can win over people, too -- which I'm fine with, as long as people are supporting truthful positions.
This isn't a new idea, by the way. In the 2004 VP debate, Cheney kept saying "check the website," "check the internet." The rest, positions on social issues included, could fall under this umbrella.
Thoughts?

Posted by: FireHorse at November 14, 2008 03:25 PM (tQ26i)

69 re #66: FAER left? Uhh...that should have read "FAR left."

Posted by: JimK at November 14, 2008 03:25 PM (+ojig)

70 The Da Vinci code is a great example. Churches tried to ban it, fortunately failing because it was absurd.

This is more strawman bullshit. What Churches? Most of the tact that those upset with the movie took was simply either to ignore it, boycott it, or "othercott" it. Again, there may have been some pissant Evangelical Church in Mississippi that sent a delegation of three lonely souls to Kitt Bond's office demanding that production be halted immediately, but for the most part such reactions were kept to a minimum.

Posted by: crankycon at November 14, 2008 03:25 PM (mMvsk)

71 Two things. First, JimK nails it. If the self-destructive pursuit of Roe v Wade and banning gay marriage weren't enough to make social conservativism distasteful to a majority in this country, the morality plays in the media should just about seal their fate.
Second, I have just about had it with people that equate social liberal with libertarian with "legalize pot, dude". The number of people that DON'T smoke pot vastly outnumber the ones that do and want it legalized.
Beyond which, if you could look past the "stinking hippee" stereotypes you are hung up on, you would objectively recognize thatthe "War onDrugs" is animmense waste and and has been perverted into an excuse for police departments to line their pockets with money and turn themselves into paramilitary forces. How many innocent people need to be killed in screwed up no-knock raids for drugs before you wake up to this fact ?

Posted by: deadrody at November 14, 2008 03:26 PM (aCKVb)

72 Ace @ 43
Wouldn't a more conservative approach be to establish standards of rating the media and then trust parents to make smart decisions in what their kids do?

Posted by: blankminde at November 14, 2008 03:26 PM (Js18c)

73 I was very excited about Paul Tsongas. Just sayin'

Posted by: carlitos at November 14, 2008 03:26 PM (ySpDN)

74 Ah, I see the problem here. People are confusing congregations and councils and other non-government groups with the government.

Which is understandable, given the intrusion of CSPI into legislation and the stamp of approval politicians give these groups by turning their junk science into food bans and whatnot.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at November 14, 2008 03:26 PM (yG+tb)

75 Look, there is a problem. Huckabee ran on a Nanny state Right
platform, and did frighteningly well, and in my opinion, lead to McCain
as the powers that be were terrified of Huckabee and reluctantly backed
McCain.

McCain won because Thompson, Romney and Huckabee split the social conservative vote, and he got a major boost from states with open primaries. Huckabee only did "well" because he was campaigning long past his sell by date.

Posted by: Slublog at November 14, 2008 03:27 PM (R8+nJ)

76 My primary desire is a small and non-intrusive federal government that does what it's supposed to do and keeps its grubby, thieving fingers off things it isn't supposed to do. That's the primary appeal libertarianism had for me, and the primary appeal conservatism has for me.
Exactly. Well said, #19. I want to see us go back to small government, apppointments ofcommon-sense judges, and electing fiscally responsible representatives who can keep their hands out of the tills and off the interns/call girls, etc. Right now, the Dems are up to their eyeballs in so much corruption and crap within their own party and yet the R's have done a really lousy job, along with the press of calling them out on it.We need to get rid ofour owndead weight and dumbasses like Stevensand start running as the partyofCommon Sense, Fiscal Restraint and Energy Independence. By the end ofO's 4 year reign, taxes are going to be so high.....that people won't care about social issues.....their going to vote with their wallet.

Posted by: dixiegal at November 14, 2008 03:27 PM (jrxE7)

77 >>>For the Republican Party to be held hostage by a vocal minority in the
party that wants to be my self-appointed guardian is a damn shame.

It's not a minority of the party. You have to accept reality on this point. It's the libertarian leaners that are the minority.

I agree there needs to be more balance here, but you have to accept that in the minority, you're going to win few battles and only some concessions.


Posted by: ace at November 14, 2008 03:27 PM (8T2pi)

78 Off topic a little: Ace and others have been asking about a
conservative value that would score with 55% of the people. What about
Open Government as a single, yet multifaceted, principle?
I'd love to see that. It needs to be boiled down into an easily digestable idea, though. Most people aren't interested in going online to read the text of bills, and the ones that are already do it. The problem is, could you trust any government to run a "transparency" website without spin and disinformation?

Posted by: Farmer Joe at November 14, 2008 03:29 PM (z4es9)

79 If the self-destructive pursuit of Roe v Wade and banning gay marriage
weren't enough to make social conservativism distasteful to a majority
in this country
I'm basically agnostic on gay marriage, but to say that banning it is self-destructive, when a liberal state like California can pass Proposition 8 is just absurd. Right now it's being tackled as a federalist issue, and people in many states are rejecting gay marriage.

Posted by: Slublog at November 14, 2008 03:29 PM (R8+nJ)

80 Gag. Obama and McCain meet to discuss bipartisan cooperation.
"President-elect Barack Obama will meet Monday with John McCain in
talks that Obama's transition office said would focus on ways they can
cooperate on an array of troublesome issues facing the country.The two will be
joined at Obama's Chicago transition office by Republican Sen. Lindsey
Graham of South Carolina, a McCain confidant, and Rep. Rahm Emanuel,
the Illinois Democrat whom Obama has chosen to be his White House chief
of staff."
Just switch parties and be done with it, maverick.






Posted by: Socky at November 14, 2008 03:30 PM (d2fuu)

81 abortion and gay marriage were hardly high profile issues in this campaign

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 03:31 PM (/Zcox)

82 Question: At what point did McCain/Palin ever run on the abortion issue? When did they ever say that they had desings on Roe v. Wade? I sure never heard it...
The only people who trumpeted Palin's abortion views were those woh were using it against her.

Posted by: RC at November 14, 2008 03:31 PM (vUlAq)

83 I would add that there are other idiotic policies that those furthest to the right will take up. Orrin Hatch and the RIAA come to mind. I'm pretty sure the GOP is the party that keeps extending copywrite terms to protect Mickey Mouse from perversion, too.
Anyone in favor of assisting the RIAA in their witchhunt is a fool that I find no common ground with for any reason other than coincidence.

Posted by: deadrody at November 14, 2008 03:32 PM (aCKVb)

84 The lie that social cons cost McCain the election can be put to bed by the results in six states: VA, NC, OH, IN, FL, and MO. There are plenty of social cons in these states, five of which definitely went for Obama while MO has yet to be resolved.

I thought I read one of these media geniuses advocating a "dump the south, appeal to the midwest strategy." I guess the theory is that midwesterners are more socially enlightened, so by embracing social liberalism the GOP can capture the midwest without losing the south. Whoever came up with this idea clearly hasn't spent much time in either region because when it comes to social issues there isn't that much difference between the south and the midwest. The unions are the reason that the midwest is bluer, not social issues.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at November 14, 2008 03:33 PM (joZsE)

85 #7 Slublog: "Which is why we won the lat two elections."

McCain won?!?! Thank God it was all just a horrible nightmare!

Posted by: Terry Notus at November 14, 2008 03:33 PM (pPKQo)

86 lorien1973

You keep saying “when the social-cons took over the party”. I’d like to know when that was? From what I have seen the liberals have been running the party since Reagan left office. Also why we have been going downhill faster than Speed Racer.

Posted by: Vic at November 14, 2008 03:34 PM (Qd7GC)

87 McCain won?!?! Thank God it was all just a horrible nightmare!

Heh. It's Friday. My typing fingers betray me on Fridays.

At least, that's my excuse.

Posted by: Slublog at November 14, 2008 03:35 PM (R8+nJ)

88 What SoCon issues were high profile in this campaign?

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 03:35 PM (/Zcox)

89 and people in many states are rejecting gay marriage.

This is what I don't get. Practically every state that has a referendum on gay marriage has rejected it, and in fact some think that the referrenda in 2004 helped get Bush re-elected, and yet we're supposed to believe that this is an electoral liability.

Another thing - I wish abortion could be a local issue taken off the national stage, but it's the left that turned it into a national issue with Roe v. Wade and their continued insistence on upholding that abortion (pun intended) of a decision.

Posted by: crankycon at November 14, 2008 03:36 PM (mMvsk)

90 "It's not a minority of the party. You have to accept reality on this
point. It's the libertarian leaners that are the minority."

Yes, in the South that is certainly true. Is it true in Indiana, where traditional Republicans just didn't bother to vote for a statist like McCain? Is it true in NOVA and Colorado and Nevada?

Posted by: Cedric at November 14, 2008 03:36 PM (lnz0F)

91 But seriously, I'm with lorien1973. The lack of fiscal discipline has been a huge problem. The Gingrich Republicans were fiscally conservative, improved the brand, and made it easier for Bush to get elected. Bush then undid all of that and sabotaged McCain and handed the election to Comrade Obama.

Posted by: Terry Notus at November 14, 2008 03:36 PM (pPKQo)

92 Anyone in favor of assisting the RIAA in their witchhunt is a fool that
I find no common ground with for any reason other than coincidence.

I'm not a fan of the RIAA generally, but if you're talking about their campaign against file sharing, I think the defense of intellectual property rights is a very legitimate conservative issue. Not to mention the fact that consitution explicitly gives the federal government authority over this.

I've generally been pretty disgusted with the attitude of "we should ignore/abolish copyright because its easy for me to get free music, and I should have it if I want."

Posted by: Farmer Joe at November 14, 2008 03:36 PM (z4es9)

93 Ace;

You keep saying Rudy was pro-choice but conservative on everything else. BS, he was only conservative on a couple of things and he was liberal on everything else. And he sure as hell did not meet the criteria of believing in the Constitution.

Posted by: Vic at November 14, 2008 03:36 PM (Qd7GC)

94 Slu,
Regarding gay marriage: with me, it has become less of a family issue and more of a religious freedom issue. I think the vanguard of the gay marriage movement is motivated by a desire to bankrupt and legallyharm Christians, and they haven't been doing a good job convincing me otherwise.

Posted by: TomM. at November 14, 2008 03:38 PM (dr1s2)

95 Wow. nobody can think of any examples of the right as censor ? REALLY ? How about the fallout from Janet Jackson's tit ? How about upping the fines for "obsenities" on the radio to $300K+ per offense ? How about the likes of Brent Bozell ?
Sorry, but the point here is not that the majority of conservatives take these positions, it's that there is a sizeable minority that DO and the part pandered to these people for the last 8 years. I don't believe the federal government should be determining the legality of abortion OR gay marriage. They shouldn't be stepping into Terry Shiavo situations. They shouldn't be banning stem cell reasearch. They shouldn't be championing bullshit "abstinence only" sex ed. These are all positions dictated by the furthes right in the party, the social conservatives.
Now I grant you, a sizeable porition of the electorate are as dumb as rocks and will vote for "change" without having any idea what it means. And so sure, you can get elected without having broad appeal based on ideals and values, but look at Congress. Republicans are in the distinct minority and declining. Is the status quo really the way to go ?

Posted by: deadrody at November 14, 2008 03:39 PM (aCKVb)

96 Huckabee split the social conservative vote

What was conservative about Huckabee besides the Baptist preacher thing? All I saw was him advocating more government, more control, and more taxes.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at November 14, 2008 03:39 PM (yG+tb)

97 Posted by: Farmer Joe at November 14, 2008 03:36 PM (z4es9)

Agreed. I see no problem with allowing an artist to keep control of his or her creation, or with that artist passing on the financial benefits from that creation to his descendants or estate.

Posted by: Slublog at November 14, 2008 03:40 PM (R8+nJ)

98 People are talking about the social con issues because there is actual disagreement on some of those issues within the tent. Maybe we should focus on an area where there is more agreement: fiscal conservatism. The problem is that we-- the grassroots and the politicians-- all agree on the rhetoric, BUT they -- the politicians-- are way out of whack on actual policy.

Posted by: Terry Notus at November 14, 2008 03:40 PM (pPKQo)

99 yeah I have seen a ton of GOP campaign ads on janet jackson, where was that exactly in the platform

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 03:41 PM (/Zcox)

100 I lived in New Jersy when Christine Whitman was the govenor. She was dumber than a bag of fucking hammers. When she got to be the EPA for Bush, she changed. She was dumber than a bag of wet shit.
People do change.

Posted by: TomJW at November 14, 2008 03:41 PM (xRCpL)

101 They shouldn't be banning stem cell reasearch.

They're not.

Posted by: Slublog at November 14, 2008 03:41 PM (R8+nJ)

102 JimK: I just read all your posts and I think most people are trying to enter into dialogue with you. But it looks to me like you're still fighting the SoCon battles from the 80's early 90's. I think it's true what others have pointed out - just because some Rev. in Podunk gets play in the MSM for running over some DVDs with an asphalt roller doesn't mean squat to most conservatives. But the depiction in the MSM and news websites blows it up all out of proportion. If anything, the "SoCons" are now pushing solving "man-made global warming", covering for illegals, etc. Therefore, besides their devotion to their faith, with those positions, they can hardly be SoCons.
I think you're fighting the last war.

Posted by: Paulie in AZ at November 14, 2008 03:42 PM (8sSFK)

103 I don't believe the federal government should be determining the legality of abortion OR gay marriage.

That's pretty much been the position of most pro-lifers on the abortion. That's the entire premise of the anti Roe position. Again, it's the left that nationalized the issue.

Posted by: crankycon at November 14, 2008 03:42 PM (mMvsk)

104 Wow. nobody can think of any examples of the right as censor ? REALLY ? How about the fallout from Janet Jackson's tit ?
Which was exactly what? An FCC clampdown? That happened on an over-the-air network in the middle of the highest rated telecast of the year. I guaran-damn-tee you that if you see a little nippage on "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia," you're not going to hear peep out of the FCC.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at November 14, 2008 03:43 PM (z4es9)

105 I think that socially conservative values win, but I don't think that applying them like liberals will. The Da Vinci code makes sense (to me at least) in establishing that some on the religious right will boycott things they don't believe in. That isn't a bad thing. I'd do more than boycott over some things. The problem I am so poorly articulating, is that if we push our platform too far in the direction of social conservatism that it comes with consequences. One of those consequences is that a religious agenda would have more impact in politics. That isn't necessarily a bad thing if the electorate is for it, but I think there are a hell of a lot of Americans that want to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. SoCon values with libertarian application is the best way I can explain what I am talking about.

Posted by: blankminde at November 14, 2008 03:43 PM (Js18c)

106 Maybe it is time for the SoCons to form their own party. Then the other two parties can try to figure out how to get their support to have a governing coalition. They will be the swing vote.

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 03:44 PM (/Zcox)

107 MattB says: "Apart from abortion and gay marriage, what issues do people have inmind?"

Well, how about creationism, prayer in schools, ten commandments as public policy? I almost always vote Republican, but those issues make it tougher for me.

Posted by: Terry Notus at November 14, 2008 03:44 PM (pPKQo)

108 Wow. nobody can think of any examples of the right as censor ? REALLY ? How about the fallout from Janet Jackson's tit ? How about upping the fines for "obsenities" on the radio to $300K+ per offense ? How about the likes of Brent Bozell ?
Two of three of those were bipartisan. Plus, Sean Hannity took to the air to oppose the second, and even brought Howard Stern on in one of the greatest moments in radio history.
Brent Bozell is a fair point.

Posted by: TomM. at November 14, 2008 03:44 PM (dr1s2)

109 Liberal intellectuals experiment with loosening of sexual mores, then the underclass copies them (without noticing that the elite didn't abandon their responsibilities, such as to children). Result: abortion rates, out of wedlock births, and serial fatherhood rates skyrocket; jealousy and violence soon follow, and ghetto conditions result.

Liberal intellectuals then create economically based policies (denying that belief systems are the actual problem) This rewards failure, and provides excuses for bad behavior. After all, one can't be personally responsible when America is so oppressive, can one? Correction is denounced as humiliating and illegitimate. Adding insult to injury, society is encouraged to embrace ghetto culture - art, clothing, music, and so on.

Socially liberal Republicans are enablers of this. That's the problem.


Posted by: Mongerel at November 14, 2008 03:45 PM (wgl1t)

110 >>It's not a minority of the party. You have to accept reality on this point. It's the libertarian leaners that are the minority.

Stands to reason that if it's not the minority, it's the majority, no? Last time I heard, "social conservatives" self-identified as 22% of the electorate. I won't die on that figure, but if it's even close to accurate, it's certainly not cutting much ice nationally. If it were, Kansas would be seen as a political flash-pan and not an intellectual curiosity.

And speaking of conceding points, I won't concede that "libertarian leaners" are a minority--this nomenclature perpetuates the "libertarian as dopehead" meme. I'd wager my liver against yours that there's is a much stronger body of Americans whose driver is MYOB than many suppose.

Posted by: railwriter at November 14, 2008 03:45 PM (XcsD4)

111 I seem to have totally missed the point at which pornography or violent video games and movies (and television) with pervasive and often explicit sex in them have become less available instead of utterly saturating our entire culture.

What did I miss here?

Exactly how much MORE available is that stuff supposed to get before certain people do not feel oppressed?

My own feeling, and not just as a person with children, but *my* feeling for *me* is that *I* want to control what *I* am exposed to. I don't see this in any way as oppressing Jim or anyone else. I want to know what to expect from my entertainment so I can make a choice for myself to participate or not. I don't think it is *liberty* in any way if I have to go particularly out of my way to avoid what I find offensive. And I've got no time or sympathy for anyone AT ALL who doesn't understand that children are a part of the community and have a Right to be part of the community.

If you don't like the community that children are a part of and the community that should and ought to protect those children who are members of that community... I'm sure there is an "adult" community some place in Florida full of obscene old men who like to wander around enjoying the breeze on their johnson. You'll fit right in.


Posted by: Synova at November 14, 2008 03:46 PM (NxP4A)

112 What was conservative about Huckabee besides the Baptist preacher thing? All I saw was him advocating more government, more control, and more taxes.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at November 14, 2008 03:39 PM (yG+tb)
That's why he was indicated as to being only social conservative. He was a big government liberal otherwise. And there is a sizable group of Republicans out there that will vote for him, especially when the other choice is mccain who has his own problems liberal policies.

Posted by: buzzion at November 14, 2008 03:46 PM (Lrsi6)

113 Brent Bozell is a fair point.

Yeah, I've got to give him that one.

Posted by: Slublog at November 14, 2008 03:47 PM (R8+nJ)

114 I disagree this is the "last war." Romney is seen as one of the possible golden boys, and he;s HUGE on laws that would criminalize the sale of games and other raterd M or R merch to "children." Criminalize. The sale. Of a game. It was a plank in his most recent campaign for President.

That is, in short, insane. It's one thing to be concerned with the sale of "adult" material to minors. It is quite another to criminalize that sale. That was as recent as last year.

And again, for the cheap seats...this is not my core issue. I was simply offering one suggestion as to what might turn socially liberal libertarians off about the GOP.

Posted by: JimK at November 14, 2008 03:47 PM (+ojig)

115 I voted for McCain,and I would have voted for Rudi, even though I would be considered pretty socially conservative, because I believe national security and the war on terror are the defining issues of this generation. I don't expect the GOP to cater to every thing I think, but ridicule of what I may believe gets old.

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 03:49 PM (/Zcox)

116 Another point that these lib republicans seem to have missed is that politics is about 90% optics and stagecraft. Did McCain have an ounce of stagecraft? Hell no. Bush had it in spades. That's probably the biggest draw for moderate voters. These people don't pay close attention, they just want to back a winner. And Obama had pretty much nothing but stagecraft going for him. It's what won him the middle.

Posted by: nightwitch at November 14, 2008 03:49 PM (vQPBu)

117 Oh please. Like your ill-considered and somewhat childish insults matter to me. But your attack proves something; You cannot play nice with someone who doesn't agree with your wedge issue.
Um, because your wedge issue -- the one you highlighted passionately in the very first post on this thread -- is bullshit. It is a specter of your imagination and nothing more. You've had numerous opportunities to demonstrate otherwise since you were mocked, rightly, for your bullshit, and yet you've declined to do so.
You react like a Kos Kid and drive people away with childish insults.
As opposed to demonizing a coalition of an ideology that you ostensibly support in general for actions that they have not taken.
And you seem to be in the majority on my side of the fence. We just got our asses kicked at the polls TWICE in the last two major elections and handed the entire shooting match to the left...the FAER left at that.
Yeah, we lost the last two elections because we loudly and proudly took the "christianist" stance onabortion, gay marriage, and video games. Got it, Jim. Got it.
But hey...keep pushing me (the royal "me" so to speak) away and see how many votes you can lose for 2010.
Because what would the Republican Party do without the coveted "fantasists with paranoid persecution complexes" voting bloc? What ever can we do to salvage the relationship?
Speaking of strawmen: This is NOT my most passionate issue upon which I base my vote (that would generally be guns and/or personal liberty, a facet of which would be artistic expression).
Perhaps, then,you should have hitched your wagon to that star in this thread. Then I would be exercising my considerable typing skills agreeing with you rather than rhetorically pointing and laughing.
Nice assumption you made there, though.
Uh, you barged in here half-drooling on yourself yelling "Christianists are trying to censor my art!!!!!11111". I, somehow, drew some assumptions about your beliefs from that entrance. Mea culpa.
Way to be precisely the thing against which you are railing.
This is -- what's the word -- incoherent. And maybe a little unhinged. What the hell was I "railing against" again? Oh, yeah, silly libertarians forever looking for book burning Bible bangers under their beds. And now I've apparently become one. Somehow.
The discussion was about what other social issue can bug cons/libertarians
No, Jim, now your narcissism is getting in the way. The "discussion" involved Ace's spot-on commentary about the unreliableness of self-described "libertarians" when it comes to extrapolating their undeclared positions from the ones that they have declared. You are the one who decided to make the discussion all about Grand Theft Auto and the Great Christian Bogeyman coming (any day now!!!!111) to take away your ability to beat a hooker to death with a Louisville Slugger.
I offered one example and you went ballistic trying to slap me down.
You offered "an example" that you could not defend because it only exists in your fevered imaginings. AND NOW I'VE GONE BALLISTIC!!!!!11111
Not effective consensus building, and it shows you've personally learned nothing from the recent losses.
I'm not interested in building "consensus" with people with serious pathologies. And I'm pretty sure that taking your advice and demonizing social conservatives for the sins that you falsely attribute to them, Christie Todd Whitman, isa super-great recipe for political suicide. No thanks.

Posted by: VJay at November 14, 2008 03:50 PM (gQ+XA)

118 Deadrody

Sure was a bunch of Strawmen there. Sounded just like a Democrap argument.

The fallout over Janet Jackson’s tit and the other stuff involved existing regulation during the “family” time.

The shit with Stem cell research ONLY involved embryonic cells and was another issue of using FEDERAL MONEY to subsidize it. It was not and never was an attempt by Bush to ban it. Besides, NOTHING has ever came out of embryonic stem cells. All advances have came from adult cells.

I have seen numerous threads brought up by some of the religious zealot pundits on Townhall advocating more censorship and the large majority of the conservatives literally blast them off the screen.

The fact is that most conservatives, be they of any variety, are NOT for a massive amount of censorship. Neither are they for allowing the regular broadcast bands of TV to be saturated with filth either. Put all of that on cable and it is fine.

Posted by: Vic at November 14, 2008 03:50 PM (Qd7GC)

119 Always Sunny In Philadelphia? Man, I saw Danny DeVito's ass on that show a couple of weeks ago.
If that doesn't get you shut down, I don't know what will...

Posted by: RC at November 14, 2008 03:51 PM (vUlAq)

120 Well, how about creationism, prayer in schools, ten commandments as public policy?

Again, who the hell is talking about these issues on a national level, and exactly how much do these issues factor into even local political races? When was the last time there was a big push for prayer in school? There was some dude named Reagan whose administration tried to make this an issue, but I guess he was some kind of big government socon radical. As for creationism - who cares? Yeah, there are some people who want to tack on stickers on textbooks in Alabama, but is this a big policy battle that's consuming the nation's attention.

The more the social liberals try to rationalize the supposed electoral difficulties of a socially conservative platform, the more it seems it's about a personal distaste for religious people.

Posted by: crankycon at November 14, 2008 03:51 PM (mMvsk)

121 My own feeling, and not just as a person with children, but *my*
feeling for *me* is that *I* want to control what *I* am exposed to.
I don't see this in any way as oppressing Jim or anyone else. I want
to know what to expect from my entertainment so I can make a choice for
myself to participate or not. I don't think it is *liberty* in any
way if I have to go particularly out of my way to avoid what I find
offensive. And I've got no time or sympathy for anyone AT ALL who
doesn't understand that children are a part of the community and have a
Right to be part of the community.

We frequently tell the liberals that they don't have a right to not be offended. Why do you think that doesn't apply to you too? It's easy enough to find out about the content of films and CDs by doing a little research. And while I've said previously that I don't have a problem with making certain things inaccessable to children, I don't see why we should have to tailor the entire culture to their needs.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at November 14, 2008 03:52 PM (z4es9)

122 Brent Bozell is a fair point.
Except he's not a politician; he's a private citizen. It seems some SoLib Republicans here can't wrap their minds around the teeny tiny little distinction between public policy and private advocacy. They seem to want social conservatives to either disavow their most deeply-held socio-political beliefs or be treated as outcasts by the political class.
Remember -- they're the smart ones.

Posted by: VJay at November 14, 2008 03:53 PM (gQ+XA)

123 It's the "go ahead and smoke if you want to, but don't breathe in my face" principle.

The "go ahead and drive drunk, but not on the same road as me" principle.

The "go ahead and have your pron and video game sex, but don't expect to have the right to force me to do anything to avoid it" principle.

Because you don't have that right.

Posted by: Synova at November 14, 2008 03:53 PM (NxP4A)

124 12 Jackstraw, I doubt that Weld was thinking of long-dead and longer-irrelevant Helms when making hisdecision tokowtow beforeThe One.
It's more likely that Weld was alwayssnotnosed and vindictive, and that people like Helms learnt this before we did.

Posted by: David Ross at November 14, 2008 03:54 PM (GwV+j)

125 I'd wager my liver against yours that there's is a much stronger body of Americans whose driver is MYOB than many suppose.

No doubt. Too bad that MYOB is not the libertarian position.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 03:54 PM (F8r4J)

126 99 yeah I have seen a ton of GOP campaign ads on janet jackson, where was that exactly in the platform

They didn't need to campaign on it. They were already in power and pushed the agenda through congress which Bush signed.

108
Wow. nobody can think of any examples of the right as censor ? REALLY ? How about the fallout from Janet Jackson's tit ? How about upping the fines for "obsenities" on the radio to $300K+ per offense ? How about the likes of Brent Bozell ?
Two of three of those were bipartisan. Plus, Sean Hannity took to the air to oppose the second, and even brought Howard Stern on in one of the greatest moments in radio history.
Well that would be why Jimk pointed to the left and to the right as being a problem on this issue. He even pointed to Lieberman in his first post. And this is a problem. The ones on the right going at this are all about the "must protect children/its immoral and must be banned." On the left its all about "We know how to raise your children better than you so you can't see this either."
Pointing out that the attempts at censorship is a bipartisan effort is not a good thing. Republicans should be going on the personal responsibility kick.

Posted by: buzzion at November 14, 2008 03:54 PM (Lrsi6)

127 The "go ahead and have your pron and video game sex, but don't expect
to have the right to force me to do anything to avoid it" principle.
Go ahead and retreat into a squeaky clean enclave, but don't expect to force me to live there, too.

That hammer slices both ways.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at November 14, 2008 03:55 PM (z4es9)

128 These guys should be real popular around here:
http://tinyurl.com/65stye

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 03:55 PM (/Zcox)

129 <i>I don't see why we should have to tailor the entire culture to their needs.</i>

Because you are counting on coercing the labor of other people in order to bring up those children to be well adjusted human beings in order to have a decent world for *you* to live in.

Why should parents have to go out of their way to serve *your* needs?

Posted by: Synova at November 14, 2008 03:56 PM (NxP4A)

130 I can’t believe I have to keep saying this. BEING AGAINST ABORTION OR BEING RELIGIOUS by itself does not make you a conservative. If it did every one of those amnesty pushing anti-war priests would be a conservative.

Huckabee was and is a RELIGIOUS ZEALOT NANNY-STATE LIBERAL. A Democrat(R).

Posted by: Vic at November 14, 2008 03:56 PM (Qd7GC)

131 I was working on a comment criticizing others' views of conservatism, but I didn't post because I don't think it helps. Instead, is there anyone who disagrees with this plank: "Less spending!" If people like that one, maybe it is better to build a positive coalition around a shared view, then to winnow the coalition based on disagreements?

Posted by: Terry Notus at November 14, 2008 03:56 PM (pPKQo)

132 VJay, you seem to be a huge fan of being a total internet douchebag and acting like *I* personally am St. Andi of the Eternal Heartache or something. Not sure who you're railing against, but it doesn't seem to be me at all. I never once raised the spectre of "Christianists" (what a stupid word, but it certainly tells me who you're arguing against).

You and I are done talking. You're not an adult, and you can't have a rational conversation. You are exactly the same as ST. Andi when he's gobsmacked. Feel free to continue the argument if you need to feel important. As I said to you before, me and my vote will be over here if you ever change your mind.

Posted by: JimK at November 14, 2008 03:56 PM (+ojig)

133 And you do, you know.

Anyone who argues that *they* didn't chose to have those children isn't suggesting living in a world without children. They just want to live in a decent world without doing any of the labor necessary.

Posted by: Synova at November 14, 2008 03:58 PM (NxP4A)

134 Not merely a lack of fiscal discipline, I think the GOP suffers from a massive lack of just plain old discipline. It's hard to convince the voting public that you value and will advance traditional values when your Party members are getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar just like the other guys.

As far as the fiscal conservative/social liberal tag goes, I suppose I'd have to wear it by default, but I have to admit going in that that's primarily a function of my apathy, because as long as my fellow Americans aren't wasting my tax money and turning back to me with their hand out, I really don't care what they do.

The exception to me would be abortion, and I don't think a lot of people realize how delicate of a balance needs to be struck there. On one hand, there are people like me whose opposition to abortion is based on a fundamental, non-negotiable belief system that says human life is the top consideration, period.

At the same time, there are people who place individual liberty in that top slot, and relegate the 'value of human life' question to the discretion of the individual.

Now, those are two pretty divergent viewpoints, and I think it's pretty much useless to try proceeding with an agenda until the party decides which one of those it's going to represent.

In the meantime, it's also pointless to try to persuade reluctant voters to a socially conservative, values-based agenda with events like Larry Craig's arrest and Senator Stevens' conviction providing ammunition to the opposition.

The GOP can't heal the country until it heals itself, that's my $0.015 (adjusted for inflation).




Posted by: DDT_Saves_Lives at November 14, 2008 03:59 PM (mT2TF)

135 "...don't expect to have the right to force me to do anything to avoid it."

FAIL.

Posted by: railwriter at November 14, 2008 03:59 PM (XcsD4)

136 Synova, do you agree with the idea of telling PC-obsessed liberals that they do not have the right to not be offended?

Posted by: JimK at November 14, 2008 03:59 PM (+ojig)

137 Social cons just need to backburner their big government solution crap.
The Republican party line on the social con agenda needs to be "We'll return the power on these issues to the state/local government, and to the people." This has been Sarah Palin's position throughout her career, which is why the attempts to pigeonhole her as a Buchanan/Huckabee social con infuriates me.
Sarah has never pushed for the social con agenda as a part of her policies. She's only ever said that these issues should be left to the people. Witness her veto of a same-sex benefits ban in Alaska. She's such a strict Constitutional constructionist that she sometimes calls still-living authors of the Alaska state constitution to find out what their intent was. Imagine if you could call James Madison on the phone and ask about separation of powers.

Posted by: Jim62sch at November 14, 2008 03:59 PM (zYagu)

138 Jim,
Fair point about Mitt's Crusade Against Video Games. The vagaries of vice-squad law are beneath the dignity of the President. Stick to life issues, I say.

Posted by: TomM. at November 14, 2008 03:59 PM (dr1s2)

139 Because you are counting on coercing the labor of other people in order
to bring up those children to be well adjusted human beings in order to
have a decent world for *you* to live in.

Oh, bullshit. It takes labor to live in the world, no matter what kind of a world it is. I'm not "coercing" your labor to bring up your kids any more than you're coercing mine by forcing me to go out of my way to interact with others on an adult level.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at November 14, 2008 03:59 PM (z4es9)

140 SoCons also tend to :
Support smaller govt and low taxes, gun rights, strong national defense

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 04:00 PM (/Zcox)

141
Social cons also assault popular media in attempts to censor and ban
entertainment with which they do not agree because of their morality

That word "censor" does not mean what you seem to think it means. It does not include such things as protesting are calling for boycotts of certain shows or movies.

I'd hazard a guess they you agree that kiddy porn should be censored because of your "morality". Nothing is annoying as listening to moralizing libertarians complaining about other peoples morality.


Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 04:00 PM (F8r4J)

142 Another thing - I wish abortion could be a local issue taken off the national stage, but it's the left that turned it into a national issue with Roe v. Wade and their continued insistence on upholding that abortion (pun intended) of a decision.


They keep it there because they know that a lot of states would vote to ban it. That's probably why they've been trying so hard to nationalize the gay marriage issue, and CA just cinched it.

Posted by: Nanashi at November 14, 2008 04:03 PM (zBX6o)

143 Social cons just need to backburner their big government solution crap.

Jog my memory here. What big government solution crap do social cons have again? I think it's pretty easy to demonstrate that social cons are the most small government people in Washington.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 04:03 PM (F8r4J)

144 I'd hazard a guess they you agree that kiddy porn should be censored because of your "morality". Nothing is annoying as listening to moralizing libertarians complaining about other peoples morality.

GFE (Godwin Functional Equivalent) fail

Posted by: Farmer Joe at November 14, 2008 04:04 PM (z4es9)

145 deadrody @ 95: First a minor clarification. The federal government never banned stem cell research. Bush only limited public funding for it to the stem cell lines already in existence at the time. You are perfectly free to spend your own money creating as many embryonic stem cells as you wish.

And I actually agree with many of your points but that's not equivalent to saying that the Republican Party should switch sides on those issues, only that they should be fought at the state level.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 14, 2008 04:05 PM (wy+AE)

146 Again, who the hell is talking about these issues on a national level, and exactly how much do these issues factor into even local political races?
Are you really going to try to claim that when these issues come up at the state level they don't have an effect nationally? Usually when they do come up they get national attention and people then feel the need to support one side of that. And that support can come back at them later on.

Posted by: buzzion at November 14, 2008 04:05 PM (Lrsi6)

147 I think "criminalize" is a bit over stated there, Jim. Romney wants to clean things up so the sewer is where the sewer goes, and not everywhere. Look, I'm not even a conservative, but the conservatives are a helluva lot closer to my position than the left will ever be.


As I said in the other thread, folks: trying to appeal to the center, with it's vast ocean of "undecideds" is like trying to control a pest problem by introducing a foreign species.


Social cons need fiscal cons, fiscal cons need defense cons, and defense cons need social cons. Closing ranks about one aspect of the triangle is a futile effort, leading to state control of everything.

Posted by: K~Bob at November 14, 2008 04:08 PM (KWk7X)

148 She's the daughter of a SCHOOL TEACHER, not an iron worker.

"despising Sarah Palin for having been born blue-collar"

Ace, you've been brainwashed by the pinheads in the puntacracy.

Posted by: prestopundit at November 14, 2008 04:08 PM (yKV7p)

149 VJay, you seem to be a huge fan of being a total internet douchebag and acting like *I* personally am St. Andi of the Eternal Heartache or something.
Go read your first, hysterical post, Jim. And then try to find me the needle in the haystack in this thread where you actually defend your silly little tirade rather than hyperbolically rant on and on like a certain over-emotive blogger for gay gossip site and anti-Semitic conspiracy rag The Atlantic each time you've been taken to task for it.
Not sure who you're railing against, but it doesn't seem to be me at all.
I'm railing? Quick quiz, Jim: Which one of us is all tied up in knots to the point where his political party affiliation is in question about the non-existent "problem" of social conservatives trying to censor arts and entertainment? I'll give you two guesses -- no peaking!
I never once raised the spectre of "Christianists" (what a stupid word, but it certainly tells me who you're arguing against).
Of course you didn't, Jim. Of course you didn't. You're just going on like a sweaty-toothed madman about those damned secular busybodies trying to pry your videogames from your fingers.
You and I are done talking.
Noooo!!!! Talking to you is all I've got going for me, Jim!
You're not an adult, and you can't have a rational conversation.
I'm not trying to reason with you, Jim. I'm making fun of you because you're an unserious buffoon. I'm sorry -- I should have been more upfront with my motives.
You are exactly the same as ST. Andi when he's gobsmacked.
Says the guy going apeshit over social conservatives invading his private business. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.
As I said to you before, me and my vote will be over here if you ever change your mind.
Really? So your vote, which countless thousands have bled toprotect andensure, is contingent on the rhetoric of an irrational, non-adult stranger you met on the intertubes? I feel so unworthy of this power you have bestowed upon me. I promise to use it only to annoy.

Posted by: VJay at November 14, 2008 04:09 PM (gQ+XA)

150 Have you forgotten about Barry Goldwater? He's the closest thing to a libertarian presidential candidate we've had in the modern era, declared himself that his policies would one day be considered "liberal," and was partially the ideological godfather of the Reagan Revolution.

He also lost by a huge margin against the worst of Presidents, that asshat Johnson.

But now that the West is in play, Republicans would be foolish to turn on the libertarians... this is the one thing they did to lose so much favor in recent years. You certainly can't claim that the Repubs haven't pandered enough to the religious wack jobs in the coalition.

How hard is it for you Huckabee loving social conservatives to understand that there's a huge difference between the values you hold personally and wanting the government to enforce them on everyone?

It's frustrating having to vote for Republicans (and we are a two party system, don't even try to use arguments about the Green Party or the Libertarian Party as being real alternatives to anything) when they have kept up their obsessive desire to clean up private bedroom habits instead of clean up Washington, wasteful spending, entitlements, etc.

What ever happened to these core values:

Individual Libery, Personal Responsibility, Federalism, Limited Government, National Defense, Constructionist Constitution, Fiscal Conservatism.

Republican score card: Fail, Fail, Fail, Pass with a low score, Pass with excellent supreme court picks, Fail.

The sad thing is, with so much fail, people are actually turning to the Democrats who aren't going to try and pass, but will actively undermine all of those values.

Posted by: Christopher at November 14, 2008 04:10 PM (nAK5u)

151 Would it be more prudent for the GOP to support a more federalist approach to SoCon issues? Is that a stupid question?

Posted by: blankminde at November 14, 2008 04:10 PM (Js18c)

152 Jog my memory here. What big government solution crap do social cons have again? I think it's pretty easy to demonstrate that social cons are the most small government people in Washington.
Which is why Congress had special sessions to determine whether or not a hospital in Florida should continue to feed and keep alivewhat was functionally a vegetable. Don't go acting like social cons actually have the right to throw the first stone at the whore that is the government.

Posted by: buzzion at November 14, 2008 04:10 PM (Lrsi6)

153 If the self-destructive pursuit of Roe v Wade and banning gay marriage
weren't enough to make social conservativism distasteful to a majority
in this country, the morality plays in the media should just about seal
their fate.

The majority in this country support the banning of gay marriage. And the over-turning of Roe is about returning power to the people to make their own legislative decisions. Once upon a time, long ago, that was a libertarian principle. But that was before the movement was hijacked by people who hate religion a lot more than they do the state.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 04:11 PM (F8r4J)

154 Slightly OT, I guess, but why does everyone think that this election showed McCain-Feingold to be an albatross?

If Obama out spent McCain by so dingdang much, why is it 52 v. 48, instead of 90 v. 10?

Actually knowing that McCain didn't have as much money as Obama made me get off the donkey and contribute to 'What Just Happened', Rep. candidates in Senate House races, even work the phones... I've never done that before.

I always ASSuMe'd that the party would do it all ...

Posted by: Adriane at November 14, 2008 04:11 PM (wJlIy)

155 I can tell all you squishy Republicans one thing. I voted for McCain this time. I had not intended to vote for him even with Obama running because it seemed the party was drifting further left every election. I fear was that soon we would be voting for a choice between Stalin and Mao and the Republican candidate would be runing on a platform of “vote for me because I will kill fewer millions than my opponent”.

My feeling was that as long as we rewarded behavior of drifting left that it would never stop. With the nomination of Palin I thought that we had a chance for a real conservative in 2012, thus no need for the education.

After what I have seen here and at the national level though I see that that was a mistake. The liberals in the Party will not learn a lesson and are hell bent on trying to out liberal the communists in the Dem party.

I will NEVER vote for another liberal squishy candidate regardless of the running mate. If they run another one it will be a fucking 50 State blowout.

Posted by: Vic at November 14, 2008 04:12 PM (Qd7GC)

156 single, yet multifaceted, principle

Here's mine:

We're Classical Liberals and We're Here to Redistribute Your Liberties

Posted by: Mongerel at November 14, 2008 04:13 PM (wgl1t)

157 The discussion of morality or what is right and wrong etc is always an interesting one. Because, in reality, every law is a moral decision. Someone, or a group of someones,has determined that it's right or wrong to do this or that. A fiscal conservative can argue against a certain tax rate, because it's wrong in their mind to have to pay X amount or more than X amount. But it's still based on an idea of what is right, just or fair. When you get right down to it, the "nobody has the right to tell me what to do" idea cannot just be placed around the neck of SoCons, when, in fact,we all have an agenda we want put into place, based on the what we think is right and wrong, just and fair.

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 04:13 PM (/Zcox)

158 Since the argument from the other thread has spilled over to this one, I'll repost this here.
I starting making my own list the other night, but I wound up with 10 things:1. Yes to secret ballots for unions, no to card check2. Yes to border enforcement, no to amnesty for illegals3. Yes to parental notification, no to partial-birth abortion4. Yes to energy independence, no to cap and trade5. Yes to broad-based tax cuts, no to class warfare6. Yes to peace through strength, no to appeasing our enemies7. Yes to free markets, no to government bailouts8. Yes to earmark reform, no to the culture of corruption9. Yes to school vouchers, no to sex-ed in kindergarten10. Let states define marriage without forcing definitions on other states


Are those things that social/economic/defense cons can all support?

Posted by: Watcher at November 14, 2008 04:14 PM (BOM2B)

159 The government has just nationalized the banking industry, and is getting ready to do the same to the auto industry.

And what topic has the "libertarians" wound up? Their festering resentment of Christianity.

You people are not libertarians. Stop calling yourselves by that name.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 04:16 PM (F8r4J)

160 JimK makes a good point -- a LOT of people who would
otherwise vote Republican are very turned off by what they see as as a
preachy focus and disproportionate interest...I don't know
how to square this circle. My suggestion -- run on these issues, but
don't push them too hard...

Posted by: ace
Ace, Palin has it...

She is PERSONALLY a social con, but she governs like
a libertarian and respects that *I* am not a social con. More. Like.
Her. Please.

Posted by: JimK

For the social con's, she IS one of them. No doubt in anyone's mind.

But for those worried about social con's legislating their big Government instead of the liberal's big Government (which is the concern) Palin's record stands clear.

1) Her first veto, was a social con bill she felt was unconstitutional, even though it was overturning a state SC ruling she opposed.
http://tinyurl.com/6ju6ly

2) Her statement saying she wouldn't demand Stevens step down; stating the will of the people overrules her personal feelings.
http://tinyurl.com/5hfb5u

3) And on budgets?
"In the first two budget years under Palin, the state government has
stashed almost $6 billion of surplus revenues in various reserve and
savings accounts in anticipation of future drops in the price of oil."
http://tinyurl.com/458583

So yeah, this is how to get the libertarians on your side without excessive grousing.

If the libertarians truly believe based on your actions that you take the Constitution and the expressed will of the people as more important than your opinion; and if you actually have a record of sound fiscal management? You can personally believe in nearly anything you'd care to. There are few enough of those of any stripe to complain that I wanted a different flavor.

If I don't think you're going to use your office to make an issue of your beliefs (at least not in an inappropriate, dictatorial, or unconstitutional manner) then I'm less worried what those beliefs are.

What worries me is the "Palin is an idiot and should never run again" crowd. If you can show me another candidate who the social cons and the libertarian-leaners both can trust; feel free. But I've not seen a record that I'd trust like Palin's in some time.

Properly presented, I think her record could easily sell to the independents and win as well. But you'd actually have to present her record as the focus of the campaign, rather than the mismanaged mish-mash that was presented as Palin this time around.

Posted by: Gekkobear at November 14, 2008 04:16 PM (td8rd)

161 Go ahead and ban kiddy porn if you like. But don't you dare try to steal my collection of naked cats.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 14, 2008 04:16 PM (wy+AE)

162 I've got no problem telling PC obsessed liberals that they don't have a right to use government to protect themselves from being offended.

I also have no problem with the notion that getting in someone's face and offending them should be responded to with a sock to the nose.

The lack of socking-to-the-nose has nearly destroyed the concept of public civility.

Hey, don't taze me bro!

How many You-tube videos have we seen of some deliberately obnoxious liberal idiot being hauled away screeching, "What did I do! What did I do! I thought this was AMERICA!" because they've got the idea that *their* freedom of speech involves the right to force their speech on others?

Government enforcement is one thing. But we've got this idea that our *freedom* means that we have a right to carry on without community disapproval. Not only do other people not have the right to be *offended* but that we have the right to be obnoxious and push our stuff on others without repercussion.


Posted by: Synova at November 14, 2008 04:17 PM (NxP4A)

163 Watcher

Add one other and it will be complete:

Yes to the Constitution as written, NO to a living Constitution.

That will take care of most things.

Posted by: Vic at November 14, 2008 04:17 PM (Qd7GC)

164 #158 - I was just thinking on that, just took a quick glance , but I like your list. And for each issue there has a be a proactive positive plan.

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 04:18 PM (/Zcox)

165 I guess I'm one of those who is liberal on social issues but conservative on economic/fiscal issues and national defense.

I haven't drifted farther to the left. I don't drift at all. I just want the government out of our lives, and that applies to personal sexual matters as well.

Posted by: debbiesym at November 14, 2008 04:20 PM (s+odC)

166 Watcher - I'd vote the line.

Posted by: blankminde at November 14, 2008 04:20 PM (Js18c)

167 Would it be more prudent for the GOP to support a more federalist approach to SoCon issues?
Ding ding ding! That is exactly the right answer. If the people in West Cornhole want to ban baggy pants, or the people in East Hippiestan want to ban eating meat, that's up to them. We should not be talking about moral issues at the federal level.

Posted by: Jim62sch at November 14, 2008 04:20 PM (zYagu)

168 It is true that when SoCons protest movies like The DaVinci Code that it is not equivalent to censorship, but it is also true that such acts of protest play into the MSM meme that SoCons are a bunch of ignorant moralizing troglodytes. And I think it's this image, rather than the actual attempts to (non-)censor distasteful elements of the popular culture, that incites the SoLibs to want to kick the SoCons out of the party.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 14, 2008 04:20 PM (wy+AE)

169 Chemjeff
My cats call for Kittyporn also

Posted by: Vic at November 14, 2008 04:20 PM (Qd7GC)

170 it's frustrating having to vote for Republicans .. when they
have kept up their obsessive desire to clean up private bedroom habits
instead of clean up Washington, wasteful spending, entitlements, etc.

I ask again, what planet do you people live on? Because it sure as shit ain't the US of A in 2008.

Your disconnection from reality is almost moonbattish in quality.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 04:21 PM (F8r4J)

171 #158: Those are indeed the principles.
#160: And that's the way you show the principles. Perfect.

Posted by: Ian S. at November 14, 2008 04:22 PM (p05LM)

172 Synova, your position comes across a lot like "You don't have the right to not be offended, but I DO because I have kids." If I am misreading it please tell me where I am wrong. Implied is the idea that your "side" or the other "side" would legislate your desire to not come across offensive materials.

THAT is what *I* have a problem with. Not the use of free market principles to eliminate these materials. The use of LEGISLATION to eliminate them or make them increasingly difficult to market or buy.

Posted by: JimK at November 14, 2008 04:22 PM (+ojig)

173 Are you really going to try to claim that when these issues come up at the state level they don't have an effect nationally?
Yes, because the preponderence of the evidence supports that assertion. You guys have constructed a fantasy land where it's actually not difficult to do some casual web surfing without plowing into an intergalactic Hentai porn site. What freaking planet are you blogging from where all ofour AE mediums are not immeasurably more "liberal" than they were 10 years ago?
Is this all about the idiotic-and-illibertarian boondoggle of federally funded embryonic stem cell research? Is that the new "libertarian" crusade issue now? If not, then what?

Posted by: VJay at November 14, 2008 04:22 PM (gQ+XA)

174 blankminde @ 151: I couldn't agree more. I think this holds the key to our party's salvation.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 14, 2008 04:22 PM (wy+AE)

175 I haven't drifted farther to the left. I don't drift at all. I just
want the government out of our lives, and that applies to personal
sexual matters as well.

You know, it's the social liberals who decided that the Feds needed to be involved in all our private lives in the first place. If you read the threads here I'm sure you must have had this pointed out to you before.

And marriage is not a private sexual matter.


Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 04:23 PM (F8r4J)

176 Gekkobear: re #160: You are wise. Mainly because you seem to agree with me about Palin, but also because you are fundamentally correct.

Posted by: JimK at November 14, 2008 04:23 PM (+ojig)

177 It is true that when SoCons protest movies like The DaVinci Code that it is not equivalent to censorship

The only people I saw on TV speaking out about the DaVinci Code were Catholic Priests and I would hardly call them social-cons. I have not seen ANY actual protests in the street about that movie.

What I fear here is that a lot of people in this thread are getting their ideas concerning religious oriented people from the media. Isn’t it bad enough that we got our last candidate from the media people???

Posted by: Vic at November 14, 2008 04:24 PM (Qd7GC)

178 Man you guys just don't get it. Did McCain run on an aboration platform ? Hell no. And who said he did ? Anyone ?
This issue has as much to do, and probably more to dowith the direction the party took over the last 8 years than it does John McCain. Obama won because people voted AGAINST Bush and the republican party he and the likes of Ted Stevens and Larry Craig represent to people.
Good to see people defending the need to focus on gay marriage and abortion. Anyone that thinks those people are the majoirty of the party - Ace - are likely to find out that that "majority" is pretty damn small.
Also, I'm not talking about general popular opinion. Most people are opposed to gay marriage and are pro-choice. We're talking about those who are very vocal in that these are their MAJOR issues. The party has been pulled far enough towards the religious right over the last 8 years. That trend needs to stop.

Posted by: deadrody at November 14, 2008 04:24 PM (aCKVb)

179 #114, JimK: It's one thing to be concerned with the sale of "adult" material to minors. It is quite another to criminalize that sale. That was as recent as last year.
All I ask is if some tool is selling smokes or R-rated + materials to minors that they be subject to some kind of penalty. Fine them. Keep doing it? Shut them down. It's not because they were making a mistake after the 10th time they get bagged doing it. How else does anybody expect that they will be forced to stop? There has to be some graduated penalties for operating like that. Or no?
Although I voted for Romney in the AZ primaries, he wasn't exactly setting the world on fire. He just wasn't McCain. And I still fail to see the reasons for the man/woman crushes some Republicans still have for him, but maybe it's me.

Posted by: Paulie in AZ at November 14, 2008 04:26 PM (8sSFK)

180 I think the Libertariansmight beon to something with this legalizing pot notion.Half the people who voted for Obama wouldhave been tostonedto care, andtoo busywatching The Young Onesto listen to theMSM. Their deepest thinky thoughts wouldbe:Cheetos or Doritos?

Posted by: estee at November 14, 2008 04:26 PM (51h4I)

181
Would it be more prudent for the GOP to support a more federalist approach to SoCon issues? Is that a stupid question?

The GOP does support a more federalist approach to SoCon issues. One example is overturning Roe. So it's not a stupid question, but it is a bit ignorant.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 04:26 PM (F8r4J)

182 Don't confuse Libertarians with libertarians.
I would dispute "socially liberal". Take gay marriage, my libertarian opinion(your mileage may vary) is to question why exactly it's the gov't's job to decide who can marry whom.
I thought your freedom ended at my nose dick.

Posted by: Veeshir at November 14, 2008 04:28 PM (ThMnZ)

183 Anyone that thinks the RIAA is just saying, "Hey, we need to protect our artists". I'm starting to agree with some who think the Republican party is becoming the dunces in the corner.

Posted by: deadrody at November 14, 2008 04:28 PM (aCKVb)

184 Hey. Don't knock intergalactic Hentai porn.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 14, 2008 04:28 PM (wy+AE)

185 I don't care much about the porn issue one way or the other, but if we're going to be booting any people out of the party, the porn junkies should go ahead of anybody else.

That means you, Jim.


Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 04:29 PM (F8r4J)

186 Call me if you ever care to hear my opinion

No. If I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you.

You've built a series of strawmen, then lit them on fire. Congratulations, you're a serial arsonist.

Has it ever occurred to you that you might get further if you actually explain your position to a SocCon? maybe the notion that the answer to "bad" speech is more and better "good" speech might start sinking in?

Besides, given the amount of abuse Christians put up with and the patience and forgiveness practiced by them, there's absolutely nothing wrong with them practicing other aspects of the 1st amendment -- peacefully gathering and petitioning the government for a redress of wrongs.

If they where as bad as you try to paint them, there would be a Piss Mohammed and not a Piss Christ.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at November 14, 2008 04:29 PM (1hM1d)

187 @181
Thanks flenser. AOSHQ: Come for the news, stay for the verbal floggings.
Maybe if the GOP plans on pushing values issues down to states they should make that clearer. Anytime over the last 8 years would have been an awesome time to start this process.

Posted by: blankminde at November 14, 2008 04:30 PM (Js18c)

188 Wolverine, try anything that Don Wildmon is involved with. On the state level, here in Ohio we had a group of zealots that got a Strip Club Control ballot issue passed in 2006. Unfortunately the same group was in the lead of the same sex marriage issue I voted for in 2004.

I am of the opinion community standards should prevail and community should be defined as the smallest level of government that can effectively handle enforcement. So if some hick burg wants to vote out GTA, or R flicks that's fine with me...if some other high class cosmopolitan city in the northeast wants to show Deep Throat on their Public Television station as art (or a crucifix in a jar of piss for that matter) that's fine too...just don't make me subsidize that with my taxes and I'll make sure your taxes don't subsidize the Barney Fifes that want to toss GTA on the burn heap.

Posted by: SomeWhere Right at November 14, 2008 04:30 PM (SQtRB)

189 This argument is getting downright tedious.


For the most part, I am a live and let live agnostic asshole libertarian who supports the R party because I can't stand the intellectual and moral corruption of the D party. I may agree with them on some issues, but they are minor enough that I am willing to vote against them just to not be associated with the corrupt fever swamp of the left.

I don't like soem of the views of social cons but in some way I see them as the moral guardians of traditional American values. What I don't understand is their blind love of other Christians like Huckabee, kid douche bag extraordinaire, and are willing to overlook his spendy ways. I am concerned that social cons see the Christian component within a candidate as worth more than the conservative component within a candidate.

Posted by: Uniball at November 14, 2008 04:31 PM (27iEn)

190 Re Watcher's list (#15:

Those are sort of "entry-level", I'd guess. It's what happens when specifics get mentioned. Over at Powerline blog, they are calling for "new ideas." Howabout the new idea of not caving in to statism?

Posted by: K~Bob at November 14, 2008 04:31 PM (KWk7X)

191 Is this all about the idiotic-and-illibertarian boondoggle of federally funded embryonic stem cell research? Is that the new "libertarian" crusade issue now? If not, then what?
Fuckin 'a. That's a hell of a good point. Pretty hilarious that anyone would rail against "big government" social cons for being against FEDERALLY FUNDED stem cell research.

Posted by: Warden at November 14, 2008 04:31 PM (QoR4a)

192 I've gotta run - good conversation. A little insulting at times, but constructive.

Posted by: blankminde at November 14, 2008 04:32 PM (Js18c)

193 It is true that when SoCons protest movies like The DaVinci Code that it is not equivalent to censorship, but it is also true that such acts of protest play into the MSM meme that SoCons are a bunch of ignorant moralizing troglodytes.
Yeah, and I think they not only make fools of themselves but bring additional publicity to that which they are protesting in the process. But the notion that the entire party's platform should revolve around media demonization of an activist minority is absurd. Do you see the Dems disavowing Code Pink or any of the other outright anti-American groups that make up the base of their party?
Break off that leg of the stool and the Republicans will lose most of the South overnight. But hey, at least they'll lose the Northeast, Midwest, and the coasts by somewhat smaller margins (except Ohio, Indiana, and Missouri, which would go solid blue in perpetuity).
Is the suggestion then that the party needs to aliennate a constituency without which it has never won anything because the media unfairly tars all of us by association with a caricature that it largely created for the purpose of doing just that? If that's the case, then might I suggest a different target for us to focus on.

Posted by: VJay at November 14, 2008 04:33 PM (gQ+XA)

194 188 not a national issue, people everywhere and of all stripes do the same things on a variety of issues

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 04:33 PM (/Zcox)

195 my libertarian opinion(your mileage may vary) is to question why exactly it's the gov't's job to decide who can marry whom.

!) That's not a libertarian opinion.

2) the government is all in favor of gay marriage. It's the pesky voters who oppose it.

3) You are agreeing with the state and opposing the right of your fellow citizens to make the law.

4) See point 1.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 04:33 PM (F8r4J)

196 So here is the crux of it for me:
yeah I have seen a ton of GOP campaign ads on janet jackson, where was that exactly in the platform
So, what, the crusade to ban obsenities as a fallout from that event, it didn't happen ? Because there weren't GOP campaign ads during this election, the part of the Republican party that pushed for that response, they just disappeared ? Or did they not exist in the first place ? That all just happened by magic, I suppose.
Is this the strategy here ? Deny, deny, deny ? You must be right. There is nobody on the right that believes in any of these things. It was all a bad dream.

Posted by: deadrody at November 14, 2008 04:33 PM (aCKVb)

197 The GOP does support a more federalist approach to SoCon issues. One example is overturning Roe. So it's not a stupid question, but it is a bit ignorant.
Except when they are grandstanding about something like the Schiavo case. They don't do it very often, but the MSM amplifies it when they do.

Posted by: Jim62sch at November 14, 2008 04:33 PM (zYagu)

198 The GOP does support a more federalist approach to SoCon issues. One example is overturning Roe. So it's not a stupid question, but it is a bit ignorant.
And do you really think for a second that if Roe is overturned that some SoCons would not settle for the federalist approach and try for a Federal Ban on abortion? They'd probably like to go for the full 180 on Roe immediately too if they could.
Like I said Social Conservatives don't have any right to throwing the first stone at the whore that is government.

Posted by: buzzion at November 14, 2008 04:35 PM (Lrsi6)

199 >>No doubt. Too bad that MYOB is not the libertarian position.

That's provocative but not compelling, flenser.

Posted by: railwriter at November 14, 2008 04:35 PM (XcsD4)

200 Vic @ 177: See that's the real problem right there. What invariably happens is:
1. Some element of the popular culture tries to push the envelope farther and farther.
2. The envelope pushing offends a lot of people. After all that's the whole point of envelope-pushing.
3. Many of the people who are offended are SoCons because, after all, SoCons have a traditional view of culture.
4. The offended ones organize a protest. It is portrayed in the media as "Ignorant Buffoon Moralizing Conservative Christians Condemn Recent Benign Forms of Artistic Expression."
5. And you get the usual suspects claiming darkly that if the Ignorant Conservative Christian Buffoons were in charge, only the missionary position would be legal.
6. Everybody laughs at the protestors and the protest dies away.
7. Repeat steps 1-6.


Posted by: chemjeff at November 14, 2008 04:36 PM (wy+AE)

201 Terry Shavio had parent's who were willing to care for her, vegetable or no.

They were prevented from doing so by a man who claimed moral authority by virtue of being her husband, yet was living with another woman and had fathered her child, lied about what he remembered Terry asking, and was assisted by lawyers who claimed dead people were contacting him from beyond and telling him how happy they were to be dead.

But, in the end he won out. Bob and Mary Schindler were denied their right of 'pursuit of happiness' by a man who 'pursuit of happiness' was the death of his wife.

Who speaks for the voiceless will always be an issue for a democratic government who derives its authority from 'The Voice of the People'.

Posted by: Adriane at November 14, 2008 04:37 PM (wJlIy)

202 188. maybe you were talking about the second half of my post...however, Wildmon runs a national organization and takes on the national media all the time. However, we'd be in agreement if you are for these things being taken care of on a local/state basis and not nationally.


Posted by: SomeWhere Right at November 14, 2008 04:37 PM (SQtRB)

203 It's the "go ahead and smoke if you want to, but don't breathe in my face" principle.The "go ahead and drive drunk, but not on the same road as me" principle.The
"go ahead and have your pron and video game sex, but don't expect to
have the right to force me to do anything to avoid it" principle.Because you don't have that right.

Posted by: Synova

Thanks for clarifying that violent video games and smoking are comparable to drunk driving.

If you do want to take away everyone's right to do anything that you might possibly be opposed to at some point; then please keep talking just like this. I'm sure everyone will put you in charge of the "remove everything that might be bad from children from all of society" board as soon as there is one.

Although Ace might be against that board; I suspect his website here wouldn't last long. Not kid-friendly enough.

But don't let me stop you; you're doing this FOR THE CHILDREN!

Posted by: Gekkobear at November 14, 2008 04:37 PM (td8rd)

204 What I don't understand is their blind love of other Christians like
Huckabee, kid douche bag extraordinaire, and are willing to overlook
his spendy ways. I am concerned that social cons see the Christian
component within a candidate as worth more than the conservative
component within a candidate.

Ah, come on.

I hate being forced to come to Hucks defense, but he is no more a big spender than any number of liberal Republicans I can think of. He gets this "big spender" shit just for being a Christian from the south.

When people like you start resenting the Arlen Specters as much as the Santorums, I'll start to take you seriously.


Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 04:38 PM (F8r4J)

205 Except when they are grandstanding about something like the Schiavo case

There were a few idiots calling for federal action on that case and they were shouted down by the rest of the real conservatives who saw that as a strictly State issue. Again, you are trying to brand the whole movement by a few ‘tards.

Posted by: Vic at November 14, 2008 04:40 PM (Qd7GC)

206 Terry Shavio had parent's who were willing to care for her, vegetable or no.

Why is the Schiavo thing the litmus test these days...it only became a national issue after a Florida judge fell hook line and sinker for her crumb husband's arguments and the Florida Supremes backed him up. I agree, her parents should have been considered a viable resource to maintaining her life but the judicial activists dismissed that alternative. As Conservatives, shouldn't we support the legislative (political) solution to issues like that rather than leaving it to unelected/unaccountable judges?

Posted by: SomeWhere Right at November 14, 2008 04:40 PM (SQtRB)

207 buzzion @ 198: So that's your argument? Your paranoid view that when SoCons say "leave it up to the states" that they don't actually mean "leave it up to the states"?

Posted by: chemjeff at November 14, 2008 04:41 PM (wy+AE)

208 Huck was a big tax and spender. I don't know about Spector but I do know he is also a RINO.

And yes, there are some other Republicans who are big spenders, they are RINOs as well and need to be purged.

Posted by: Vic at November 14, 2008 04:43 PM (Qd7GC)

209 So, no titties during prime time is just too unreasonable a restriction to placeon the television networks who have been granteda federallicense that allows themfree use oflimited and extremely valuable bandwidth in return for agreeing to act in the public interest?
I can't reasonably expect to be ablke to watch the Superbowl with my kid without having him exposed to Janet Jackson's titty?
Really?
Hell, in that case auction off the bandwidth to the highest bidder.

Posted by: Warden at November 14, 2008 04:43 PM (QoR4a)

210 >>"big spender" shit just for being a Christian from the south.

Before you were being a provocateur, a devil's advocate, either daring the rest of the thread to watch you rhetorically contort or spoiling for an argument, one. It was a distraction, but the bait was never properly placed.

Now you're just goofing on perceived stereotypes.

I haven't gotten my unicorn yet, but your rabbit-from-a-hat will do until President Freshhhhh comes across.

Posted by: railwriter at November 14, 2008 04:45 PM (XcsD4)

211 Jim... Libertarian principles include the notion that you don't have the right to harm others.

Now, I do know people (generally wiccans at sci-fi conventions) who think that sex is natural and wonderful and the body shouldn't be viewed with shame by anyone, no matter their age (and I'm sure that they also limit what children are exposed to)... but in general terms even the most sexually "liberated" people I know, including polyamorists and others, agree that a child's sense of security and self does require that they are protected from what we'd call "adult" situations and information that they have no way of processing.

Harm is involved, not just offense.

My own (adult) preference not to be unexpectedly exposed to whatever, so I don't have a choice... I figure that's the mirror of taking away someone's choice to do their own thing. Who's rights take precedence? The flasher with his right to freedom of expression, or the woman walking down the street? That's not quite the same, since the flasher has forced the woman to actually participate in his sexual fantasy against her will... but I think only, really, as a matter of degree, and maybe unexpectedly being exposed to pornography is the mildest from of that (or depictions of violence, too, I suppose) but I really do think that forcing that on someone is forcing it on them.

People very rightly defend their right to privacy in their homes and bedrooms... but I don't quite see how that translates to the right to carry on in public.

I really don't care what *you* do.

I just figure I have a right not to participate.

Posted by: Synova at November 14, 2008 04:45 PM (NxP4A)

212 So, what, the crusade to ban obsenities as a fallout from that event, it didn't happen ?
Correct.
Because there weren't GOP campaign ads during this election, the part of the Republican party that pushed for that response, they just disappeared ?
So, let me get this straight. Some GOP campaign, somewhere -- probably in an area that's red primarily because it's inhabited largely by SoCons -- tries to make hay out of an absurd national "decency" incident and pander to the sensibilities of those whose votes it needs to win, and this is the evidence that the SoCons are a negative influence on the electoral fortunes of the Republican Party.
Got it.
You must be right. There is nobody on the right that believes in any of these things.
There are plenty on the right that believe these things, just like there are plenty on the right that think that the universe just accidentally assembled itself by pure dumb luck. Difference is, I don't see anyone here arguing that atheists/agnostics should be cast out as heretics because they have a minority viewpoint.
You guys aren't arguing against SoCon policy positions as actually advanced by the Republican Party -- because you sure haven't produced any. It seems like you just don't like SoCons in general and want them to be put in their place (i.e. "Shut up and vote for us, dumbasses!").

Posted by: VJay at November 14, 2008 04:46 PM (gQ+XA)

213 208 buzzion @ 198: So that's your argument? Your paranoid view that when SoCons say "leave it up to the states" that they don't actually mean "leave it up to the states"?
I'm saying not all of them are saying "leave it up to the states." But if you want to get down to it, then yeah I think some of the ones saying "leave it up to the states" don't actually mean it. Or do you think liberals have a monopoly of talking about only doing something partway, and later pushing it farther than they originally claimed.

Posted by: buzzion at November 14, 2008 04:46 PM (Lrsi6)

214 201 we agree - exactly what I am saying - and I would ad to that just because a group organizes to have a national voice doesn't mean they expect the govt to do their bidding, but they want a voice in the marketplaceof ideas

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 04:47 PM (/Zcox)

215 Like I said Social Conservatives don't have any right to throwing the first stone at the whore that is government.

You saying stuff is hardly a sign that it is correct. It's the libertarians who have been the fans of big government for the last few decades.

And do you really think for a second that if Roe is overturned that
some SoCons would not settle for the federalist approach and try for a
Federal Ban on abortion?

What a moronic question. I'm not even going to speculate on what "some" So Cons would or would not do. I'll just point out, again, that the Federalist approach is to overturn Roe.

By a happy coincidence, that is also the proper legal thing to do, AND the one most in accord with the founding principle of the country - self government.

It's funny how few libertarians like any of those things.


Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 04:47 PM (F8r4J)

216 I love this stuff, why is opposition to roe v wade and "gay marriage" ALWAYS put in terms that if you are doing it you are religious?
There are plenty of liberals that think Roe Vs. Wade is a piece of garbage.
There are plenty of atheists that don't think the government should be redefining the word marriage for the same reasons.
People came together to form this government and people voted to accept what it said. Life and Marriage are foundational issues. You could be Richard Dawkins and still agree that 5 people out of 9 should not be able to say what life is, what marriage is.

You claim to be conservative and think how words are defined really don't matter?
How about when they ban "assault weapons" because they put some camo and a larger mag on a gun?

If they ask to do something like embryonic stem cell research and the best answer you can come up with when asked if you think an embryo is a life is "I don't know" shouldn't the answer be no? If not no shouldn't it at least be more then 5 judges?

If they really didn't know what would happen when they dropped the atom bomb or through the switch on the collider wouldn't the conservative answer have to be then don't do it?

There is nothing conservative to "we really don't know but it doesn't bother me so it's okay".

That is the definition of Liberal, change for changes sake. Not change for progress.

Just because the vast majority of religious people support a certain issue it doesn't automatically follow that the issue is exclusively a religious one.

People would not be resisting redefining marriage everywhere simply if it was a religious one. The pro-life moment would be the size of most prayer groups if only fervently religious people felt that way.




Posted by: Rocks at November 14, 2008 04:47 PM (Q1lie)

217 VJay @ 213: You got it. The SoLibs are embarrassed by the MSM image of SoCons as ignorant moralizers. That's why they want the SoCons gone.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 14, 2008 04:48 PM (wy+AE)

218 It's the cocktail party phenomenon. If you elect a socially liberal person, they often come to that position based on peer pressure and they advertise it in order to advertise their reasonableness to those whom they seek to impress. When they socialize, they do it with liberals, who are the movers and shakers in Washington or Boston or most of the state capitals.

A social con usually has his social circle at a church or synagogue. He or she often spends free time with family and, to the extent that there is a social life, at conservative institutions. Such associations will put pressure on the conservative to stay true to principles.

One is influenced by one's associations, after all.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 14, 2008 04:50 PM (T0NGe)

219 The important thing for buzzion is that abortion stay legal. That means he must oppose federalism, by whatever flimsy argument he can find.


Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 04:50 PM (F8r4J)

220 I just figure I have a right not to participate.

You do. Here's what you do:

1) Move to the middle of nowhere.
2) Learn to use the parental controls on your cable.
3) Install Net Nanny or CyberSitter or something on your computer.
4) Research any movie you or your kids plan to see, or any CD you plan to buy (There are Christian websites out there that do this legwork for you.
5) Keep your kids in a permanent state of grounded-ness, so they don't accidentally see anything untoward at a friend's house.

I'm sure they'll grow up very well adjusted.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at November 14, 2008 04:50 PM (z4es9)

221 Gekkobear... where did I say violent video games should be banned?

Nowhere at all.

All I expressed was that what *I* want is the ability to chose what *I* am exposed to. My kid is sitting next to me playing Fallout 3 for freaks sake. The hair up your butt is one you put there yourself.

I'm not, either in any way, suggesting that someone should pass laws to make it so other people can't let their kids have access to stuff that I would disapprove of. I never did.

The only thing I've said about *children* is that they are, even if it cramps your style, a part of the community and have a *right* to be part of the community. And that you don't have a right to harm them just because their parent took them out in public, where they have a right to be.


Posted by: Synova at November 14, 2008 04:52 PM (NxP4A)

222 >>speculate on what "some" So Cons would or would not do

Of course you're not. That would be generalizing.

>>you people aren't libertarians

That would be generalizing.

QED.

Posted by: railwriter at November 14, 2008 04:53 PM (XcsD4)

223 That's provocative but not compelling, flenser.

That's neither provocative not compelling, railwriter.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 04:54 PM (F8r4J)

224 I'll just point out, again, that the Federalist approach is to overturn Roe.
Not all SoCons are Federalists.
220 The important thing for buzzion is that abortion stay legal. That means he must oppose federalism, by whatever flimsy argument he can find.
Fuck off. You don't know what is important to me. I don't oppose Federalism. I'm for it. I want Roe overturned. I want the power returned to the states. But I'm not some naive moron that believes everyone who is on the same side as me on this issue wants it to end merely with that.

Posted by: buzzion at November 14, 2008 04:56 PM (Lrsi6)

225 big spender" shit just for being a Christian from the south

His big tax and spend ways are a documented fact in Arkansas.

Posted by: Vic at November 14, 2008 04:57 PM (Qd7GC)

226 Remember: Obama promised people that a vote for him meant rainbows would shoot out of their ass. How does a republican ever top that?

Posted by: YourAssIsTooBigForTheTent at November 14, 2008 04:58 PM (P1Evy)

227 Compelling enough to get a response, huh, pal?

Posted by: railwriter at November 14, 2008 05:00 PM (XcsD4)

228

Of course you're not. That would be generalizing.

That would be making shit up just so you can make fun of it. I'm not going to speculate on what "some" so cons would do because there are about five of them in the Senate and it's a stupid thing to even consider.


you people aren't libertarians

You're not. You may think you are, but you're not. I repeat, if you were libertarians you'd be a whole lot more upset over the nationalization of the banks than you are about the fact that fags can't marry each other.

Big government is not really an issue with you people. What gets your motor running is your hatred of Christianity. You don't mind social control, as long as it's left wing social control.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 05:00 PM (F8r4J)

229 I was never crazy about Huck, would have preferred Guliani, and I am a SoCon.

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 05:00 PM (/Zcox)

230 How libertarian of you, Farmer Joe.

Do you *really* not think that people have a right to chose or chose-not to be exposed to pornography or violence?

Do you REALLY assume that anything good should be compelled and anything bad should be prohibited so that you interpret anything that anyone says in disapproval as a proposal to take your video games and sleezy movies away? What a terrible threat! All that investment in Girls Gone Wild video tapes, torn from your hands and all the sex scrubbed from your hard drives...

All for the Children.

OH MY DOG.

Anyone who objects to full on frontal nudity and Janet Jackson's boobies *obviously* doesn't understand how totally and fantastically well-adjusted children who grow up in brothels can be!

Good thing you're standing up to the jack-booted thugs who want to rummage through your video cabinet and under your mattress and oppress your freedoms.

Posted by: Synova at November 14, 2008 05:02 PM (NxP4A)

231 When people like you start resenting the Arlen Specters as much as the Santorums, I'll start to take you seriously.

What makes you think "people like me" don't?

Posted by: Uniball at November 14, 2008 05:02 PM (27iEn)

232 Wolverine
You would vote for a gun grabber?

Posted by: Vic at November 14, 2008 05:02 PM (Qd7GC)

233 >>That would be making shit up just so you can make fun of it

Fun made. My work is done here.

Posted by: railwriter at November 14, 2008 05:03 PM (XcsD4)

234 Big government is not really an issue with you people. What gets your
motor running is your hatred of Christianity. You don't mind social
control, as long as it's left wing social control.

See, that's the kind of idiocy that doesn't help.

Posted by: Uniball at November 14, 2008 05:06 PM (27iEn)

235 And can I say.... this is why, one darn good reason why, social liberal libertarians fail to find any common ground with social conservatives.

Because it's not about MYOB.

Because if a social con says, MYOB, then it's suddenly freaking oppression.

Which puts a lie, just as much as the SSM advocates have done, to the statement that this isn't about destroying traditional morality... that this isn't about forcing something on other people.

Because it is.

Posted by: Synova at November 14, 2008 05:07 PM (NxP4A)

236 Vic - I will be happy to discuss this if we are having a real discussion, and not a shallow name calling thing like alot going on here at this moment.
My choice of Guliani goes to the fact I believe he would have better than Huck on nat'l defense and the war on terror. I don't belivee Guliani would have messed with gun rights as a national candidate. And, yes I am a multiple gun owner, and if you read my blog, not one to go quietly in the night. I may have been proven wrong on Guliani, I was really trying to make the point that you can't paint all Socons with a broad brush.

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 05:08 PM (/Zcox)

237 What makes you think "people like me" don't?

Because I see vastly more bile directed at people like Huck than I do at people like Specter.

The libertarian movement seems to have a real chip on its shoulder with respect to So cons. But it gets stuck dumb when it comes to the big spenders who are not so cons. That is even more strange when you consider that the most small government people in the country are in fact ... so cons!

Who was it that supplied the votes to uphold the S-CHIP veto? It sure as hell was not the Republicans from the north east, or mid west, or the mountain west. It was those Bible Belt people.



Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 05:10 PM (F8r4J)

238 Yeah, I think this discussion has gone overboard. Need to get back to the liquor thread.
But Rudy started the suits against the gun shops and the manufactutrers. That was national. I would NEVER have voted for him.
Anyway, I think I'm going to abandon this thread. As you said, it's going overboard.

Posted by: Vic at November 14, 2008 05:12 PM (Qd7GC)

239 buzzion @ 225: Fine, if that's what you really believe, then why not support the SoCons and work to overturn Roe? And then, in your view, if the SoCons get uppity and start demanding a complete and total ban on all abortion everywhere, then you can say "whoaaa, that's not federalism dude". But we are such a long way off even from Step 1 that IMO it makes no sense to fear what might happen if we get there based on some paranoid fantasy.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 14, 2008 05:13 PM (wy+AE)

240 Vic- So often we are portrayed as one issue people, and its more complex than that.
Myself and my wife are college educated. I have been trading stocks the last few years while taking care of my elderly parents, my wife is a paralegal. I own guns, have a CHL, believe that there is a creator who was involved in the formation of this universe, have no desire to force that on other citizens and neither do I want their stuff rammed down my throat. I believe abortion is murder, but I don't know that focusing on Roe v Wade is the main thing. Working to creae a culture of life may have more impact.

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 05:13 PM (/Zcox)

241 k vic anyway thanks for athoughtful, respectful response

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 05:16 PM (/Zcox)

242 Not all SoCons are Federalists.

Neither are all libertarians.
I don't oppose Federalism. I'm for it. I want Roe overturned.

You have a peculiar way of supporting the overturn of Roe than, what with your "So Con's might pass a law " bogey man.

In the one in a million chance that we discover that the US Senate is in fact composed of secret So Cons and they do pass a law, and the people don't like it, then the people can elect a new Congress and pass new laws. That's the genuine libertarian position to take.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 05:18 PM (F8r4J)

243 Giuliani on guns didn't bother me so much because, even if he thought cities could ban guns, he'd likely select the "right" sorts of judges, and other than that not muck with gun rights at all.

The alternative, what we've *got*, is some one who publicly states that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and that he's not going to take your guns away, and who is now advocating (as opposed to staying out of it) renewing the ban on scary-looking guns and who is entirely likely to actively support the gun control lobby.


Posted by: Synova at November 14, 2008 05:20 PM (NxP4A)

244
Compelling enough to get a response, huh, pal?


Compelling enough to get a response, huh, pal?

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 05:20 PM (F8r4J)

245 synova - yeah most of our time should be spent figuring out how to counter the godman and his minions. Support Chambliss in Georgia, even if he is imperfect, it's worth stopping a dem senate rollover. And we need to organize, find common ground and work grassroots up rebuilding things. We can't let Soros buy another election.

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 05:24 PM (/Zcox)

246 "Because I see vastly more bile directed at people like Huck than I do at people like Specter"

That's because we are talking about social cons, most of who are Christian. Huckabee was, weather you like it or not, your retarded poster child.

Posted by: Uniball at November 14, 2008 05:26 PM (27iEn)

247 WatcherAdd one other and it will be complete:Yes to the Constitution as written, NO to a living Constitution.That will take care of most things.Posted by: Vic at November 14, 2008 04:17 PM (Qd7GC)


I agree... I think it's a shame that McCain didn't make more of an argument for judicial conservatism rather than judicial activism. Obama is going to be abysmal on judges.

Posted by: Watcher at November 14, 2008 05:31 PM (BOM2B)

248 hahahah I don't know ... listen to talk radio .... plenty of bile at spectre - some deserved, some not

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 05:31 PM (/Zcox)

249 watcher let me say again - Great list!

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 05:32 PM (/Zcox)

250 240 buzzion @ 225: Fine, if that's what you really believe, then why not support the SoCons and work to overturn Roe? And then, in your view, if the SoCons get uppity and start demanding a complete and total ban on all abortion everywhere, then you can say "whoaaa, that's not federalism dude". But we are such a long way off even from Step 1 that IMO it makes no sense to fear what might happen if we get there based on some paranoid fantasy.
I do. But I'm not going to go and give SoCons angel wings and Halos. Acting like SoCons are all for Federalism and only Federalism and that is their ultimate endgame is what I am taking exception too.
Neither are all libertarians.
Well no shit sherlock.
You have a peculiar way of supporting the overturn of Roe than, what with your "So Con's might pass a law " bogey man.
Are you really going to tell me that there are no Social Conservatives out there that wouldn't attempt to legislate their morality completely if they had the power to do so? I mean isn't that what we've basically been bitching about for the past couple of weeks with the dems? That they're going to have enough power to possibly legislate their "morality" onto the country. I'm just not nearly as deluded as you to think they have a monopoly on this idea.
In the one in a million chance that we discover that the US Senate is in fact composed of secret So Cons and they do pass a law, and the people don't like it, then the people can elect a new Congress and pass new laws. That's the genuine libertarian position to take.
You know, maybe I should take what you're posting and wildly exagerate it beyond your point, but you'd need to post something beyond only doing that to me.

Posted by: buzzion at November 14, 2008 05:34 PM (FL/94)

251 That's because we are talking about social cons, most of who are
Christian. Huckabee was, weather you like it or not, your retarded
poster child.

I'm an atheist. Or some species of agnostic. Huckabee is not retarded, and he's not our poster child. Other than those slight problems, press on!

Perhaps "we" need to stop talking about social cons, and start talking about why exactly we spend so much time talking about social cons. Because the GOP's problems are not due to us, or even to the libertarians, but to the liberal wing of the party. And, I'll argue, the big business / Rockefeller Republican / Chamber of Commerce people, to whatever extent they are separate from the liberal wing.

If libertarians are honestly interested in smaller government, social cons are there with them. But I suspect that I'm more libertarian then most libertarians here.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 05:38 PM (F8r4J)

252 I voted for McCain,and I would have voted for Rudi, even though I would
be considered pretty socially conservative, because I believe national
security and the war on terror are the defining issues of this
generation. I don't expect the GOP to cater to every thing I think, but
ridicule of what I may believe gets old.

I don't know that I would have voted for Guiliani because I don't know much about him. But I agree about those defining issues (plus economy) as well as the oldness of ridicule, especially as some people take one or two comments on complicated issues and decide they think they know what I stand for. If I haven't laid it out, you don't know.

Different ideas than mine are fine, and I'm willing to mix things up a bit because none of us will ever get a candidate who agrees on 100% of what we do. But too many people are condescending arses with stupid sound bites and it seems like it never gets to a compromise stage (for lack of a better phrase).

houldn't we support the legislative (political) solution to issues
like that rather than leaving it to unelected/unaccountable judges?
Agreed.

Posted by: fireweed at November 14, 2008 05:39 PM (rSr2s)

253 Re Watcher's list (#158: Those are sort of "entry-level", I'd guess. It's what happens when specifics get mentioned. Over at Powerline blog, they are calling for "new ideas." Howabout the new idea of not caving in to statism?Posted by: K~Bob at November 14, 2008 04:31 PM (KWk7X)


Well, maybe it's a simplistic list, but if McCain didn't have such major problems with #2 and #4 and #7, he would have at least stood a chance... don't you think?

And even his current support for #5 has been undermined by his stupid "tax cuts for the rich" rhetoric when he initially voted against the Bush tax cuts. God how did we get stuck with this turd as our candidate?

Posted by: Watcher at November 14, 2008 05:43 PM (BOM2B)

254 help the economy - cut taxes for everyone - especially small businesses that create jobs

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 05:44 PM (/Zcox)

255 everyone that pays taxes that is ....

Posted by: Wolverine at November 14, 2008 05:44 PM (/Zcox)

256 Are you really going to tell me that there are no Social Conservatives
out there that wouldn't attempt to legislate their morality completely
if they had the power to do so?

Who gives a shit? You, it seems, but why?

If they "have the power to do so" then they it means that they have the votes to do. Why are we even discussing this hypothetical?
I mean isn't that what we've basically been bitching about for the past
couple of weeks with the dems? That they're going to have enough power
to possibly legislate their "morality" onto the country.

No, you simple minded dolt, that is not it all all. If the American people want to vote for communism I'll tell them they are insane. But I won't tell them that they have no right to do it.

The problem with the lefts version of "legislating morality" is that they don't do it via the legislature. The have been legislating morality via the courts for several decades now, and are still doing it.

maybe I should take what you're posting and wildly exagerate it beyond your point,

I did not exaggerate anything beyond your point. You've been fretting all through this threat about what happens if the big bad so cons get enough votes to enact their laws, and I addressed the point you brought up. Full stop.


Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 05:50 PM (+VMEA)

257 Wow flenser what a great post. This article is also spot on and demonstrates what makes this blog so good. No mushy thinking, no foggy analysis that afflicts so many other blogs flying false flags.

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at November 14, 2008 05:57 PM (8LiZp)

258 It's interesting that the libertarians never addressed Ace's point on this thread. Nine times out of ten, social conservatives are much better on restricting the size of government than are social liberals.


Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 06:01 PM (+VMEA)

259 I live in one of those suburban Philadelphia counties that used to be solidly Republican and just gave a 60,000 vote majority to Barack Obama. I can tell you why:
1. The war in Iraq - quite a few dead soldiers from around here, and a lot of Quakers. Very few were directly affected by 9/11. They think Bush botched the war and its aftermath, and never apologized for it. You would not believe how many time I have heard this. He screwed it up, and never apologized or admitted he made a mistake. A little mea culpa would have worked wonders around here. And they all saw John McCain simply parroting Bush on the war, not apologizing for it either.
2. Terri Schiavo - she grew up in this area. And most people were apoplectic about what the Republicans did. This was the single issue that lost Rick Santorum's reelection in 2006. It cemented a view in people's minds that Republicans are moralistic busybodies who want to tell us how to live and even how to die.
3. Stem cell research - yes, it really is an issue out there and it hurt us badly. Again, it reinforces a view that Republicans are so doctrinaire on abortion that they would stand in the way of science and of possible treatments for horrible diseases, all to save a few cells thatmost peopledo not see as human beings. Obama ran some vicious radio ads here on it, as did the SEIU. They lied about McCain's position, but McCain never called them on it, probably because he was too afraid of pissing off the base.

Posted by: rockmom at November 14, 2008 06:12 PM (iZqUY)

260 I did not exaggerate anything beyond your point. You've been fretting all through this threat about what happens if the big bad so cons get enough votes to enact their laws, and I addressed the point you brought up
If only that had been my point. My point wasn't about the "what if we had enough votes to enact our laws." Its the "What laws would we want to enact." Something you seemed to have been claiming didn't exist because all social conservatives are only federalists. Though you seem to be acknowledging it now. And you've also demonstrated that you exaggerated beyond my point.
But now why don't you go back to insulting your political allies some more. You seem much more interested in that than merely addressing the disagreements.

Posted by: buzzion at November 14, 2008 06:20 PM (FL/94)

261 The war in Iraq

Agreed.

Terri Schiavo

People are ignorant and uninformed if they are angry with the GOP over that.
Stem cell research

People are ignorant and uninformed if they are angry with the GOP over that.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 06:20 PM (+VMEA)

262 My point wasn't about the "what if we had enough votes to enact our laws." Its the "What laws would we want to enact."

Who is "we"? And what "point" are you trying to make there?

you've also demonstrated that you exaggerated beyond my point

How and where did I "exaggerate" beyond your point?

why don't you go back to insulting your political allies some more

Hey, I can't let you have all the fun. If you dipshit wannabe "libertarians" can't take a little abuse, then maybe you should think twice before dishing it out.


Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 06:26 PM (+VMEA)

263 buzzion @ 250: You don't have to agree SoCons are angels. How about merely agreeing that SoCons and most other Cons have far more in common than not, and it makes no sense to be arguing to kick each other out of the party based on the few small things that divide us? BTW I am pretty far from being a SoCon myself but I have no problem having the SoCons along as the moral conscience of the party.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 14, 2008 06:26 PM (wy+AE)

264 err that should be @251

Posted by: chemjeff at November 14, 2008 06:26 PM (wy+AE)

265 Stem cell research - yes, it really is an issue out there and it hurt
us badly. Again, it reinforces a view that Republicans are so
doctrinaire on abortion that they would stand in the way of science and
of possible treatments for horrible diseases, all to save a few cells
thatmost peopledo not see as human beings.

I'm not saying that there are not people out there who see things this way. But that does not change the fact that this way of seeing things as a steaming pile of chunky vomitus.

The Republicans do support stem cell research. We don't support the taxpayers dollars going to it. It's that whole libertarian thang.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 06:31 PM (+VMEA)

266 flenser @ 259: Completely agreed. I wonder if it's because conservatism is more than just a mental game to SoCons, but an actual way of living.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 14, 2008 06:33 PM (wy+AE)

267 About stem cells: You're right flenser, and even Bush's 2001 policy was a compromise. But does he get any credit for it? No.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 14, 2008 06:35 PM (wy+AE)

268 chemjeff, I have never seen a political party as useless at explaining to the voters what it stands for and believes in as the GOP these past eight years. Even when it takes good reasonable positions which should command public support, it allows itself to be defined as something the exact opposite.

We can't blame all of that on the media.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 06:40 PM (+VMEA)

269 I have a question for the libertarians on this thread who seem to have such a critical view of SoCons. Do you unequivocally support the right to home school your children? Even if the homeschooling parent is one who states unequivocally their intention to teach creationism and turns their kids into fervent SoCons who wish to use the vote to change society into what they feel it should be?


Posted by: Rocks at November 14, 2008 06:51 PM (7rbe9)

270 We can't blame all of that on the media.

And we shouldn't. We should put the blame where it belongs McCain/Feingold.
Limiting the amount of money people can use and how they use it to advance their issues and candidates is absurd. Prior to it was there ever a time Republicans couldn't easily out raise a Dem? Only an idiot believes that if a liberal agrees to something they will actual stick to it. Liberalism is about flaunting the rules.
It's a a lot easier to sway public opinion and inform them if you can buy as many commercials as you like, etc.


Posted by: Rocks at November 14, 2008 06:56 PM (7rbe9)

271 He screwed it up, and never apologized or admitted he made a mistake. A little mea culpa would have worked wonders around here.
What the fuck should he apologize for? Conducting what has turned out to be two of the most overwhelming military victories in all of human history not overwhelmingly enough?
It cemented a view in people's minds that Republicans are moralistic busybodies who want to tell us how to live and even how to die.
The Republican Congresscritters were embarrassing during this fiasco, but I'm pretty sure it was the Florida Supreme Court that was telling someone not only how but when to die.
Stem cell research - yes, it really is an issue out there and it hurt us badly. Again, it reinforces a view that Republicans are so doctrinaire on abortion that they would stand in the way of science and of possible treatments for horrible diseases
Or it could cement in their minds that dead-end, will-never-produce-results medical boondoggles that can't attract private investment precisely because they're dead-end alchemical con-jobs shouldn't be funded by a government that -- if we're to get all "libertarian" here -- shouldn't be funding ANY medical research.
So, in summary, what you're saying is that we've lost the ignorant retard vote. And that, it seems, is where all that sweet election sugar has to be farmed. The problem, then, is not the Republican Party platform; it's the feel-good suicide pact known as "universal suffrage".
We're screwed.

Posted by: VJay at November 14, 2008 07:03 PM (gu2kB)

272 I do think Sarah Palin gets too much support for culture/class identification issues --

During the campaign Palin showed herself to be culturally conservative, as one might expect from a self-described "hockey mom" from the sticks. No evidence, though, that she's ever given the slightest thought or study to the intellectual underpinnings of conservatism or the kind of policies suggested by such an examination. In other words, she's no Reagan.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, though, at the age of 44 Reagan was not Reagan.

Posted by: arbuthnot at November 14, 2008 07:11 PM (Tw7Fm)

273 Hey, I can't let you have all the fun. If you dipshit wannabe "libertarians" can't take a little abuse, then maybe you should think twice before dishing it out
I'm not a dipshit "libertarian." I don't consider myself libertarian. I consider myself a small government conservative. So blow it out your ass, and learn to read and stop ascribing beliefs to people you know nothing about.
You don't have to agree SoCons are angels. How about merely agreeing that SoCons and most other Cons have far more in common than not, and it makes no sense to be arguing to kick each other out of the party based on the few small things that divide us?
Good thing I'm not arguing to kick anyone out of the party. I don't think anyoneon this thread whohas been criticising some social conservative views has done that.I wish I could say the same for the others here.
The other stuff is basically a no brainer. But the topic of conversation hasn't been what are the common threads to various contingents of conservatives. A lot of the topic has involved the fact that there are conservatives that do want to implement censorship, and morons claiming that its not true, and declaring that social conservatives are 100% Federalist.

Posted by: buzzion at November 14, 2008 07:33 PM (FL/94)

274 flenser you are being disingenuos about stem cells. While YOU may not be against stem cell research in general, there ABSOLUTELY is a segment of the religious right that is dead set against stem cell research on a pro-life basis. Don't pretend that these people don't exist. And don't pretend that these are not the people Bush had in mind. He couldn't ban stem cell research altogether, but he could absolutely put a serious dent in it. And he did. To the benefit of those that think using leftover frozen embryos that would otherwise be destroyed is murder.
It's funny. I checked in on this very argument over at Hotair, where the commenters are decidedly further to the right.
Nobody is suggesting "kicking out" the social conservatives. The suggestion here, as I would state it, regardless of how it is presented by any writer or columnist, is that having emphasized the social conservative agenda over the last eight years has been a miserable failure. MISERABLE. As a result, the Republican party is a few Senate seats away from being completely steamrolled by a far left liberal agenda.
There is no way anyone can argue that emphasizing a pro-life, sanctity of marriage agenda will result in anything but continued losses. While I have no problem forming a coalition with social conservatives, you've had the ear of the President for the last 8 years and that has been an abject failure.

Posted by: deadrody at November 14, 2008 07:35 PM (aCKVb)

275 I have a question for the libertarians on this thread who seem to have such a critical view of SoCons. Do you unequivocally support the right to home school your children? Even if the homeschooling parent is one who states unequivocally their intention to teach creationism and turns their kids into fervent SoCons who wish to use the vote to change society into what they feel it should be?
I'm registered libertarian and the answer is absolutely yes. The danger to liberty from home schooled socons is much less than the the danger from state schooled students. If you lived in my zip code you'ddoubt thatthe state should even be in the education business.

Posted by: slowlearner at November 14, 2008 07:36 PM (Ame6E)

276 And the idea that Bush banned public financing for stem cells on anything other than a religious basis is BS. You can keep on claiming that but it is a lie.

Posted by: deadrody at November 14, 2008 07:38 PM (aCKVb)

277 A lot of the topic has involved the fact that there are conservatives
that do want to implement censorship, and morons claiming that its not
true, and declaring that social conservatives are 100% Federalist.

You just keep on stroking yourself. I'm sure it gives you so much pleasure, and that's the important thing.

I don't consider myself libertarian.

I don't consider you one either. Hey, we agree!



I consider myself a small government conservative.

You have a very peculiar way of expressing your small government conservatism. I notice that you don't spend a lot of time arguing for small government, and the slashing of the existing overgrown beast. Your main pastime is tossing and turning at night worrying about what some people may, or may not, do on that glorious day when the GOP has control of Congress again. That seems like very odd thing for a small government conservative to be focused on.

Nope, you're a moby.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 07:43 PM (+VMEA)

278 Good point buzzion. I don't advocate kicking anyone out, but if you are labeled a RINO, well absolutely the social conservatives want you gone. Over at HotAir, that opinion is running about 60% of the comments.
I am also digging on the tactic ofcategorizing otherwise social conservative ideals under other conservative principles. No funding for stem cells, it's not for religious reasons, it's for fiscal responsibility.
Just saw another interesting assertion. People are ignorant if they blame the GOP over the Schiavo incident ? Really ? Republicans in Congress, and Bush inserted themselves into that. Jeb Bush inserted himself into that. Sorry, but the Terry Shiavo incident was a dark, DARK day for social conservatives. You can call us ignorant all you want. Now THERE is a winning strategy.

Posted by: deadrody at November 14, 2008 07:45 PM (aCKVb)

279 So long as the social conservatives want to restrict the size of government.
But don't get this Big Government Conservatism bullshit like Bush did and run off and elect Huckabee.
I'm not primarily animated by social issues and when you dickheads start arguing I don't even know what I 'am'.
I think I'm socially conservative. I'm against gay marriage. I don't mind commandments in my courts and really don't care. I'm pro-life (for fetuses) but I don't have a problem with the morning after pill, or (reasonably regulated and preferably not government funded) embryonic stem cell research.
I sure as shit don't like it when the dickheads try to ban harry potter from the library because it promotes 'witchcraft' or try to outlaw videogames, or ban gambling, or booze.
And some of you people are really, really strange. Also, you're fucking your kids up.
IMO. Your kids are fucked up because your a wierdo. I mean that constructively.
I'm socially (moderately) conservative. I'm not a social moderate. I'm a moderate social conservative. I guess.
Point being - even though I'm not primarily motivated by social issues, even though I find fiscal and libertine issues to be of greater import, even though I'm seriously fucking wierded out by some of you crazysons of bitches and worried you're going to stick me in a water ordeal to see if I'm a witch, I'm still socially conservative.
I'm pro-life. I don't want that Focus on the Family dweeb who thinks Austin Powers is Satan's attempt to subvert your children, but that doesn't mean I want Nacy Pelosi either.
Fortunately, despite all these stupidass arguments there's nothing mutually exclusive between fiscal and social conservatism. You can be both, at once.
And as it turns out, for this whole 'Grand Old Party' thing to work at all, you must be both. We have to be both.
What's important is:
A) You don't go batshit crazyand run out to left field on some issue. ANY issue. You can't run around screaming the Earth is 6000 years old.
But guess what? Even though I actually support this position, I wouldn't advise a politician to (outloud) advocate we privitize the post office and destroy the departments of Education, Interior, Agriculture, Transportation, Energy, Veteran's Affairs, Health Human Services, Labor, Housing and Urban Development.
Keep that shit hush hush and then do it with your 2nd term, man.
And don't start blabbing about gold standards.
Basically : Whatever the issue is, don't come off like a goddamn crackpot.
B) If you don't want socially conservative politicians - get the fuck out of the party.
If you don't want fiscally conservative politicians - get the fuck out of the party.
Go play with the communists. We need to be both.

Posted by: Entropy at November 14, 2008 07:52 PM (HgAV0)

280 Also, Ace pussed out on the RINO thing.
Don't placate, man.
RINO's need to go. Lindsay Graham needs to get his ass an Ambassador's position to to fucking Outer Mongolia. I don't even want that dickhead in the country. Not that we can really force him to leave...unfortunately.

Posted by: Entropy at November 14, 2008 07:55 PM (HgAV0)

281 For the last time, this isn't an argument with all people that oppose abortion or support banning gay marriage. The fact that there are liberals that think Roe v Wade is garbage or there are atheists that don't think the government should define marriage is not the point.
There ARE people who oppose abortion - in every form - on a strict religious basis. Same for banning gay marriage. And that wing of the party has been pandered to for 8 years. Karl Rove flat out told you he was doing it.
And all we are saying is that trend needs to stop. And frankly so is Christine Whitman. And on that point, she is right. Unless you enjoy minority status in government. Then, by all means, let's keep it up. It has been working out so well of late.
And please, take no solace in the fact that McCain was the anti-SoCon and that his loss means a loss for moderate republicans. People voted against Republicans. Period. McCain didn't have much of a message, and what message he DID have he could not communicate well enough. But believe this much - if that message had been based on pro-life and anti gay marriage, he would have done worse, without a doubt.

Posted by: deadrody at November 14, 2008 07:55 PM (aCKVb)

282 It's funny. I checked in on this very argument over at Hotair, where the commenters are decidedly further to the right.

Further to the right of what? The Chinese Communist party?

having emphasized the social conservative agenda over the last eight years has been a miserable failure.

The GOP has not "emphasized" the social conservative agenda over the last eight years. It's ignored it for the most part, and screwed it from time to time.


There is no way anyone can argue that emphasizing a pro-life, sanctity
of marriage agenda will result in anything but continued losses.


Were you dropped on your head as a child? The social conservative agenda is significantly more popular than the Republican party as a whole. That sanctity
of marriage stuff which you think is such a loser runs twelve to fifteen points ahead of the party as a whole! Have you heard that the "sanctity
of marriage" thing won in California, a state where Republicans are an endangered species? Fucking hell!



While I have no problem forming a coalition with social conservatives,
you've had the ear of the President for the last 8 years and that has
been an abject failure.

Your knowledge of American politics could be written on the back of a postage stamp.

He couldn't ban stem cell research altogether, but he could absolutely put a serious dent in it.

He did not "put a dent in it", you ignorant twat. The last eight years has seen an explosion on research into stem cells. Much of it has been into non-embryonic stem cells, which is a much more promising line of exploration.

Your knowledge of science matches your knowledge of politics.



Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 07:56 PM (x0h0g)

283 George Voinobitch?
The'guy' CRIED (and I don't mean 'teared up' I mean WAILED) on the floor of the senate because he was scared of John Bolton.
Ambassador to the Easter Islands.
Buh-bye. Don't come back. We need your expertise... over there...way, way over there. By that giant rock head thing.. yeah.. stay there. We're gonna circle round in the boat andcome back...

Posted by: Entropy at November 14, 2008 07:59 PM (HgAV0)

284 And the idea that Bush banned public financing for stem cells on anything other than a religious basis is BS.
Except for that inconvenient truth that Bush's government spent more of my money on stem cell research than any before him. And that embryonic stem cell research is about as promising a realm of science as turning unicorn farts into gold.
But don't let those little details get in the way of your sloppy tirade. Details are for fundie freaks, apparently.

Posted by: Ohio GOP at November 14, 2008 08:00 PM (gu2kB)

285 Chuck Hagel?
Head of a fact finding mission.
To Fomalhaut b.

Posted by: Entropy at November 14, 2008 08:02 PM (HgAV0)

286 And please, take no solace in the fact that McCain was the anti-SoCon and that his loss means a loss for moderate republicans.

Uh, wait a sec. You were just saying that the fact that the GOP lost was an indictment of So Cons.

Now you tell me that McCains loss was just one of those things, and not a reflection on the moderates?


There ARE people who oppose abortion - in every form - on a strict
religious basis. Same for banning gay marriage. And that wing of the
party has been pandered to for 8 years. Karl Rove flat out told you he
was doing it.

You must have overdosed on LSD at some point.

All right then, go ahead and link to Karl Rove saying "We 're gonna pander to those who oppose abortion in every form. Same for gay marriage".

This I want to see.

BTW, it becomes more and more clear that you're a moby. No small government conservative is this obsessed with abortion. No small government conservative thinks that the GOP started opposing abortion or gay marriage eight years ago.




Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 08:03 PM (x0h0g)

287 Good point buzzion. I don't advocate kicking anyone out, but if you are labeled a RINO, well absolutely the social conservatives want you gone.
Please name me _ONE_ GOP politician who social conservatives consider a RINO...
Who fiscal conservatives shouldn't.
Give me an idea who the hell we're talking about besides the mysterious SenatorEl Mysterioso (? - ??).
Olympia Snowe is this bastion of fiscal and libertine conservatism?

Posted by: Entropy at November 14, 2008 08:08 PM (HgAV0)

288 #285 be me.
And I'll generally echo Entropy's statements because he's not only my favorite poster on this board, his ideology seems to track most closely with mine. Except for Wickedpinto's, and only after I've been huffing gas in a mall parking lot all night. With a cross-dressing midget playing "Come Sail Away" on a recorder cheering me on.
Can I have a strand of your hair, Entropy? For federally-funded research purposes, of course.

Posted by: VJay at November 14, 2008 08:09 PM (gu2kB)

289 People are ignorant if they blame the GOP over the Schiavo incident ?
Really ?

Really.

Republicans in Congress, and Bush inserted themselves into
that. Jeb Bush inserted himself into that.

So did the Democrats, including Obama. So what? The question is whether they were right or wrong to do so. And they were right. The courts have no business putting innocent people to death. That's a small government principle.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 08:10 PM (x0h0g)

290 The courts have no business putting innocent people to death.


As I recall, the dispute centered on whether Shiavo was already effectively brain-dead, in which case pulling the plug on the respirator was merely a formality. And, as the subsequent autopsy demonstrated, her brain was largely destroyed.

The people who conducted the preposterous campaign to keep Shiavo hooked up to the respirator are the same people unable to find scientific virtue in Darwin.

Posted by: arbuthnot at November 14, 2008 08:26 PM (Tw7Fm)

291 Can I have a strand of your hair, Entropy? For federally-funded research purposes, of course.
Only if you promise to make 3 million clones of me and use them to take over the galaxy.

Posted by: Entropy at November 14, 2008 08:27 PM (HgAV0)

292 Only if you promise to make 3 million clones of me and use them to take over the galaxy.
Done. win and win, baby.

Posted by: VJay at November 14, 2008 08:31 PM (gu2kB)

293 As I recall, the dispute centered on whether Shiavo was already effectively brain-dead, in which case pulling the plug on the respirator was merely a formality. And, as the subsequent autopsy demonstrated, her brain was largely destroyed.The people who conducted the preposterous campaign to keep Shiavo hooked up to the respirator are the same people unable to find scientific virtue in Darwin.
That's BS.
That Schiavo affair was a total disaster, but mostly I blaim the media. Blah blah, this side, that side. Where is the damn fact finding?
You have 1/2 of people saying "Hey, her brain is gone"
You have 1/2 of people saying "Um, dude, she feeds herself and smiles"
Somebody was lying through their teeth.
You can't pin that on anyone who disagreed with you on Schiavo.
They may not even disagree on policy, or how to evaluate the facts. They're just accepting a different set of facts. You're taking 1 dudes word for it, they were taking another.
If she's braindead, she's braindead. If she's not, she's not. Nobody could agree on whether or not she was. Was hergoddamn BRAIN missing out of her skull or not?
Who the fuck are you supposed to believe?
The dude on TV who says he's a doctor?
Or the other dude on TV who says he's a doctor?

Posted by: Entropy at November 14, 2008 08:32 PM (HgAV0)

294 As I recall, the dispute centered on whether Shiavo was already
effectively brain-dead, in which case pulling the plug on the
respirator was merely a formality.

No doubt. The question is, who gets to make that determination. If her family wanted to keep her on a respirator then its hard to see grounds for the court to step in and order her taken off it. Other than "we're the courts, we can do what we want".


The people who conducted the preposterous campaign to keep Shiavo
hooked up to the respirator are the same people unable to find
scientific virtue in Darwin.


You're a not too bright monkey whose appreciation of "scientific virtue" extends no further than playing video games.


Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 08:37 PM (x0h0g)

295 As I recall, the dispute centered on whether Shiavo was already effectively brain-dead, in which case pulling the plug on the respirator was merely a formality. And, as the subsequent autopsy demonstrated, her brain was largely destroyed.The people who conducted the preposterous campaign to keep Shiavo hooked up to the respirator are the same people unable to find scientific virtue in Darwin.Posted by: arbuthnot at November 14, 2008 08:26 PM (Tw7Fm)


You might have accepted that her brain was gone, but her parents didn't... they just wanted to care for her. Why is pulling the plug so important to you that you would take such glee in denying them that?

Posted by: Watcher at November 14, 2008 08:39 PM (O87Q4)

296 The people who conducted the preposterous campaign to keep Shiavo hooked up to the respirator are the same people unable to find scientific virtue in Darwin.
I think you grossly misunderstand what happened here (keeping in mind that I generally agree that federal Republicans embarrassed themselves in this episode). My major gripe with what happened to Schiavio -- and that of many of my decidedly non-fundie friends -- was that a judge was giving "full faith" to a guy advocating the state-sponsored murder of a woman (and, yes, that's what it was -- I'm using clinical terms here) when:
(a) herhusbandclearly had a major conflict of interest in advocating her death; (b) he presented no evidence that her wishes begged for her termination under those circumstances (if he had, then all my objections just melt away), (c) given the ambiguous situation presented by (b), the availability of people willing and able to care for her was entirely ignored, and (d) the medical evidence of her perpetual incapacity was contested by at least one authority (i.e. the maximum threshold required to favor a blurry choice between life and death in a just society).
Still, as I see it, it was an issue that had no business leaking out of the confines of the state of Florida. States have the same checks and balances as the feds do, and they're generally the ones that should be dealing with this sort of thing.
But now I'm good and drunk, and it's damn near impossible to type into this broken comment system, so what do I know.

Posted by: VJay at November 14, 2008 08:47 PM (gu2kB)

297 s/b "favor life in a blurry choice between life and death in a just society".
Anyway, my big takeway from this thread is hat there are a lot of superstitious, intolerant Republicans that demand orthoxical conformity out of their political organs and demand that non-conforming witches be marginalized or burned.
Who knew it was the "libertarians"?

Posted by: VJay at November 14, 2008 08:51 PM (gu2kB)

298 @ 295, flenser


You're a not too bright monkey whose appreciation of ''scientific virtue'' extends no further than playing video games.


What does that mean?







Posted by: arbuthnot at November 14, 2008 09:00 PM (Tw7Fm)

299 the idea that Bush banned public financing for stem cells on anything other than a religious basis is BS.

Seems to me that genuine libertarians and small government conservatives would applaud him for doing it even if he did it after consulting with an astrologer. This sort of thing is why I keep suggesting that many of you people are driven a lot more by animus towards Christianity then you are by animus towards the state.

If Bush canned the Department of Education citing religious reasons, you people would demand it be reversed. If you were serious about your beliefs then you'd applaud the action regardless of the reasons behind it.



Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 09:01 PM (x0h0g)

300 What does that mean?

It means the same thing as "The people who conducted the
preposterous campaign to keep Shiavo hooked up to the respirator are
the same people unable to find scientific virtue in Darwin."


Just a general purpose insult, in other words.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 09:04 PM (x0h0g)

301 @ 296, watcher


Why is pulling the plug so important to you...

You misinterpreted my comment. At the time I had no preference for the outcome since I considered the dispute between the families (parents, husband) a legitimate matter for the courts to adjudicate. Unfortunately, prominent Republicans needlessly became involved in the media circus and came out looking like clowns.



Posted by: arbuthnot at November 14, 2008 09:09 PM (Tw7Fm)

302 @ 297, VJay


(a) herhusbandclearly had a major conflict of interest in advocating
her death; (b) he presented no evidence that her wishes begged for her
termination under those circumstances (if he had, then all my objections just melt away)

The court considered those points and others presented by the advocates of Shiavo and subsequently ruled for the husband.

You don't like the outcome, which is fine, but unless you're asserting malfeasance on the part of the court I don't think you can plausibly argue that Shiavo didn't get adequate due process from the system.

Posted by: arbuthnot at November 14, 2008 09:24 PM (Tw7Fm)

303 Terry Schiavo was not on a respirator; she was on a feeding tube. The question centered around whether or not Mrs. Schiavo would have perferred dying by starvation and dehydration versus living as she was at the end of her life. My understanding is that she had no living will, but that she had told her husband (per her husband) that she did not want to live on tubes (which may or may not have been an informed statement). Living on tubes and dying off of them mean different things depending on what the tubes provide. It took nearly two weeks for Terry Schiavo to die in a very unpleasant way. I hope that she was unaware of everything, including physical pain, when she passed. IMO, what this case boiled down to is what one does when the patient's wishes are unclear (as they seem to have been here). In this instance, I would want to err on the side perserving life, if only to avoid the agony that accompanies that kind of death.
This was weird case. It is my understanding that advocates on the extreme sides of the issue had ingratiated themselves to Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers respectively, ensuring that the state would have to resolve differences unreconciable between the two sides. A year after Terry Schiavo's death, my 89 year old grandmother suffered a stroke that left her unable to speak or swallow. She would have needed a feeding tube to sustain her. My grandmother had a living will which ruled out perserving her life through heroic measures. My mother, who was empowered to act as a medical surrogate,consulted with physicians andtalked to family members. She could have overruled the living will, but she felt my grandmother's wishes were clear. This happened here in Florida, and Jeb Bush did nothing to stop it. So much for Republicans wanting to tell people how to live and die.

Posted by: Niclun at November 14, 2008 09:29 PM (rjHmV)

304 Terry Schiavo was not on a respirator; she was on a feeding tube.


Thanks for correcting my error.

Posted by: arbuthnot at November 14, 2008 09:31 PM (Tw7Fm)

305 #305 Thanks for correcting my error.
It's notto be pedantic. Ithad an enormous impact on how I viewed the case.

Posted by: Niclun at November 14, 2008 09:43 PM (rjHmV)

306 I just wish there was more room for people like me - pro-choice but believe that Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas were wrongly decided. Stupid, silly, and even desppicable laws are not necessarily unconstitutional.

If the USSC let more assinine pieces of legislation stand, there would be pressure for legislatures to fix their mistakes. This also leads me to believe that statues should be construed strictly, with no escae clause for bad drafting. Currently if the text reaches an absurd conclusion, courts interpret it to mean somethign normal. Enforced absurdity would be an excellent motivator against horrid politicians.

There is a lot to be said about social cons being more solid. Though even there they can get wobbly - see the Huckster, Newt's global warming ads, etc. For almost everyone but McCain (and W) a great proxy is how pro-military, pro-WoT, and pro-Iraq war someone is. If you're still willing to stand up and say that invading Iraq was a good idea, you will never "grow" in office. If you're not fazed by torture and other vile attacks from former allies/sycophants, then being called heartless or uncaring by the NYT won't seem so horrid.

We really need more politicians like Giuliani who enjoy being hated. Rudy relishes the enemies he has, while others go and try to make nice with Sharpton. The one criticism of Palin I have is that during the campaign and after she has seemed to nice. Outside of the convention speech she hasn't come out looking like she was enjoying the fights. Perhaps it was just adjusting from being despised by the old boys but appreciated by the press to being attacked by everyone.

Posted by: Hey at November 14, 2008 09:45 PM (KdF9v)

307 Though even there they can get wobbly - see the Huckster, Newt's global warming ads, etc
Oh, I can rattle off a dozen or more people I consider RINO's who are loved to social issue voters anwyay.
And you're right. And I'll fight with you on that one. Douches like Huckleberry are douches, and it saddens me people can't see through his bullshit.
The reverse, though..not so much.
No one has answered my question. Who are these RINO politicans who are socially liberal but fiscially conservative?
If those nasty social cons want to get rid of these RINO's...who?
To all the posters in this thread - they're not talking about you jackass! Jeeze. Narcicist much? You're not office holders. They're talking about dudes who currently hold office. And those dudes aren't like you. They aren't just socially liberal they're just liberal.
Who are these RINO's we musn't marginalize?
Olympia Snowe? Lincoln Chaffee? Chuck Hagel? Lindsay Graham?
We really need them in the tent, eh? Who the fuck even holds their views and votes for republicans... besides, them? I'm not even sure they do. Chafee and Hagel endorsed Obama didn't they?

Posted by: Entropy at November 14, 2008 09:56 PM (HgAV0)

308 Ron Paul?
I dunno. He's pro-life.

Posted by: Entropy at November 14, 2008 10:02 PM (HgAV0)

309 Is it possible for Palin not to be a fiscal or social conservative, but a Principled conservative? It would seem to me that her positions are the result of a principled life/mind. The resulting positions are a natural consequences. She doesn't have to have a fiscal conservative or social conservative position because she has conservative positions - she has a principled approach toward government and her personal life that results in positions and policies that have positive results.

Show me a candidate with a history of standing by their conservative principles (limit government, personal responsibility, personal liberty) and I will show you a candidate that I can trust to hold elected office.

Posted by: Tracy Coyle at November 14, 2008 10:11 PM (w/Ruk)

310 Just acouple of retarded social con stances...
Banning evolution from schools, or requesting Intelligent Design be taught as science
A flag burning amendment to the Constituion
A marriage amendment to the Constitution
An abortion amendment to the Constitution
(If you are in favor of rewriting the Constitution to fit your personal social agenda, you're not a conservative by definition.)
And let's not forget the very fascist behavior of a bunch of ugly conservative Bible-thumpersin Oklahoma about 10 years ago over "The Tin Drum."

Posted by: Barbelle at November 14, 2008 10:28 PM (qF8q3)

311 Is it possible for Palin not to be a fiscal or social conservative, but a Principled conservative...she has a principled approach toward government and her personal life
that results in positions and policies that have positive results.


Palin is culturally conservative, but that seems more environmental than ideological. Not the slightest evidence during the campaign that she's ever given any thought or study to political theory or economics or the issues of freedom, liberty, capitalism, law and the philosophical relationship of these ideas to policy. In other words, she is no intellectual.

Which means she is not Reagan. But, as has been pointed out elsewhere, at the age of 44 Reagan was not Reagan.

And, yes I know she majored in political science in college.








Posted by: arbuthnot at November 14, 2008 10:35 PM (Tw7Fm)

312 Posted by: Barbelle at November 14, 2008 10:28 PM (qF8q3)
How bout we answer that question?
Not the slightest evidence during the campaign that she's ever given any thought or study to political theory or economics or the issues of freedom, liberty, capitalism, law and the philosophical relationship of these ideas to policy.
I agree with you.
In other words, she is no intellectual.
Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.
Palin isn't that well known. Anyone who thinks they've got her pegged will be, at the very best, purely lucky. It's a guess. She has potential.

Posted by: Entropy at November 14, 2008 10:45 PM (HgAV0)

313 It's true: Once you've crossed the Rubicon and declared yourself pro-life, by and large you're stuck being a conservative.

Harry Reid is pro-life. So are the Caseys' of Pennsylvania. The exceptions to the Rule.

The state I live in, one of the reddest of the Red, had an initiative on the ballot to ban, in almost every instance, abortion. The initiative lost.

This seems to be something Republicans should note.

Posted by: arbuthnot at November 14, 2008 10:50 PM (Tw7Fm)

314 How bout we answer that question?
Uh, what question, Entropy? I didn't ask one, and I didn't talk about Palin, either. She's the governor of Alaska, and I don't live there so I don't care what she does.
You may have confused my post with someone else's.

Posted by: Barbelle at November 14, 2008 10:57 PM (qF8q3)

315 Just want to point out that what I think makes me a "Socially Liberal" Republican isn't even issues, as much as priorities. I don't care for bible-beaters whose primary issue seems to be all the Homos (ahem huckabee ahem), but rather prefer a guy who cant find time to talk about gay rights because he's too busy being fiscally conservative and foreignly hawkish. Suddenly, because I don't really give a crap about making a federal issue out of Terry Schiavo because I'm much more worried about Mahmoud Ahmedenijad, I'm a socially-liberal republican.

Posted by: ayn rand's love child at November 14, 2008 11:07 PM (uxuHj)

316 Barbelle,
Social conservatism is hardly monolithic. I'm a social conservative, and I don't support amending the Constituion in any way you've listed. I was also completely unaware of The Tin Drum controversy in Oklahoma until I googled it just now. Censorship is hardly exclusive to the right either. As for evolution and ID, I don't know enough about ID to have an opinion. I don't think "banning" the teaching of evolution from public schools in a mainstream position for social conservatives, merely that ID be presented as well. I'd be perfectly happy to have schools teach evolution solely, if they taught it as the best scientific theory, which is what it is, as opposed to the definitive explanation for the origin of life.

Posted by: Niclun at November 14, 2008 11:11 PM (rjHmV)

317 Harry Reid is pro-life. So are the Caseys' of Pennsylvania.

Sure. And I'm a member of the CPUSA.

The state I live in, one of the reddest of the Red, had an initiative on the ballot to ban, in almost every instance, abortion. The initiative lost.This seems to be something Republicans should note.
Well, thanks for the useful tip. I guess that means that that "ban abortion in almost every instance bill" we were preparing for next year is a bad idea. Do you ever listen to yourself?

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 11:12 PM (gY+XE)

318 Huckabee can only talk about so con issues because if it was 1952 he'd be a Democrat.

Posted by: Niclun at November 14, 2008 11:13 PM (rjHmV)

319 Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.
I'm willing to be convinced otherwise; hoping, in fact, but my expectations are not high.


Anyone who thinks they've got her pegged will be, at the very best, purely lucky. It's a guess. She has potential.

Pretty sure I have Palin properly pegged. To develop her "potential" she needs to be in Washington. Otherwise, she becomes just a quaint rural curiosity, like a polar bear.

Last I saw, Stevens was some hundreds of votes behind.




Posted by: arbuthnot at November 14, 2008 11:16 PM (Tw7Fm)

320 For almost everyone but McCain (and W) a great proxy is how pro-military, pro-WoT, and pro-Iraq war someone is.

It's not. A lot of good conservatives were/are against the war. Bill Buckely for instance. And a lot of solid lefties supported the invasion. Joe Lieberman and Hitchens come to mind.
There's a good case to be made that the war has undermined conservatism, and the country.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 11:18 PM (gY+XE)

321 (If you are in favor of rewriting the Constitution to fit your personal social agenda, you're not a conservative by definition.)

Run along, little girl. The grown ups are talking.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 11:21 PM (gY+XE)

322 rather prefer a guy who cant find time to talk about gay rights because he's too busy being fiscally conservative and foreignly hawkish.
Best of luck searching for Mr Right. The point of this thread is that the guys who are good on the social issues are usually the same gusy who are good on the others issues.

I don't really give a crap about making a federal issue out of Terry Schiavo because I'm much more worried about Mahmoud Ahmedenijad
I have to confess that I don't really the get the abject terror which Ahmedenijad inspires in some of my fellow Republicans. He's a royal pain in the ass, nothing more.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 11:30 PM (gY+XE)

323 Huckabee can only talk about so con issues because if it was 1952 he'd be a Democrat.

You think Huck believes in segregation? That's highly unlikely.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 11:34 PM (gY+XE)

324 You think Huck believes in segregation? That's highly unlikely.
That's an excellent point on the history of the Democratic Party; however, I was referring to an affinity for big government. I was sloppy in not excluding segregation given that Huckabee's from Arkansas.

Posted by: Niclun at November 14, 2008 11:40 PM (rjHmV)

325 Social conservatism is hardly monolithic. I'm a social conservative, and I don't support amending the Constituion in any way you've listed.
So what? I'm socially conservative myself and it's not one bit relevant. Everything I've mentioned has beenpart of the Republican agenda at one time or another, and that's not coming from the social lib wing. The point being, if you think the Feds should be engaged in social engineering of any form, you're not a conservative. Conservatives are supposed tounderstand theConstitution, and as such they should know better than to pollute it withthat nonsense.
But then, conservatives have to put up with braniacs like this...
Run along, little girl. The grown ups are talking.
Go break your other hip, old timer, andpractice your Jesus-humping fascism in-between your bouts of Alzheimer's. The youngsters have indulged you with enough polite tolerance.

Posted by: Barbelle at November 14, 2008 11:45 PM (qF8q3)

326 The point of this thread is that the guys who are good on the social issues are usually the same gusy who are good on the others issues.
Coming up next, more news of the painfully obvious.....

Posted by: Barbelle at November 14, 2008 11:48 PM (qF8q3)

327 The point being, if you think the Feds should be engaged in social engineering of any form, you're not a conservative.

Fuck off, twat. Go play moby somewhere else.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 11:51 PM (gY+XE)

328 however, I was referring to an affinity for big government.

Not to nit pick (well, a little) but the GOP of the era was not exactly a small government party. Reagan was still a Democrat, National Review was still on the horizon, and The Conservative Mind was getting ready to be published.

Posted by: flenser at November 14, 2008 11:57 PM (gY+XE)

329 Fuck off, twat. Go play moby somewhere else.
You really didn't need to prove your stupidity again. I've been here years longer than youand have shown time and again I'm pretty far right...and so far, you've been pretty wrong. Stop drowning in your own Depends now, you're making a fool of yourself.

Posted by: Barbelle at November 15, 2008 12:00 AM (qF8q3)

330 Not to nit pick (well, a little) but the GOP of the era was not exactly a small government party. Reagan was still a Democrat, National Review was still on the horizon, and The Conservative Mind was getting ready to be published.
Yes, I think many of us are aware of that. I don't think of the Republican party of the 1950s as being populist, at least not the kind of populism that he used as a wedge issue with Romney.

Posted by: Niclun at November 15, 2008 12:04 AM (rjHmV)

331 have shown time and again I'm pretty far right

People who are pretty far right don't believe that "if you think the Feds should be engaged in social engineering of any form, you're not a conservative".
People who are pretty far right also do not believe that if the left decides to engage in social engineering, for instance by changing the defintion of marriage, that it is "social engineering" for the right to take action to stop this.
It's possible that you actually believe the crapola you are spouting. In which case, a little tutoring is in order.

Posted by: flenser at November 15, 2008 12:08 AM (gY+XE)

332 Populism gets a bad rap, imo. In a democratic system it's an inevitable development, and frequently a neccessary one.

Posted by: flenser at November 15, 2008 12:13 AM (gY+XE)

333 Everything I've mentioned has beenpart of the Republican agenda at one time or another, and that's not coming from the social lib wing. The point being, if you think the Feds should be engaged in social engineering of any form, you're not a conservative. Conservatives are supposed tounderstand theConstitution, and as such they should know better than to pollute it withthat nonsense.
And gun control is so in line with the constitution. The Department of Education is an outstanding example of the Tenth Amendment in action. Umm, was it Ford who appointed Stevens that paragon of judicial restraint?
You can take issue with so cons because you don't like their agenda, but all sides have done violence to the Constituion. I don't see the social liberals making a great noise about getting back to basics.
I'm as annoyed as anyone that many evangelicals don't seem to know anything beyond social issues (I'm speaking from my experience with fellow evangelicals) and don't seem to understand that the federal government was not intended to get involved in those things. However,they're not alone. It's also worth noting that none of theses amendments will ever happen, but thatliberal judicial activismerodes federalism all the time.

Posted by: Niclun at November 15, 2008 12:23 AM (rjHmV)

334 Populism gets a bad rap, imo. In a democratic system it's an inevitable development, and frequently a neccessary one.
I would say that there are different kinds of populism. I'm not a fan of Gov. Huckabee's brand.

Posted by: Niclun at November 15, 2008 12:28 AM (rjHmV)

335 People who are pretty far right don't believe that "if you think the Feds should be engaged in social engineering of any form, you're not a conservative".
Uh huh, I think I can see why Moby came to your lips so fast. You have NO idea what being a conservative means. So, you're either really stupid or you're faking.Mox nix to me, Gramps, you're a dastard either way.
People who are pretty far right also do not believe that if the left decides to engage in social engineering, for instance by changing the defintion of marriage, that it is "social engineering" for the right to take action to stop this.
Heaven and Earth, you're an idiot. This is the sort ofstatement that shows a real inability to to actually understandthe topic at hand.
It's possible that you actually believe the crapola you are spouting. In which case, a little tutoring is in order.
It is possible that you can comprehend more than you're spouting. Aw, who am I kidding?

Posted by: Barbelle at November 15, 2008 12:34 AM (qF8q3)

336 (If you are in favor of rewriting the Constitution to fit your personal social agenda, you're not a conservative by definition.)

Seriously, this is a stupid suggestion. Amending the Constitution is Conservative. I think Roe v Wade is a piece of garbage and pro-life, if it was overturned tomorrow and an amendment immediately passed the states which made everything Roe V Wade said part of the Constitution I would work to repeal it. But I wouldn't be trying to get a friendly judge to throw it out and I wouldn't claim most people agree with me when it's clear they don't

I think anti-sodomy laws are stupid and any town spending a dime to enforce them is foolish but I also think the Constitution gives government the authority to regulate sexual behavior so Lawrence v Texas is wrong. If it doesn't then there is nothing that can be done about someone into erotic asphxia.

Flag Burning? You can keep it, fair trade for free speech and will never pass.
Arrest the person for burning something in a public square without a permit. People ahve a right to bare arms but even an ardent Conservative wouldn't suggest you they have a right to fire off their weapon at random on a holiday like some Jihadist.

Marriage Ammendment, yeah it's really unconservative to suggest a minority backed by the government shouldn't be able to redefine a foundational institution just to further some agenda. The only reason people are against the Marriage amendment is because they are sure it would pass the states in a week. If they thought it would fail they would be all for letting it fail and putting the issue to bed Is it so much to ask that the majority of people agree that same-sex "marriage is ACTUALLY marriage before the government starts calling it that? And if they people say it isn't but something else...then it isn't?


Posted by: Rocks at November 15, 2008 01:01 AM (7rbe9)

337 And gun control is so in line with the constitution. The Department of Education is an outstanding example of the Tenth Amendment in action. Umm, was it Ford who appointed Stevens that paragon of judicial restraint?
HEEEEELLLLOOOO! Why are you bringing up that liberal stuff? It's irrelevant. I know full well Democrats have no respect for the Constitution.
But CONSERVATIVES do...or least they should. You better believe I hold my own side at a higher standardbecause that is what makes us right in the political argument...and I don't mean right in terms of politics, I mean right as in correct and on the side of freedom and individual liberty.
I don't buy into this whole "O, we all love this country, we just have differentideas onon solving our problems." That's pure BS. There are 2 kinds of democrats: the socialists and the fools. And there's one kind of conservative: the kind who knowsthat the Constitution was written not to give us rights but to guarantee the rights we already have, the kind who knows that it doesn't exist to set social policy but to limit the federal government's intrusion into our lives, the kind who knows the frikkin' difference between a republic and a democracy, the popular vote vs. the electoral map, national defense vs world respect...
And, if you don't get any of that, then you can call yourself a Republican but you're no conservative. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Yes, that's off-topic, but no one else seems to be talking about it anyway.

Posted by: Barbelle at November 15, 2008 01:02 AM (qF8q3)

338 Man it must be late with all those typos.
I am pro-life...not Roe v wade.



Posted by: Rocks at November 15, 2008 01:08 AM (7rbe9)

339 Amending the Constitution is Conservative.
Sigh. Posters around here really have gonenumb from the neck up. Who said that amending the Constitution wasNOT conservative? Come on, this is Clintonian Straw Man $hit.
I didn't readon after that. If you're going to take that much out of context, you're not going to say anything worth reading.
I have to say this iscause for concern. Really, have Republicans gone so far asto adopt the tactics of the Left in terms of argument? Can't you just stick to the facts anymore without distortion?

Posted by: Barbelle at November 15, 2008 01:13 AM (qF8q3)

340 the kind who knows that it doesn't exist to set social policy

And if a judge uses the Constitution to do it then what?
It's unconservative to say it's wrong?
It's unconservative to make sure they can't anymore, at least on that issue.
BS.
No SoCon is asking for any new social policy to be amended to the Constitution. Just that when Judges decide to do so the people have the right to reverse it.


Posted by: Rocks at November 15, 2008 01:13 AM (7rbe9)

341 Who said that amending the Constitution wasNOT conservative?

You did, didn't you just claim the Marriage Amendment isn't conservative?
It's not SoCons asking for something new here. If it weren't for wacked out judges they wouldn't even be asking for an amendment.
If a right to abortion had been passed as an amendment had passed the states people looking to see it overturned would be a tenth of those lwho think Roe v Wade should be overturned.
SoCons don't come up with this stuff out of thin air.



Posted by: Rocks at November 15, 2008 01:20 AM (7rbe9)

342 Can't you just stick to the facts anymore without distortion?

Who distorted anything?
There's nothing Conservative about rolling over and playing dead because 5 people some where say it's a dead issue because of some penumbra nobody else noticed before. Not when it comes to things like the definition of life, marriage, freedom or liberty.



Posted by: Rocks at November 15, 2008 01:25 AM (7rbe9)

343 And if a judge uses the Constitution to do it then what?It's unconservative to say it's wrong?
Rocks, are you trying to prove you're insane or that you have a reading comprehension problem? Where on EARTH did I even mention judges? Where did I even imply that criticizing them is anyrhing???
Do you really think that a Constitutional amendment will take care of liberal judges legislating from the bench? *Har-tay laugh* The Constitution doesn't stop them NOW on topics that are aleady covered there, so don't be so woefully ignorant as to believe any twisted kind of social programming amendment will make them fall into place.

Posted by: Barbelle at November 15, 2008 01:25 AM (qF8q3)

344 You did, didn't you just claim the Marriage Amendment isn't conservative.
I must say I am now intrigued by your stupidity, Indulge me, I want to see if youcan notice the difference between 2 similar but different statements.
Read this sentence:
Putting a Marriage Amendment in the Constitution is not conservative.
And read this sentence:
Putting an amendment in the Constitution is not conservative.
Okay, did you read that? Now,answer this one question:
Do you understnad there's a difference -- not just in structure, but in meaning -- between these 2 sentences?
Take your time.

Posted by: Barbelle at November 15, 2008 01:35 AM (qF8q3)

345 There's nothing Conservative about rolling over and playing dead because 5 people some where say it's a dead issue because of some penumbra nobody else noticed before. Not when it comes to things like the definition of life, marriage, freedom or liberty.
Distortions Ga-LORE!
O you are teh funnay!

Posted by: Barbelle at November 15, 2008 01:37 AM (qF8q3)

346 I don't expect them to fall in place. But they sure the hell would have a much harder time on it on a certain issues if the Constitution flat out says it with an amendment. Where would we be on the right to bear arms without the second amendment? Holding sticks that's where.

I'm neither insane nor have a reading comprehension. But I am not sure if you have a firm grasp on reality. Name me a SoCon issue with any traction at all that wasn't precipitated by a judge grabbing some crap out of thin air?
Suggesting putting the plain meaning of the word marriage into the Constitution isn't Conservative is to not criticize the Judges who decide it has any defintion they say. There sure the hell isn't anything in the Constitution that suggests they can change it.
To suggest SoCons are trying to put their social policy into the Constitution is to suggest the judges that says it wasn't to begin with should be obeyed and not critisized. That make work okay for you on that issue but there isn't anything conservative about it.


Posted by: Rocks at November 15, 2008 01:41 AM (7rbe9)

347 Do you understnad there's a difference -- not just in structure, but in meaning -- between these 2 sentences?

Yeah I do notice. I also notice you're an idiot if that is what you think my point was. My point was amending the Constitution is Conservative by definition. Regardless of what's it's for. Why? Because that's the right friggin way to change the Constitution. Not by Judicial fiat. I might disagree with what was ammneded and think it's the wrong thing to do as a society but I sure the hell would agree it was done Conservatively.

Posted by: Rocks at November 15, 2008 01:47 AM (7rbe9)

348 HEEEEELLLLOOOO! Why are you bringing up that liberal stuff? It's irrelevant. I know full well Democrats have no respect for the Constitution.
It can hardly be irrelevant when you idict so cons for their assaults on the Constitution, and then state that these assaults aren't coming from social liberals. Name a social liberal whose a strict constructionist.
Besides, Rudy Guiliani, socially liberal Republican, is pro-gun control. Ford was a moderate Republican. And yes, Carter gave us the abomination that is the DoE, I'll give you that. But I don't see the Christie Todd Whitmans calling for its dissolution.
But CONSERVATIVES do...or least they should. You better believe I hold my own side at a higher standardbecause that is what makes us right in the political argument...and I don't mean right in terms of politics, I mean right as in correct and on the side of freedom and individual liberty.
I'm not saying that we should not hold our leaders' feet to the fire when they abandon conservative principles. However, I think you've painted so cons with a rather broad brush.

Posted by: Niclun at November 15, 2008 01:49 AM (rjHmV)

349 I'm just waitin' for an answer to the2 Sentence Quiz.

Posted by: Barbelle at November 15, 2008 01:49 AM (qF8q3)

350 Tell me where I am distorting what you are saying? 5 judges say marriage, which virtually every friggin person throughout history, including every government entity in the US, has agreed is the joining of a man and woman now means any 2 persons.
The majority pf people say they are nuts and want it to stay as defined so they push for an amendment to make it clear.
You say that's not Conservative because that's just them pushing their social policy.
The only way that works is if you just accept what the judges say.

Tell me, if the court had decided the government could place any restrictions it pleases on gun ownership would it be not Conservative to attempt to amend the Constitution?


Posted by: Rocks at November 15, 2008 01:56 AM (7rbe9)

351 It can hardly be irrelevant when you idict so cons for their assaults on the Constitution, and then state that these assaults aren't coming from social liberals.
It's not hardly irrelevant, it's wholly irrelevant.
Name a social liberal whose a strict constructionist.
Why? I never claimed there were any. If you didn't notice -- and apparently you didn't -- in this threadsome folks couldn't recall any national social agendas that conservatives were trying to push through, so I mentioned some. Liberal behavior simply doesn't matter; just because they behave badly it doesn't let us off the hook. Shoot, I would neverset the bar as low as "performing like a Democrat."

Posted by: Barbelle at November 15, 2008 02:02 AM (qF8q3)

352 I'm just waitin' for an answer to the2 Sentence Quiz.

Already answered it. I'm still waiting on you to explain how a Constitutional amendment can be not Conservative. If you are suggesting it's not Conservative to amend the Constitution for marriage you are suggesting amending it at all is not Conservative.
If you are suggesting a Marriage Amendment is wrong then more power to you. But that isn't what you said. The Marriage Amendment no more unconservative than any other amendment.

Posted by: Rocks at November 15, 2008 02:06 AM (7rbe9)

353 Yeah I do notice. I also notice you're an idiot if that is what you think my point was.
Well, see, I didn't care what your point was. You just wanted to take some snippet of what I said, change it, and argue against it. Straw man. If you want to make a valid point then perhaps you should take theissuepresented instead of creating onefor yourself, because you only end up convincing yourself ...and can't you do that on your own time?

Posted by: Barbelle at November 15, 2008 02:10 AM (qF8q3)

354 Why? I never claimed there were any. If you didn't notice -- and
apparently you didn't -- in this threadsome folks couldn't recall any
national social agendas that conservatives were trying to push through,
so I mentioned some.

Okay, if you had just explained you were an idiot people would have just ignored you. SoCons agenda is Conserving the traditional definitions of things at least until more than 5 judges have a say. Conserving...Conservative, get it?

The SoCon agenda didn't appear out of thin air. Liberals invent shit out of thin air and then get a friendly judge to say it's so. So they have an agenda. SoCons resist it and try to insure everyone has a say and they just have another agenda so they are the same as liberals. Great logic.

A liberal judge decides a muslim woman must hide her face because her husband says so. Would Consevratives be just like liberals because they tried to ammend the constituion to say that isn't true? Or would they be Conserving the woman's freedom to decide herself? Would freedom just be the Conservative agenda in that case?

Posted by: Rocks at November 15, 2008 02:19 AM (7rbe9)

355 I'm still waiting on you to explain how a Constitutional amendment can be not Conservative.
I never said that, remember? That's one of the 2 sentences you readduring the Quiz. I said the OTHER one.
If you are suggesting it's not Conservative to amend the Constitution for marriage you are suggesting amending it at all is not Conservative.
Now now, you just said you knew the difference between those 2 statements, yet you'retreating them as the exact same thing. You weren't lying, were you?

Posted by: Barbelle at November 15, 2008 02:19 AM (qF8q3)

356 Okay, if you had just explained you were an idiot people would have just ignored you.
Oh come now, I'm not ignoring YOU. Well, not entirely, just the prattling.

Posted by: Barbelle at November 15, 2008 02:21 AM (qF8q3)

357 Well, see, I didn't care what your point was. You just wanted to take
some snippet of what I said, change it, and argue against it. Straw
man.

Yeah I got that when you said you couldn't even be bothered to read it. Your point was amending the constitution for a social issues isn't conservative. For that to be true then any amendment to the constitution which mentions a social issue would have to be not conservative. That simply isn't true. The only straw part of this whole conversation is your suggestion that social issues are some how off limits because they are just someone's agenda. That isn't remotely Conservative, it's very defintion of liberalism.

Posted by: Rocks at November 15, 2008 02:34 AM (7rbe9)

358 I think the social agenda stuff was pretty well covered before you showed up with your extreme examples. The effect of your first post was to paint so cons as anti-intellectual fascisti, whether you intended it or not. A much more reasonable example would be federal funding for abstinence education. The federal government has no business funding this.
I'm not suggesting that conservatives should employ the same methods as liberals. You invoked the social libs, implying that they weren'tparty tothis kind of behavior. I disputed that with examples.
Also,true conservatives have violated federalist principles. While these actions aren't "conservative" I'm not sure it should sully their whole record. Reagan was a true conservative and a federalist. His war on drugs . . . not so much. I don't hold it against him.

Posted by: Niclun at November 15, 2008 02:43 AM (rjHmV)

359
I never said that, remember? That's one of the 2 sentences you readduring the Quiz. I said the OTHER one.

What is this now the that depends on how you define "is" argument? That is exactly what you said. There's nothing unconservative about an amendment, no matter what it's for. You are suggesting it is. You said that.


Now now, you just said you knew the difference between those 2
statements, yet you'retreating them as the exact same thing. You
weren't lying, were you?No I wasn't lying. I said there was a difference but that doesn't mean they are speaking of different things. So I'll say it again because you are very obtuse.

If you are suggesting it's not Conservative to amend the
Constitution for marriage you are suggesting amending it at all is not
Conservative.

What you mean is a social "agenda" isn't worth amending for. That
isn't the same thing as it being not conservative as you suggest. A
Conservative would be against an ammendment because he disgarees with
it, not suggest using an ammendment is not Conservative as you do simply because it's their agenda.



Posted by: Rocks at November 15, 2008 03:00 AM (7rbe9)

360 Yeah I got that when you said you couldn't even be bothered to read it
Onceagain, theEnglsh language evades DumbAsRocks...
I COULD be bothered. I chose not to bother. See the difference there, too?
Your point was amending the constitution for a social issues isn't conservative.
Close to right!
For that to be true then any amendment to the constitution which mentions a social issue would have to be not conservative.
Nowhere close to right!
That simply isn't true.
Since you're wrong about what I said, you're right!
The only straw part of this whole conversation is your suggestion that social issues are some how off limits because they are just someone's agenda.
No, Dummy, all the Straw Men here -- and you've provided enough to kindle a decent bonfire -- havebeen the silly points you've tried to make which have had nothing to do with anything I was talking about.I, on the other hand, have been on the same points the whole time and have tried, hard, to get you to focus.
That isn't remotely Conservative, it's very defintion of liberalism.
Look, I'd be happy to explain liberalism to you, too, 'cause you need it, but man, it took a while just to get you sort of close to being almost right about something, so let's stick a pin in that one for the time being.

Posted by: Barbelle at November 15, 2008 03:12 AM (qF8q3)

361 What is this now the that depends on how you define "is" argument? That is exactly what you said.
LOL. Truly, are you yanking my chain? You know I never said amending the Constitution was not conservative.Geez, by now the entire planet knows I never said thatsimply by the smell of the dead horse you keep beating. Thanks, Adolph, but no matter how many times you say it, it’s not going to be true.
And until you can get that through your head -- and boy, considering how empty it is, it shouldfly through likebuckshot -- the rest is just white noise.

Posted by: Barbelle at November 15, 2008 03:32 AM (qF8q3)

362 I COULD be bothered. I chose not to bother. See the difference there, too?

You could be something besides an asshole. You chose not to be. I think I am staring to get it now, yes.

Are you going to start to actual address what I have said at any point here or are you just going to continue suggesting I am dumb or empty headed?

Listen I will actually repeat your words back to you first because you obviously can't remember what the they were.


(If you are in favor of rewriting the Constitution to fit your personal social agenda, you're not a conservative by definition.)

Wasn't EVERY amendment EVER made someone's personal agenda at some point? Or did all of it get done it for fun? Is amending a Conservative act, as opposed to judicial fiat?

If both are true, and they undoubtedly are, then suggesting that people who want the same choices aren't Conservative is not just wrong, it's plain stupid.

I know you are on this 2 sentence thing and that was 4 but that is as simple as I can make it for you. If you still are having problems get back to me when your reading comprehension skills have doubled to 4 sentences.



Posted by: Rocks at November 15, 2008 08:25 AM (7rbe9)

363 I'm the "mattb" who wrote the original email that Ace posted. Unfortunately, Icannot access the comments section while I am at work, so was not able to follow the converstation.I have skimmed but probably missed a lot.
I would point out, that amending the constitutinon in order to preserve the many thousand year old definition of mMarriage, adn the definition that America hhas had for its entire history, is indeed very, very conservative. Now, I for one don't feel that strongly about the gay-marriage issue one way or another, but I do feel strongly that such an issue should not be decided by the Courts, which again is a very conservative position.
Seeking to amend the constitution is itself a conservative approach to add to, subtract from, or clarify the constitution, unlike the liberal approach which is simply to either ignore explicit wording in the constitution (a la right to bear arms) or to find “new” things in the constitution (a la the right to abortion). What the amendment is may or may not be conservative, but using the actual process provided in the constitution is a conservative approach.

As to the people who complain about censorship – I don’t recall the last time any conservative sought to censor anything. However, recent history is replete with dems seeking to censor all kinds of language and speech. Moreover, they seek to censor political opinions they disagree with through the misnamed “fairness doctrine” which is much more worrisome than attempts to keep pornography from being aired on network television.

To the people who said they were much more upset over alleged attempts at “censorship” by conservatives than massive new entitlement programs, even though they claim to be “economic conservatives” – I think they make my point for me, which is such people’s commitment to any conservative economic principal is pretty slim at best.

I only skimmed the comments, so may have missed much, but believe a couple of things went unaddressed. Aside from gay marriage and abortion – what exactly is “social conservatism”? What issues exactly are we talking about, and how do you believe they are distinct from “economic conservatism” or “federalism” or “small government conservatism”?

Let me give an example. Social liberals are likely to be for “universal health care”. Well, how is that “economically conservative” or in line with small government or federalism?

Same goes for affirmative action. How is that small gov’t conservatism, or economic conservatism (i.e., setting aside gov’t contracts for select groups is hardly economically efficient or letting the market decide)?

Or any entitlement program? Even abortion – should federal dollars be spent for abortions? Why not let state’s decide abortion?

My point is that very few of these so-called “social conservative” issues are divorced from other conservative concepts. Much of social liberalism increases costs to society dramatically – which then ends in calls for more entitlement programs / spending.

As I said originally, I am not a passionate social conservative – I probably lean toward pro-life and anti-gay marriage, but if these issues are decided LEGISLATIVELY against those positions, I won’t get too worked up. But, it seems to me that politicians and jurists who claim to be “socially liberal” but “economically conservative” usually give up their economic conservatism very quickly. Thus, I end up supporting socially conservative politicians b/c I know that they will usually stay strong on “small gov’t”, “economic” and “federalist” issues. Granted, George W. Bush was a failure in this regard, but when he ran on “compassionate conservatism” we probably knew what we were in for – and frankly, I still think he was the better alternative than Kerry or Gore.

While I’m sure there are some voters out there who are truly “economically conservative” and “socially liberal”, I doubt very much that there are enough to make an electoral victory, or to even come close. I’m also sure that there are politicians who are socially liberal and economically conservative who stay strong to small gov’t, federalism, fiscal responsibility and low taxes – but they are very, very rare. Indeed, I can’t name one off the top of my head.

Posted by: Great Banana at November 15, 2008 09:00 AM (fOEDG)

364 Another point – we should define terms:

To me “economic conservatism” means low taxes for everyone (indeed, approaching a flat tax rather than a progressive tax), fiscal responsibility in spending, limited support for entitlement programs (i.e., wanting to reform current entitlement programs to get rid of fraud, etc. and not wanting to start new entitlement programs), and belief in small government and federalism (i.e., not getting the federal gov’t involved in things like education, leaving most things to the states).

“Social conservatism” means being pro-life, anti gay-marriage, and generally wanting to keep America’s moral values and institutions from radical change.

Posted by: Great Banana at November 15, 2008 10:55 AM (fOEDG)

365 BTW, just read a Michael Gerson column this morning saying that Obama faces a couple tripwire issues early in his presidency. Included is the statement that signing an executive order allowing federal funding for embrionic stem cell research is a "pro-life" tripwire.
But I thought that issue was only about small goverment.
An Matt, nobody said they are MORE concerned about censorship than about entitlement programs. You asked what issues we might disagree about, and AGAIN the idea that no republicans are in favor of censorship is nonsense. I don't care what you call the FCC fallout from nipple-gate, but it was embarassing.
You are also making up a category of people that don't really exist. I am not a "social liberal", however, i am NOT a social conservative. I don't believe pro-life issues and anti-gay marriage issues should be driving the republican agenda. And Jim Demint just said as much. He complained that Bush and McCain have abandoned Conservative principles, and that the brand should be defined by "freedom, religious-based values and limited government". I'm telling you right now "religious based values" plays well with the social conservatives, but that demographic is, at best, made up of the 22%that self-identify as "conservatives". Hardly amajority of anything.
Also, social conservatives are not primarily against "keeping America’s moral values and institutions from radical change". For the mast part, they think that has already happened and they want to roll back the changes to America's moral values. I call that tilting at windmills.
But by all means, keep on keepin' on.

Posted by: deadrody at November 15, 2008 11:06 AM (aCKVb)

366
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happyness. Our Founding Fathers called those "God given rights" of all Americans.
That's why the Conservative Party, the GOP, needs a pro-life candidate for President.
Let's face it, there is no "middle road" when it comes to life. Your either for life or against it. Without life there can be no liberty, etc.. This is a basic right. If Republicans move towards pro "choice" and what is that choice? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?
If Republicans move away from life, they move away from liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Okay, Rudy didn't, much, but he did. Remember theSecond Ammendment? But as Ace mentioned, as a general rule, moderate/liberal Republicans continue to move left.
It's what Margeret Thatcher calls the "ratchet effect." When leftist liberal Demsare President the country moves left, and when most Republicans are President that shift stops but doesn't go back towads the right (with the exception of Reagan). A moderate/liberal Republican, if elected, would continue to move left (ala GW Bush, and don't get me wrong, I like some of the things he did, but he did move left on a lot of issues).
This is why social conservatives are important. They remind us of the sanctity of life and how without it, we lose our way. I'm not bein' sanctimonious here, I'm merely pointing out the relationship between life and liberty. There are socons who really piss me off on some issues, and personally, I do prefer a federalist approach. But for the most part, socons are essential if we wanna stop from moving left. And by sayin' socon I include those who also believe in fiscal responsibility, a strong militaryand sound foreign policies. There's very few Republicans that are ONLY socons.
No pro-life President is gonna overturn Roe V Wade anyhow, but they can elect judges as Ace also mentioned, who are pro-life. And even a conservative SCOTUS is most likely gonna return the abortion issue to the states where it belongs. Less government. Isn't that what all Republicans want? Well, 95% anyway.
Anyway, I hope I made my point without gettin' to metaphysical. We must keep our core beliefs of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Once "these truth's" are no longer self evident, we will have moved into full socialism/commie-lite.

Posted by: USS Ben at November 15, 2008 11:10 AM (mbjhn)

367 “BTW, just read a Michael Gerson column this morning saying that Obama faces a couple tripwire issues early in his presidency. Included is the statement that signing an executive order allowing federal funding for embrionic stem cell research is a "pro-life" tripwire.

But I thought that issue was only about small goverment.”

Ummm, nobody said it was “only” about small government, I said that social conservatives tend to actually be strong supporters of small government, federalism, and economic conservatism much, much, much more than “social liberals” (or people like you who purport to simply not care one way or another).

And, I also argued that most “social conservative” issues do not exist in a vacuum and relate to other conservative tenents, such as federalism and small gov’t. Thus, even if you don’t feel that there is a moral case for pro-life positions, you can find a small gov’t or federalist case for the federal gov’t not being involved in the matter.

Aside from abortion and gay marriage, I have yet for anyone to define for me what they mean by “social conservatism”. What specific policies or issues are you talking about? Is it only gay marriage and abortion? I would like to know what specifically people are talking about when they say the GOP should evict social conservatives.

“And Matt, nobody said they are MORE concerned about censorship than about entitlement programs. You asked what issues we might disagree about, and AGAIN the idea that no republicans are in favor of censorship is nonsense. I don't care what you call the FCC fallout from nipple-gate, but it was embarassing.
2 things. Someone, I’m no going to go looking for it, in fact did post a comment that they were more concerned about the alleged conservative attempts at censorship than increased spending, which is exactly what I was responding to and which proves my point a la “social liberalism” and “economic conservatism”. So, you are incorrect here.

Next, please cite to me the conservative politician or policy that anyone sought to get enacted to censor anything? Cite to me the conservative that argued for a new law to “censor” anything? Don’t just say it happened, cite to something. I don’t remember any such thing, so you’ll have to forgive me as I call you out on straw-manism. In contrast, the dems are going to censor political speech with PCness and with the misnamed “fairness doctrine”, which is far, far more troubling. I think you have trouble with the difference between people expressing outrage over something that happened (nipplegate) and a movement or person actually introducing and arguing for a new law, or arguing for new regulations to censor people. If I say I did not like what you said or did, that is not censorship – no matter how many times you claim it is. When I try to enact legislation to keep you from speaking in the first instance, that is censorship. Again, please cite me where a conservative did the latter. I doubt you’ll find it. Thus, your entire argument in this regard is a straw-man. You may have been embarrassed by reactions to nipplegate (although I seem to recall plenty of dems expressing outrage as well as republicans), but I don’t really care if you were outraged, and that did not lose any election for the GOP, and wouldn’t lose any election for the GOP. Nor is it censorship.

“You are also making up a category of people that don't really exist. I am not a "social liberal", however, i am NOT a social conservative. I don't believe pro-life issues and anti-gay marriage issues should be driving the republican agenda. And Jim Demint just said as much. He complained that Bush and McCain have abandoned Conservative principles, and that the brand should be defined by "freedom, religious-based values and limited government". I'm telling you right now "religious based values" plays well with the social conservatives, but that demographic is, at best, made up of the 22% that self-identify as "conservatives". Hardly a majority of anything.”

Who has the straw-man argument here? “religious values” equals abortion controlling everything? Also, please read what I wrote before arguing with me – nothing drives me nuttier than someone who either can’t, or does not read. I said that I was not a social conservative, but that I tend to support social conservative politicians because they tend to be more faithful on economic, small gov’t and federalist issues. Thus, I am not arguing that “abortion and gay marriage” should drive the republican agenda. I AM arguing that getting rid of social conservatives is a loser for the GOP and I do argue that experience tells us that politicians who are not proclaimed social conservatives are much more likely to drift left on other issues. I can name many policians who are “socially liberal” but economically conservative who ended up moving far to the left on taxes, spending, entitlements. I can’t think of one “social conservative” who the same can be said of – except maybe W. Bush.

Since over 50% are against gay marriage and abortion is at a 50% split, with a solid majority being for prohibiting late-term abortions and for parental notification laws, the facts are against your claim of 22%. Indeed, those are both generally winning issues. That is simply polls speaking, not me. However, I agree with you that those issues should not “drive” the party, or even be the main issues of the party. But abandoning those issues will lose the GOP far more votes than it gains. Again, if social liberalism (which I am using as short-hand for pro-choice, pro gay marriage) combined with economic conservatism is so popular, than the libertarian party would do better electorally, and dems would move more to the right on economic issues. That is not the case, which shows that most social liberals are also economic liberals. There simply are not enough voters who are true economic conservatives and social liberals to make that a winning coalition.

“Also, social conservatives are not primarily against "keeping America’s moral values and institutions from radical change". For the mast part, they think that has already happened and they want to roll back the changes to America's moral values. I call that tilting at windmills.”

Straw-man, not worth a response. What exactly are you referring to?

Posted by: Great Banana at November 15, 2008 01:59 PM (fOEDG)

368 The JimK’s on this thread are threatening to take the video games and private stash of porn and vote for the Democrats. Well don’t let the door hit you in the ass Jim.

What puzzles me about all these mouth breathers is the belief that the Republican Party, or the Right in general can win ANY election without Christians. In case nobody bothered to count recently, this country is roughly 75% Christian. Worldwideit’s the largest religious group with 33% share, Islam is second with 21%.

Of the Christians in the US, roughly 75% are Protestant and 25% Catholic. Among Protestants, the largest denomination by far is Baptist with 16 million members, representing 16% of all Christians.

Given a choice of having JimK (with his video game and porn stash) on my side in an election and the Baptists, I would have to think … a millisecond of a millisecond before I would kick JimK in the crotch just to show my Baptist brethren how much I am on their side.

Want to read me and people like me out of the party? You know what you have left? Right… it the vote for Libertarians. How many electoral votes did they get?

I am not sure, but I have the sneaking suspicion that the jerks who find the thought of religious people participating in politics may be Democrat plants.

Posted by: Moneyrunner at November 15, 2008 05:02 PM (uAekG)

369 I AM arguing that getting rid of social conservatives is a loser for the GOP and I do argue that experience tells us that politicians who are not proclaimed social conservatives are much more likely to drift left on other issues. I can name many policians who are “socially liberal” but economically conservative who ended up moving far to the left on taxes, spending, entitlements. I can’t think of one “social conservative” who the same can be said of – except maybe W. Bush....Posted by: Great Banana at November 15, 2008 01:59 PM (fOEDG)


To a certain extent Bush, Huckabee, McCain, and Romney were all guilty of using social conservatism to compensate for their big government tendencies... and I'm sure there are others that I can't think of at the moment... I'm not saying you don't have a point, but Bush is far from being the only one. For crying out loud, even Newt Gingrich has jumped onto the global warming bandwagon.

Posted by: Watcher at November 15, 2008 05:51 PM (sRSAN)

370 توبيكات اغنية البيت مايسوى بدونك سعد الفهد 2010 ، توبيكات البيت مايسوى حياتي بدونك 2010 ، توبيكات اغاني سعد الفهد 2010 ، ،توبيكات كلمات اغنية البيت مايسوى حياتي بدونك للفنان سعد الفهد 2010 ...توبيكات شلونك حبيبي ، تحميل توبيكات شلونك حبيبي ، توبيكات اغاني ماجد مهندس 2009 ، توبيكات البوم ماجد مهندس شلونك حبيبي..توبيكات اغنية انا من حقي اغير للفنان راشد الماجد 2010 توبيكات اغنية انا من حقي اغير 2010 توبيكات البوم راشد الماجد 2010.توبيكات اغنية راشد الفارس شي ثاني ، توبيكات البوم راشد الفارس شي ثاني ، توبيكات اغنية. توبيكات للمسن توبيكات خليجيه توبيكات شعريه توبيكات للمبدع محمد بن فطيس توبيكات الشاعر القطر محمد توبيكات منوعه توبيكات حلوه توبيكات للماسنجر.توبيكات للماسنجر , توبيكات ماسنجر ملونه , توبيكات رومانسيه ’ توبيكات حزينه , توبيكات حب , توبيكات فراق , توبيكات منوعه للمسن , توبيكات جديده للمسن ..توبيكات للمسن توبيكات دلع توبيكات فرح توبيكات حلوه توبيكات منوعه.توبيكات البوم عبدالله الرويشد 2009 توبيكات أغاني الفنانه عبدالله الرويشد توبيكات ماسنجر.توبيكات منوعه توبيكات عتاب توبيكات حب توبيكات رمنسيه مع صور رمزيه توبيكات للماسنجر توبيكات 2009 توبيكات حلوه.توبيكات ماسنجر صور ماسنجر هلاليه توبيكات نادي الهلال توبيكات هلاليه صور ماسنجر للهلال.توبيكات جروح توبيكات فراق توبيكات غدر توبيكات حلوه توبيكات للمسن توبيكات قويه توبيكات روعه توبيكات ماسنجر توبيكات جديده‏.توبيكات للمسن توبيكات حزن توبيكات دموع توبيكات المحبين توبيكات فراق.توبيكات للمسن توبيكات قويه توبيكات عزة نفس توبيكات فراق توبيكات للبنات توبيكات للماسنجر.توبيكات الاسرار, فهد المساعد, 2009.توبيكات ماسنجر توبيكات كرتونيه توبيكات كرتون صور ماسنجر كرتونيه توبيكات وصور رسوم متحركه.توبيكات ماسنجر توبيكات أغاني محمد عبده توبيكات أغاني أبو نوره توبيكات البوم محمد عبده.توبيكات ماجد المهندس توبيكات وليد العاطفه توبيكات عراقيه توبيكات الفنان ماجد المهندس توبيكات مسن.نكات لشهر رمضان ، نكات رمضانيه ، توبيكات رمضانيه ، توبيك شهر رمضان ، نيك نيم رمضاني.توبيكات شوق توبيكات وله توبيكات رمانسيه توبيكات اشواق اوبيكات روعه توبيكات حب توبيكات للماسنجر توبيكات حلوه.توبيكات عتاب توبيكات ماسنجر توبيكات حزن توبيكات الم توبيكات قهر.توبيكات البوم تركي توبيكات أغاني تركي 2009 توبيكات أغاني.نكات للمسن توبيكات منوعه توبيكات للعطله توبيكات حلوه للايجازه نكات لطلاب نكات روعه توبيكات للماسنجر نكات جديده نكات طلاب‏.توبيكات تخرج و نجاح توبك تخرج ونجاح توبكات تخرج ونجاح جديدة توبيكات عن النجاح و التخرج ملونه و حلوه بالصور و مع الصور للماسنجر و للمسن توبيكات بمناسبة النجاح و التخرج.توبيكات فنية توبيكات حب توبيكات جرح توبيكات مرعبة توبيكات ترفيهية.توبيكات للمسن توبيكات عن الاختبارات صور للاختبارات توبيكات جديده توبيكات حلوه.توبيكات أغاني الوسمي توبيكات البوم الوسمي - تضحك وانا لجلك اموت.توبيكات للمسن توبيكات خيانه توبيكات قويه توبيكات حب توبيكات فراق.توبيكات أشعار سعد علوش توبيكات الشاعر سعد علوش توبيكات أشعار 2009.توبيكات للمسن توبيكات الزمن الجميل توبيكات قديمه توبيكات ام كلثوم.توبيكات البوم عباس ابراهيم 2009 توبيكات اغاني عباس ابراهيم 2009 توبيكات مسن اغاني عباس ابراهيم توبيكات 2009 لاغاني عباس ابراهيم.توبيكات راشد الماجد توبيكات اغاني راشد الماجد توبيكات البوم راشد الماجد توبيكات اغنية كثر السنين توبيكات البوم راشد الماجد 2009‏.توبيكات ست الحبايب توبيكات للأم توبيكات روعه توبيكات للماسنجر توبيكات حلوهمسجات منوعة مسجات وسائط متعددةمسجات mms مسجات خليجيه مسجات جديدهمسجات حب مسجات اشتياق مسجات وسائط متعددهـmms مسجات شوق مسجات روعهمسجات فهد المساعد مسجات الشاعر فهد المساعد مسجات سعوديه مسجات حلوه‏مسجات البوم راشد الماجد مسجات وسائط متعدده مسجات السندباد مسجات 2009مسجات وسائط مسجات روعه مسجات جوال مسجات فراق مسجات الم مسجات حزينه مسجات قويه مسجات جديده مسجات فراقمسجات الشاعر القطري ابن فطيس مسجات ابن فطيس مسجات خليجيه مسجات روعهمسجات حزن مسجات فراق مسجات بنات مسجات حلوه مسجات منوعه مسجات 2009mms رومانسيه وحب رسائل وسائط حزينهمسجات و رسائل حب رومانسية 2009 - رسايل الحب للجوال رومنسيهوسائط أناشيد وسائط جوال صوتيه وسائط أناشيد فيديومسجات وسائط فيديو مسجات حب مسجات حزن مسجات روعهرسائل عتاب رسائل حب رسائل رسائل منوعه رسائل جديده رسائل غرام رسائل روعهصور وسائط مسجات طويله مسجات mms مسجات حب مسجات عتابمسجات غرام مسجات حب مسجات وسائط متعدده مسجات فراق مسجات منوعه مسجات حلوهمسجات وسائط أغاني احلام 2009 رسائل وسائط البوم احلام هذا انا 2009صور وسآئط روعه,وسآئط شوق,وسآئط منوعه,وسآئط غياب,صور وسآئط حزنمسجات حب مسجات حب وغرام مسجات حب 2009 مسجات حب قويه مسجات حب وغزلوسائط البوم الوسمي 2009 وسائط أغاني البوم الوسمي 2009 وسائط البوم مالك حلمسجات حزينه مسجات مبكيه مسجات وسائط مسجات فراق مسجات حسره والم صور مبكيه مسجات mmsوسائط للشاعر المبدع فهد المساعد‏(رسائل عيد الميلاد عبارات عيد ميلاد رسائل تهنئة عيد الميلاد مسجات رسائل عيد الميلادمسجات سفر رسائل للمسافر مسجات رسائل للسفر مسجات 2009 للمسافر مسجات 2010رسائل فرنسيه مسجات فرنسيه رسائل باللغة الفرنسيه مسجات باللغه الفرنسيهمسجات غراميه رسائل غراميه وسائط غراميه مسجات غرام رسائل غرام وسائط غرامرسائل صباحيه مسجات صبح رومانسيه رسائل صباح مسجات صباحيه مسجات صباحرسائل للتخرج مسجات للتخرج رسائل تهنئة بالتخرج مسجات تخرجمسجات وسائط مسجات حب مسجات فراق مسجات قويه مسجات هجر مسجات منوعه مسجات حلوهصور وسائط للنجاح صور وسائط للتخرج رسائل وسائط للنجاح رسائل للتخرجرسائل حب رسائل حب حلوه رسائل جديده حب رسائل حب 2010 مسجات حب مسجات جديده حبرسائل شعريه رسائل قصائد شعريه مسجات شعريه رسائل مسجات شعرمسجات وداع رسائل وداع وسائط وداع مسجات وداعيه رسائل وداعيه وسائط وداعيهوسائط رومانسيه mms حب وعشق وسائط شوق ~ مشتاق لك ياروحي وينك ؟‏مسجات mms مسجات حب مسجات غرام مسجات رمانسيه مسجات وسائط متعدده مسجات جديدهوسائط أغاني عبدالله الرويشد 2009 وسائط البوم الفنان عبدالله الرويشد 2009صور وسآئط روعه,وسآئط حزن ,وسآئط نصح ,وسآئط للجوالmmsمسجات نصيه مسجات قصيره لرمضان مسجات روعه لرمضان ,مسجات 2009 مسجات حلوه لرمضان مسجات منوعه لرمضان مسجات تهنئه لرمضان مسجات جديدهمسجات قصيره مسجات للجوال مسجات جديده مسجات لشهر رمضان المبارك مسجات 2009 مسجات رمضان 1430 مسجات جديده مسجات حلوهمسجات حلوهمسجات شوقمسجات للزواج ، رسائل للزواج ، مسجات تهنئه بالزواج ، رسائل تهنئه بالزواج ، وسائط تهنئة بالزواجمسجات اعتذار , مسجات اعتذار جديدة , مسجات اعتذار قوية 2009 مسج اعتذار, رسائل اعتذار, رسايل اعتذار, sms اعتذارمسجات أشعار حامد زيد ، رسائل قصائد حامد زيد ، وسائط أشعار حامد زيد ، وسائط قصائد حامد زيد ، أشعار حامد زيد mmsمسجات وسائط مسجات شوق مسجات حنين مسجات منوعه لشوق صور معبره مسجاتmms مسجات حلوه‏وسائط حب mms رومانسيه مسجات عشق وسائط غرام ~ أحبك يابعد عمري وعيني‏وسائط أسامي بناترسائل رومنسية مسجات رومنسية وسائط رومنسية رسائل رومانيسة مسجات رومانيسة وسائط رومانيسةوسائط 2009 ، وسائط mms ، وسائط رومنسيه ، رسايل وسائط ، وسائط ام ام اس ، وسائط حب ، وسائط عتاب ، وسائط شوقمسجات للعيد 2010 ، مسجات العيد 2010 ، مسجات للاعياد 2010‏رسائل وسائط للعيد Mms ، صور وسائط العيد ، وسائط للعيد 2009رسائل sms رسائل نصيه رسائل جديده رسائل ذوق ,رسائل تهنئه بعيد الفطر ,رسائل منوعه لعيد الفطر رسائل 2009رسائل حلوه لعيد الفطرمسجات نصيه مسجات sms مسجات قصيره لعيد الفطر مسجات تهنئه للاعياد مسجات قصيره لعيد الفطر مسجات جديده مسجات 1430 مسجات حلوه للعيد‏عبده 2009 محمد عبده واحشني زمانك شريط محمد عبده 2009مسجات وسائط مسجات روعه مسجات للامتحانات اكبر مكتبه لوسائط الامتحانات مسجات وسائط روعه مسجات للبنات مسجات لشبابوسائط للعيد ، وسائط عيد الفطر ، وسائط عيد الاضحى ، وسائط تهنئه بالعيد ، رسايل وسائط للعيد ، وسائط mms للعيدوسائط جوال للعيد 2009 ، رسائل جوال للعيد مصوره 2009 ، صور وسائط للعي009 ، وسائط العيد جديدهرسائل mms رسائل اسماء وسائط بأسماءمسجات للعيد مصريه مسجات مصريه مسجات عيد مصريه رسائل مصريه للعيد رسائل للعيد مصريهمسجات للعيد مسجات وسائط مسجات وسائط للعيد مسجات تهنئه للعيد مسجات حلوه للعيد مسجات وسائط لعيد الفطر‏وسائط عيد الفطر 2009 ، وسائط تهنئه بعيد الفطر ، وسائط العيد ، رسائل وسائط العيد ، وسائط عيد الفطروسائط صوتيه ، وسائط صوتيه للعيد ، وسائط صوتيه إنشودة تقبل الله ، وسائط صوتيه أقبل العيدمسجات وسائط مسجات حلوه مسجات تهنئه مسجات للعيد وسائط رسائل للعيد وسائط mms مسجات مسجات جديده مسجات2009 مسجات ذوق لعيد الفطررسائل وسائط للعيد مسجات للعيدمسجات جديده لعيد الفطر مسجات 2009 مسجات منوعه لعيد الفطر مسجات روعه للعيد مسجات تهنئه بعيد الفطرمسجات نصيه مسجات لعيد الفطر مسجات قصيره مسجات جديده مسجات2009 مسجات لعيد الفطر مسجات تهنئه بعيد الفطر مسجات حلوه‏مسجات وسائط رومنسية وسائط حب وسائط 2009مسجات حزن مسجات فراق مسجات ألم مسجات وسائط متعدده مسجات روعه مسجات تبكيوسائط صداقه ، وسائط للاصدقاء ، رسايل وسائط صداقه ، رسايل وسائط للاصدقاء ، رسائل أصدقاء‏مسجات وسائط متعدده وسائط الفنان محمد عبده وسائط واحشني زمانك وسائط ابو نوره 2009وسائط أناشيد ، وسائط اناشيد ، وسائط نشيد ، وسائط أناشيد إسلاميه ، نغمات أناشيد نغمات نشيدوسائط البوم محمد عبده 2009 رسائل وسائط أغاني محمد عبده وسائط البوم محمد عبده وحدكمسجات وسائط متعدده مسجات وسائط للبنات وسائط حزينه وسائط فراق وسائط حزت وسائط قويه وسائط فراق وسائط جديده وسائط منوعه وسائط حلوه للبناتمسجات عن الأب والأم مسجات وسائط متعددة mms مسجات بالعربي مسجات بالنجليزي مسجات حلوهوسائط اغاني ، وسائط اغاني ماجد مهندس ، وسائط البوم ماجد المهندس اذكريني 2009‏أغاني وسائط بدون موسيقى ، أغاني بأصوات شباب بدون موسيقى ، ويفات بأصوت شباب بدون موسيقىوسائط صوتيه ، وسائط صوتيه بدون موسيقى ، وسائط صوت بدون موسيقى ، وسائط فيديو ، مقاطع وسائط صوتيهوسائط mms + مسجات sms صور وسائط روعه وسائط خطيره وسائط حزن صور وسائط فراق وسائط منوعهوسائط صوتيه وسائط فيصل اليامي تحميل وسائط فيصل اليامي وسائط الشاعر فيصل اليامي وسائط شعريه وسائط منوعه لفيصل اليامي وساط جديده وسائط صوتيه‏(وسائط لأغنية بتمون وسائط أغاني اليسا 2009وسائط 2009 وسائط فيديو صور وسائط فيديو اكبر مجموعة وسائط اكبر مجموعة رسائلوسائط أغاني بصوت بنات ، أغاني بصوت بنات بدون موسيقى ، وسائط اغاني بدون موسيقىوسائط اغنية انا من حقي اغير ، وسائط انا من حقي اغير راشد الماجد ، وسائط اغاني راشد الماجد ، وسائط انا من حقي راشد الماجدوسائط أناشيد تحميل وسائط أناشيد فيديو وسائط أناشيد للتحميل وسائط فيديو أناشيد‏أغاني وسائط بدون موسيقى ، تحميل وسائط اغاني بدون موسيقى ، وسائط ويفات بدون موسيقىوسائط فيديو بدون موسيقى وسائط أغاني فيديو بدون موسيقى أغاني فيديو بدون موسيقىويفات بأصوات بنات ، أغاني بأصوات بنات بدون موسيقى ، وسائط بأصوات بنات بدون موسيقىتحميل وسائط صوتيه بدون موسيقى وسائط أغاني بدون موسيقى وسائط صوتيهرسائل رسائل وسائط للجوال رسائل وسائط mms رسائل وسائط متحركه رسائل وسائط متحركه mms 2009‏(مجموعة وسائط بدوون موسيقى (جديد)‏أغاني وسائط صوتيه ، أغاني وسائط صوتيه بدون موسيقى ، وسائط صوتيه بدون موسيقى ، ويفات صوتيه بدون موسيقى‏وسائط فيديو اغنية اذكريني ، وسائط فيديو اغنية اذكريني 2010 ، وسائط فيديو اغنية البوم اذكرينيوسائط عشر ذي الحجه ، وسائط يوم عرفه ، رسائل للحج ، رسائل وسائط للحج ، وسائط للحج ، رسائل يوم عرفه ، مسجات يوم عرفهوسائط فيديو آخر فرصة ماجد المهندس 2010 ، وسائط فيديو آخر فرصـة 2010 ، وسائط فيديو ماجد المهندس 2010وسائط صوتيه أشعار بدون موسيقى ، وسائط فيديو بدون موسيقى ، وسائط صوتيه أناشيد بدون موسيقىصور وسائط مسلسل عاصي ، صور mms مسلسل عاصي ، صور رسائل وسائط مسلسل عاصي
توبيكات ، أناشيد طيور الجنه ،قصائد كتابيه ، قصائد مسموعه ، خواطر ، قصص روايات ،أزياء ، فساتين ، مكياج ، خلطات ، تسريحات ، ديكور ، ديكورات ، حلويات ، معجنات ، نادي الهلال ، نادي النصر ، نادي الاتحاد ، سيارات ، موديلات سيارات ،أزياء ادم ، إنمي ،أفلام انمي ، صور طبيعيه ، سينما ، افلام ، مسلسلات رمضانيه ، صور فنانين ، صور ممثلين ، صور مطربين ، مسلسل عاصي ، زفات ، اغاني بدون موسيقى ، كلمات اغاني ، ماسنجر ، سكربتات ، ثيمات ماسنجر ، برامج للماسنجر ، صور ماسنجر ، صور بنات للماسنجر ، صور شباب للماسنجر ، توبيك ، نكات ، توبيكات اغاني ، توبيكات كرتونيه ، توبيكات ملونه ، برامج فوتوشوب ، خلفيات للتصميم ، صور للتصميم ، خامات ، فلاتر ، اكشن ،فلاتر ، سكرابز ، خطوط ، باترن ، فرش ، جلتر ، سويتش ، فلاش ، ملفات مفتوحه ، ملف مفتوح ، جوال ، برامج جوال ، ثيمات جوال ، العاب جوال ، بلوتوث ، نغمات جوال ، يوتيوب ، رسائل ،mms ، sms ، مسجات ، وسائط اغاني ، برامج كمبيوتر ، العاب كمبيوتر ، العاب بنات ، منتدى ، منتديات ، وتلومني فيك ، شبكة وتلومني فيك

Posted by: aseel at December 06, 2009 12:22 PM (Aolv2)

371 replica handbags,replica bags,replica louis vuitton handbags,replica bag,designer handbags,fake handbags

Posted by: aaaaaaaa at April 01, 2010 02:44 AM (NtHkE)

372 شات سعودي حلا شات كتابي دليل حلامنتدى حلا حلا السعوديه صور ماسنجر حلا توبيكات حلا العاب حلا
شات دردشة شات عسل دردشة الغلا شات خليجي صيف كام
شات الحب دردشه الحب الحب

fwfe

Posted by: myo at May 08, 2010 01:20 PM (BzMR3)

373 I don't think that it is a problem I consider that it is just a different thought and there were many people who were agree with.

Posted by: Generic Cialis at October 20, 2010 06:29 PM (1T+q4)

374 I really like this website , and hope you will write more ,thanks a lot for your information.http://www.nfljerseysmalls.com

Posted by: discount jerseys at July 13, 2011 10:51 PM (Pa9oe)






Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.0813 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0276 seconds, 382 records returned.
Page size 327 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat