Pajamas Media

330 Comments

1. Ed Wallis:

Sorry, Rick. That’s nonsense.

Try being a Democrat today with some positions, shall we say, somewhat center-or-right of Kos.

You are political dog meat.

The hogwash you put forth is the Meggy McCain “why-can’t-we-all-just-get-along” mush which brought us liberalish McCain in 2008…as an “alternative” to (Chicago’s version of) Madison Avenue’s polished soap ad du jour.

Reagan HAD principles and stood by them, bending at times to compromise under the reality of DC politics.

What you propose HAS NONE.

May 4, 2009 - 11:26 am 2. colin wilkinson:

I have no problem with moderates in the Republican party but if you are just a younger dumber Harold Stassen, forget about it.

May 4, 2009 - 11:26 am 3. eburchelli:

Do we want a generic party, a one size fits all or do we want one that represents conservative values? A person doesn’t have to be far right or an extremist to be conservative enough. All we require is less government, politicians with good morals and ethics and a desire to rule by the Constitution, as it was written.

May 4, 2009 - 11:28 am 4. Brad:

Didn’t we just run a moderate on the national ticket?

May 4, 2009 - 11:30 am 5. Bilgeman:

Mr Moran:
“After all, if moderates in the Republican Party was good enough for Reagan, why shouldn’t they be good enough for his ideological descendants?”

Oh, please…go tell your fairy tales to Meghan McCain.

Look, hoss, do you recall the glee we all had when Howard “Screamin’” Dean became chairman of the DNC? We figured he’d drive the Dems right over a cliff because he was wired directly into the Axis of Idiocy of Daily Kos, HuffPo, and DU.

And a year or two later, the Dems won the Congress.

Where is THEIR big-tent mentality? Huh?

Aren’t THEY the party that ran the most Liberal member of the Senate as their nominee?

Where do social conservatives fit into the Democrats’ fetishization of celebrating diversity and inclusiveness?

I look across the aisle and see the same tax-and-spend big government-worshipping statists I’ve ALWAYS known Democrats to be.
No different now than in 1972.

Your error is conflating a “moderate”, someone who may hold a differing opinion or three on some issues from the main thrust of conservative thought, with someone who only agrees with conservatives on one or three issues…and thinks that conservatives should change their thinking to agree with THEIR way of seeing things.

Maybe that plays in Chicago, but it doesn’t play much of anywhere else.

Face facts, election ‘08 was little more than “Bush Fatigue”, an abysmally poor GOP candidate and campaign, and the slobbering love-affair for the Democratic nominee by the MSM.

That was it…that was ALL it was.

May 4, 2009 - 11:34 am 6. Emphasis:

>>Snowe, who believes in “restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty,” doesn’t understand why her adherence to those broad principles isn’t good enough for the ideologues.<<

Is that why she voted in favor of the stimulus bill of the democrats? How many democratic candidates would be backed by the democratic machinery if they espoused the above? Is it only the Republican Party that must move to the left? Why can’t we try to convince the nation that our principles are the correct ones, and that they should join us, not the other way around?
We need “Term Limit”

May 4, 2009 - 11:34 am 7. MOswingvoter:

“Everyone can come in and sit down for the feast but if you are pro-choice, or pro-gay marriage, or pro-amnesty, kindly realize that no one is going to listen to you so you might as well keep your mouth shut.”

Ok, so what? If any of the above is a major issue that you would leave a party over, then you are most likely already a Democrat. I would not run into a conservative gathering and immediately start a fight over the above issues, and I would not run into a gathering of liberals and immediately start a fight over deficit spending, either. (Actually, I have done both, and I am generally met with very stony faces.)

Here’s a piece of advice: stop letting the Obama adminsitration and its complicit media outlets define the GOP conversation. Instead of whining that “moderates” aren’t welcome, try defining what a “moderate” is and see if that hypothetical person is really unwelcome. If the party wants to stand for a range of issue positions and a particular elected official isn’t on board with a particular position, fine. There are several pro-life elected Democrats, but the platform still says it supports choice. It’s okay to have a platform that respects life, and to have some elected Republicans in more liberal states that differ here and there. And, it’s okay to have die-hard conservative representatives that go farther than the overall party. You actually have to embrace both extremes to claim the “big tent”. You can’t just blame conservatives for being conservative. There’s nothing more “noble” about being moderate as compared to conservative, it’s just a difference of opinion, and usually of location.

And Rick, while you’re at it, see if you can do anything about the ongoing drive by some in the GOP to further discredit Sarah Palin. Why the party would want to kill off one of its most charismatic members (with her 70,000 team sarah members, 1,000,000+ facebook friends, insanely supportive rally attendees, etc.) is truly beyond me. Surely they could find a good use for all that energy.

May 4, 2009 - 11:40 am 8. P. Ami:

@Bilgeman

+1

May 4, 2009 - 11:44 am 9. F.A.Hagen:

The problems is that the moderates won’t tolerate Reagan. Case in point: GOP moderate Jeb Bush just gave a speech stating that it was time to move away from Reagan.

May 4, 2009 - 11:51 am 10. goy:

More nonsense from PJM’s own Arlen Specter.

We live in a world where 2 + 2 = 5 because we keep compromising with moral adolescents on the left who assert that 2 + 2 = 6.

Enough is enough.

May 4, 2009 - 11:57 am 11. uburoisc:

The Republicans have lost all credibility when it comes to fiscal restraint; they spent like drunken sailors for the entire Bush term trying to our-spend the Democrats, who never saw Federal spending they didn’t like (except defense). And drunken spenders like Specter and Snowe were at the forefront of this debacle, urging their more conservative counterparts to go along for the good of the party: “if you do not go along with prescription drug plan for seniors, we will lose votes.” As long as the financial sector could provide the smoke and mirrors for our “growth” it all seemed possible, but now it’s finally over, and rather than accept responsibility, the RINO’s are pointing fingers and jumping ship to get on the Fed gravy train, because that’s the last train running, for now.

This isn’t about principles, it’s about ass-saving as the economy implodes. We are going to have a one-party government for a long time to come, because the percentage of people who can do something useful is vastly outnumbered by the number who need someone to do something useful for them. The “conservatives” who get on board with the ruling party will get more of the largess that remains to dole out.

May 4, 2009 - 11:57 am 12. Jim Baker:

Rick,

Maybe I am too much of an idealogue, but I don’t see the problem as Democrat or Republican. Neither party has ever advocated shinking the size of the federal government and actually meant it. Government has grown in size every year in the last century or even longer. Both parties have taken their turn in the positions of power and the result is the same. Let the Elephants be elephants and the Donkeys be donkeys. We need to build a new party, based on the founders idea of LIMITED government and don’t spend what we don’t have. We will take any adherents, who want to stand on their own two feet, from either of these four legged animal groups. Just my opinion, of course.

May 4, 2009 - 12:01 pm 13. AThinkingPerson:

So now the GOP is supposed to sell their ideals down the river to attract a few “moderate” voters? I have to agree with poster #1, Reagan had ideals and stood by them and we should continue with that theme. Until we find a candidate that can stand up to the firestorm from the Liberal press that will surely ensue when a hint of GOP spine is shown, we should keep looking. McCain was a perfect example of what happens when we get lazy and settle. He bowed relentlessly to the MSM and now we all have to pay dearly for it.

And to all of the Liberals that will say we should do this or do that I say, “Go back to sleep, sheeple.” You’ve done enough damage already and have no room to comment. The Democrats are so far Left the only way for them to redeem themselves is for their own cleansing in 2012.

May 4, 2009 - 12:02 pm 14. uburoisc:

In 1980, Reagan said, “The budget plan I submit to you on Feb. 8 will realize major savings by dismantling the Department of Education.”

Anyone care to name a single prominent Republican who would dare to say that today? If he said that today, every RINO in congress would have a fit, book themselves on the talk shows, and blast Reagan like they were the Democrat whip. There are many more things Reagan said, and believed, but couldn’t get through because of Democrat opposition. He was a real conservative at heart.

May 4, 2009 - 12:03 pm 15. Sebastian Shaw:

Moderate Republicans are really another name for Democrat-lite. The Republican Party has been infected with so-called “moderates,” yet all I see are Democrats with a Republican name. Arlen Specter is the worst example of a good moderate. So is John McCain. McCain & Specter would sell their souls for so-called Democrat bipartisanship. Representatives willing to sell out their very core principles are not principled but opportunists.

May 4, 2009 - 12:07 pm 16. sheesh:

Reagan had ideals and stood by them . . . really? Why did he lie about the contras? He was running a secret government, knew it, denied it, then later had to admit it. Conservatives lionize this guy – the Holy Father, the Annointed One, The Messiah – but I believe he was the most overrated president in history.

May 4, 2009 - 12:09 pm 17. Chris L:

11. uburoisc: “…the percentage of people who can do something useful is vastly outnumbered by the number who need someone to do something useful for them”

That’s an interesting point of view. While I understand the impulse to adopt it, and am not stating that it’s false, I’m interested to know if you’ve arrived at that opinion through something more than a gut feel. I hope so, because that’s a hell of a thing to say about a majority of your fellow countrymen if you don’t actually have evidence to support it.

May 4, 2009 - 12:20 pm 18. Chris L:

16. sheesh: “Well, there you go again.” (Cue laughter, applause)

May 4, 2009 - 12:21 pm 19. bubblehead:

Having a “Big Tent” and inviting everyone in is fine, as long as we understand that those who enter are going to compromise with us at least as often as we will compromise with them!

I think we should certainly erect a big tent and get as many to enter with us as possible. However, once they are here, it is our job to convinve them to move closer to our position than they already are, not for us to try to move (or more often pretend to move) closer to their position.

The problem the conservatives have is not the size of the tent, it is the wishy-washy mealy-mouthed nothing of a message that is delivered in the tent. We need to stand for something we believe in. We need to shout that message to the rafters! We need a compelling message and a voice that can make people understand why they should agree with us, or at least support us.

There is little Americans despise more than someone who tries to be all things to all people. The Democrats ran a clear message in the last election and people came out in droves to respond to that message. Ironically, it’s more the messanger than the message that gets the votes, as long as the message is clear, concise and delivered with passion.

Where’s our passionate messenger?

May 4, 2009 - 12:27 pm 20. uburoisc:

Reagan ran a military operation abound Congress because he firmly (and correctly) believed that the Sandinistas were a hard-line Marxist gang of thugs who were being supplied by the Soviets and the Cubans to establish an communist hegemony in Latin America. Reagan argued that he, as president, had the authority to provide men and material to the Contras. Like TR with the Panama Canal, he was going to act, and then let Congress bicker over the legality later after he accomplished what he set out to. Reagan believed that the Evil Empire was real, dangerous, and to be opposed at every opportunity, anywhere in the world.

In hindsight, the successive elections of Violeta Chamorro proved that the Sandinistas did not have the popular support they claimed. Without Reagan doing what was right, the leftists in Congress would have puckered up to the Soviets for another half-century, Nicaragua would look like Cuba, and the Marxists would be trying the destabilize every government in Latin America. This is a bad thing, unless, of course, you are a Marxist bootlicker living off college tuition at an expensive private school in the United States

May 4, 2009 - 12:32 pm 21. Actorprof:

Dear Sheesh,

I’ve recently made a committment to speak out when the record as I know it to be true is distorted. A lie repeated becomes the dominant narrative, then the twisted history my students read in their textbooks.

The donminant narrative is that we waged a dirty little war replete with execution squads. etc, in the 1980’s. The history of U.S. operations in Central America 1978-1990 were declassified in 1994. If you want to know the facts you can now read them. Secret government? nope. Iran-Contra? Spun beyond recognition. Read the entire record, not just the cherry-picking of the hearings.

I served in Central America during this period. My experience differs widely from your summation. What occured in Central America is now history and is receiving a far more balanced treatment than the contemporary narrative put out by the Democratic majorities. Glad to discuss it with you.

As to lionizing — every political party has its heroes. Reagan as hero? Sure. Nowhere near the treatment the current POTUS is receiving from press, politicians and glitterati.

May 4, 2009 - 12:34 pm 22. Michael C. Keehn:

I don’t follow your argument. We just ran the most liberal candidate in recent memory. One who repeatedly threw his own party, and conservatism, under the bus. Seems like our tent is pretty tolerant if you ask me. Look at the Dems for a poster child of political intolerance.

Here is what I have heard mostly about “Our” intolerance about Repubs.

1. If you voted FOR stimulus, go ahead and change that letter to a D now. You’ve abandoned everything conservatism ever was.

2. If you spend your precious MSM time swiping at your party, or, conservatism in general, in order to “set yourself apart” from other conservatives or republicans, and gain more of that sweet, sweet, MSM lovin’. (I’m looking at you Meghan)

Is that really so much to ask?
Don’t flush the country down the tube with uncontrolled government growth and deficit spending.
Don’t flush the party/movement down the tube to elevate yourself.

If you can’t do those things, I argue quite strongly, (Strenuously in fact) that you have no place in the Republican party.

May 4, 2009 - 12:42 pm 23. uburoisc:

Chris L, here is a start; it’s been well-known for some time, but keeps getting worse.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2420.cfm

I realize that not paying any meaningful taxes doesn’t necessarily mean you are not doing anything useful, but it is suggestive that something might be amiss in the Republic.

If the economy really tanks, Great Depression Part 2, and I see many indications it’s possible, I would say that a very large percentage of Americans would be utterly without their wits; without any practical or marketable ability to do much of anything to help themselves or anyone they know (you think a soft, coddled, over-praised, feminist sociology graduate is going to make a real contribution when things fall aprt?). The Mexican illegals and Vietnamese immigrants I work with will be fine; they will adapt very quickly, and make the adjustments to rebuilding. They will rely on their family structures, ruthless hard work, and tightfisted saving to support the extended family–and they will game the system for all it’s worth. Red State rural America will be fine, they will rally around each other in bad times. But large parts of the country is a cultural and familial disaster area already–and that is with colossal amounts of government assistance. Wait the the plug gets pulled and we’ll see. For example, I would never want to be anywhere near Los Angeles as the gravy-train comes to a screeching halt.

Are you really shocked to think I could think that even a majority of my countrymen would do badly in a crisis? Seriously? Are you living on Mars?

May 4, 2009 - 12:50 pm 24. ddc:

As a registered Republican I can tell you I am disappointed in today’s party. There does not seem to be any candidates, in office now, who excites me. Palin was not the answer, neither is Jindal. There are many of us who are centrist Republicans (fiscal responsibity, strong defense/border control, socially moderate) and feel disenfranchised. Right now, the Republican party has become a laughing stock. I cringe when viewing Glenn Beck’s antics. I can no longer listen to shawn hannity’s, our way or the highway ideology. There are just as many “radicals on the right as there is on the left and both are distasteful to moderates.

At present I wish as many others, for a viable third party. The country needs it. We are completely too polarized as a nation to constructfully continue without one.

May 4, 2009 - 12:50 pm 25. dmk3:

I can tolerate ‘moderate’ Republicans except when they torpedo any chance of blocking an unsupportable pork fest like the ’stimulus’ bill. If Spector wants more money for cancer research, argue for its inclusion in the regular budget. ‘Republican’ means nothing if it no longer stand for fiscal sanity.

May 4, 2009 - 12:54 pm 26. Lily:

First, I thought it was the moderates who wanted to get rid of the conservatives. I suspect their (moderates) idea of ‘getting along’ is the same as Obama / Pelosi – meaning – “do it my way and we can all get along”.

Also, we’ve already tried the ‘moderate’ way and it didn’t work (see Bush, George W. See also, McCain, John). Its our opponents who claim the Republicans have gotten more conservative. However, on most issues, the everyone has actually moved leftward.

May 4, 2009 - 12:57 pm 27. Mark:

Republicans were voted out of office and suffered “electoral backlash” because they abandoned “restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty”, as evidenced by Snowe’s vote for the Obama bailout.
And I’m sorry, David Brooks, David Frum, Kathleen Parker and Peggy Noonan didn’t endear themselves to Republicans when they joined the Democrats in trashing Sarah Palin during the campaign while those “Republican Moderates” (including John McCain, thank you very much) sat quietly and let it go on. I’d hardly call that principled adherence to core values.

May 4, 2009 - 12:58 pm 28. Ed Wallis:

…let’s all just ignore the “sheesh” troll…

Diversions and tantrums don’t bring the discusion forward.

May 4, 2009 - 1:01 pm 29. Bill:

Reagan could afford to; the Gipper had a small minority in the Senate to maintain. To use a sports analogy: Reagan had a championship season. Today is a rebuilding season for the GOP. That means you dump that pitcher with the 8+ ERA, the left fielder who hit .230, the shortstop with an .890 fielding percentage, and bring in new guys.

The GOP got ripped in the last two elections because it abandoned its core principle: fiscal restraint. To this day the Obamatrons defend their obscent spending by attacking the Bush deficits! Enough. Good riddance to pork-whores and Dem-lites like Specter. If the GOP isn’t a conservative party, it’s no party at all. What does the Republican Party stand for, if not the alternative to Obama’s socialist lunacy?

May 4, 2009 - 1:05 pm 30. Bill:

oops- read “majority” for “minority.” And add in the fragile coalition with Blue Dog Dems.

May 4, 2009 - 1:06 pm 31. uburoisc:

ddc, I’m with you on the current crop of awful Republican choices. Palin, nice lady in way over her head. Jindal has the charisma of old rice, and, like so many other southern conservatives, just can’t leave off the creationism issue (it’s a loser, trust me). Glen Beck and Sean Hannity are embarrassing in their respective ways: Beck is a public hysteric, and Hannity is too dumb to avoid taking the worst of any argument, but always thinks he won.

I see many years in the wilderness.

May 4, 2009 - 1:11 pm 32. Frank Polk:

Big Tent? Reagan had principle, not lets all hold hands and “The people want us to pass legislation. Today our option with the GOP is “We will tax you less. We will give you a different softer version of SOCIALISM. Any measure of compromise with evil is still evil. It is not there money. This is not the big church of government that is to take care of everyone. I do not want anyone to pay my bills or me pay theirs..! What happened to the Constitution of the US? Where does it say or imply Socialism? It is about freedom. It is not about everyone getting along. It is what Victor Frankel Writes about in his book “The Meaning of Life.” Freedom and Responsibility are synonymous, not let someone tell everyone what to do by the numbers. My gosh it is like lite beer and beer, it is still beer. I do not want compromise. I want the rules followed as written in the Constitution. Not some convoluted crap like “The founders could not know about the type of guns today.” Well you could say the same about Free Speech and the TV or radio or the internet or any other number of things.

Big Tent, yea only if the dems want to join us. Why do the dems never quit on their lies until they get what they want? It is a war! Morality is, and con only be defined, as WINNING or we will be beat by our own rules and be dead in war and with the dems. If we cannot be as ruthless as they are, then we do not want it bad enough nor will we win. Morality is winning or you have nothing to stand for…

While I am so mad to write let me say one more thing about being FAIR. If you want fair, go to Mexico because that is what happens when you try to please everyone and have no principles. You get Massive Graft and central economies (Socialism soft and stupid). Is it fair that ball players get more money? Is it fair that Hollywood makes more? Let us divide that up to be fair. Let us make all movie stars open their homes to homeless that would be fair, they have the room… There is no such thing as fair or we would all be beautiful and rich. You play the cards you dealt in life, NOT KEEP GETTING DRAWS FROM GOVERNMENT.

PLESE FORGIVE POOR GRAMMER AND SPELLING AS I AM TO PI$$ED TO CARE. I MUST VENT…

May 4, 2009 - 1:12 pm 33. jcw:

Sarah Palin’s nomination was the high point of last year’s campaign because it was one of the few times conservatives felt they were important to the GOP.
Reagan’s “big tent” should be built around that center pole of freedom espoused by Senator DeMint.
If the choice in 2012 will be from various “moderate” Republicans it will mean that the next candidate will, like the last one, be decided by crossover votes in the primaries. Many of those votes were shaped by the media elites that portray the “moderate” as more appealing…much the same way the viewed those (Ford/Bush-41) who differed with Reagan.

May 4, 2009 - 1:12 pm 34. DonJoeBillyBob:

There’s only 2 things in the middle of the road; road kill and yellow stripes! Everyone in Washington needs the boot.

Tell me this is the Truman Show and we are just getting punked. <>

May 4, 2009 - 1:20 pm 35. DonJoeBillyBob:

Does commenting on here put me on somekinda list?

May 4, 2009 - 1:24 pm 36. HalifaxCB:

I have no problems with moderate conservatives if – and only if – they can frame their position in terms of “first principles”. But far too many lack a “first principles and principles first” outlook; they are more or less just a slightly right version of the go-along-to-get-along-anything-to-win progressive stance.

Look at the areas of the country where that political mentality rules, particularly the great urban welfare dependencies (including Wall St. and a good deal of the large corporate culture) – crime-ridden, corrupt, lacking self reliance and self restraint. Is that what you want to bequeath to your children and grand-children? I don’t.

May 4, 2009 - 1:27 pm 37. Bilgeman:

#24 ddc:
“As a registered Republican I can tell you I am disappointed in today’s party. There does not seem to be any candidates, in office now, who excites me.”

Why do you need a candidate to “excite you”?

Is everything at home not going so well?

Maybe you are in the wrong party, you could join the Dems and face the White House and worship the enchanting fellow who claims to have been born in Hawaii as many times a day as you wish.

Look, ace, where I work I WANT boredom…I SEEK and ASPIRE to routine, the same-old, same-old.

Government should NOT be “exciting”…when it is, that means you are going to prison or someone is trying to kill you.

Government shoud be mundane and barely worthy of attention…like the utilities companies used to be.

Don’t use politics to fill an empty hole in your life…get drunk and smoke dope like normal people do.

May 4, 2009 - 1:28 pm 38. Opposite of ddc:

I guess I’m some what the opposite of ddc. I too feel very disappointed in today’s party. None of the 08 prez canidates appealed to me. For years I hoped Bush and the Republican congress would make changes. Not just fiscal responsiblity ala Senator Snowe: Large increases, just not as large as they could have been. But real reform, real change, real smaller goverment, not “smaller” than the Dems wanted, but yet bigger than it is now.

May 4, 2009 - 1:28 pm 39. sherlock:

“Its our opponents who claim the Republicans have gotten more conservative. However, on most issues, the everyone has actually moved leftward.”

Very important statement: the Republican Party HAS in fact been “moderating” for several years now, and the base is consequently disenchanted. That’s why the Democrats and the Media (birm) want it to continue. When we have two Democrat Parties, a leftIST one and a leftISH one, their work will be done. Please people, quit repeating their propaganda and look at the facts of what has been happening.

May 4, 2009 - 1:31 pm 40. Ratatosk:

McCain didn’t lose because he was a moderate. He lost because of Sarah Palin. I and many, many others chose not to vote for him because of her. Simply put, quit arguing about gays, abortion and Jesus… and you’ll stay relevant. Stick with those topics and your numbers will continue to drop.

May 4, 2009 - 1:43 pm 41. Ran:

Rick, you’re missing Reagan’s point: He had a big tent of people who, on some level, agreed with him and trusted him. Reagan didn’t go pastel, the pastels went bold, if even for a limited time. By offering a very real alternative to the Left, Rick, not by pandering.

It was landslide time, Rick. Reagan didn’t convert everyone all at once, but he did give centrists and muddlers some option facing directly away from too-far Left! Give the center and the muddle a real Conservative choice, and enough will sign-on if even temporarily.

The Big Tent isn’t anathema, it’s the misunderstanding of what made it big… It was not pandering and anemic Conservatism That Can Win Again crap… It was genuine full-blooded bold-colors Conservatism that attracted the big following. “Ideology.” Ronald Wilson Reagan was a teacher, not a mediocrity with his finger in the wind.

Cause and Effect, Rick. Cause and Effect.

May 4, 2009 - 1:44 pm 42. Ratatosk:

Oh, and practice what is preached about fiscal responsibility and small government… that might help too.

May 4, 2009 - 1:45 pm 43. Ms. Attitude:

The moderate Republicans that I know who voted against McCain and Palin are now kicking themselves!

May 4, 2009 - 1:47 pm 44. Old Soldier:

Reagan didn’t tolerate Moderate Republicans (and Democrats), he just let them ride his coattails.

The question isn’t why the GOP doesn’t tolerate moderates, it’s why the party stabbed conservatives in the back. Like other posters, I was hugely disappointed with the performance of the Republican Congress and President. The leadership of the party took a left turn the party members aren’t willing to take.

May 4, 2009 - 1:56 pm 45. jb:

Why did/could Reagan have “big tent” and why not popular today. Democrats ran House and Senate, no real downside to big tent.
Years of Republican control of House/Senate showed “big tent” means business as usual.

May 4, 2009 - 2:06 pm 46. westerncanadian:

Strong groups, tribes and nations share heartfelt belief in a few core ideas. The US Constitution provides the GOP with those core beliefs. Having single issue zealots within the GOP dictate how other party members should think, directly contradicts amendment #1.

If Republicans truly believed in the Constitution they would rejoice in the variety of beliefs, lifestyles and opinions that are implacably generated by the few core ideas and principles contained in the Constitution. Good grief Republicans; grow up. The Constitution is staring you in the face.

As Kate Macmillan (small dead animals ) says – “What,s the opposite of Diversity? It’s University.” Yes the miserable, PC, constipated, mean, censorious thinking to be found in our illustrious halls of learning.

I say go with the Constitution and the diversity that it generates.

May 4, 2009 - 2:06 pm 47. Sebastian Shaw:

The moderates should be going over to the Conservative side; this is what Reagan did with liberal Republicans & conservative Democrats. Republicans going over to the Democrats is all wrong…

May 4, 2009 - 2:06 pm 48. uburoisc:

Right on Bill. Yes, that is a good analogy; we are rebuilding the team and it’s going to take time. The worst thing the GOP can do is keep buying old-tired, losers who only care about getting re-elected. And to simply convert to socialist lite to win elections defeats the point altogether; that’s what W tried, and now we are rudderless.

The GOP needs youth and ideas and a return to conservative first principles, not saddled with the graft and corruption and duplicity of the has-beens like Specter. But it doesn’t need kooks (Ron Paul), Jew-baiters (Pat Buchanan) or bible-thumpers who can’t seem to ever stay focused on the core issues. The conservatives need more of Dennis Praeger and Hugh Hewitt and less of Glen Back and Sean Hannity.

When the new conservatives come up, you’ll know it because the first thing they are going to demand is that all the old Republicans who sold them down the river to the banking and financial turds be held to strict scrutiny; it is time to clean house, and the idiots to poured my tax dollars into the coffers of AIG and Goldman and Citibank should be the first to go. That is why the RINO’s are chattering; they want protection from the Dems for their financial sins, and the Dems are not going to make anybody who plays ball walk the perp walk. It’s not Dem vs Republican, but Political Caste vs. anyone who is not paying homage. I’ll take Brad Sherman (honest liberal with an first-rate intellect) over Arlen Specter (pompous, lying, back-biting hack) any day.

May 4, 2009 - 2:18 pm 49. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Rick Moran
RE: Heh

Two recent events have served to highlight some of the problems facing the Republican Party as it gropes its way forward toward an uncertain future.

The defection of Arlen Specter and the death of Jack Kemp both highlight in their own way the biggest question that will face the GOP for the foreseeable future…. — Rick Moran

Ya left out something…..

….like THIS!

Personally?

I think the GOP just put another major nail in its own coffin.

RE: No Longer a ‘Republican’

I now refer to myself as a ‘christian’. If the Republican party has gone the way of the Democrats, in a desire of power over what is right, they are as ‘lost’ as the Democrats.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[A man cannot serve two masters. He will either hate the one and love the other or love the one and hate the other. You cannot serve 'mammon' and 'righteousness'. -- Some Wag, around 2000 years ago]

May 4, 2009 - 2:20 pm 50. Chris L:

23. uburoisc: Thank you for the link. It’s a good read. Specifically, I find this sobering:

“The bottom 40 percent of income earners actually paid a negative share of federal income taxes in 2006. In other words, these taxpayers are actually paid money through the tax code. This happens through refundable credits like the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, which result in “refunds” when they are greater than the taxpayer’s total income tax liability.”

I want to read this a little more thoroughly and check to see if there are any serious disagreements with the analysis, but if accurate (and I’ll assume that it is, Heritage has quite a bit more time and expertise to apply to this than I do) then I’ll completely agree with your statement:

“I realize that not paying any meaningful taxes doesn’t necessarily mean you are not doing anything useful, but it is suggestive that something might be amiss in the Republic.”

Finally, regarding this:

“Are you really shocked to think I could think that even a majority of my countrymen would do badly in a crisis? Seriously? Are you living on Mars?”

No, I think you’ve made your case quite well. I don’t quite share your pessimism but only in that I don’t think the degree of helplessness, when hard work and sacrifice are truly called for, will be as great as you think, but I could be wrong on that point. Thank you for explaining your position.

May 4, 2009 - 2:20 pm 51. loopdog:

To heck with the repub party, what about America?

May 4, 2009 - 2:23 pm 52. Frank:

The Dems won in 2008 by lurching left. The GOP lost because it did too, in nominating McCain, if not a liberal, certainly no enemy of theirs. Now they, and Mr. Moran it seems, are “advising” the GOP to lather, rinse, repeat.

The longer we allow the liberals to control the narrative with the nonsense that the GOP has moved too far to the right, exactly the opposite of reality, the longer we delay reviving the-time tested classical liberal principles that once made the GOP successful. And you know what? the willingness to get off our high horse of decorum and join the fight in the mud where they took it is long overdue. Getting more honest in our debate would be a good start. As an example, our constant reminder to the narrative should be to refer to the left as pro-death. In addition to the benefit of being true and accurate where abortion is concerned it is also consistent with their policies on health care, terrorism, and who knows? probably car safety by time they get done with it.

May 4, 2009 - 2:36 pm 53. Meryl:

It seems to me we have a situation where it is the conservatives in the party who are not being tolerated on the national (and local, sometimes) level.

It’s the conservatives who are being treated like the crazy cousin who has to be sent to the basement.

I have had the feeling for quite a time now that the national committee feels they must apologize about my existence with the unspoken promise to the blueblood who’s getting in their face that they are doing everything they can to keep me quiet and in the background.

Why must there be an asterisk by my life?

Why are the “official Republicans” embarrassed about my existence?

The simple answer is that it is they who are no longer conservatives. Their dilemma is that they try to be perceived of as genuine conservatives in order to keep the likes of me quiet. And at the same time, they have to keep the RINOs persuaded that they are actually just tolerating me and will get rid of me as soon as they have enough RINOs.

And yet it was the RINOs who tried to crash the tea parties last month.

I’m not at all persuaded that the “Republican party” is the boat that’s going to salvage what’s left of the ship of state. It may just be Americans (who are inherently Constitutional conservatives). There are a lot of Democrats who are as freaked out and angry as I am, and I have absolutely no desire to try to talk them in to being Republicans. I think that’s a lost cause.

Maybe we can call ourselves the 1776ers. Or something.

May 4, 2009 - 2:36 pm 54. uburoisc:

Chris L, I do not say that I’m cheered by the likelihood that most of American would be walloped in a crisis, but from my experience, millions of people would be utterly helpless to help themselves. On the bright side, I think the US would rediscover much of what made it great, and we’d see a lot of hope from some surprising places, and the Republic might benefit from the hard-learned austerity. War and Depression have a way of clearing dead ideas.

May 4, 2009 - 2:37 pm 55. Erasmus:

1. So, conservatives don’t like deficit spending, eh? Then how do you explain your utter silence during the deficit spending of Reagan, Bush I, Bush II? Seriously, cite for me a single, non-Ron Paul Republican who said out loud “how EXACTLY are we paying for the Iraq War”.

2. Believe it or not, swing voters get increasingly tired of ultra-evangelicals having almost complete policy control in the RNC. Watching Romney damn near having to apologize to nutball religious wackos for the cardinal sin of being a Mormon was pretty damn pathetic. Of course, Reagan never went to church, yet you sheep acted as if he were the most devout man ever.

3. McCain didn’t lose because he wasn’t “conservative enough”. He lost because he flailed around during the economic troubles in the fall of 2008 trying to pretend that he was both a maverick as well as not wanting to acknowledge that Republicans utterly failed to lead when the economy began to stumble. McCain lost because he wasn’t able to get that simpleton Sarah Palin to stop ginning up campaign crowds into brownshirt rallies with her inflammatory rhetoric about “pallin’ around with terrorists”.

3. Perhaps an apology for the whole Terri Schiavo nonsense from Bill Frist would go a long way towards reestablishing the notion that conservatives actually believe in the primacy of the individual, the individual who wants to be left alone by the government.

4. Since when does the US get to overthrow any regime it has a POLICY DISAGREEMENT with. Nicaragua, while being ruled by a thuggish regime, posed no actual threat to us. What Reagan did by bypassing Federal Law when he funded the Contras should have gotten him impeached. If you don’t like the law, you change it through legal means, you don’t set up a shadow operation.

May 4, 2009 - 2:46 pm 56. Clayton E. Cramer:

I would be a lot more impressed with Mr. Moran’s argument if we had just gone down to flaming defeat because we nominated a conservative to run against Obama. We didn’t. See how well “Big Tent” worked?

The core problem is that the national Republican party is out of touch with not just conservatives, but libertarians as well. The core mistake of the last few years was a willingness to spend money like there was no tomorrow, because many of the Republican national leaders have bought into fiscal irresponsibility.

Insane fiscal policies; open borders; and an increasingly willingness to try and play nice with the wing of the Democratic Party that doesn’t want to admit that we are war with some pretty evil people: this is why we are losing the battle. If the Republican Party was prepared to say directly: subprime mortgage lending imposed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the direction of President Clinton played a major part in this crisis–we could get the attention of a lot of voters who haven’t a clue what happened.

May 4, 2009 - 2:47 pm 57. Chuck Pelto:

TO: loopdog, et al.
RE: Good Question….

To heck with the repub party, what about America? — loopdog

I suspect that the TEA Party may be thinking about stepping into those empty ’shoes’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Essential American Party?]

May 4, 2009 - 2:59 pm 58. Bilgeman:

#53Meryl:
“I’m not at all persuaded that the “Republican party” is the boat that’s going to salvage what’s left of the ship of state. It may just be Americans (who are inherently Constitutional conservatives). There are a lot of Democrats who are as freaked out and angry as I am, and I have absolutely no desire to try to talk them in to being Republicans.”

I think we’ve been in these waters before…

McCain 2008 = Ford 1976.

May 4, 2009 - 3:05 pm 59. Samizdat:

Rick Moran,
I am sure you have far superior political education and instincts than I a humble commentator, but I think you and alot of the Meeghan McCain types are failing to look at the bigger picture.

The GOP lost credibility because it showed no governing difference between it’s self and the Dems when it was in the majority. It spent crazily and constructed a bigger government. The GOP got hammered in the last two elections.

Now the argument advanced by your side is that I am suposed to accept Snowe and Collins becuase they are moderates. How so? Show me specifically where they are in any way Republican.

The mistake people are making is that they are fighting the last war, not preparing for the next conflict. Chances are good that because of the spending path President Obama has chosen there wiil be some recovery, but it is likely to spark inflation and have some profoundly deleterious economic impact in the future. He is also sending all sorts of harmful signals out on investing. Look what he did to Chrysler bond holders this weekend.

The GOP would be wise to prepare for the elections of 2010 and 2012 by analyzing where it can offer an alternative. The GOP’s future lies with Paul Ryan and Bob Jindal, not in denigrating bright people like them. And by the way, there is a vast difference between Jack Kemp who was a leading conservtive on many, many, issues and Arlen Specter and Olympia Snow, who are not likely to vote conservative on most issues.

If the GOP keeps troting out unprincipaled people as cadidates like McCain, there will be very little core left in another election or two. Reagan won a landslide in 1984 because he was successful and he was not offering Democrat lite.

Rick, your a smart guy, but I think your making some big analytical mistakes in this article.

May 4, 2009 - 3:15 pm 60. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Erassmass
RE: Speaking of the ‘Deficit’…..

So, conservatives don’t like deficit spending, eh? Then how do you explain your utter silence during the deficit spending of Reagan, Bush I, Bush II? — Erassmass

….what’s your opinion on how Obama quadrupled it in the first 100-daze of HIS [mis]Administration?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Pot. Meet are REALLY BIG 'kettle'.....]

May 4, 2009 - 3:17 pm 61. Richard:

The answer to your question is two words: Social Conservatives.

They won’t tolerate anyone who doesn’t share their stance on gay marriage.

They won’t tolerate anyone who doesn’t share their stance on abortion.

They won’t tolerate anyone who doesn’t share their stance on the war on (some) drugs.

They won’t tolerate anyone who doesn’t share their stance on flag burning.

They won’t tolerate anyone who doesn’t share their stance on gays in the military.

And so-on.

They would rather sell us all down a river of financial ruin than tolerate any of those things in their “big echo chamber” they like to think of as a tent.

May 4, 2009 - 3:20 pm 62. uburoisc:

Erasmus, you are a perfect example of the kook fringe of the conservative right. Terri Schiavo? Oh, God, no. Ron Paul? Let me guess, Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute? Not a Lincoln man I’m guessing. Doesn’t the “New American” have a web site?

Reagan did too much deficit spending, but his overall vision of restructuring was sound; he cut top tax rates and spent on defense. The Dem House posed a problem on social spending, and the conservatives never had all 3 lined up (except briefly, and that was the cue for every RINO senator to grandstand) until W.

If you want to know a little something about US foreign involvement without direct war declarations, read “The Savage Wars of Peace” by Max Boot. Long precedent for it. No, the regime there grabbed power with the help of weapons and aid from the Soviets and Cuba; we shouldn’t let Nicaragua go anymore than we were going to allow Korea to fall (are you opposed to Truman’s involvement in Korea?) Big picture, Erasmus, when you stand around saying it’s not a threat, eventually, it becomes one, but by then it’s 100 times the cost. So when you make these Taftian policy pronouncements, why is it you leave out the other side, the part about other great powers and what they are actively doing? Did you think the Sandinistas took power in a vacuum? You know, the Soviet Regime was real, and very aggressive.

May 4, 2009 - 3:22 pm 63. jacksonhunted:

It is difficult to tell whether you are just a clueless navel gazer or what left-wing bloggers call a “concern troll.”

There actually has been very little movement to purge moderates, but conservatives are regularly demonized and even made targets for removal by…people like you. We just ran a pro-amnesty, big government moderate presidential candidate. If McCain had not included someone with a degree of appeal on the ticket, Obama would have blown him out of the water in a Reagan-style transformational election. We had a bad candidate, Bush fatigue, and media worship of an empty suit, so we lost. It happens sometimes and doesn’t mean very much in the long term.

May 4, 2009 - 3:24 pm 64. Erasmus:

Chuck, so, how exactly did we pay for the War in Iraq? Did we sell War Bonds? Did we raise taxes? OR, did we borrow over $2 Trillion from China in order to start our war of choice?

Seriously, guys, you claim to be fiscal conservatives, but you can’t answer a simple question about how our war of choice in Iraq was paid for. How is that deficit spending also not generational theft?

By the by, I love the notion that people’s disgust with the GOP expanding the scope of government inspired them to elect a party that promised to expand the scope of government. You didn’t lose because you weren’t conservative enough. You lost because modern conservatism is comprised of religious zealots, sneering paranoids, and totalitarian sociopaths whose lack of empathy towards anything other than themselves is only surpassed by their complete inability to ever admit a single mistake.

May 4, 2009 - 3:27 pm 65. BPT (Australia):

If McCain stood against gay marriage and for a border, he’d be in power now. The so-called moderates are projecting; they are the people holding the Republican Party back (with the help of the media). Even liberal polls show more support for pro-life rights and pro-gun rights.

May 4, 2009 - 3:28 pm 66. Dave McGinley:

Rick, Reagan had a core set of principles from which a “big tent” could be built around. What are the Republican core principles today? How can you build a “big tent” when there aren’t any? Let me know Rick, in the mean-time, blah blah blah.

May 4, 2009 - 3:32 pm 67. Sebastian Shaw:

Frank, the Democrats won in 2006 for lurching RIGHT of big government Republicans–mostly the Blue Dog Democrats; Obama presented himself as a moderate in the election.

May 4, 2009 - 3:36 pm 68. winout:

It’s interesting how people become conservative during troubled times. See how our savings rate is increasing now. This may not translate in other areas but at heart people are conservative. The problem is we got away from those principles and need to get them back. We can do it but we have to get involved.

May 4, 2009 - 3:36 pm 69. HappyinAZ:

Rick is absolutely correct. I’m 60 years old; have been conservative Republican all my life…but welcome the far right as well as the “moderates” into the Republican party.

The party is not defined by what we disagree on…but rather on the simple things that we agree on…lower taxes, less government, strong military, upholding the constitution.

This isn’t a “church” group where we kick people out for not agreeing with our interpretation of the Bible…it’s a political party that agrees on a few simple fundamentals. Gay marriage is not in the platform; immigration is not in the platform.

Haw dare we run off the people who vote with us 80% or 90% of the time? What possible sense does that make?

The far far right wackos lost this election to the Democrats and need to be stopped.

May 4, 2009 - 3:37 pm 70. terlizzi999:

Moderates are welcome in the GOP…prob is lately those we term as “moderates” tend to tack left of center and are essentially Demorcrats with an “R” by their name.

When you abandon the core priciples that is conservatism you give up the right to call yourself a republican..many in the house and senate have followed this path to the detriment of the party and the nation.

This essay was nothing more then an attempt to further the myth that the gop is moving right and not including “moderates” which is total bunk…disappointing tbh.

May 4, 2009 - 3:54 pm 71. Chris Bolts Sr.:

“Tossing aside conservative principles and running candidates who offer little in the way of contrast to the Democrats would be useless.”

Wouldn’t this explain the existence of a moderate?

May 4, 2009 - 3:58 pm 72. dre:

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

?

May 4, 2009 - 4:01 pm 73. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Chris Bolts Sr.
RE: Heh

Wouldn’t this explain the existence of a moderate? — Chris Bolts Sr.

Perhaps that depends on how you define ‘moderate’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Did you study ‘English’ at the feet of Bill Clinton?

May 4, 2009 - 4:02 pm 74. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Erassmass and Question Avoidance

Chuck, so, how exactly did we pay for the War in Iraq? — Erassmass

Typical ‘progressive’ approach to answering a question.

Sorry, but I don’t buy into it. Obama quadrupled the national deficit and characters like Erassmass don’t respond to questions about that.

’nuff said.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

May 4, 2009 - 4:05 pm 75. uburoisc:

Erasmus, we paid for the war by fictitious growth in the economy, particularly the real estate market. But the cost of the war, in overall terms, was a pittance of the Federal budget; it was expensive, but far, far from budget busting. You have a personal preoccupation with the war, we get that, you hammer on it to the point of boredom at every opportunity. And selling Treasuries is a perfectly normal thing to do when financing all sorts of things, until you can’t honor them any more. We have massively overspent, but if you look at the real numbers, the Iraq War is not what’s going to bankrupt the United States.

So why do you go to a website where the majority of readers were and are in support for the war and then keep at it about “the war of choice” as you so breathlessly put it. Can’t you just leave us totalitarian sociopaths in peace?

May 4, 2009 - 4:06 pm 76. Bilgeman:

#61 Richard:
“They won’t tolerate anyone who doesn’t share their stance on gay marriage.

They won’t tolerate anyone who doesn’t share their stance on abortion.

They won’t tolerate anyone who doesn’t share their stance on the war on (some) drugs.

They won’t tolerate anyone who doesn’t share their stance on flag burning.

They won’t tolerate anyone who doesn’t share their stance on gays in the military.”

Here, let me make this easy for you.

If your position on all or most of those issues is significantly opposite that of the conservatives, then you are trying to get into the WRONG tent.

It’s not the folks inside that tent who are in error.

You are deeply confused and quite lost about where you belong.

Why not go pester the Dems about how they are intolerant of your conservative viewpoints in THEIR yurt, grass shack, mud-hut, or whatever is they reside in over there.

May 4, 2009 - 4:08 pm 77. Juvenal:

#69 HappyinAZ

“The far far right wackos lost this election to the Democrats and need to be stopped.”

Who did the Republicans run in ‘08 again? Did they dig up Barry Goldwater?

No, McCain was their man, who has spent his political career falling all over himself to show everyone, but especially the media, that he’s not a conservative.

The “far far right wackos” you speak of HAVE NOT HELD MUCH POWER IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SINCE AT LEAST 2004. For you to say they have reveals two possibilities about you (along with Mr. Moran).

1. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

2. You know very well what you’re saying isn’t true, but you’re saying it anyway to reinforce those in the Republican Party who agree with you, and discredit the conservatives, who you and your fellow leftists fear because they are responsible for whatever electoral success the Republicans have had for the past 30 years.

May 4, 2009 - 4:11 pm 78. BD57:

OK, I’ll bite:

Out of “restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty”, what does Snowe believe in?

Her “porkulus” vote alone gives her a “no” on everything but “sound national defense” ….

Mr. Moran, you’d be better off making an argument that your ‘moderate’ principles yield something other than “Democrat-Lite” – all you’re doing now is shooting at people to your right.

May 4, 2009 - 4:11 pm 79. Chris L:

70. terlizzi999: “When you abandon the core priciples that is conservatism you give up the right to call yourself a republican”

Is there any kind of widespread agreement as to what those core principles are?

May 4, 2009 - 4:15 pm 80. Juvenal:

Mr. Moran:

You have it exactly backwards. The Republicans have been trying things your way for the past few years; they are casting a broader ideological net, not a narrower one. The conflict is NOT over social or moral issues; it is over precisely those very issues (strong defense and foreign policy, reigning in government, etc.) that you claim Sen. Snowe stands for.

She DOESN’T stand for these things, let alone abortion and gays. That is the problem we have with her, with Specter and their kind. Pretending that Snowe is solid on these things and that her stance is being rejected by the Right because of “social issues” evinces a willful avoidance of the true point of conflict.

I think you’re intentionally trying to confuse what’s at issue. There are a lot of Republicans who either have the same agenda as the Democrats, or are just trying to muddle through and get reelected by avoiding a difficult fight. You’re going to bat for these Republicans in this column.

May 4, 2009 - 4:22 pm 81. winout:

The far far right wackos lost this election to the Democrats and need to be stopped.

Let’s face it, with Bush II ratings in the 20 percent range only the stauchest Republican was supporting him. To use volleyball terms, Bush put such a floater over the net any figuratively 4-foot tall Dem candidate could have put that ball (the election) away. In fact, all he had to do was have 2 years senatorial experience! As someone said earlier, that was just “bush exhaustion” that lost that election.

May 4, 2009 - 4:22 pm 82. John:

“Snowe, who believes in “restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty,” doesn’t understand why her adherence to those broad principles isn’t good enough for the ideologues.”

Except…she *didn’t* adhere to these principles!!! She can’t say she believes in these ideals and then vote for massive mistakes like TARP. Be for or against gay marriage, fine. But STICK to core principles. The ones she outlined are great–if she ACTS on them!

May 4, 2009 - 4:35 pm 83. TOhio:

The problem with the Republican Party is that we’ve elected people who aren’t conservatives. They are self-serving individuals who have used the Republican name and money coffers to get themselves into office, but they have no passionate belief in anything conservative. Thus, they have made Republicans look like pseudo-Democrats and moved the party away from its core values.

This whole debate about a Republican “big tent” is crap to me. Who’s behind this discussion? These “moderate” self-serving weasels and Democrats who would love to see conservatism die.

Let’s not forget that Specter used this same argument as to why he should be re-elected as a Republican the last time and what did he do? He voted for the Porkulus Bill that will put many generations of Americans in debt.

Enough is enough. It’s time for a good Republican Party bowel movement to get rid of these people.

May 4, 2009 - 4:39 pm 84. G Alston:

#53 — Meryl — The simple answer is that it is they who are no longer conservatives.

And that is the very crux of the issue. The republican party isn’t the conservative party; it’s the REPUBLICAN party. It’s not your personal club. Never has been. This is what Mr. Moran is driving at.

May 4, 2009 - 4:39 pm 85. gordo:

The Repubs, who I left (am now a registered Indep), have no true leaders and no message, and, whether its accurate or not, appear to be beholden to the social conservatives who are rigid.

To me, leadership is the key. Someone who can connect with the American people. With Obama and the Congress dems, one can draw a true contrast. But the leader needs to have demonstrated fiscal responibility and a real care for the middle class. Bush was a lousy leader/communicator and broke the bank.

Go bold – flat tax, empowerment zones, vouchers/charter schools, etc etc – maybe a real leader will rise to the occasion and it sure as hell ain’t sarah palin

May 4, 2009 - 4:41 pm 86. TheMightyMonarch:

Yes, liberals like to hem and haw about the cost of the Iraq War, and conservatives are rightfully concerned about the $8 trillion in new spending and debt service that cannot be paid for without massive tax increases or the printing of even more worthless paper money when bonds no longer hold value.

The real looming disaster here is the same thing neither party has the courage to address, the unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities, which have estimates ranging from $50 trillion to over $75 trillion. There is nothing that can be done about this…it is an unserviceable debt, and therefore the only prudent thing for today’s politicians to do is ignore it. That’s for the next generation of politicians to fix, and most likely to the detriment of taxpayers (means-testing is coming soon, and many will start to wonder why they paid thousands of dollars into a pension system that pays them nothing back).

You cannot pay for this debt through taxes, it would take generations of punitive tax rates which will delay economic recovery for the better part of this century. It cannot be paid for by printing more money, it would destroy the currency, turn the U.S. into a third-world nation and take many nations down with it.

Perhaps once this deck of cards built on borrowing, taxing, spending, and borrowing more finally collapses people will learn once again that this level of spending on credit, using a currency unhinged from any kind of commodity standard, is unsustainable and must never be tried again.

May 4, 2009 - 4:41 pm 87. Martin Knight:

HappyinAZ:

Where and when have “we” run off people who vote with us 80 or 90% of the time? Are you honestly talking about Specter? Chafee? Jeffords? Leach? Schwarz? These are all people who barely broke 50% on a good year.

As as for Moran’s argument; it’s beyond moronic. Olympia Snowe was one of only three (now two) GOP Senators who voted for Obama’s $700 billion budget buster and somehow she’s moaning that the GOP doesn’t respect her belief in “restraining government spending”? Why should we? She just made a complete mockery of any claim to fiscal conservatism she might have had. Is Moran an idiot or just ignorant?

What’s even more disturbing is Moran somehow trying to pass off his belief that today’s GOP would not have a place for Jack Kemp as anything resembling reality … because of Arlen Specter.

Moran is way off base here.

May 4, 2009 - 4:43 pm 88. syn:

“Didn’t we just run a moderate on the national ticket?”

We did and it turned into a national humiliation and a weak horse in the White House.

Why won’t moderates do something like go after the Democrats for their horrid National Defense policy instead of going after Republican for silly stuff like gay marriage and global warming.

Mr Moran if America is attacked I am going to blame moderates who do not have their priorities in order.

May 4, 2009 - 4:54 pm 89. Sebastian Shaw:

Meghan McCain was a full fledged flaming liberal Democrat in 2004 when she voted for Senator John Kerry for President; however, since her dad got the Republican nomination, for political reasons, she switched to the Republican ticket. As of Meghan McCain’s “progressive Republican” talk is nonsense. She acts, talks, & attacks Conservatives. Therefore, she is still a flaming liberal Democrat who needs to switch back to her former affiliation.

Senator John McCain is beloved by the MSM since he too attacks Conservatives; he never got the Conservative base, despite Sarah Palin on the ticket.

I e-mailed Senator John McCain myself & told him why I voted for him: Sarah Palin. I believe he must have received many e-mails like mine since he threw her under the bus post-election. The man is a sore loser & has no honor.

May 4, 2009 - 4:54 pm 90. G Alston:

#69 — The far far right wackos lost this election to the Democrats and need to be stopped.

Actually that’s not true per se, although you have the basic idea correct.

Essentially the “conservatives” seem to specialize in sending mixed messages, See this:

http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm

Now, if you look at the graph… the right wants to claim that it is anti-statist vis a vis economy, yet as you note the far right is VERY statist re social issues.

This of course sends a mixed message. It doesn’t resonate with the people. As for Mr. Moran’s commentary, Reagan didn’t include the far right as part of his message. It was all tilted to the anti-statist side. The problem with modern “conservatives” is that the message is schizoid.

Before any of you make rude comments about the political axes graph bear in mind that this was created by the same guys who did the SDI speech for Reagan and were his advisors. Generally it’s not a good idea to dismiss the smartest people in the room as not knowing what they’re talking about.

When we moderates suggest that the social conservatives are the flipping problem, it’s not because we dearly want this to be true, but because the data (as seen easily here) says that this is true. You have to have message consistency. The current republican position doesn’t have this, and it will not so long as the social conservatives are allowed to dictate terms.

If/when the social issue positions are either abandoned (my suggestion) or reversed (does anyone really want this?) the message once again becomes consistent. Until then schizophrenia rules and the republican party will continue to flounder.

May 4, 2009 - 4:58 pm 91. aposematic in VA:

Just a few very big problems with your reasoning.

[1]You appear to have fallen for the MSM propaganda that the Republicans are too right.

[2]What the MSM is calling moderate today is extremely far, far left.

[3]THE TRUTH IS THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS THE MODERATE PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Open your eyes.

The Democrats, who the MSM and their pundits are calling moderates are the party of intollerance, bigotery, racism, hate, and homophobia. Just read their news, both print and video, their blogs, their interviews, and MSNBC. Nothing but hate filled rants against anyone that dares disagree with them.

Open your eyes.

May 4, 2009 - 4:58 pm 92. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Are You ‘Getting’ THIS?

The republican party isn’t the conservative party; it’s the REPUBLICAN party. It’s not your personal club. Never has been. — G Alston

Sort of like how the Democrat party is not really what it pretends to be either.

So, what’s a patriot to do?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Would you like a nice cup of TEA?]

May 4, 2009 - 4:59 pm 93. TheMightyMonarch:

#81…

Nail on the head. Bush started his term with a large segment of voters already opposed to him for “stealing” the election. The unhinged conspiracy theories about dimpled chads persisted as late as 2007 if I remember my news stories correctly.

What limited support Bush had from conservatives was slowly whittled away. Whether it was the No Child Left Behind spending boondoggle, the signing of McCain-Feingold, flirting with amnesty, or TARP I, by the end of his term his supporters had very little to cheer him on about. Defending the Iraq War was verboten, there was enough MSM inciting the “Bush Lied, Kids Died”, “There Were No WMDs” crowd that no one was listening to the idea that the Iraq War served the purpose of sending thousands of jihadists to an early meeting with their 72 virgins, and disrupted terrorist networks enough to avoid a repeat of the 9/11 attacks.

The Democrats could have run a ventriloquist dummy (which they kinda did) and still won against the wishy-washy McCain. Fortunately they got that extra boost by running one of the few Democratic senators that didn’t look like an inbred New England corpse on the telly. He gave a good speech and spewed platitudes about hope and change and free candy, and people swallowed the bait. It had very little to do with a fictituous swing to the right by the GOP and more to do with a populace worn down by eight years of fanatical Bush-bashing. The man wasn’t even a true conservative, for goodness’ sakes.

But, what goes around comes around. People rejected Hillarycare by voting the GOP back into power in 1994. The TOTUS is now starting to show some signs of wear and tear (I have never seen a First Hundred Days so fraught with uncertainty, drama, and apparent flailing), and I’m guessing that he is going to prove quite vulnerable in 2012.

May 4, 2009 - 5:01 pm 94. Catherine:

If Snow is for “fiscal restraint” then I’m Daffy Duck!!!! She’s voted for every stimulus package!!!!! And if Amnesty for illegals is so popular why was 70% of the electorate against and even McLame had to issue a mea culpa! If it can’t pass, there is a reason! Rick, I suggest you come down to Houston Texas and I’ll take you on a tour of Legal Immigrant citizens who don’t want amnesty for their freeloading countrymen either! I’ll introduce you to the families who have lost loved ones to the criminal illegals. I’ll show you hospitals all along the border, forced to close because their emergency rooms are overloaded with illegals who must by law be treated until they just have to close their doors. I’ll show you schools who’s funding is injeopardy because there are so many illegals and no funding coming from them. We either live by the rule of law or we don’t and even that appears to be falling by the wayside with the Chrysler deal! The choice between “dumb and dumber” is no choice at all. We must have principles to attract voters. Slogans won’t do!

May 4, 2009 - 5:04 pm 95. syn:

“just can’t leave off the creationism issue”

It appears Lizard’s people have arrived to lecture their morality; how many will be banned today, Lizards?

Who, in America, are the only Americans obsessed with creationism as a major polical issue?

C. Johnson and his gang of freaky reptiles; so far of the range they’re in outer space on a weird head trip paranoia about something none on this are taliking about.

May 4, 2009 - 5:10 pm 96. Tom Perkins:

“If Reagan Tolerated GOP Moderates, Why Can’t Today’s Conservatives?”

First, prove Specter was a moderate Republican, if you want to hold him up as an example.

It can’t be done, he was a liberal Republican.

To win, Republicans not merely don’t have to be moderate–in order to win, they can’t be moderate.

This should be obvious on a moment’s reflection.

In order to win reliably, Republican’s need to attract to their candidates the rightmost %50.5 of the electorate in the region the electorate is drawn from for that balloting. A candidate who is exactly in the political center might get %33 in a normally distributed population of political persuasions, but that distribution does not exist in real life. A dead center politician is really just dead in the water, no one cares enough about what they say to rally to them, nor should they.

In California, Schwarzenegger is a REFCa, Republican enough for California–this points out how hopeless California is, not how good a strategy being moderate is. Pennsylvania is a different place–as the consequences of Obama’s policies begin to haunt the nation, even Toomey can win in PA, and Specter is almost sure to lose.

By the way:

“During his political career, Kemp broke with the conservative base on “red-lining” by banks (discriminating against minorities in their lending practices)”

He endorsed a fraud, no redlining was occurring by the time the CRA was reauthorized or expanded–and all it got us was this lovely real estate bubble.

“poverty programs”

Which still don’t work, what worked was forcing people off welfare and into work–even Clinton got that mostly right.

“and, most notably, immigration reform.”

Unlike what you and Pelosi evidently think, illegal immigration is in fact a crime, and it should be “punished” by swift deportation, and discouraged by measures which can work, such as a good fence and jailing people who knowingly employ illegal immigrants–or see if you can actually change the laws, instead of ignoring them. When 75% of the public speaks, it is time for politicians to resign if they disagree, and otherwise get with the program.

Conservatives should speak nationally about fair taxing at all levels of government, truth in funding for entitlements, the real costs of Oabama’s “Change”, and how freedom is more valuable than promises of shit gilt with hidden price tags.

Then conservatives will win.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

May 4, 2009 - 5:13 pm 97. BC3:

Rick -

If you think we should listen to Meghan McCain you’ve totally lost all touch with reality.

Meghan is little more than a spoiled rich girl who lives off her parents’ wealth and has never had a real job. The most important decision she made in her life was what shade of blonde to be this month.

Meghan’s main claim to fame is that she participated in a national Presidential campaign with her parents. That puts her at the same level at 8-year old Piper Palin except Piper is much more capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation with adults.

May 4, 2009 - 5:16 pm 98. Tom Perkins:

“Case in point: GOP moderate Jeb Bush just gave a speech stating that it was time to move away from Reagan.”

That’s actually evidence we need to move away from the “Read my lips.” and “I’ll sign and count on the Court to veto it.” Bushes.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

May 4, 2009 - 5:20 pm 99. BC3:

Olympia Snowe’s rating with the American Conservatives Union on key issues was 12% for 2008 (below Harry Reid and, gulp, Barack Obama). Do you consider Nancy Pelosi a moderate too?

May 4, 2009 - 5:23 pm 100. bubblehead:

There is another aspect to this discussion that no one has touched on, and that is the “single-issue” candidates and party leaders. I’m referring to those who pursue a “scorched-earth” campaign within the party against anyone who will not convert to their position and damn the consequences. These are the people within the party who will not tolerate certain others and who would “throuw out” those with a different viewpoint. THOSE are the elements we must eliminate The idea of a big tent cannot work if it is filled with little tents. If conservatism is ever going to redirect the course of this country we must establish the core beliefs we stand for: those freedoms enshrined in the bill of rights; liberty (freedom from government interference in our everyday lives); limited government power in general and federal power in particular; states’ rights; limited taxation; strong military; strong, but wisely applied law enforcement; freedom of religion, not FROM religion; freedom from public education tyranny; equal protection before the law for everyone, not just the rich…etc (I am certainly leaving out some important ones).

Notice, I did not mention abortion, which is an issue properly left to the individual states and should be argued at that level.

If we are serious about our convictions, we must stand for the elimination of whole segments of the federal government like HHS, Education, IRS, etc. That is what conservatism is all about!

Finally, if we really want conservatism to mean anything to America, we MUST NOT water it down to try to make it “more palatable” to the public. If the message is failing, it is not the message that is at fault, but the messenger

For those who have repeatedly asked what conservatism stands for, here is a pretty good start. What’s important to your answer is what it DOES NOT stand for!

If you see something you believe is a core principle and that is not listed, add it on. That should make a pretty good discussion. This discussion HAS to happen somewhere. We’ve got to agree on which direction we want to go before we all start rowing, don’t you think?

May 4, 2009 - 5:24 pm 101. Anonymous:

Oh boy, Rick. Referring to this little gem?

National Council for a New America…..National Council of LaRaza. Hmmm, wonder what they were thinking when they named this group of propagandizers? NEW AMERICA??? I think not.

Geez, the majority of these people are RINOs and AMNESTY lovers. These are many of the people who have participated in the dysfunction of the Republican party. All talk and NO principles. Parading as republicans {believing we have short memories,} they’ll swing left or right, not out of principle but out of political
expedience.

When the hell are Republicans and Conservatives going to learn their lesson? Same ole – same ole. These self appointed leaders are doing everything they possibly can to subdue and control the Tea Party movement while forcing an amnesty down our collective throat. It shocked them and angered them that, for the most part, no one wanted to hear their forked tongues. Now the game’s on…..how to bring the base to heel? How to get American citizens to eat the proverbial crap sandwich.

Never do these charlatans speak of ‘Representative Republic.’ The only time they mention the U.S.
Constitution is when they believe it will schmooze the base. They cherry pick the laws they wish to uphold and refuse to enforce those they don’t like. They are participants in legislating around our Constitution. There is but a hair’s breath between them and the liberal/Marxist democrats. All they speak of is destructive bipartisanship which eliminates the checks and balances meant to keep this government from acquiring even greater power.

They must destroy the symbol of Reagan and his powerful belief in the U.S. Constitution so that conservatives might finally bend over and accept their disloyalty. They had better look at the new Rassmussen poles. The numbers will give them apoplexy.

69% of Republicans say congressional Republicans have lost touch with GOP voters throughout the nation.
More than half of the country, 54% of unaffiliated voters prefer gridlock and do not want the Republicans to work with Obama!

I certainly don’t want a “new AmeriKa.” Conservatives simply want the United States of America returned to our Constitution and the rule of law, which is our only protection from those who are working to destroy our liberty and freedoms, as our founders knew so well.

May 4, 2009 - 5:33 pm 102. LilSpitfire:

Oh boy, Rick. Referring to this little gem?

National Council for a New America…..National Council of LaRaza. Hmmm, wonder what they were thinking when they named this group of propagandizers? NEW AMERICA??? I think not.

Geez, the majority of these people are RINOs and AMNESTY lovers. These are many of the people who have participated in the dysfunction of the Republican party. All talk and NO principles. Parading as republicans {believing we have short memories,} they’ll swing left or right, not out of principle but out of political
expedience.

When the hell are Republicans and Conservatives going to learn their lesson? Same ole – same ole. These self appointed leaders are doing everything they possibly can to subdue and control the Tea Party movement while forcing an amnesty down our collective throat. It shocked them and angered them that, for the most part, no one wanted to hear their forked tongues. Now the game’s on…..how to bring the base to heel? How to get American citizens to eat the proverbial crap sandwich.

Never do these charlatans speak of ‘Representative Republic.’ The only time they mention the U.S.
Constitution is when they believe it will schmooze the base. They cherry pick the laws they wish to uphold and refuse to enforce those they don’t like. They are participants in legislating around our Constitution. There is but a hair’s breath between them and the liberal/Marxist democrats. All they speak of is destructive bipartisanship which eliminates the checks and balances meant to keep this government from acquiring even greater power.

They must destroy the symbol of Reagan and his powerful belief in the U.S. Constitution so that conservatives might finally bend over and accept their disloyalty. They had better look at the new Rassmussen poles. The numbers will give them apoplexy.

69% of Republicans say congressional Republicans have lost touch with GOP voters throughout the nation.
More than half of the country, 54% of unaffiliated voters prefer gridlock and do not want the Republicans to work with Obama!

I certainly don’t want a “new AmeriKa.” Conservatives simply want the United States of America returned to our Constitution and the rule of law, which is our only protection from those who are working to destroy our liberty and freedoms, as our founders knew so well.

May 4, 2009 - 5:34 pm 103. James Sanders:

Man, you’re hawking an absolute load of BS here! Reagan actually said he could deal with moderate-in moderation. He didn’t have much use for them.

If the Republicans lost such a great one in Kemp, why was he such a dismal failure as a presidential and VP candidate? Even the democrats aren’t real excited about spectacle. He’s a dung beetle regardless of party affiliation and good riddance!

May 4, 2009 - 5:35 pm 104. scott:

Reagan CREATED conservatives by preaching the word and living it. Today’s pubbies couldn’t lead a boy scout troop out of a city park. It would take a dozen years to truly create a real conservative party in this nation again after the Bushes destroyed what Reagan built. It would also take extraordinary leadership. We don’t have the time and we certainly don’t have the leadership. Kiss America goodbye. Sarah Palin can’t do it all by herself.

May 4, 2009 - 5:53 pm 105. chris in Toronto:

I apologize in advance if I repeat anything anyone else has said; I have to say this and don’t want to get distracted.

What follows is an excerpt from email discussion I had with a friend (a liberal who I’m working on converting.) The context was a discussion on the gay marriage issue, but in researching my argument I ran across information that caused me to come to the conclusion that there is a distinct difference between “social conservatives” on the one hand and “public moralists,” on the other hand, who wish to impose their ideas on the culture. My belief, apparently like Reagan’s, is that the Republican Party can and should embrace the socons while ridding itself as quickly as possible of the public moralists. The whole discussion can be seen at http://web.me.com/chris_nicholson/Site/desmondiswatching/Entries/2009/5/3_A_email_exchange_about_gay_marriage..html. I thank you for your indulgence.

We appear to agree that the fundamental issue is one of rights under the law, and that all are due just treatment before the courts with respect to property and familial rights/obligations/responsibilities. You seem to agree with my central thesis that the government has no role in marriage, but that it does have a huge role in the contractual obligations arising between individuals as the consequence of marriage. As you say, “In Canada, churches are not forced to carry out these weddings for people whose sexuality they disagree with. That’s fine, because any perceived religious aspect of marriage is legally irrelevant.” This, I assert, is why the fervor is so diminished on the Canadian scene.

I think a distinction should be drawn between social conservatives who, despite your objections, are all about equality under the law and “public moralists” who, I agree, have been responsible for the evils you’re painting the socons as being guilty of perpetrating. Okay? (I think the difference is that socons are about ensuring their right to instill their notions of morality, however misguided, in their children while the public moralists are about forcing their morality on the society at large, the socons’ kids included). And, interestingly enough, these public moralists are almost as likely to be self-declared liberals who have zero compunction when it comes to using the state and its mechanisms to force their drifting ideas of “morality” on everyone. A good, recent, example would be California, the state everyone regards as the most liberal in the Union, failed via proposition to embrace gay marriage (Prop. 8, 52.3% to 47.7%) at the same time as they voted the liberal agendists into office (Obama 61% to McCain 37%, with the rest (2%) alloted to 3rd party candidates; Congress: 67% (35/53) Dems vs 33% (18/53); Senate: both Dems).

If by “conservative” we mean “holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.” a standard dictionary definition, then the California results are indeed interesting because in Congressional races where incumbents ran, they were returned exactly 100% of the time. This, of course, is a topic for another discussion, but I think it serves to help focus our discussion about “social conservatives” and “public moralists”. It appears that California is conservative, given the incumbency bias, insofar as it is “cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics. This, to me, points to a definitional problem where the words people commonly use are skewed, because in no way can California, a big-government liberal returning state, be construed as conservative as commonly understood! (These stats, by the way, are available here: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/contents.htm — I did the summaries myself).

Let’s look at the public moralists from the Prop. 8 perspective. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that 100% of the Republicans voted “yes” on Prop. 8 (which is to say that all Republicans are public moralists (and, adopting current definitions, we’ll say there’s a 1:1 correlation between Republicans and “conservatives”); a stance which flies in the face of all available information but it is a simplifying assumption). To be even more generous, we’ll use the Presidential vote because it rules out the 100% incumbency bias. The last assumption we’ll make is that all voters in the presidential election also cast a vote either for or against Prop. 8 (this assumption makes the number of votes to be equal making the percentage comparisons valid i.e. excluding the possibility that some voters came out to vote only in the Presidential race or on Prop. 8). What we’re looking at then is public moralists (defined by results of Prop 8 vote) vs party/ideological affiliation (defined by presidential vote) with the limiting assumptions noted above. The conclusion, inevitably, is that at least 15.3% of the vote cast in favour of Prop. 8 came from the liberal side of the aisle. (37% (Republican) + 15.3% (other) = 52.3%). Using the constrained numbers 70.7% of the public moralists are conservatives while 29.3% of public moralists are liberals. Releasing the assumptions makes the numbers even worse for the liberals vis à vis their proportion of the population of all public moralists.
…
I’m sorry to do this, because I hate when it’s done to me, but this assertion of yours, “[a]lso, social conservatives are most definitely not “all about equality under the law”, nor have they ever been, unless by equality they mean everyone believing as they do. They’re all about societal orthodoxy and devotion to dogma.” applies more to the modern-day liberals whose society orthodoxy is a multiculturalism the hallmark of which is political correctness and the dogma is a tightly held belief in nothing, really, based as it is on moral equivalency. Another way of stating this is that the modern-day liberal’s societal orthodoxy is a cultural marxism right out of the Frankfurt School.
…
From a practical point of view, though, if the issue is about the legal rights attached to the “concept of marriage”, then why does it matter what it’s called? This part I truly do not understand. Why try to force the issue when the outcome has been achieved? Just because? I want? Seriously. Over time, given the legal equality of heterosexual “marriage” and homosexual “civil union,” the word “marriage” itself will come to encompass both as the language naturally evolves.

May 4, 2009 - 5:57 pm 106. uburoisc:

And we have a winner, ding-ding, TheMightyMonarch has correctly identified the looming wave on the immediate horizon that will make our current problems look like high tide. Here is Dr. Housing Bubble today, May 4, on the size of some of that debt and from whence it issues.

http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/

Both parties lined up and spent this, but shiftless, deceitful, some-thing-for-nothing, damn the bill, pass another law, average Americans voted for them because they were promised a lot of free stuff. Now they are going to pay like they’ve never paid before. The current crop of leaders, at all levels, are simply a mirror of the larger corruption of a populace that wants to believe in unlimited amounts of money for everything under the sun, and those politicians are fighting to built their own raft before the wave comes.

No amount of BS is going to paper over those numbers, and no bond sale can touch them. That debt must be paid or defaulted on, no options. And that kind of default can open the door for a nasty war.

But the good news is that when things get torn down, the door is open for intelligent tax codes, schools that work, and sound financial institutions.

May 4, 2009 - 5:57 pm 107. Donna V.:

Exactly so, Martin Knight. As Mark Steyn recently said, please show us one of these mythical creatures known as a “socially liberal, fiscally conservative Republican.” It’s a libertarian fantasy, nothing more (and how well have the libertarians done in national elections?) The social liberals are all big spenders too.

And spare me the notion that the GOP was this tolerant big tent during the golden era of the ’80’s. Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority were under Reagan’s Big Tent then and Falwell was a heck of a lot more un-PC than Rick Warren. What has happened is that the country is more socially liberal now, enabling leftists to paint views that were unexceptional 20 years ago as nutty now. Gay marriage was not an issue in the ’80’s, for instance (and most of the gay men I knew then would have sneered at the very thought of marrying – that was for white bread, boring straight people.)

May 4, 2009 - 5:58 pm 108. Random Numbers:

As I recall, after McCain lost the election last year, the intolerent so-called “moderate” wing of the GOP (Noonan, Frum, et al) were saying that the GOP has to dump the Conservatives. Apparently, these bigots want Consevatives to give up all principle in order to “look nice”.

Rick? GO TO HELL, BIGOT!

May 4, 2009 - 5:58 pm 109. arhooley:

>>5. Bilgeman Where is THEIR big-tent mentality? Huh?

The Dems didn’t run on ideology (mentality); they ran on personality.

Do you actually mean to say that they won because most Americans agree with Obama’s policies? The polls prove otherwise, while still showing huge popularity for the Won himself.

May 4, 2009 - 6:00 pm 110. Random Numbers:

and a lying bigot at that.:

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.”

—Ronald Reagan 1975

“Don’t give up your ideals, don’t compromise, don’t turn to expediency — and don’t, for heaven’s sake, having seen the inner workings of the watch — don’t get cynical.”

—Ronald Reagan, 1976

“I don’t know about you,” said Reagan in 1975, “but I’m impatient with those Republicans who, after the last election, rushed into print saying we must broaden the base of our party, when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.”

It’s one thing to be open to those who disagree, but bigots like MorON want the anti-principled, win-at-any-price slimeballs RUNNING the GOP. That’s not toleration, that’s capitulation.

May 4, 2009 - 6:05 pm 111. steveg:

This is silly talk. In the most recent election, 36% of voters identified themselves as conservative, whereas only 22% were liberal. This is a nice advantage for republicans straight out of the gate. If republicans were to write off the conservative base, it will be the end of the party.

Strangely, you never hear about the overly leftward tilt of Democrats when they lose elections.

The GOP has many obstacles ahead of them, and at times it would seem unsurmountable. The Democrats have the following major advantages over Republicans:

1)A mainstream media that is constantly propping up the Democrat party
2)Hollywood operating as a propaganda arm for the Democrat party.
3)Left-wing teachers/professors indoctrinating/brainwashing young minds.
4)A sugar daddy billionaire named George Soros that funds the apparatus.
5)Intimidation tactics from Unions, Trial Lawyers and Environmental groups.
6)Taxpayer money used to fund left-wing PBS, NPR and ACORN
7)Illegals soon to be legal who will vote Democrat for the Gov’t teat.

How the GOP ever wins elections should be surprising to any Democrat with all the above advantages.

May 4, 2009 - 6:05 pm 112. JIMV:

Why do this generations folk mind RINO’s? The answer is simple and goes to the ‘tail-wag-dog’ issue. In Reagan’s day the moderate minority never, ever believed or a acted as though they ran the party. Today that tiny tail insists on wagging the dog at every opportunity, to the point the majority loathes and dislikes them and are willing to suffer losses to get rid of them.

The majority has simply had enough. We simply will not let our democrats amongst us run the program any longer.

May 4, 2009 - 6:06 pm 113. Robert:

I have been looking at the blogs for about six months, and I have learned a whole lot. I had no idea how much I didn’t know. May I ask some questions and look for answers in future comments on this article?
I don’t know if I am what is called a radical right-winger, or a moderate. I think it would be good for the country if the Constitution was read as it was origionally written. If it is a “living document”, then it can be changed by anyone who wants to push some different idea. Such as finding a right to abortion written into it. If that is possible, then it means everything and nothing.
Furthermore, when you look at the men who crafted it, you find that almost all of them were dedicated christians. These days it is popular to say that they were “diests”, which means that they didn’t expect God to act into His creation. If you research the origional letters and papers or even books written before 1900, you will find that the christian background was assumed. The point is that the Constitution is absolutely unique. I don’t want to say that everyone must be a christian to be an american, or to be elected to office;(The constitution makes that abundantly clear). Still, it is helpful to realize the world-view of the authors was christian.
All that to say that I believe the Constitution means what it says, or means nothing at all.
The Constitution strongly supports limited government.
The Constitution strongly supports a balance of power, with checks and ballances.
The Constitution does not support going into debt.
The Constitution says that all powers not speciffically given to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people.
The Constitution does not support the Fed. Especially if it cannot be audited.
I wonder if these five points would be the core of a political party.
Richard, (#61) objects to “social conservatives”. I could not support someone who aproves of killing babies. And science confirms that they are babies, not blobs of tissue.
Erasmus (#55-item #3) was offended by Sarah Palin. I thought she brought the only spark of life into the Rebublican side of the race.
That’s the way I see things, and it seems to me to be very simple. But maybe it isn’t all that easy. Someone please tell me if I have it right, or if I still don’t know what I am talking about. If you don’t give it to me straight and plain, how will I learn. Thanks.

May 4, 2009 - 6:13 pm 114. Blackwell:

Mossbacks that think that conservatism is yelling “STOP’ will lose because the world will not wait for you. Worse, you’ll drag us all into a second Obama term because you cannot live without imposing your religious views on everyone else. You think gay marriage is as important as the defense budget, fiscal sanity and a President who can tell the europeans, “Screw you, we have less to apologize for than any country ever!.”

That’s what I’d like to see: but it won’t happen if the GOP continues to listen to mossbacks that thank its all about the gays getting married. (No chuck, I’m not gay but I care a lot more about big stuff than that. Let Perez Hilton get amrried and make some man miserable)

#22 Mike:

The GOP didn’t run McCain as its best but because it had no one else that could attract votes.

It needs is a bedrock fiscal conservative, that believes in America, individual liberty and can articulate why being a conservative is important (as oppsoed to being a “maverick,” meaning he has few principles). Reagan was a populist conservative more than a Wall Street one and the GOP’s “wall street boys” don’t sell on Main Street.

Emphasize what he or she is FOR and how that benefits all of us–not what he or she is AGAINST.

Oh, and yeah, the less this candidate says about gay marriage,abortion–which is based on religious viewpoints, not secular ones, (and Chuck Pelto), the better.

May 4, 2009 - 6:18 pm 115. arhooley:

I’m hopelessly deep into the thread now, but I suppose I can always repeat this precious comment in other forums.

I want to challenge this whole notion that Bush was a “moderate” because of his insane spending, and that McCain was a “moderate” because of his irresponsible Shamnesty and his wimpy campaign.

These are not “moderate” actions; they’re stupid, wrong-headed ones. Moderation is something else altogether.

May 4, 2009 - 6:26 pm 116. chas:

wow!! one huge strawman of an article!! specter left the party of his own volition, he can shout all day “right wing” but this guy was just our chairman of the judiciary committee so he hasnt been pushed or made to feel unwelcome in any way shape or form. the RINO’s are using this as ammo when all it was he realized he couldnt win a republican primary because the voters have finally realized he doesnt represent them or their views. and thats how gov’t should work.

May 4, 2009 - 6:37 pm 117. Larry Sheldon:

Specter is an opportunistic paracite. End of discussion.

Regarding Reagan’s “tolerance”…can anybody here differentiate between “tolerate” and “kowtow to”?

May 4, 2009 - 7:21 pm 118. Oscar the Grump:

#24
You have it right.

Bilgeman
You are out of order. I don’t mind if you disagree with somebody, keep it civil.

May 4, 2009 - 7:29 pm 119. Samizdat:

This article has generated a passionate response, with the ussual lefty rabbit holing thrown in as distraction. I note in particular their tendency to suggest that if you are a conservative your are somehow mentally unbalanced or disturbed. Let’s see if we can articulate some values and see where that takes us.

Conservatives tend to have a solid understanding of US history and a working knowledge of the Declaration of Independence. They have the same understanding about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They understand the roles of the various branches of our government and they tend to find harmony in its intended operation.

Leftists tend to have a knowledge of our colonial history which they condemn for genocide and racism. They are constantly trying to ignore the principals behind the Declaration of Independence and override the balance inherit in the constituional relationship between the three branches of government by giving one branch disporportionate power. That branch is known as the judiciary.
Conservatives tend to think along the lines of the founding fathers; they tend to generally believe in freedom, liberty, free enterprise, capitalism and limited government. I should point out that there are lots of Republicans who believe in some of these things, when it is convenient to their purposes, and who consistently through their actions demonstrate that they don’t believe in one of them, limited goverovernment.

So lets see, we have moderate Republicans who vote for bailouts and bigger government and the lefties, who don’t really identify with any of our core constitutional principals telling conservatives that we are out of line and too far right because conservatives believe generally in what Madison, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams believed in.

So in 2009 if you believe what the founding fathers believed, along with Locke, Burke, Voltaire, Cinncinatus, Smith and a few dozen other enlightened philosophers you are a right wing kook in the eyes of moderate Republicans and our friends on the left. You need to get out of the GOP, or alternatively, shut up. And heaven forfend if you believe in God and speak such outside of the four walls of the local church.

Well here’s some news, we Conservatives are not shutting up and many of us have abandoned the Republican party because it no longer identifies with it’s core values and roots. It no longer remembers what Lincoln stood for and what the Founding Fathers believed in before Lincoln. We do not worship at the alter of Marx, Engles and Keynes, we know that those philosophers have been discredited by history.

The GOP would do well to understand that it is in a long and dynamic battle with leftist forces whose philosophies don’t fit well into our constitutional republican form of government. Right now the GOP is doing alot of navel gazing. It would better use its time rediscovering it’s roots so that it can begin to put together a winning coalition. Because I had to type this, I’m willing to bet it will take a very long time for Republicans to figure these things out. Hope you enjoy losing.

May 4, 2009 - 7:30 pm 120. Oscar the Grump:

When McCain took Palin as his VP candidate, his tactic was right, his choice was wrong. Had we not taken an anti-abortion stance, the women of America would have voted their choice. Most are conservative, but they staunchly defend the right of “choice”. The women of America only remember too well those days before “choice”. That was a freedom dearly earned. That one topic cost us the election. Palin was a poster child for the reasons women want abortions. Every time she opened her mouth, she cost the GOP 100,000 women’s votes. Every time the anti-abortion crowd voices their opinions, they hurt the GOP. Its hard to be in the same tent with somebody who wants to sew your crouch shut.

May 4, 2009 - 7:40 pm 121. thirteen28:

Fact is, it’s the moderates like Moran that are the most intolerant a$$holes in the GOP today. Every time someone like Specter sells out conservative values by voting for something like the stimulus, the moderates start screaming bloody murder at those conservatives that actually stood for their principles on the same vote. If the GOP can’t even take a stand for fiscal conservatism in the face of Specter’s stimulus vote, then there is no point in the GOP even existing, something that seems to escape moderates like Moran, who believe we should sacrifice any principle at any time for political expediency. And yet as soon as a conservative speaks up and calls out a Specter, a Collins, or a Snowe for selling out virtually all conservative principles, it’s the moderates like Moran that call for their purge.

May 4, 2009 - 7:47 pm 122. fred:

It has suddenly dawned on me today, as I was perusing some news stories about this issue, that a pattern has been emerging for a couple of months now. Obonga and the Left are waging a memetic war on conservatives, and it’s a very carefully crafted “divide and conquer” strategy that is also functioning as a psy-op campaign to demoralize us. People like Mr. Moran, who own their own sinecures in the very insecure world of the mainstream media and who desperately wants creds with the liberal/Left crowd, are carefully wooed into passing along those “messages” that we are just too damn “knuckledragging” for the elites and for many Americans. The whole strategy is aimed towards marginalizing conservatives and traditional, classical liberal views. We saw early examples of this in the way they jumped on Palin within a couple of days on her being chosen as VP Candidate.

This should impress upon everyone how well-organized and ever-vigilant for opportunity the Left is. The swiftness and ruthlessness of their actions should give everyone something to think about.

They are flogging conservatives because some of those conservatives are literalist Christians and have certain views about abortion and homosexuality. I am not a literalist Christian, but I am mostly “there” in sympathy with their views, but certainly see no reason why the tent should be restricted to social conservatives. Nor should they be expelled from it. I think the crowd that Moran runs in would like to see us expelled.

One thing is clear: the more we try to be like the Leftists (moderates Left-of-center)the more we are indistinguishable from the Left. And the kids will chose the real thing every time over the pretenders or lite versions.

May 4, 2009 - 7:47 pm 123. Samir:

A lot of freepers forget that Reagan signed an amnesty bill.

They would rather have their prejudices and regional elitism (aka neo-Confederate bigotry) cloud their vision and hold back their party.

I’m glad I’m a liberal independent and don’t get bogged down with dogma.

May 4, 2009 - 8:00 pm 124. Bender:

I read the headline, and it is so moronic, I’m not going to waste my time reading the story.

Tell it to Gerald Ford how much Reagan “tolerated” GOP moderates. Yeah, he tolerated them so much he ran against a sitting moderate GOP president. He tolerated them so much he wanted to crush them, not only in 1976, but in 1980 as well (just ask George H.W. Bush and John Anderson) because he strongly believed that they were destroying the Party (as they have destroyed the Party).

May 4, 2009 - 8:19 pm 125. Jane:

I’m trying very hard to understand Rick Moran’s sentiments. But I just can’t. Like Victor Davis Hanson, I see trillions and trillions worth of deficits and spending as far as the eye can see. I see us turning into Argentina. In other words, we face fiscal ruin. The sky is falling. The Democrats are completely out of control. Not only that, but whither our national security? Many see Obama’s weakness as commander in chief and are scared s—less. And all Rick Moran can talk about is Republicans’ failure to accept gay marriage, abortion rights, amnesty. Don’t we wish those were the controversies that were front and center. We should be so lucky! For f’in cryin out loud, how can people like Rick, Frum, etc. be so blind??

May 4, 2009 - 8:28 pm 126. fred:

Samir,

Are you an illegal immigrant?

Would you consent to the idea that Americans could just walk into the country you came from and have the run of the place?

You people seem to want us to have no preconditions or requirements in law for those who enter this country. But would attach no such conditions upon your nations of origin.

But then again this is a recurring meme among the Left these days: I am seeing it everywhere in the blog world for a couple of months now. It has its variations, but it boils down to this accusation: we conservatives are racists, misogynists (never considering the fact that other cultures, especially dar al Islam, are way more misogynistic), and homophobes. Everything comes down to that. Even our defense of the 2nd Amendment amounts to us being bigots who “cling to guns and religion.”

May 4, 2009 - 8:35 pm 127. William Brown:

They’re tolerated just fine as long as they’re not calling the shots.

May 4, 2009 - 8:57 pm 128. Jane:

Samir:

You can dismiss us unwashed masses as neo-Confederate bigots. Fine. How do you explain the positions on amnesty of George Will, Robert Samuelson, Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson, Mickey Kaus, and other thoughtful intellectuals?

What they see that you don’t (although I’m sure you’re a, uh, brilliant guy) is that people from all parts of the world want to emigrate to the US. We don’t have to accept all of the people from Oaxaca and Chiapas – culturally they tend not to place a high value on finishing school – just because they can cross the border. The combination of the modern welfare state plus masses of non-upwardly mobile, non-assimilating cultures equals catastrophe.

Samir – what do you think of white southerners who drop out of high school? Just curious. You would probably look down on them as ignorant rednecks. Hmmm…

May 4, 2009 - 9:00 pm 129. baldilocks:

The “moderate” Reagan.

May 4, 2009 - 9:19 pm 130. baldilocks:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1777069922535499977&ei=tL3_SZ2tN6ryqAOc_vDCCw&q=a+time+for+choosing&client=firefox-a

May 4, 2009 - 9:20 pm 131. Someone75:

Yikes! I love to see you guys eviscerate one of your own. This is one of the most well-reasoned pieces I’ve ever read here. It’s calm. It’s rational. It realizes that extremism does not win elections.

If the GOP insists on excluding members rather than keeping them, it will become a fringe movement and will never take the presidency again. Fringe movements that are ideologically (rather than pragmatically) do not win elections. Look at the libertarians.

I’ll be disappointed if the GOP disappears because it cannot compromise (that all-important technique for resolution and moving forward). We need a two party system. I don’t want the republicans OR the democrats holding a monopoly. Checks and Balances – ever heard of them?

May 4, 2009 - 9:32 pm 132. MlR:

Because Reagan was a heavily overrated politician who didn’t accomplish all that much domestically and set the stage for Bushes I and II?

May 4, 2009 - 9:53 pm 133. Blackwell:

118 OTG: you are a shrewed man.

May 4, 2009 - 10:11 pm 134. Rich:

I concur with Fred…just like Rove was able to “peel away” groups in the elections of 2000,2002,2004…the Democrat Party (and big spending Republicans) use the following (private) platform to increase their numbers:
1. Driving home the social wedge issues like abortion, gay marriage, and illegal immigration to peel away voters. Even the majority of young Republicans support gay marriage and cannot defend the traditional view with any coherence
2. Opening up the govenment spigots for massive non-discretionary and discretionary spending to get a larger % of voters on some government handout or compensation.
Combine that with the blocking of all attempts at entitlement, education and healthcare reform, they know an increase in strain on the pocketbooks of Americans will naturally cause a reflexive turn to the government to solve their problems…in Milton Friedman’s words…how do you stop human nature?

May 4, 2009 - 10:12 pm 135. Lady Liberty:

The real question is why can’t “moderates” tolerate “conservatives” in their party? The increasing intolerance by left wingers and moderates of all things American: culture, traditions, principles, Constitution is unprecedented in American history.

“Conservatives” at this late date in statist U.S.A. are conserving our core principles of individual liberty. Libertarians also understand our heritage and practice it.

So on what philosophical, governing scale are “moderates” moderate?

Reagan was right again. Moderates should be taken moderately. A little bit of the truth isn’t going to keep our Republic.

May 4, 2009 - 10:45 pm 136. Anonymous:

Did we not just put a guy at the top of the ticket who had amnesty as a major to do for his administration if elected? Also, are not the four ranking members of the Republican party in the Senate and house on record as supporting this?

Kemp, to the best of my knowledge, managed to not call everyone who disagreed with him on the immigration issue a racist – a lesson I wish had been picked up by Graham.

Reagan welcomed lots of people to the party, but had nothing good to say about those who felt that their self described ‘R’ membership gave them the right to knife every other ‘R’ in the back when they disagreed. For someone who argues tolerance and inclusion you go a long way toward denying it to those you disagree with – even to the extent of lying about the immigration issue.

May 4, 2009 - 10:51 pm 137. AKBigBoy:

Did we not just put a guy at the top of the ticket who had amnesty as a major to do for his administration if elected? Also, are not the four ranking members of the Republican party in the Senate and house on record as supporting this?

Kemp, to the best of my knowledge, managed to not call everyone who disagreed with him on the immigration issue a racist – a lesson I wish had been picked up by Graham.

Reagan welcomed lots of people to the party, but had nothing good to say about those who felt that their self described ‘R’ membership gave them the right to knife every other ‘R’ in the back when they disagreed. For someone who argues tolerance and inclusion you go a long way toward denying it to those you disagree with – even to the extent of lying about the immigration issue.

May 4, 2009 - 10:51 pm 138. TheMightyMonarch:

“For f’in cryin out loud, how can people like Rick, Frum, etc. be so blind??”

I’m guessing because to admit that we are royally f*cked, financially speaking, and that there is no easy way out of it is too scary of a proposition. Many wishy-washy conservatives don’t even have Medicare and Social Security insolvency on their radar (the combined debt of which makes Obama’s Spendathon-For-Cronies look like pocket change).

Even following the correct course of action, namely an incredible contraction of government expenditures (including a gradual phase-out of all entitlements and the mass firing of thousands, if not millions, of federal and state employees) carries with it years of continued taxation and measured repayment of obligations, assuming of course we aren’t hijacked yet again by tax-and-spenders. Making good on our debt means a flow of wealth outside the U.S. and into the hands of foreign entities, including adversaries in China and the Middle East.

The more realistic scenario, by which I mean a slow death by socialism, will be made especially painful by the fact that the world loses its biggest consumer (in other words, the pie-maker finally gets in line for his free pies and only then realizes there’s no one to bake them) . The entire world will suffer as a result. We may even see some states throw in the towel and insist on secession.

The SHTF scenario, where the federal government loses its mind and tries to print its way out of debt, will see the destruction of the U.S. economy, true poverty inside the borders of the United States (not the well-fed, subsidized version we currently have), and a country ripe for a Hugo Chavez-style tyranny.

So I can understand why many commentators are loath to discuss this, every scenario involves having to think about the concept of losing everything, from the comfortable blanket of the nanny state to their life savings.

May 4, 2009 - 10:54 pm 139. SukieTawdry:

I can’t remember, was it Snowe or Collins who came from her pre-Porkulus vote ¡private! meeting with the president blushing and gushing like a bubblegum snapping preteen groupie? (Not sure why, but I kept thinking Frau Blücher: “YES. YES. Say it. He vas my… BOYFRIEND!”)

Sorry, Moran, no sale. There’s a reason why we call it the muddle. I thought during the campaign that if I were subjected to one more of Frank Luntz’s “undecided” voters (good moderates all), I would start taking hostages. I have no idea what those people did finally in the privacy of their booths, but I sure as heck wouldn’t want to have to count on them for anything.

We’re in perhaps the biggest, and most important, ideological battle of our lives. We’re looking at nothing less than the transformation of our nation. It’s no time for wishy-washy “toleration.” Collins, Snowe and Spector could have forced a more measured approach to “stimulating” the economy. They did not. They chose instead to back a Democratic special interest pork fest that had little in the way of stimulative spending. Hell, they didn’t even know what was in the damn bill, but they voted for it anyway. With “moderates” (Republicans) like this, who needs liberals (Democrats)?

Folks at the tea partys don’t seem particularly concerned about anyone’s views on abortion or gay marriage (illegal immigration, yes–say, here’s an idea, let’s get that border nailed down tight and then we’ll have that rational discussion about what to do with the ones already here, but we’re not gonna fall for one more “last amnesty we’ll ever need” absent that pre-condition and if you think that’s just a conservative position, well, you’d be wrong). Like Jane says, we don’t have the luxury of such controversies right now.

And, btw, Ronald Reagan became “tolerant” of the moderates within his ranks only after he wrested control from them. The man cut his political teeth as a negotiator and understood compromise and the art of the deal. But he also knew where to draw the line and he was reliably consistent in the application of his principles. When it comes to a Snowe or a Collins or a Spector, you never know where that line’s gonna land next. And, frankly, I don’t want to share a tent with anyone who would vote for that godawful stimulus bill.

“Its hard to be in the same tent with somebody who wants to sew your crouch shut.”

Nice. Hard to imagine anyone not wanting to share your tent. And abortion didn’t cost “us” the election and neither did Sarah Palin. Are people who won’t vote for an anti-abortion candidate more or less tolerant than they who won’t vote for a pro-abortion candidate? When people decry the one issue pro-life voter, why don’t they similarly decry the one issue pro-choice voter?

May 4, 2009 - 10:54 pm 140. Julius Stahl:

Rick, I applaud you. You are the Cassandra of the Republican party. The majority of the posters here are happily driving the Republican Party to suicide while our Democrat overlords are driving us down the road to socialist serfdom. I only skimmed the comments because most of them are an apologia for why it is a good thing for the GOP to commit suicide. I didn’t see anyone elaborate on this aspect: there are increasing numbers of people who hate, loathe, and despise both parties. Independents iirc are now roughly equal in numbers to Democrats and Republicans. They are saying, “A pox on both your houses, you morons.”

We are now witnessing another Republican Adventure in Stupidity from Mrs. Palin. She has managed to lend her prestige and respectability to the Church of Coerced Abortion. Her new Scientololgist pals Greta van Susteren and her Democrat, fat cat trial lawyer husband John P. Coale belong to a church that forces every single pregnant woman in its “religious order” the Sea Org to kill their babies or be fired. If they balk they are physically and verbally abused. The Sea Org are the “clergy and hierarchy” of the Church of Scientology led by David Miscavige. His niece Jenna Miscavige Hill left the Sea Org rather than submit to killing her baby. In an important YouTube video she reports how she was repeatedly called “a degraded being” for being pregnant. There is only other one organization that forces women to kill their unborn children: the government of China. China at least allows women to have one child. The Sea Org allows them to have none.

When the left gets a hold of this Mrs. Palin will justifiably be accused of naivete, poor judgment, hypocrisy, and failure to do due diligence on a church that, among other things, committed the largest known infiltration of our government: Operation Snow White. (For details and the video google “sarah palin-coerced abortion-for great justice”)

When the GOP finally holds the revolver to its head and blows itself away, please let me know. I will send flowers to the funeral.

May 4, 2009 - 11:00 pm 141. frankg:

And what did Ted Kennedy say in 1986 about immigration reform? Only a few million would get amnesty, we would secure the border, and enforce laws against employers hiring illegals, as it would eventually displace legal workers and lower wages?
Immediately with the worn out bigotry slur, samir, maybe we just like to regulate the amount of people who come into our country, find out who they are, not allow ourselves to become a deliberate dumping ground for other country’s political and economic failures (Jimmy Carter and the mariel boatlift I think it was called). Perhaps we can enforce laws we have now (bring back the employer e-verify) to DISCOURAGE more waves of illegal immigration that IS overloading our systems here for LEGAL citizens of ALL races and languages?

May 4, 2009 - 11:12 pm 142. Jayson H:

The bad news:

The reason the Republican party is in trouble right now is the fact that the GOP leadership in Congress were acting and voting like they were a bunch of liberal Democrats. That’s what hurt the Republican party in a nutshell. That’s why we lost Congress pure and simple.

Now for the good news:

All the GOP has to do is push the following; lower taxes, balanced budget, cut wasteful spending, less goverment, and return to the pricipals which made this country great. It’s a simple message, but always a sure winner every time.

Caution and warnings to the GOP leadership in general who lost seats and those who wish to take back Congress.
If you voted like a Democrat while in Congress you will have a real hard time getting re-elected. Why because the Democrats to whom you are running against will point out your past voting record and how you voted to raise taxes, passed wasteful earmarks,and increase spending on pork programs. That’s how the Democrats took Congress from the GOP in the first place. If you hadn’t paid attention most of the attack ads by the Dems when they took Congress out of GOP control had hardly anything to do with the war in Iraq. It was all focused on wasteful spending, earmarks, and increased debt. The Dems like sly old foxes were able to exploit the average GOP incumbent’s violations of basic elementary conservative principles and use it against them in the election. But the funny thing is as soon as the Democrats got back into power they went right back to tax and spend like you wouldn’t believe. Obama even used these tactics on McCain’s voting record in the Senate through out the presidental election. Once he was elected he past the stimulious bill loaded with all manner of wasteful earmarks, and pet projects. Obama and the Democrat Congress are spending money like the Devil now with no one to stop them.

Yes, we can indeed learn a lot by looking back thats for sure.

May 4, 2009 - 11:15 pm 143. G Alston:

#125 — Don’t we wish those were the controversies that were front and center. We should be so lucky! For f’in cryin out loud, how can people like Rick, Frum, etc. be so blind??

And I ask the same about YOU.

During the campaign the left hammered on ISSUES, talking about wall street, energy, America’s place in the world, etc. They were wrong and they were idiotic, but they hammered on issues nonetheless.

The McCain campaign looked the other way while the media was filled with news about protests etc re gay marriage.

Blame the news media if you like. But certainly what *I* saw in the campaign was the image that democrats were focused and on point and the republicans were diverted once again by meaningless, pointless drivel. No message there.

And it wasn’t all McCain’s fault. He was doing well enough on issues until about August when Palin was brought in, and then the news cycle — right or wrong — was again focused on the core “conservative” values of her having a down’s baby and not having an abortion and all that crap.

Maybe it was the media being played by the left to make it look that way, but the news cycle repeatedly showed that the left was focused on the economy and jobs and they were still hammering thir message home… meanwhile the right gushed about what a strong woman Palin was because she could field dress a moose and — oh my — didn’t we all hear about the ultra-conservative anti-abortion church she’s a member of?

I’ll repeat: blame the news media if you like. But the overall message being delivered was that Obama is gonna fix all our problems, and the republicans aren’t because they’re too busy worrying about down’s babies and abstinence and gays getting married and oh my isn’t Palin’s boy a real patriot after all he’s headed to Iraq.

Abortion. Abstinence. Gays. Church. Guns. Jingoism. That’s the message all of America heard regarding the right. (”We’re all the *real* America, small town America!” and so on.)

Whether you like it or not, those social issue things were indeed the “controversies” that were front and center — BUT ONLY FOR THE RIGHT! — while the left continued to stay on topic.

What Moran is saying — and apparently you and those like you seem to not quite grasp this idea — is that dropping those issues takes away the ability of the left to paint ALL republicans at ALL times as anti-immigrant, dull-witted, backwards, bible toting, paranoid hicks armed to the teeth (the Chuck Pelto Brigade from Hell.)

Cue “Deliverance” banjos.

May 4, 2009 - 11:19 pm 144. Jbl:

Reagan would have supported Bush’s amnesty program. So, probably nowadays Reagan would not be conservative enough for these folks. The nostalgia for “Reagan” is a nostalgia for something he never was. Reagan was never intolerant. Reagan never told anyone (as Rush did) good, the party is better off without you.

Reagan was a better Republican than most republicans these days.

May 4, 2009 - 11:56 pm 145. Jayson H:

Hey #137 G Alston!

One thing to point out to you is that a lot of liberal Democrats are anti-gay marrage. Take the last election in California! Remember Prop (8). Hellooo!!

I also know a lot of liberal Democrats who own guns and hunt too. That’s why Obama is staying away from the gun control issue. He knows he can’t get re-elected if he tries to ban guns. Hellooo!!!

As far as the pro-life issue there are a lot of Democrats who are pro-life in the bible belt.

As far as Sarah Palin you can’t say that it hurt McCain. The truth of the matter is the Democrats were scared stupid when it came to Palin. The left wing media went on all out attack on her like nobodys business that is true.

One thing to remember is Palin pulled in huge crowds and some of them were bigger then the Obamas events. And the fact the left wing media is still going after her tells me their still scared stupid.

May 5, 2009 - 12:11 am 146. don L:

Why can’t today’s conservative tolerate a moderate when Reagan did. For one thing Reagan was at the top -today the “moderates” are at the top. It’s always nicer to be destroyed by the enemy and not your own family.

May 5, 2009 - 12:18 am 147. Ken Hahn:

I have no problems with GOP “moderates”. They are welcome in the party and in the discussion. But, and it is critical, they must never be allowed to lead the party and if possible should never be elected to any position where devotion to principle is required. A moderate City Council member or Dog Catcher is fine with me. When you get to the State Legislature and above, moderates cave in to the Democrats and the lapdog media too often to be of any use in reforming government as it exists today.

There is enormous pressure on all public officials to go along with social democracy and to protect their position by bribing voters. Moderates do not have the commitment to limited government or personal responsibility necessary to resist those pressures. No moderate is welcome in the Democratic Party leadership and none should be welcome in the Republican leadership. The commitment is not there. If moderates want leadership positions, they can form their own party, but that will never happen. It would require them to take a stand on something other than moderation.

May 5, 2009 - 12:49 am 148. SukieTawdry:

And are you one of those tolerant moderates the Republican party needs to embrace, Mr. Alston?

I myself don’t take these issues into the voting booth, but I imagine that church-going, patriotic Republicans who revere the Constitution and a 5000-year marriage tradition and mourn the destruction of life in the womb might take some offense at being characterized as “anti-immigrant, dull-witted, backwards, bible toting, paranoid hicks armed to the teeth.”

Tell me, should I venture into this big tent, can I expect to encounter the likes of you?

May 5, 2009 - 1:15 am 149. WhyamInotsurprised?:

Erasmus -”You lost because modern conservatism is comprised of religious zealots, sneering paranoids, and totalitarian sociopaths whose lack of empathy towards anything other than themselves is only surpassed by their complete inability to ever admit a single mistake.”

Why don’t you change your name to Dufusmus? I think this is “Hate” speech. How about attending an anger management class. You sound like you are ready to blow a gasket Dude!

May 5, 2009 - 1:16 am 150. WhyamInotsurprised?:

Richard – if that laundry list of “issues” are those you agree with, please don’t come into my tent, don’t even come into the neighborhood. For sure you are a far left lib who definitely has a mental disorder.

May 5, 2009 - 1:19 am 151. WhyamInotsurprised?:

Libs would like for conservatives to have a gnashing of teeth worried about the results of the last election. If anyone knows about living organisms, this phase is a natural occurrence. Popular vote Obama 52% to McCain 48%. Not quite a landslide and some would have you believe. If a stronger candidate had been available, the “shrinking” conservative base would have been enough to defeat “The One.”

Conservatives will recover, with or without the RNC leadership (too bad we don’t elect them). My fear is the damage being done by The One with a Gift. He is a thug who is ignoring the rule of law. I for one do not want to live in the Republic of Chicago where unions and crooked politicians rule.

My only hope is that when he tried to disarm the citizenry using the military or his personally recruited corp of goons, the military will remain loyal to their oath to defend the Constitution and not to a man who knows nothing of this country, only what his teachers want him to create.

May 5, 2009 - 1:26 am 152. Lark:

Before you kill the messenger, reconsider that social conservatism may include some fiscal conservatism as well, though poorly articulated in the hyperspeed debate that we have pioneered, or that has been foisted upon us.

As for the restrictions on stem cell research, was it completely outlawed and driven underground or just denied federal funding? Why did no private funding emerge if this essential science was brought to a standstill? But interestingly enough, during this interlude, some scientists who regarded the ethics came up with an alternative technique to produce stem cells from a patient’s own skin cells, which may be less likely to trigger tissue rejection and cancer.

Shouldn’t abortion providers that receive federal funding adhere to laws that are meant to protect women? If a woman chooses to have sex, aren’t she and her partner fiscally responsible for abortion? (What if birth control manufacturers were subject to the legal lottery for failure like other pharmaceuticals?)What is the cost of the abortion industry to the taxpayer? What about racial disparities?

Why must art be subsidized? How much money is spent on administration, artists? What demographics are/are not represented?

Marriage has been derided as just “a piece of paper,” that doesn’t legitimize love, but now suddenly it’s a matter of civil rights. Are all heterosexuals granted equal rights to marry? If so, why not? Will adoption of gay marriage reinvigorate marriage and a reduction in single parent households? Does the adoption of gay marriage adequately address needed legal and tax reform related to marriage? Will the issue be put before the people or maneuvered through the courts?

When civil rights conflict, does separation of church and state automatically advantage a secular agenda? How will these conflicts be handled in the courts? Are legal costs keeping individuals from pursuing their rights in the courts? Are the courts being used to financially stifle dissent?

Ethical concerns do not arise from moral relativism, so social conservatives are guilty of placing a high value on divisive issues. But are fiscal concerns completely disconnected? Look at the tax revenue that has come from recent political appointments. Look at the companies which are TARP recipients and engaged in offshore tax havens. Look at the unauthorized shredding of VA claims by government employees who were inundated with work.

What are we really getting in politicians who are more concerned with maintaining power and position by currying favor than the substance and long term impact of their vote?

May 5, 2009 - 2:18 am 153. Tom Perkins:

julius wrote:

“We are now witnessing another Republican Adventure in Stupidity from Mrs. Palin. She has managed to lend her prestige and respectability to the Church of Coerced Abortion. Her new Scientololgist pals Greta van Susteren and her Democrat, fat cat trial lawyer husband John P. Coale belong to a church that forces every single pregnant woman in its “religious order” the Sea Org to kill their babies or be fired. If they balk they are physically and verbally abused.”

WTF are you going on about? Are you claiming Palin is a Scientologist? Yeah right. Are you claiming she and Greta van Susteren are joined at the hip? I haven’t seen it.

Show me.

You cannot name one immoderate thing Palin has advanced as a socially conservative law.

Not one.

You are the ones who want the GOP to do cliff diving, right along with the Democrats.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

May 5, 2009 - 2:56 am 154. Rob Carbone:

Mr. Moran…you mention that Olympia Snowe adheres to fiscal conservative theory which she herself has said. How does her support for the Presidents stimulus bill support both yours and her contention? Also, as others have asked, how does the Democratic Party include social conservatives? The answer is it doesn’t, rather it tolerates some fiscal conservatives to get it to its majority while knowing that their votes will be cancelled out by moderate republicans who go along to get along. If the GOP had run more conservative candidates against those Blue Dog Dems and if they had stuck with first principles in their governance of the congress, we would not be having this conversation. Finally, as to your reference of Jeb Bush as a conservative darling, I for one have had enough of the Bush family.

May 5, 2009 - 4:56 am 155. N. O'Brain:

Um, because Regan’s moderate Republicans were actually Republicans?

Members of the Republican wing of the Republican party?

May 5, 2009 - 5:07 am 156. tommyd:

Please read this statement and understand that correcting this aspect is paramount. This is a direct result of sustained propaganda from the left.
This post is dead on correct. The last paragraph sums it up pretty accurately. If you don’t believe it simply go to a lib web site & read.
I promise you that doing so will remove any doubts you might have as to where the hate & intolerance in our society resides.
_______________________________________________

91. aposematic in VA:

Just a few very big problems with your reasoning.

[1]You appear to have fallen for the MSM propaganda that the Republicans are too right.

[2]What the MSM is calling moderate today is extremely far, far left.

[3]THE TRUTH IS THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS THE MODERATE PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Open your eyes.

The Democrats, who the MSM and their pundits are calling moderates are the party of intollerance, bigotery, racism, hate, and homophobia. Just read their news, both print and video, their blogs, their interviews, and MSNBC. Nothing but hate filled rants against anyone that dares disagree with them.

Open your eyes.

May 5, 2009 - 5:11 am 157. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Blackwell
RE: Personally?

Oh, and yeah, the less this candidate says about gay marriage,abortion–which is based on religious viewpoints, not secular ones, (and Chuck Pelto), the better. — Blackwell

I’m not so much interested in what they say as I am in what they do.

RE: What They Say

I suspect that whomever runs will be barraged with LOTS of questions on those hot-button topics and that the so-called mainstream media will be sure to give the answers the WIDEST POSSIBLE dissemination.

What do you think?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The advertisement is the most truthful part of a newspaper. -- Thomas Jefferson]

May 5, 2009 - 5:23 am 158. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Lady Liberty, et al.
RE: Scary Version?

The real question is why can’t “moderates” tolerate “conservatives” in their party? The increasing intolerance by left wingers and moderates of all things American…. — Lady Liberty

Because it was written that it would happen this way……some 2000 years ago. And as we, i.e., the members of my Bible Study Group, watch it happening, more and more of them are coming to the same conclusion I reached almost 20 years ago…..

….the fit is beginning to hit the shan.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Whatever hits the fan will not be evenly distributed. -- Law of Probable Dispersal]

May 5, 2009 - 5:32 am 159. cfbleachers:

Rick, I have sadly come to the conclusion that there is NO “party” that includes me, warrants my participation, is accepting of my approach to issues, reflects my worldviews, seeks to embrace my assistance in their advancement or wants really anything out of me other than my vote and my money.

Fraternity Row has two houses, they are each throwing a kegger and working themselves into a drunk with power stupor over tomorrows tug of war. In the meantime, the campus is burning and will soon be nothing more than an ash heap, due to their recklessness, their self-aggrandizing and grandstanding and their self-serving drivel which passes as modern public debate.

There is no “party” to which I am invited…and frankly, none I wish to attend. Leftism is a disease in the Western world and has metastasized in modern America. The media is a distortion tool of diseased leftism. Academia is a farce. Hollywood is a propaganda vehicle.

Yet, the two house fraternity presents this land of ours with an either/or, take it or leave, winner take all brand of insanity.

One imbecile declares his brand of inane pap and his mirror rages and spews some raging air-headed response. They yell, they scream, they throw a hissy fit…and out of this pile of baby-poo…comes American public policy.

President Obama did NOT “win” because Republicans selected a “moderate”…that is rationalization and pure nonsense. He won because he had a HUGE advantage. He had a propaganda and distortion machine which “owns” all the news, “facts”, “history”, in this nation (and around the Western world)…and his opponent was less than marginal in ability to get out a competing message…especially in light of the unfair disadvantage with which ANY opponent of far leftism is faced.

Can I despise the despicable traitorism and tyranny against our information stream from the left side of the spectrum and STILL….review issue by issue the “hot topics” of the day…and not ALWAYS come down on the side of my conservative friends. Yes, I can.

But…I can’t do it inside a fraternity kegger structure. And that, is my only choice.

I believe the Democratic Party has drifted WAYYYYYYYYYYYY too far left for my tastes.

Yet, the Republican Party doesn’t want me, or my issue by issue analysis. They are too busy shutting all the doors and windows and drawing the drapes…living inside their own bubble.

Fine. I know when I’m not invited and I won’t crash the kegger. I will continue to fight the far leftward drift and the wretched gang rape of our information stream, the lies, slander and bemsmirching of the name and image of this land of ours…I simply will do it outside of the framework of the broken two party system.

TARP…and the Legacy Loan Program/Legacy Security Program look to impose nearly $3 trillion dollars of debt on the American taxpayer. The SIGTARP report shows how guys like Soros can submit an application for PPIP participation by raising $500 million dollars, then get matching funds from TARP for another $500 million dollars, go to the TALF window and get another $500 million dollars…then apply for up to a 6 to 1 debt to equity ratio…making $7.5 billion dollars of purchasing power.

The American taxpayer pays two thirds of risk and virtually none of the reward…and the Soros’ of the world get all the reward and virtually none of the risk.

Our financial system is on the brink of collapse. Unemployment (in REAL numbers, not dumbed down ones) is astronomical and worsening. The media is playing a shell game, the “long con” on the truth…and we are debating whether homosexuals can call their civil unions …”marriage”.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right…here I am…stuck in the middle with you.

May 5, 2009 - 5:51 am 160. Bilgeman:

#123 Samir:
“A lot of freepers forget that Reagan signed an amnesty bill.”

This is so. A lot of conservatives fail to remember that Reagan wasn’t all that conservative in his actions, just in his rhetoric.

Fact is, I remember Reagan’s most conservative actions was lamenting the banning of prayer in schools.

The guy was a GE spokesman, and then a CA governor…how conservative could he be?
He did ride the conservative tide, which was the effect of faith-based organizing and activism, into the White House.
And while he hardly gave them anything that they wanted, he always gave them their due and made the right noises.

“They would rather have their prejudices and regional elitism (aka neo-Confederate bigotry) cloud their vision and hold back their party.”

Uh-huh…nice to know what you really think, and that you’re so comfortable that you can voice it.

“I’m glad I’m a liberal independent and don’t get bogged down with dogma.”

Keep telling yourself that, you might one day convince someone other than yourself.

You DO realize that it is the tool of a bigot to call others bigots, right?

It’s called “projection” and it’s quite fitting that you self-identify as Liberal…it seems to be endemic among folks of your political persuasion.

May 5, 2009 - 5:52 am 161. Bilgeman:

#116 O the G:
“You have it right.

Bilgeman
You are out of order. I don’t mind if you disagree with somebody, keep it civil.”

C’mon Oscar…I have civil falling outta my behind!

Look, forgive me if I have trouble warpping my mind around the concept of an “excited Moderate”…it seems oxymoronic to me.

“Exciting” politics is something I am highly suspicious of.

The Nuremberg Rallies were, I suspect, VERY exciting to their participants.

Didn’t work out so well for anybody and everybody when THAT excitement begat even MORE excitement, huh?

Politics should be reserved for sober people.

May 5, 2009 - 6:03 am 162. TOhio:

When you’re fat, dumpy, overweight and eating the wrong things, what do you do? You diet and exercise with the objective of getting rid of unnecessary fat. Is this bad? No. It actually makes you healthier.

Getting rid of moderates who have been feeding the Republican Party the wrong doctrine is going to get us back in shape. Back to our core values. Back to the same conservatism that we had under Reagan.

What may appear like a big loss for the Party is actually a move to get us back into the right shape.

Arlen Specter is the first good sign of this. Getting rid of Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins would be good, too!

May 5, 2009 - 6:09 am 163. George:

Read the article – haven’t read the comments, don’t have time, but as a life long (former) Republican, now an Independent (largely because of lack of leadership and lack of communication skills) I must comment that one can be a conservative and believe in the same values (in a perfect world) but also a realist. For those of you too young to remember back alley (botched) abortions, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle, they are here to stay. While one might not approve of gay marriage, in the long run is going to damage you personally – how many gays do you know (I suspect a lot more than you realize)? One can believe in Judeo-Christian principles and be an atheist. One can believe all of these things, practice them in their own life, and still,if truly a conservative, be willing to accept deviation from their own views. Anything else is totalitarian newspeak, and just the reason I left the party. Big tent or no tent, make up your minds. People like me are leaving the party in droves. While I enjoy Rush, he is an entertainer, not a prophet. If the party doesn’t wake up, it will soon go the way of the Whig Party, the Free Soil Party (the foundation of the Republican Party – Free Men, Free Soil – anti-slavery) and ever other single interest party that was too narrow to survive.

May 5, 2009 - 6:33 am 164. Joe Bison:

If being a “moderate” was the key to success
then by now someone would have founded the
Moderate Party and scooped up the 50% at the
center leaving the Democrats and Republicans
as marginal parties.

Do you think that Obama and Pelosi are
moderates? Build a coherent honest platform
that resonates with American values and
people who believe in it will come forward.
When the tides change the moderates will come.

The good thing about US politics is that
there is no iron bound party discipline
system that binds votes to a party leader.
No one has to always vote the party line on
every issue. But those leading the party
must rely on core values to build. Reagan’s
are a pretty good place to start with. Then
persuade the moderates to join you.

May 5, 2009 - 6:57 am 165. Sebastian Shaw:

Steveg (#111), President Reagan face these same odds when he governed; he talked directly to the people instead of the media filter. A good Conservative leader can rise from the ranks & do a similar job as Reagan.

It just seems new with the 24/7 news programs & the internet.

May 5, 2009 - 6:58 am 166. Sebastian Shaw:

Rick Moran, Obama’s butt called & wants its monthly rent. You have plenty of company with Senators Snow, Collins, Specter, McCain, & a whole slew of the MSM living in one cheek.

May 5, 2009 - 7:08 am 167. Sebastian Shaw:

Jason H, Sarah Palin energized McCain’s campaign; it gave him focus & energy where he previously had none. John McCain hurt John McCain. Why? He never got the Conservative base. This is not surprising considering the man attacks Conservatives at any given chance. For this reason, he is diminished.

May 5, 2009 - 7:14 am 168. Pastor of Muppets:

sheesh: “Reagan had ideals and stood by them . . . really? Why did he lie about the contras? He was running a secret government, knew it, denied it, then later had to admit it. Conservatives lionize this guy – the Holy Father, the Annointed One, The Messiah – but I believe he was the most overrated president in history.”

Reagan was very overrated, but the Republicans need to have somebody to put up on a pedestal, and look at the alternatives…Tricky Dick Nixon, George “Read My Lips, No New Taxes” Bush, and his idiot kid. Pickings are very slim when it comes to choosing a recent Republican President who is not reviled.

May 5, 2009 - 7:17 am 169. sheesh:

“In spite of the wild and speculative stories about arms for hostages and alleged grants of payments, we did not, repeat, did not, trade weapons or anything else for hostages. Nor will we.”
Ronald Reagan, November 13, 1986

Yeah, Reagan had a lot of principles. Honesty wasn’t one of them.

May 5, 2009 - 7:20 am 170. Bilgeman:

#162 TOhio:
“When you’re fat, dumpy, overweight and eating the wrong things,”

Do you have to bring Janet Napolitano into this?

May 5, 2009 - 7:49 am 171. G Alston:

#148 — Tell me, should I venture into this big tent, can I expect to encounter the likes of you?

Observation and endorsement are different things, at least in the real world.

#145 Jayson H — One thing to point out to you is that a lot of liberal Democrats are anti-gay marrage. Take the last election in California! Remember Prop (8). Hellooo!!

You’re making the case as to why social issues ought to be addressed at the state referendum level and not an official plank of a national political party. The same CA people who were against gay marriage voted Democrat in big numbers. Meanwhile, in South Dakota, a red state comprised of rural churchgoing whites, a 2008 abortion ban attempt failed but polls showed support for measures against gay marriage.

May 5, 2009 - 7:59 am 172. Middleman:

Moderate Republicans, ditch this sinking ship and start a third party now. Let the rats drown or see if they can float on their so-called ‘morals and ethics’. I always laugh when I hear conservatives try to school the rest of the populace on morals and ethics.

May 5, 2009 - 8:13 am 173. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Got That, Everybody!

I always laugh when I hear conservatives try to school the rest of the populace on morals and ethics. — Muddleman

Morals and ethics mean nothing to muddleman. Nor to any of his ilk.

Hence we have a thug-in-chief in the White House.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Hang on to your hats. The 'fun' is just beginning.]

May 5, 2009 - 8:38 am 174. bobbcat:

24. dds: “There are many of us who are centrist Republicans (fiscal responsibity, strong defense/border control, socially moderate) and feel disenfranchised.”

Amen. The party cannot survive without us. If and when its leadership realizes this, the party can plan on staying out there in the wilderness, wallowing in a pool of irrelevance.

May 5, 2009 - 8:43 am 175. G Alston:

#152 — As for the restrictions on stem cell research, was it completely outlawed and driven underground or just denied federal funding?

As has been pointed out by others, the denial of fed funding effectively shut down entire sections of research capability because a machine or process that could conceivably be used for stem cells would be included. It was an artifact of the funding game.

There are those like me who think it’s criminal to toss embryonic stem cells and they OUGHT to be used in research, but on the other hand didn’t get the memo that says the funding of all medical research is connected to the federal government. Where in the constitution does it say that the govenment is the source of medical research funding?

What this means is that you can be against stem cell funding for purely fiscal or constitutional reasons and get tarred with the bible toter brush.

The overall problem is that the left has been so effective at equating ALL republicans with the ignorant bible toter brush that taking a fiscal stand (one that makes sense) against government funding gets lost in the noise. It becomes almost impossible to take a rational stand thanks to the evangelical baggage that the right wing is saddled with.

#172 — Moderate Republicans, ditch this sinking ship and start a third party now.

No need. The proper thing to do is to not adopt evangelical-only party planks. Although noisy they are a minority of the party. They are not “the base.” Thinking that they are is proof that the left has been adept with the media. For years the left has equated republicans with evangelicals: the news shows an out of touch bible thumper nattering about nonsense and then claims that said thumper is a “typical republican.” Repeat this lie a few thousand times and even the republicans start to believe it. (Must be true if’n it’s on the TeeVee.)

May 5, 2009 - 8:48 am 176. bobbcat:

163. George. Very well stated, particularly this excerpt:”For those of you too young to remember back alley (botched) abortions, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle, they are here to stay. While one might not approve of gay marriage, in the long run is going to damage you personally – how many gays do you know (I suspect a lot more than you realize)? One can believe in Judeo-Christian principles and be an atheist. One can believe all of these things, practice them in their own life, and still,if truly a conservative, be willing to accept deviation from their own views. Anything else is totalitarian newspeak…”

May 5, 2009 - 8:49 am 177. Middleman:

Morals and ethics mean everything and I don’t need to hear a politican or political group tell me about how theirs are better, particularly when some of those politicans track records speak otherwise.

May 5, 2009 - 8:58 am 178. Bilgeman:

#175 G Alston:
“The overall problem is that the left has been so effective at equating ALL republicans with the ignorant bible toter brush that taking a fiscal stand (one that makes sense) against government funding gets lost in the noise.”

Precisely. Exactly.

They have framed the issue so well that even among self-identifying Republicans, you get this:

“For those of you too young to remember back alley (botched) abortions, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle, they are here to stay.”

The numbers of people who want to recriminalize abortion are miniscule, but the numbers of people who don’t want to subsidize it, for adults, as a form of birth ccontrol are massive.

But as you cogently observe:

“There are those like me who think it’s criminal to toss embryonic stem cells and they OUGHT to be used in research, but on the other hand didn’t get the memo that says the funding of all medical research is connected to the federal government. Where in the constitution does it say that the govenment is the source of medical research funding?”

Every wedge issue that the moderates who have been duped by the Liberal MSM bring up to swat at conservatives with is framed as a public moralist issue, but what it REALLY is about is tax breaks and subsidies…every. single. one.

The Left equates having a civil liberty with having the power to burden someone ELSE to PAY for the enjoyment of that civil liberty.

It’s so deeply entrenched that we hear this balderdash:

“Amen. The party cannot survive without us.”

“Amen”? In this context, that’s hilarious!
But say…didn’t we just run “Senator Maverick”?

And what happenned to the “Moderate Top Gun”?

Crashed and burned….crashed and burned.

May 5, 2009 - 9:09 am 179. Rudy:

Did you ever notice during the last campaign that Dems were never asked about gays, abortion,amnesty for illeagles, Social Security fixes or national security? Guess who was asked about these items in every Republican debate? No wonder a light weight like Moran has decided that conservatives need to be more moderate. We have been defined by the liberal press and therefore our positions on almost everything is extreme. Jeb Bush can take a hike with his older brother to the middle of the road. Jeb’s nut case wife would kill him anyway after Carville and the hydrohead Begalla got through with her. As far as the idiot above who said that McCain lost because of Palin, let the left have him. She might not be your cup of tea but by God she speaks and acts with conviction unlike any RINO or moderate. I believe that because of what the msm did to her, she will come on the scene again with a lot of curiosity and sympathy by decent people who will listen to her words and watch her actions. I thought I liked Pommney but in the last six months I have lost interest in him. Pawlenty and Sanford are snoozers and have no FIRE which the Repubs will need to go forward. If you people can’t see the need for a carismatic leader like Regan then we have no future. A good bussiness man will sink us as will a squishy “Moderate”. The public is going to be looking for a grownup in the next election and that person will have to have iron clad convictions!

May 5, 2009 - 9:09 am 180. Kelly:

It’s going to take a VERY strong front runner Republican to win the next election. I haven’t seen this person yet. One of the worst things about Socialism is that by it’s very nature of appealing to those with less it gains a greater number of voters. The plan to increase the number of underprivileged voters is going to impact things greatly come 2012. When I speak to some of those voters, they are looking for a “hero” to “get us out of this economic mess”. That’s what will need to be promised.

May 5, 2009 - 9:34 am 181. G Alston:

#178 — Every wedge issue that the moderates who have been duped by the Liberal MSM bring up to swat at conservatives with is framed as a public moralist issue, but what it REALLY is about is tax breaks and subsidies…every. single. one.

Sort of. And yet I’m a self-identifying moderate so despised here, and one of the ones you yourself have posted about. I am all for fiscal cleverness. As I’ve pointed out previously, the idea of “smaller government” is a canard. On the other hand the idea of having restraint is not.

Like you I am opposed to public funding of abortion yet I am also opposed to having anything to do with abortion being discussed at the national party level. Being against funding does nothing more than let the bad guys frame things. And for the record I’m also pro-choice. Being pro-choice while being against taxpayer funding of it is in my mind a rational position; it’s certainly the moderate position.

(Moderates aren’t lite democrats; we’re/they’re generally republicans who aren’t evangelicals.)

Where we run into trouble is the anti-choice evangelicals who are the impetus for letting the bad guys frame everything. This is why I’m an advocate of the republican party dropping social issues as a party plank. This way the evangelicals can vote their conscience at the state level **AND** more importantly we take away the ability of the bad guys to reframe. I am 100% for the right of evangelicals to vote as they will. There are issues where I would agree and vote with them. On the other hand we — as a political party — cannot be dominated by this because we are all defined by this.

I don’t know how to fix the big tent, but I reckon that letting the bad guys define the tent due to the proclivities of the minority of the tent dwellers isn’t the way to do it. My answer is to drop social issue planks.

Perhaps the better (more correct) answer is that on social issues the focus remains on GOVERNMENT FUNDING and that’s it. The question though is whether or not this can be done effectively. Is this where you and I disagree?

May 5, 2009 - 9:46 am 182. G Alston:

#179 — Did you ever notice during the last campaign that Dems were never asked about gays, abortion,amnesty for illeagles, Social Security fixes or national security? Guess who was asked about these items in every Republican debate? No wonder a light weight like Moran has decided that conservatives need to be more moderate.

If by “moderate” you mean “quit letting the evangelical minority dictate the terms” then yes, this is precisely what’s needed. Do you honestly think the left and the MSM conjured the image of republicans as bible toting rubes out of pure accident? (If so, congratulations for being the stupidest poster here.)

Moderate = “not evangelical” and that’s it.

Who’s the lightweight again?

May 5, 2009 - 9:50 am 183. arhooley:

>>Did you ever notice during the last campaign that Dems were never asked about gays, abortion,amnesty for illeagles, Social Security fixes or national security?

Not quite, Rudy.

Gays – Came out far to the right of Dick Cheney in disapproving flat-out of gay marriage

Amnesty – Mostly denounced it (except Hillary who, in a single “answer,” denounced it and approved of it and said she couldn’t say and said she understood all sides)

Abortion – Denounced it as tragic and promised to keep it legal, or just said they’d keep it (although Obama wasn’t asked very hard about the born-alive bill)

National security – Either promised to get us out of Iraq (Obama’s soon-to-be-broken promise) or said they had no idea that authorizing troops meant troops would be used

Social Security fixes – Sorry, I can’t remember

People know the Dems are all over the map and that they betray or punish as much of their base as they possibly can and still survive. I think people simply find the Dems more likable. Which is why the very appealing Sarah Palin might be the conservative savior.

May 5, 2009 - 10:10 am 184. Bilgeman:

#181 G Alston:
“Sort of. And yet I’m a self-identifying moderate so despised here, and one of the ones you yourself have posted about.”

Probably so, I do fire more than my share of torpedoes, and we’re bound to disagree on some things.

In our context here, what exactly IS a “moderate”?
Is it a Republican who wants to be popular with the Liberal kids?
That’s certainly what it often seems like.

I don’t know if you are indeed one of the despised varieties of self-identified moderates, on this thread best exemplified by the Likes of Moran and that chap Richard up at #61, or just someone who has a few differences of opinion with the mainstream of conservative thought.

“I am also opposed to having anything to do with abortion being discussed at the national party level.”

I don’t know how to break this to you, but abortion has been a “top-down” imposition/freedom ever since Roe V. Wade was decided at the SCOTUS in ‘73.

It is the Left that wants to keep the abortion rights discussion at the national level, and for very good reason…when it gets at state and local level, they lose.
They don’t “lose” in the sense of recriminalization, but in the sense of losing public funding, which it seems we agree is what their sturm und drang is REALLY about.

“Where we run into trouble is the anti-choice evangelicals who are the impetus for letting the bad guys frame everything.”

I see your point here, but there’s more than one perspective that’s valid about that.

If we must remake the party in order to accommodate some feeble-minded dullard who allows his perceptions to be hijacked and his mind to be warped by the Leftist AgitProp Machine, then are we better off?

I say we are not. Whatever your personal feelings about their politics, the pro-life folks are a LOT more reliable, organized, and have better election attendance than any 3 groups of moderates you could name.
Bird in the hand and all that…

And when moderates, (self-identified or otherwise), start excoriating conservatives about their political morality…are not the moderates themselves indulging in the exact thing that they are accusing conservatives of doing?

“I don’t know how to fix the big tent, but I reckon that letting the bad guys define the tent due to the proclivities of the minority of the tent dwellers isn’t the way to do it. My answer is to drop social issue planks.”

My answer would be to free your mind, and your ass will follow.

What the Leftist MSM calls a “Republican” ain’t necessarily so…and what they call a “conservative” ain’t neither. And most of all, what they SAY an issue is, is usually the LAST thing in the world that the issue really is about.

I helpfully pointed out to Richard up there at #61, when he shows up with a “laundry list” of what everyone inside must agree to before he deigns to grace us with his presence, my response is to tell him to hit the bricks.

“Perhaps the better (more correct) answer is that on social issues the focus remains on GOVERNMENT FUNDING and that’s it.”

Ahhhh, see? You’re a fire and brimstone spouting member of the “Rethuglikan God Squad” after all!

(Remember that this is at least a 3-sided firefight, and that’s what the Lefties will smear you as, and when they do that, your “moderate” chums will likely then shun you)

It’s all about the “Triangulation”.

May 5, 2009 - 11:10 am 185. SukieTawdry:

Interesting that a majority of self-identified conservatives commenting here are concentrating on the principles of fiscal restraint, limited government and individual liberty while it’s the self-described moderates who keep tossing gays, guns, God and abortion into the mix. Now, who exactly is obsessed with these issues?

What are the “moderate” positions on GGG&A anyhow? Are there any? Or do you simply wish everybody else would just shut up? I wonder, do Democrats ever worry that their very vocal advocacy of abortion on demand without restriction and funded by government whenever possible is turning off moderate voters? They don’t seem to. Is it because moderates just can’t be bothered about such things? Is it above your pay grade or do you think such hot-button issues shouldn’t be part of the public discourse? Why is it that when a liberal Democrat declares that marriage should be between one man and one woman, gay marriage-supporting liberals accept such without complaint (albeit often with an indulgent wink and nod), but when a conservative Republican declares such, party moderates castigate him for it? Do moderates support same sex marriage or do they just not want to talk about it? I understand discussion can be dangerous; sooner or later people expect you to articulate and even defend a position. You can’t really expect everybody who has passionately held beliefs, values and principles to keep them stifled because their opinions might reflect badly on you. Or can you?

May 5, 2009 - 11:17 am 186. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Cognitive Dissonance

Morals and ethics mean everything…. — Muddleman

Not according to his previous statement in which he states

I always laugh when I hear conservatives try to school the rest of the populace on morals and ethics. — Muddleman @ Item #172

As if the so-called ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ HAVE ethics, let alone ‘morals’.

I’ve been after them to come up with a set in writing for quite some time and not one of them has ever been able to point to one standard. As it is, each of them makes them up as they go along. And, they’ll change them to meet a new situation if it suits their desire.

Hence, MY sardonic ‘laughter’ whenever I come across someone like Muddleman. Hence I think the appellation I’ve ascribed to him quite suitable.

….and I don’t need to hear a politican or political group tell me about how theirs are better…. — Muddleman

On the contrary. He DOES need to hear about a better set. Not only hear about them but recognize them as being better.

But he won’t listen. Why? Why because to listen would be to learn something that he doesn’t care to learn.

In the meantime, maybe he could point out what’s wrong with the Ten Commandments. Which of them is heinous.

• Thou shalt not lie about thy neighbor?
• Thou shalt not steal?
• Thou shalt not murder?

All of them, in Muddleman’s opinion must be pure, unadulterated evil.

Why?

Not because they’re ‘evil’ in and of themselves. But because they’re held to by conservatives. WORSE! By {HORROR!} CHRISTIANS.

I’ll admit he’ll find the first of the ten unacceptable. The one about….

I am the LORD your God. Thou shalt have no other god before Me.

Why is that one awful? Well, SAKES! It’s because Muddleman has his own first commandment, like ALL atheists. And it reads.

I am the lord MY god. Thou shalt have no other gods before ME!

….particularly when some of those politicans track records speak otherwise. — Muddleman

Yeah. Like Murtha, Dodd, Frank, Edwards, Kerry, and Kennedy, just to name a few. But none of THEM are ‘conservatives’ and I wager dollars to donuts that if you look at them closely, you’ll find that none of them are ‘christians’ either.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[What Moses brought down from Mount Sinai were not the Ten Suggestions. -- Ted Koppel]

May 5, 2009 - 11:28 am 187. bobbcat:

178. Bilgeman. Have you stopped to think through just why McCain lost? The moderates and Indies went for Obama, and the fundies sat at home. Again, the Pubs cannot win elections without the moderate sector of its party and the Indies. As someone noted above, the party is trying to expunge itself of those of us who support fiscal conservatism but don’t want to drag the party down by being so hard to the right on social issues. It will do so at its own peril.

May 5, 2009 - 12:05 pm 188. Bilgeman:

#187 Bobbcat:
“Have you stopped to think through just why McCain lost?”

Yes…I laid that out in #5 above:

“Face facts, election ‘08 was little more than “Bush Fatigue”, an abysmally poor GOP candidate and campaign, and the slobbering love-affair for the Democratic nominee by the MSM.

That was it…that was ALL it was.”

And here you are now asserting:

“The moderates and Indies went for Obama, and the fundies sat at home.”

I’m not a fundie, but fairly conservative, and I voted for Barr.

What interests me though, is your assertion that “Senator Top Gun the Maverick” wasn’t “moderate enough” for the “moderates”, and that they voted for the Alleged Hawaiian.

How’s that been working out for you “moderate” folks?

Which of his many, many smaller government/lower taxes, “fiscally conservative” agendas have been “turning y’all’s crank”,(in moderation, natch…).

Do you know how to tell when you’ve been chumped?

No…really.

May 5, 2009 - 12:43 pm 189. G Alston:

#184 — It is the Left that wants to keep the abortion rights discussion at the national level, and for very good reason…when it gets at state and local level, they lose.
They don’t “lose” in the sense of recriminalization, but in the sense of losing public funding, which it seems we agree is what their sturm und drang is REALLY about.

No, they don’t lose; that’s only a supposition. As I’ve posted before, an attempted abortion ban failed in 2008 in South Dakota, the archtypical red state, mostly white churchgoing rural hick types (and wonderful people. Don’t read anything into my characterisation of hicks other than to underscore the rural “real America” flavouring here.) In this battle it wasn’t the left who did anything at all; it was evangelical based anti-abortion groups who were bringing the measure to the table (it was also soundly stomped in 2004.)

If we must remake the party in order to accommodate some feeble-minded dullard who allows his perceptions to be hijacked and his mind to be warped by the Leftist AgitProp Machine, then are we better off?

I say that this is not a remake so much as a change in emphasis. Nobody is suggesting that we reverse positions, to all be pro-choice when last election it was otherwise. Rather, I suggest that we emphasize that which we know we can win. We have a position on how the government needs to be involved in energy, national defense, and so on. We don’t have an official position regarding gays. No position at all. None. What we do have is a position that says “we don’t want the government involved one way or another if it can be avoided.”

This doesn’t remake the party at all, nor does this change any real position. What it *does* do is enforce the notion that the emphasis is and has been the role of government.

Besides, characterising the voter as a feeble minded dullard doesn’t get us anywhere either. We owe the voter a clear and consistent message. “Keep the government out of your life unless it really needs to be involved” is consistent across the board. No evangelicals purporting to speak on behalf of the party and casting gay marriage as a morals issue. This is a message that says “the government is going to dictate terms when these people run it.”

I really think this is as simple as message consistency, and the one reason I hammer social conservative positions. You can’t have a platform that says “keep government out of your life” and also have a platform saying “except where it concerns whom you wish to marry or if you get pregnant or your sexual orientation in the military and…” and so on. We are either for maximising personal liberty (keeping government out of our lives as mush as possible) or we are not. We cannot be both.

And sure there are people out there who will agree with party positions (no legislation specifically legalising gay marriage because after all we’re trying to keep government out of things) for their own reasons.

Contrast this with the party position that the evangelicals would prefer — gay marriage is immoral, etc — and now you have just excluded a lot of people (like me) who don’t see any of this as a morals issue at all.

Inclusion requires a bit more work.

May 5, 2009 - 12:52 pm 190. Richard:

I made the point that if anyone disagrees with social conservatives, then they are kicked out of the “big tent” and all the responses are from social conservatives who tell me to get the f*ck out of their tent.

Can it be any more ironic than that?

One response was even so confused that they equate my post with one saying that y’all have to agree with me on all those points before I would let you enter the tent.

I haven’t even stated my position on any of those issues. I am only pointing out that the social conservatives, as amply demonstrated by the replies to my first post, tell you to GTFO if you dare to disagree with them on any of their cherished issues.

…and thus prove my point better than I could have, complete with an angry insulting tone.

May 5, 2009 - 1:11 pm 191. SAY NO TO BIG GOVERMENT:

Show Obama, Reid and Pelosi the tea party protests were not “astroTurf” but they were the beginning of a massive movement against massive Government growth and the control that comes with it. Tell them to Empower Individual Americans to take responsibility for their own lives and for the individual to have control over the direction of our country Sign the petition for Individual Empowerment!!! http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Indv1776/petition.html THE ONLY THIS WILL WORK IS IF YOU COPY AND SEND IT TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY THAT YOU HAVE THE SAME OPINIONS AS YOU. ALSO COPY AND POST IT ON OTHER NEWS SITES, BLOGS, EMAIL IT TO ORGANIZATIONS ETC

May 5, 2009 - 1:42 pm 192. Bilgeman:

#190 Richard:
“I haven’t even stated my position on any of those issues.”

Was that a completely different Richard that brought a chinese restaurant menu to this Denny’s and started ticking off what he wanted?

Oh that WAS you?

So tell me why you chos to pick precisely the issues that Liberal Democrats seek to use when demonizing conservatives?

Your post very strongly insinuated that you support the stated Democratic position on all of these issues.

But your nose gets out of joint when I, (admittedly brusquely), observe that maybe you really don’t belong over here.

I’m not sure exactly what it is you think you stand to gain by haranguing the out-of-power party about their lack of inclusiveness.

It seems to me you’d be better served to follow my advice and hang out your shingle as a conservative Democrat and spend your time pestering THEM.

You might even get a subsidy or a tax break out of it for your troubles.

May 5, 2009 - 1:43 pm 193. Blackwell:

A republican could actually stand for something instead of acting like he was born to obstruct: he could insist on the end of bloated college payrolls and course offerings which drive up the cost of tuition; the phase out of state employee pensions, the immediate repair of roads and bridges, the end of easy tenure in large city schools, and the expedited treatment of nuclear plants.

You could pull in a lot of nominally liberal votes by being for some constructive things instead of against things.
There is nothign “unconservative” about insisting that city hospitals work, schools aren’t bankrupted by unions etc.

But, some repubs let the issues be hijacked by noisy one-issue people from the media. Worse, they tend to be “PEOPLE MAGAZINE” issues like gay marriage and undoing Roe v Wade that ought to be sidelined in serious discussions.

GOP candidates ought to refuse to discuss gay marriage and abortion, and insist they be left to state level resolution.

Any repub that wants to undo Roe v Wade belongs in the Catholic Church, not politics. Similarly, any repub that wants to make gay marriage a main issue is automatically reduced to a minor candidate and forfeits any serious respect on larger issues.

The GOP has to decide sooner or later if it prefers electoral extinction while supporting artificial “wedge issues,” foisted on the GOP by Democrats (laughing as the GOP takes the bait and offends people right and left) –or if it exists only to support Wall Street tax breaks and oppose gay marriage.

GOP “social issue” voters –spoiled babies–have to decide if they are really doing anyone a service by petulantly folding their arms and insisting- as the ship sinks- that they will oppose any candidate that is neutral on gay marriage, while letting the the budget bloat, schools disintegrate, the US Supreme Court get another liberal and Ms California be dissed by that pestiferous blogger. THAT is what you want to allow simply to prevent a bunch of gays from getting maried? Does the word “proportionality” mean anything to you?

The GOP then has to talk to the People, not the media. Bush’s error: it never was an error made by Nixon or Reagan.

And another thing: i know gay people that work harder, are more honest and that I’d trust with my life. I cannot look them in the face and defend oppsoition to gat marriage if that is what they want, even if it will result in them getting a nagging spouse and financial collapse in the event of divorce. How the social issue voters can do that is beyond me.

The GOP is on the wrong side of history on this issue. It’s use of it for temporary gain is hurting it and killing the country. Like Dad quit work to fill out noise reports on a neighbor and we’re all getting slaughtered while oblivious dad defaults on hsi amin job.

May 5, 2009 - 2:13 pm 194. Chris Bolts Sr.:

I’ll copy and paste from Roger Kimball’s recent article:

““Words must mean something.” Indeed. But when powerful politicians set about bringing fundamental transformation to a hitherto stable democracy, the meanings of words begin to shift and change. This is something the great general and historian Thucydides noticed happening to Athens when it went through its own moment of ‘hope and change’ during its long and bitter war with Sparta. ‘To fit in with the change of events,’ he wrote, ‘words, too, had to change their meaning. What used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one’s unmanly character; ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action.’”

Indeed, moderation is just “an attempt to disguise one’s unmanly character” and to “understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action.”

Moderates always hedge their bets and the worse kind are Republican moderates because they are the ones who are always quick to sell out to the Democrats. For once, I would like for the Republicans to negotiate from a position of power, not weakness.

May 5, 2009 - 2:16 pm 195. Bilgeman:

#189 G. Alston:
“As I’ve posted before, an attempted abortion ban failed in 2008 in South Dakota, ”

They really tried that?
That’s retarded. Didn’t anyone explain to them that their ban would be overturned at the Federal level in about two shakes of a lamb’s tail?
Any move to recriminialize the thing is going to take a SCOTUS decision or a Constutional Amendment.

For argument’s sake, though, let’s try another Liberal issue…Gay “Marriage”, and see how it does at the States’ level.

How many states have now amended their Constitutions to define marriage as a heterosexual only affair? INCLUDING California?

And these have been popular referenda, NOT the actions of the legislatures or the states’ courts.

Libs get a few judges to break their way in Vermont and Iowa, and they claim a popular mandate, conservatives pass state constitutional amendments, and it somehow doesn’t count?
It shows that conservatives are on the wrong side of history?
On what planet?

No brainer…someone’s BS-ing somebody here.

How about liberalization of Concealed Weapons permits?

39 states and counting, while Liberals whinge and wheedle at the Federal level about OUR responsibility for Mexican violent drug crime, (as though every gun shop in Metro Houston has stacks of full-auto machine guns for sale).

Puh-leeze!

“We have a position on how the government needs to be involved in energy, national defense, and so on. We don’t have an official position regarding gays. No position at all. None.”

Alston, you’re smart enough to realize that politics abhors a vacuum, and even if we take a “no comment” stonewalling policy, the opposition is going to slam us as whatever they please.
The hazard in not standing up is that potential voters FOR the cause will have no reason to stand up for the party.

Didn’t the GOP learn that lesson with McMaverick?

“We owe the voter a clear and consistent message.”

Aye, that we do. So what the message consists of seems to be the crux of the issue, doesn’t it?

You seem to favor a negative message:

“No government in our lives unless absolutely necessary.”

I would offer a positive message:

“We stand for character, and the values that are broadly based on our shared Judeo-Christian heritage.”

I think what we CAN agree on is that you don’t have to agree with us on every single issue,but if you agree with most of what we represent, shouldn’t you be rolling with us?

Of course, then comes the hard part…choosing candidates who walk our talk.

“Besides, characterising the voter as a feeble minded dullard doesn’t get us anywhere either.”

I have to disagree with you here. The Dems have characterized conservatives as far worse, and have gotten a remarkable amount of mileage out of it…I give you some of these self-identified “moderates” here…
(you know, the “conservatives” who want to be popular with the liberals).

May 5, 2009 - 2:48 pm 196. G Alston:

#194 — Indeed, moderation is just “an attempt to disguise one’s unmanly character” and to “understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action.”

Illiteracy much? Thucydides was deriding the idealogues who equated moderation with weakness. He was arguing FOR moderation, genius.

May 5, 2009 - 2:55 pm 197. Bilgeman:

#193 Blackwell:
“GOP “social issue” voters –spoiled babies–have to decide if they are really doing anyone a service by petulantly folding their arms and insisting- as the ship sinks- that they will oppose any candidate that is neutral on gay marriage, while letting the the budget bloat, schools disintegrate, the US Supreme Court get another liberal and Ms California be dissed by that pestiferous blogger. THAT is what you want to allow simply to prevent a bunch of gays from getting maried?”

Are you seriously trying to lay the blame for that fugly old beeyotch Perez Hilton’s atrocious conduct against Carrie PreJean at the feet of conservative voters?

Dude…pass me that bong, that must be some goooood stuff!

“And another thing: i know gay people that work harder, are more honest and that I’d trust with my life. I cannot look them in the face and defend oppsoition to gat marriage if that is what they want, even if it will result in them getting a nagging spouse and financial collapse in the event of divorce. How the social issue voters can do that is beyond me.”

Balderdash. They can go down to the Unitarian-Universalist Church and be married, ( I think the U-U’s do that), and live as spouse and spouse as long as they please.

What they cannot do, and what they will not do is use the power of the State to force me to recognize their union.

May 5, 2009 - 3:00 pm 198. J.R.:

Jay Nordlinger over at the Corner articulates the absolute ridiculousness of Rick Moran’s diatribe here.

After listing the multiple Bush initiatives that National Review was opposed to and those they weren’t, he states:

True, President Bush is against abortion and against gay marriage. The Republican party has been broadly anti-abortion since about 1980, though there have been many pro-choice politicians in the GOP. When did Bush say you could not be a Republican and for abortion rights? In all likelihood, he saved Arlen Specter’s Senate seat. As for gay marriage: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, and the rest of the Democratic establishment oppose it, too. Or at least say they do.

Kind of weird that those 2 issues are used to define the Republicans but not the Democrats. He continues:

Last year, the Republicans nominated for president the man who had been, for years, the Democrats’ and the media’s favorite Republican: John McCain……And yet we hear, incessantly, that the Republican party has moved to the right. You should ask people who say that how they justify the remark. In 2000, when he first ran for president, Governor Bush styled himself a “compassionate conservative.” Other conservatives did not like this, at all….Why do people think the GOP has moved to the right, when, more likely, the opposite is true? Tone. The opinion-makers know that Bush believes in God, and they know that he’s from Texas. They know that he has little respect for the New York Times and his alma maters: Andover, Yale, and Harvard. And then there’s the war—the broad War on Terror, and the particular war in Iraq. They are not very high on those.

I would like to know who the leaders of the party are that are not inclusive of moderates? It would seem are most recent history proves otherwise.

May 5, 2009 - 3:09 pm 199. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Blackwell
RE: You Just….

GOP candidates ought to refuse to discuss gay marriage and abortion, and insist they be left to state level resolution.

Any repub that wants to undo Roe v Wade belongs in the Catholic Church, not politics. — Blackwell

….contradicted yourself, compadre.

In the first sentence, you say it should be at the state-level. And in the second, you say it should be at the federal level. Why’s that? Because Roe v. Wade was a SCOTUS decision that impacted on every state in the Union.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. And if it’s supposed to be a state-level issue, what do candidates for state legislature or state executive say when asked?

May 5, 2009 - 3:24 pm 200. Sebastian Shaw:

Rick Moran did wonders for John McCain’s Presidential campaign, but now he thinks as Mr. Moderate that the GOP should move to the center until it looks, acts, & talks just like a Democrat.

Mr. Moran, go away, go far away.

May 5, 2009 - 3:54 pm 201. Blackwell:

Pelto:

A GOP candidate ought to eschew those two issues and not be baited into discussing them. They are state level issues (states cannot give less protection than Roe but can expand those protections), and we ought to oppose further federal tampering in either issue (including by GOP efforts to pass a “Protect Marriage” act or whatever it was. What a waste of time. A lot of good it did to delve into that while the economy was tanking and Pelosi out campaigning).

State level candidates say they leave abortion just where it is. No ups, no extras. Leave gay marriage to statewide votes and keep out of it. If people oppose it so be it. Leave it alone.

Bilgeman: I’ll be happy to console Ms. California if she needs it. Meantime, I was tying for some humor (preventing gay marriage prevents Perez Hilton from making someone miserable). Thata side, the government does not exist to deny to some consenting adults what it allows to others on the basis of your personal (and mine) distaste.

May 5, 2009 - 4:08 pm 202. Chris Bolts Sr.:

#196, sounds like you’re no different than the liberals who insult instead of refute arguments. Of course, I may be reading it differently. Lessee, here’s the original quote:

“any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one’s unmanly character”

This statement sounds to me as though Thucydides is denouncing moderation as something a person asks for when he will not put himself forward at the point of any risk to himself and his position in life. This sounds like a lot of moderates on the Republican side, as I mentioned before, because they don’t want to risk coming off as sounding as though they’re “far right” which has become more of a slur today than the “far left” has.

“ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action.’”

This statement sounds to me as though Thucydides is stating that a person who understands both sides of an argument really does not sound as a person who is fit for leadership of any kind because he cannot come down on one side of the issue and stand by that decision (sounds like a certain President. ).

Seems to me as though I understood him perfectly and it is YOU who is not understanding him. So please, instead of insulting people, why don’t you try putting forward a persuasive argument as to why Republicans and conservatives should meet halfway with moderates who all too seemly want to sell Republicans and conservatives up the creek without a paddle?

May 5, 2009 - 4:14 pm 203. Bilgeman:

#201 Blackwell:
“I’ll be happy to console Ms. California if she needs it.”

Yes, quite.

“Meantime, I was tying for some humor (preventing gay marriage prevents Perez Hilton from making someone miserable).”

Ahhh, I get it now.
I don’t think that a government -ssued piece of paper is going to prevent that bulbous pervert from making ANYONE unhappy.
(But that’s just MY take).

“Thata side, the government does not exist to deny to some consenting adults what it allows to others on the basis of your personal (and mine) distaste.”

Sure it does.

What’s the difference between politics and prostitution?

May 5, 2009 - 4:25 pm 204. CT:

Moran, didn’t you vote for Obambi?

May 5, 2009 - 5:05 pm 205. William Wynne:

I am pleased to see the number and quality of comments congenial to my thinking. I can hardly add to what has been said but I gladly join the chorus:

It is exactly the abandonment of fundamental Conservative (read Eighteenth Century Anglo-Liberal) principles by the RNC that has neutered the party. Restoring those principles and clearly articulating them is the only hope for a Republican renewal. Indeed, an American renewal.

The “subtraction” argument is inherently corrupt. It assumes that renouncing principle will appeal to some amorphous “middle” and reclaim a majority in Congress. Recent experience makes it clear that it will not. But at the heart of the matter is a willingness to enter into a shoddy bargain in exchange for numbers. That is Snowe’s “pragmatic” approach.

“…let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.” It is one thing to tolerate disagreement under the “big tent” of Conservatism, and quite another to surrender to surrender core values.
I believe that “tea party America”, though rarely seen and seldom heard, is more powerful than the America of academe, visual media and press. If I am correct, then there is hope for the polity and the Conservative party that represents them. If I am mistaken, then — in the tumult to follow — I can find peace with my conscience.

A final note: attempting to draw an analogy from Regan’s immigration policy — never fulfilled by enforcing the law — is either dishonest or insufficiently thought through.

May 5, 2009 - 5:06 pm 206. Blackwell:

203:

“What’s the difference between politics and prostitution?”

One of degree illustrating how capricious it is: Its legal to falsely profess love, marry someone for money, sleep with them while they’re rich, divorce them and take their money, but not tell a man in a bar that you’ll sleep with him in a hotel for considerably less money than his wife got in the divorce. Its legal to lie to voters and burden the taxpayers with frivolous debt,–but a gay congressman that does neither and tries to get married can’t. Just from an ethical standpoint, I have a lot of trouble figuring out how to justify this result. Particularly since the “good person” in both examples is the one getting screwed. (This example assumes the woman in the bar is attractive so as not to interfere with the example).

Imposing religious or preference distinctions on consenting adults is a problem for the GOP, which argues that consenting corporations ought to be able to do anything–and spent the Bush years letting them.

Aside from the ethical problem, the magnitude of the problems being ignored while the GOP fixates on the past (trying to undo Roe) or gays is mind-boggling.

May 5, 2009 - 6:04 pm 207. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Blackwell
RE: You….

A GOP candidate ought to eschew those two issues and not be baited into discussing them. They are state level issues… — Blackwell

….have not countered the fact you contradicted yourself, vis-a-vis abortion being a state-level issue and your idea that no one should challenge Roe v. Wade, a federal decision imposed on the states.

Until you resolve or recognize your contradiction, don’t expect much sympathy from me.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Where there is no religion, hypocrisy becomes good taste.]

May 5, 2009 - 6:07 pm 208. Richard:

That’s right Bilgeman, I didn’t state my position on any of those issues. You didn’t even bother to ask me my position on those issues, you just lashed out in attack dog mode, providing more evidence to bolster my assertion. Your characterization of my original post as a laundry list of items I wanted is just that: your characterization. You won’t find me saying those are things I wanted or that they are my positions. That’s a straw man entirely of your own construction.

You also assert that “my nose gets out of joint” when you demonstrate your vociferous interolance of anyone who might disagree with you on those issues, again proving my point that it is exactly this attitude that turns off people to the idea of the GOP being a “big tent”. Again, this is a straw man argument of your own construction and has nothing at all to do with what I’ve posted here, but it does add more support to my original point.

Your assertion that I am somehow a democrat is also quite humorous, but just adds more evidence to my assertion that this “big tent” really isn’t so big at all.

May 5, 2009 - 6:11 pm 209. steveg:

#122 Fred…I have been thinking the same as you for awhile. There has been a concerted effort to demonize conservatives since the election, and in the last three months it has reached a crescendo. I may be nostalgic, but I still believe that the majority of the public is on our team, and family values still trump San Francisco values.

Why should the GOP cave on a gay marriage ban, and have a stand on at least late stage abortion? These are winning issues, and have great support in most states.

I am not the least bit religious, but I have seen something happening in our culture for sometime now, that is frightening. The religious in America are ridiculed, whereas the degenerates are celebrated. I try not to be a prude, but it is pretty sad at what we have become as a culture.

So if you have people in your party that respect life, and try to live a moral life, you have become a harm to the GOP’s success, whereas if you are a gangster rapper or a porn-king, you are more than welcome in the Democrat party.

You have to admit, the American left has done one hell of a job performing a 180 on our culture in 50 years.

May 5, 2009 - 6:53 pm 210. Blackwell:

Pelto: there is no contradiction at all and I am not looking for sympathy, but easy recognition that this issue ocntinues to impede the GOP from having its voice heard on more crucial issues.

Abortion was ruled legal in a specific time frame in Roe and everyone ought to leave it alone unless expanded at the state level. Its better to say “leave it be” which will not scare off voters-most of whom are quite comfortable where it is and don’t want it moved either way.

Injecting what you think a man that lived 2000 years ago might do now on the issue (or what some guy in Rome with no kids and no taxes to pay thinks) is partially responsible for Obama being elected. Women trended to him on that issue among others. While you worry over abortion made legal 30 years ago and whether gays can call each other a wife or husband, Obama spends tomorrow’s money today. Unions fleece, hospitals close, we can’t afford anymore F-22’s the country gets weaker and your tomato plants will be taxed next. Good trade off you think? A moral one? What you woulddo if you were king tomorrow and had to chose one thing to remedy. (”Damn the budget! I’ll outlaw gay marriage!”)Really? No military quotes please, no M-79 references, no paint ball memories–just sane discussion. (Or I’ll find Saul A and sick him on you)

Steveg: you’re right: but perhaps this would not be so (religion ridiculed) if “religions” published more of the good they do through individual people, stayed out of who gets married (isn’t the idea to do good, not to mess with others?), and if the Catholic church spent less on big cathedrals and had been quicker to punish abusers). Just a thought.

May 5, 2009 - 7:49 pm 211. rico:

FOOLISH RICK MORAN.

Reagan converted the independents and the Reagan democrats.

He didn’t PANDER to them.

Stop it… MORONIC FOOL.

May 5, 2009 - 7:57 pm 212. steveg:

Do you honestly think Obama could have won with such a margin of victory, or at all, if he started each campaign event with the statement “I’m a proud liberal”? No,and matter of fact, he was acting more like a conservative than McCain at the end of his campaign.

Perhaps the GOP may want to be like Democrats, and start using another word or phrase to describe their ideology. It would probably drive the left crazy if they started calling themselves ‘classic liberals’.

May 5, 2009 - 9:11 pm 213. Wally Lind:

Senator Snowe should not be confused. You saw the explosive rage and pure nastiness that the left wing lunatic fringe heaped on poor Miss California, who dared to have a pro-marriage viewpoint, and expressed it. The right wing lunatic fringe, including the likes of Limbaugh, have precisely the same reactions to anyone that disagrees with them. I don’t mean that they hate nayone thagt doesn’t agree with them on the majority of issues, they hate anyone who disagrees with them on ANY issue.

But I’m not worried, if their hate and their big mouths get them into a position where they can dictate who gets the presidential nomination, which they didn’t in 2008, President Obama will trounce them by a large margin (a Reagan style margin), and they will be discredited. I was completely turned off by their vitriol in opposing Senator McCain for the nomination, and their slowness in rallying to him, after he secured the nomination. The “True Conservatives” redefined thir favorite term RINO, to include themselves.

The democrats are wrong, Rush is the leader of the Republican party, only in his own for-profit mind. He is an entertainer, and a good one. He is not a grat political thinker, or a thinker at all. In 2016, election defeats will have calmed the “One Prue Party” zealots (but not their big profit centered mouths, and we can start rebuilding a “big tent Republican party, with some prosepects for success.

May 5, 2009 - 9:21 pm 214. scott:

Fred at #122

I liked your post. You state that you are not a literalist Christian. I’m not sure what that means. To be a Christian means that you are a disciple of Christ and that you believe he was who he said he was and you accept his sacrifice on the cross as payment for your sins.

Is that literalist? Either Christ was The Christ or he was a nut or a charlatan. (C.S. Lewis)

There is a lot of room for doctrinal discussion but to my mind there really is no such thing as non literal as far as the Gospel is concerned. Its either literal or its pure BS.

I recommend Josh McDowell’s books. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” Also here is a site that may be of interest to you.

http://www.answersinrevelation.org/

May 5, 2009 - 9:40 pm 215. Andre Kenji:

“A final note: attempting to draw an analogy from Regan’s immigration policy — never fulfilled by enforcing the law”

In fact, Reagan was very supportive of immigration. What you point out as “enforcing the law” was a excuse. In fact, Reagan took fire from conservatives of his party several times(http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/17/magazine/the-right-against-reagan.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3).

Reagan was the first and the definitive Reagan Democrat.

“Reagan converted the independents and the Reagan democrats.”

Sure. And them most of them defected to Bill Clinton in 1992.

May 5, 2009 - 9:53 pm 216. Oakley:

The left has gone soooo far left they’re about to fall off the cliff. By today’s leftist political standards JFK was a conservative.

We just tried to elect a MODERATE Republican. John McCain could not fire up the base or get elected, duh, he is too moderate. So now we should moderate more??? How stupid is that??? Keep doing the same thing over and over and fail??

May 5, 2009 - 11:09 pm 217. Sulla:

Megan McCain? Hasn’t she been in the party since Father’s day of 2008? Really?

This is a perfect example of the media, yet again, defining the narrative for Republican elites. Megan McCain says exactly what the media likes to hear, namely that she’s a “Republican” and she’s sick of Conservatives.

Well, I think you guys need to recognize a basic fact. This is a party of ideas, not clannish identity politics. Without the Conservative element of the party, the “moderates” are 20% of the voting electorate, in a good cycle. If you want Leftist dogma, as you folks did in the 1970s, then go for it. Seriously, vote for the Left. Vote for the radical social agenda you deem more appropriate for this country. Vote for the tax and spend policies of the LBJ/Nixon/Ford/Carter gang. “Show us a lesson”.

You go ahead and teach us 30%. But while you’re engaged in your rather peevish temper tantrum at the ballot box, don’t pretend that you’re doing whats in the national interest. I oppose abortion. In a primary, I’m voting for the candidate which opposes it to. The idea that I need to violate my principles so that we can have 55 Senators, or a President, who doesn’t care about my views but shares my party affiliation doesn’t make much sense to me. Nor does your threat. I should vote for liberal Republicans so that liberal Republicans, peevishly, don’t assault what remaining culture and rights I have left?

Nah. Go ahead and assault them. Take them all. Let there be no fig leaf for you folks to hide behind. Let there be no excuse for the media to have to blame the GOP for the myriad of economic and social failures of liberalism run wild. I’m sick of this accomidationist attitude of the Repulican elites. You guys have surrendered so much ground, over the past 20 years, that we’re already on the Left’s turf policy wise. Imagine a “moderate” being defined as an advocate for gay marriage in 1988, or in favor of some national health care plan. Imagine it being described as “Radical Conservatism” to vote against 4 trillion dollars in spending in a single fiscal year.

No, the wilderness is better. You can all laugh about us neandrathal voters in the Republican Party at your cocktail parties with your liberal friends and media pals. Laugh until you have to explain about the situation you bring the country to. When we emerge from the wilderness, we can have the policy debate on honest, moral grounding. No more accomidation. No more compromise with socialism. No more sacrifice of culture.

If elections are to only be about ‘winning’, like some silly sports contest, let us lose them. Let us lose them until the people have no choice but to make elections mean something more than that. Let the people learn the consequence of their votes with the Leviathan they build.

Let us build a political movement on the solid rock of virtue and honor rather than the shifting sand of elite approval, gentlemen.

May 6, 2009 - 12:02 am 218. Reformed Trombonist:

Do you like what all that “toleration of moderates” got us?

May 6, 2009 - 2:28 am 219. Northern Light:

I might as well repeat this here, goodness knows I’ve said it before.

In democratic elections success comes down to the numbers. There are a few numbers that should be reflected on. I have no real opinions about why these things happened, but if they are ignored it’s going to be very difficult for Republicans to win nationally.

1. In 1960, Richard Nixon won about 30% of the black vote. By 1980 Ronald Reagan won less than 10% of the black vote. In fact, John Anderson (remember him?) scored more black votes than Reagan did.

2. George W. Bush won about 20-25% of the Hispanic vote. Eight years later the Reublican share of the Hispanic vote was almost as low as their share of the black vote.

I am not going to try to theorize about why the GOP has lost so much support among these two groups, but it’s pretty obvious to me that if this was a football game that the Republicans are giving up two touchdowns before the game even starts. That doesn’t mean they can’t win (I’ve seen teams come back from 14 point deficits many times), but it makes victory very difficult.

You can argue about moving the party away from social issues. You can argue that throwing out the RINOs is good for the party. But the Republicans have to figure out why they aren’t getting votes from conservative blacks and Hispanics. Yes, there are conservative Blacks and Hispanics. There are thousands of churches full of them. Somebody has to figure out why they don’t vote Republican and fix the problem.

Otherwise, the GOP will blame ACORN and the MSM for losing every election for the next few decades.

May 6, 2009 - 4:26 am 220. sheesh:

203. Bilgeman: . . . #201 Blackwell:“I’ll be happy to console Ms. California if she needs it.”
Yes, quite.

Yeah, we’ve heard a lot about conservatives’ fascination with porn stars. This is just the latest example. It is ironic, don’t you think, that a porn star like Giggles Prejean is the right’s spokesperson for marriage values. What’s next, David Vitter as spokesperson for Pampers?

May 6, 2009 - 6:43 am 221. sheesh:

This from your friend Meryl:

“I’m just sure that I heard somewhere–some time back–that Ronald Reagan had died. In fact, I believe that his death occurred several years after he had left the Presidency of the United States. You might want to check on that, so that you stop using dead men as your jumping off point . . .”

Someone here should check on Meryl. She sounds like she’s done gone off the reservation. Chuck Pelto, I know you’re not doing anything else today, maybe you could stop by her tree house, just to make sure all’s well.

May 6, 2009 - 6:47 am 222. steveg:

#216..Oakley..Running McCain was like a repeat performance of running Bob
Dole. Will we ever learn?

May 6, 2009 - 6:47 am 223. Eric Florack:

Since this is comment 223, I doubt I can add much that hasn’t been said. I will say this, however; What Rick proposes is demonstrably not a winning strategy.

Think, now… what did the Democrats do to win this most recent election?

They went to their base, that’s what. Every move the Republicans made was a reason for a press conference highlighted by leftists screaming and gnashing their teeth over whatever. For years, they cast Bush as the bad guy, the Republicans as the anti-American, and relentlessly pushed their core leftist values. They weren’t accepting their moderates… they pushed them out. Consider Joe Lieberman, as a prime example. And the won the WH and the Congress and a mess of the statehouses as a direct result of this luunge to the base.

Meanwhile, we get people trying to get us to disown our base.

So, not only is the issue that the moderates aren’t tolerating the conservatives, but the moderates have demonstrably pushed us into a losing strategy.

No, Rick, Sorry. Being “Democrat Lite” isn’t the answer. And the proof of that is sitting in the White House just now. That’s the point I made on the ‘principles’ article I ran here a couple weeks ago.

May 6, 2009 - 7:42 am 224. Anonymous:

Whoa there just a moment and let us get to the truth:

215. Andre Kenji:

“A final note: attempting to draw an analogy from Regan’s immigration policy — never fulfilled by enforcing the law”

In fact, Reagan was very supportive of immigration. What you point out as “enforcing the law” was a excuse. In fact, Reagan took fire from conservatives of his party several times(http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/17/magazine/the-right-against-reagan.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3).
—————-

Reagan had but one {1} regret. When asked if he had any regrets in one of his last interviews, he stated that his only regret was AMNESTY.

However,

May 6, 2009 - 8:07 am 225. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Rick Moran, et al.
RE: Remember When….

….you said that if Obama was elected he’d be your president. But if he started tromping on it you’d use all the power and verve you had to express your disagreement with his policies?

You said that on your own web-site. And I asked you what you would do when they came for you because of your dedication to the Constitution of the United States and use of your blogging skills.

Well……

….it looks like your going to get your chance to prove yourself the ‘man’ you claim to be.

Check out THIS bit of legislation currently making its way through Congress.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Another piece of the puzzle is falling into place.]

May 6, 2009 - 9:06 am 226. Michael Dooley:

Bottom Line: “Moderates” and so-called “pragmatists” talk big but don’t deliver the goods. They want to sit at the table with the big boys but they don’t deliver either the money or the votes.

May 6, 2009 - 9:06 am 227. Al-in-Big-Bear:

Rick,

Maybe you don’t remember that Reagan had to fight his way through the moderates of the Republican party in order to finally get the nomination in 1980. Maybe you don’t remember that Reagan had to fend off attacks by moderates in the Republican party throughout his tenure in office. Republican moderates were no friends of Reagan before, during or after his presidency.

May 6, 2009 - 9:29 am 228. Bilgeman:

#208 Richard:
“You didn’t even bother to ask me my position on those issues, you just lashed out in attack dog mode, providing more evidence to bolster my assertion.”

You think that that was my “attack dog mode”?

You don’t know me very well, that was my “Get Lost, kid” Dismissed! mode.

You want bolsters for your asserions? How very nice of you then to proved bolsters for mine.

You don’t think you belong here because of a myriad of reasons…only SOME of which you saw fit to articulate, (and you dodged my question of why it was those PARTICULAR issues that you saw fit to puke out, I notice).

And I don’t think you belong here.

It seems that we are in agreement, and that we support each other’s assertion.

So.

Why are you STILL here?

May 6, 2009 - 9:33 am 229. Middleman:

Chuck,
I would dare say I’ve met progressives and liberals who have a better track record of morals and ethics than most conservatives. Just because you use the Ten Commandments or the bible as a smoke screen doesn’t mean they are true.

I have nothing wrong with the Ten Commandments. Overall they are a universal set of codes to try to live by. It’s not so much Christian as it is common sense to live an honest life. You can have morals and ethics and still not be religious. Just because I may not follow religion, or possibly even a god, doesn’t make me a liar or a scoundrel. Some of the biggest liars and scoundrels are the ones who sometimes preach the good word the loudest. I dare you to show me a prominent conservative who hasn’t broken them.

Remember- “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

May 6, 2009 - 9:52 am 230. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Muddleman
RE: Really?

I would dare say I’ve met progressives and liberals who have a better track record of morals and ethics than most conservatives. — Muddleman

Maybe it has something to do with how you define “is”.

RE: The Big Ten

I have nothing wrong with the Ten Commandments. Overall they are a universal set of codes to try to live by. It’s not so much Christian as it is common sense to live an honest life. You can have morals and ethics and still not be religious. — Muddleman

Yeah?

And how are they ‘enforced’? Who or WHAT is the ultimate ‘Decider’? And what are the ‘carrots’ and/or ’sticks’?

Tell me. If there is no proverbial ‘after-life’, what is the motivator for doing what is ‘good’?

Then again, what IS ‘good’? Who decides?

As I said in my earlier comment, I have YET to see the atheists come forward with a set of ‘rules’ for living.

Maybe you’ll be a first.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. About those ‘false prophets’. I think one is sitting in the Oval Office at this very moment.

Did you help put him there?

May 6, 2009 - 10:10 am 231. G Alston:

#230 Pelto — Tell me. If there is no proverbial ‘after-life’, what is the motivator for doing what is ‘good’?

Politics is about consensus, reaching agreement, and moving society forward doing the least amount of harm.

Your personal beliefs regarding gods may motivate your vote and/or feelings of adequacy in candidates or positions, but theological discussion usurping and masquerading as political discussion is, at best, counter-productive.

Is it possible that you can take your angels dancing on pinheads (like you) arguments to a place where these are more fully appreciated?

May 6, 2009 - 10:48 am 232. Chuck Pelto:

TO: G Alston
RE: Yeah…Right….

Politics is about consensus, reaching agreement, and moving society forward doing the least amount of harm. — G Alston

Please explain away the violation of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, as proposed in THIS item

Obviously, freedom of speech means nothing to the likes of you, if you support that legislation.

RE: Personal Beliefs

Your personal beliefs regarding gods may motivate your vote and/or feelings of adequacy in candidates or positions, but theological discussion usurping and masquerading as political discussion is, at best, counter-productive. — G Alston

As I explained to Muddleman, ‘morals’ mean something.

He has yet to show me his list of ‘morals’. And so I ask YOU to show me yours. I’ve shown you mine.

RE: Heh

Is it possible that you can take your angels dancing on pinheads (like you) arguments to a place where these are more fully appreciated? — G Alston

In the words of the immortal dread pirate Roberts….

Get used to disappointment.

Or are you going to claim, under this proposed legislation—should it be signed into law—that I’m ‘threatening’ you?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Those who want the Government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination. -- Harry S. Truman]

May 6, 2009 - 11:11 am 233. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Okay….

….it’s confirmed that if you mention ‘abortion’ as being equal to ‘murder’, the ‘moderators’ here will delete your post.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Let the 'fun and games' begin.....]

May 6, 2009 - 11:12 am 234. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. How do I say that?

Because I posted such a comment to Muddleman TWICE, regarding matters of ‘morals’ and each time it has been ‘moderated’ into the ‘disappeared’ area.

May 6, 2009 - 11:16 am 235. Bilgeman:

#234 Chuck Pelto:

I’ve had two replies moderated into oblivion as well.

Just pointed out that Carrie Prejean’s photos are the strongest arguments in defense of traditional hetero marriage that could be made, while similar photos of Perez Hilton would be the strongest arguments against homosexual marriage possible.

May 6, 2009 - 11:41 am 236. G Alston:

#232 — Please explain away the violation of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, as proposed in THIS item.

Why would I defend such idiocy? It’s ridiculous and the originators ought to be drawn and quartered.

He has yet to show me his list of ‘morals’. And so I ask YOU to show me yours. I’ve shown you mine.

His morals and yours seem to be largely the same where it counts; he just doesn’t arrive there via christianity. Big deal. It’s not germane. You guys are talking and he hasn’t offered to drive over to your place and do something terrible to your cat.

Or are you going to claim, under this proposed legislation—should it be signed into law—that I’m ‘threatening’ you?

Although not on display in this post, you do have a threatening undertone of violence in many of your posts. I’m not convinced that this sort of online behaviour translates into random physical (weapons in a shopping mall) violence, but it certainly makes you seem like someone who isn’t used to winning arguments on their merit. Do you still beat your wife?

May 6, 2009 - 12:10 pm 237. G Alston:

#232 Pelto —

In #236 I said: “Why would I defend such idiocy? It’s ridiculous and the originators ought to be drawn and quartered.”

You *do* get the humour of this statement, right?

May 6, 2009 - 12:30 pm 238. goy:

@223. Eric Florack: – what did the Democrats do to win this most recent election? They went to their base, that’s what. … They weren’t accepting their moderates… they pushed them out.

I agree with you 100% Eric. Moran is dead wrong on this, just as he’s gotten so many other things dead wrong. Unfortunately, in hoping we can mirror the results recently achieved by the left, through a re-dedication to and focus on core conservative values, I think we’re both wrong too. There is simply more to it.

First, Rick is wrong simply because a conservative, Republican Form of Government – as guaranteed by our Constitution – will never be restored by trying to present conservative, republican policies as “moderate”. They’re not moderate. Those policies are still as radical as they were when the Constitution was first written.

Unfortunately, it may turn out that those policies are too radical to survive any more than 10 or 12 generations of human social evolution – at least not without much more attentive care than conservatives – i.e., classical liberals – have applied to preserving those policies these past 75 years or so.

We live in a very different world from the one that made Ronald Reagan electable – let alone capable of achieving his historic landslide victory. Our so-called “leadership”, our society and our culture all seem to be slouching back toward the pre-Enlightenment, pre-Democracy era; we’ve simply traded the rule of the Church for the rule of the Climate Crisistians, and traded a despotic monarchy for a kleptocracy beholden to a global oligarchy. Our economy stands at the brink of ruin. Our academic institutions are a joke. And our electorate has now passed a critical tipping point, where the majority now contributes nothing toward the price of civilization. That’s the world we have, which is very different from the one we wish we had.

This world was created by decades of compromise with the moral adolescents of the left and their narcissistic, power-hungry enablers who have no ideological scruples at all. Socialism’s long march through the institutions is now within clear sight of its goal. We came to this world relatively peacefully, because like doting parents we kept giving an inch here and an inch there. But we can never go back peacefully. Not without accountability. Not without restoring balance to the entrenched, Fifth Column media. Not without wresting academia from the control of marxist ideologues. Not without extricating ourselves from the global, collectivist oligarchy that helps corrupt our institutions. And, most importantly, not without finding a way to instill in a majority of Americans the sense of individual responsibility that is necessary to the preservation of individual liberty.

The left is presently gloating over the ongoing construction of their Brave New World. And they’re using every means available to ensure that it remains as they’ve coerced it. They are convinced – based on a distorted, adolescent moral mind – that they are setting human society “back” on the right course. They fail to see that they’re sailing directly back into the shores from which we embarked in 1776 – where a despot rules and the extent of the people’s “liberty” is to obey. So on top of the tasks needed to correct our course, we have the additional burden of having to actively fight a dominant ideology that simply can’t be reasoned with using a comprehensive, mature morality.

So even though one could argue that it’s a start, fixing all this isn’t going to be achieved by focusing a political party on a set of core values, no matter how valid those values may be. It’ll only be achieved once we recognize what got us here – what has probably brought every culture to this point, IMHO. And, having done that, we need to undo all the compromise that has systematically destroyed what raised America to the pinnacle of spiritual freedom, economic vitality, military power and cultural dominance in only 200 years. Without a plan to ensure that restoration, no political party will ever get this ship sailing back in the right direction.

May 6, 2009 - 12:46 pm 239. Ratatosk:

Couldn’t you possibly get a political platform that was conservative, without having the people who are screaming about gays and abortion getting airtime?

I mean, really, the party doesn’t need to become moderate. It needs to become conservative. Part of being conservative is LESS government in the private lives of others. Not senators trying to force feeding tubes in people’s noses, not politicians talking about Constitutional Amendments defining marriage, not by Federal goons busting down medical marijuana groups and handcuffing old dying people. None of that is Conservative. Rather it IS *crazy*.

Conservative Government means small government dealing only with the basic necessities. Get BACK to that, leave the Moral Majority in the voting booths rather than sticking them on a podium.

You don’t need to become ‘moderate’… you need to become ‘conservative’.

May 6, 2009 - 2:03 pm 240. Sebastian Shaw:

John McCain pandered to LaRaza, but they chose the real Democrat, Barack Obama over the fake one, McCain. See, this is where “moderation” gets you: You lose. Badly.

How many times did John McCain say, “my friends” in his speeches? It seems like his only real friends are other RINO’s & the Democrats. What does that say about John McCain?

Well, he had a daughter, Meghan McCain who claims to be a “progressive Republican”–who like her father–bashes Conservatives. What does this get the young Ms. McCain? The spotlight like her father.

It seems being a so-called moderate Republican is really a Democrat in disguise who craves being in the media spotlight as their spit turns into an aura of light. Their spit also transforms into a microphone to give the so-called moderate Republican a platform to bash Conservatives.

Being a moderate Republican is about a sexy as being patient of a gynecologist. Yet the moderate Republicans are seduced by the spotlight when it’s really an examining table looking at the moderates’ privates at their expense.

May 6, 2009 - 5:02 pm 241. bobbcat:

Bilgeman:”Do you know how to tell when you’ve been chumped?”

There are those who believed that McCain was a sacrificial lamb.

Meantime, where are those who are for fiscal conservatism, second-amendment rights, strong national security, pro-choice and not opposed to gay marriage supposed to lodge themselves? The major two are basically Dems and Dems lite. The system is not set up to fund more than two major parties.

It’s time for a revolution of some sort………

May 6, 2009 - 8:03 pm 242. FrankSnyder:

I suspect that the writer of this column wasn’t covering politics in 1980. Reagan was not the “big tent” candidate — George Bush and Gerald Ford had that distinction. Reagan was, if you recall, the right-wing nut job whom Democrats desperately hoped would get nominated so that moderates would flock to Jimmy Carter.

Reagan “tolerated” moderates just so far as they voted in favor of his starkly ideological views. He bulldozed those who waffled. He didn’t change his policies to accommodate the “moderates.” They had to accommodate themselves to him.

The pendulum of American policy swings between freedom and statism. A party with free-market, anti-statist principles will sometimes (not always) win. Such a party can tolerate half-hearted fellow-travelers, so long as they support its positions, whether out of conviction or prudence. But a party that changes its principles to accommodate everyone isn’t going anywhere. We’ve already had a party that tried that. They were called the “Whigs.”

May 6, 2009 - 8:55 pm 243. Bilgeman:

#241 Bobbcat:
“There are those who believed that McCain was a sacrificial lamb.”

Uh, no….he was the nominee that convinced enough GOP primary voters to thinking that he would be the best candidate.

THEY were the lambs, Bo-peep, and they’re being slaughtered now.

But I guess this answers my questions:

” What interests me though, is your assertion that “Senator Top Gun the Maverick” wasn’t “moderate enough” for the “moderates”, and that they voted for the Alleged Hawaiian…
How’s that been working out for you “moderate” folks?…
Which of his many, many smaller government/lower taxes, “fiscally conservative” agendas have been “turning y’all’s crank”…
…”Do you know how to tell when you’ve been chumped?” ”

It’s NOT working out for you Mod Squadders, your “crank” isn’t being turned, and yes, you DO know how to tell when you’ve been chumped.

A bit late in the game, but you HAVE awakened.

“Meantime, where are those who are for fiscal conservatism, second-amendment rights, strong national security, pro-choice and not opposed to gay marriage supposed to lodge themselves?”

Ain’t for me to answer for you, but I’ll tell you what…spend a spell under the “Hope and Change” regime,(and his fellow Drunken Sailor Spenders on the Hill), and see if you still feel comfortable in ‘10 and ‘12.

“It’s time for a revolution of some sort………”

If that is so, then it must begin within yourself.

Like Friend Richard, you seem to have a menu that any party you would vote for must hew to before you’d endorse them, and that just isn’t going to happen.

To think otherwise and acting upon it accordingly is how you end up voting against the pro-lifers and thereby getting a government that taxes and regulates the very air you breathe,(you’re exhaling a GREENHOUSE GAS!!!!!).

I have appreciated this exchange, though.

Here you are, your “moderate” self, and yet just a wee bit over 100 days into the Age of Obama, and you’re now ready to man the barricades…

You must admit that IS worthy of a chuckle, isn’t it?

May 7, 2009 - 6:43 am 244. Eric Florack:

Couldn’t you possibly get a political platform that was conservative, without having the people who are screaming about gays and abortion getting airtime?

And what, exactly would be conserved, then?

Politics is not a game unto itself. Ideally, Politics is in the end a reflection of our values, and our culture. What you’re saying is, that we shoudl ive up our values so as to win the political game. Even assuming that works…. (And McCain shows it doesn’t) to what end, then, have we won?

May 7, 2009 - 7:39 am 245. G Alston:

#244 — And what, exactly would be conserved, then?

These articles are painting a very clear picture. There are two groups who are anti-socialist: republicans and conservatives. The republicans tend to concentrate on economics and related issues. The conservatives busy themselves with culture wars of their own invention; they invent perjorative terms like “RINO” to describe republicans.

The question then becomes one of who gets the keys. An uneasy truce has existed to date. It appears that this uneasy truce is now coming to an end. Clearly if the anti-socialists wish to be a viable party it will have to choose which of these factions is more relevant, which one is most likely to be successful.

The answer, Florack, is simple: freedom and liberty. Sorry, but no amount of you twisting words is going to make telling women what to do with their bodies sound like freedom and liberty. No amount of twisting will disguise religious condemnation of gays as an argument for conserving a way of life — unless your way of life hinges on denying freedom of choice and liberty to those whom you spit upon.

If anything the anti-socialist position ought to be inline with that of the founding fathers. That is, along the lines of “I will defend to the death your right to say that whith which I disagree.” Condemning gays certainly isn’t part of that noble tradition. Neither is telling women what to do with their bodies. It *ought* to be “I don’t agree with what you are choosing to do but I will defend to the death your right to choose for yourself.” That’s a tradition worth conserving.

Instead, Florack, you culture warriors are revealing yourselves to be little more than a modern version of the same mentality that drove the Inquisition. You are twisting and abusing the great American tradition to deny freedom to others.

Who are the real conservatives here again?

May 7, 2009 - 8:48 am 246. Blackwell:

#244:

Our values are freedom and liberty. Those are inconsistent with using police to enforce religious or social beliefs on everyone else because we think we know better. The “anti-gay and anti abortion” crowd is only “conserving” an ever shrinking part of the electorate. Meanwhile, the values they presumably share with most Americans-thrift, productivity, paying taxes as needed for common good not common waste and indulgence–are being trashed. The schism caused by these “social one-issue” types has enabled the people that disdain every value you treasure to come into power.

Would you deny a seat on the lifeboat to someone that can help you launch it–thus drowning everyone–simply because he believes in abortion as allowed by law?

May 7, 2009 - 9:37 am 247. goy:

Alston and Blackwell – clearly, neither of you understands what conservatism is all about, likely due to the fact that you’re so confused about these two wedge issues. So you’ve constructed convenient straw men to rail against – neither of which is accurate. In particular, last time I looked, gays were not accusing the most reviled conservative presently living – Dick Cheney – of “condemning gays” or being “anti-gay”. Quite the reverse, actually.

The fact is that abortion is not currently allowed by any law. Rather, it is presently – and only relatively recently – recognized as a “fundamental right” per judicial fiat, based on a tortuous and very novel interpretation of the “right to privacy” that is clearly not in harmony with the intent of the Constitution as originally ratified by the Founders. That document clearly states that all questions of right and authority not addressed therein are to be left to the individual States or to the People, themselves.

Statutory redefinition of marriage to include gay and lesbian, same-sex couples likewise suffers from essentially this same stigma. Where that redefinition has been implemented through judicial fiat, the will of the People is ignored, and controversy ensues – building to conflict. Some States’ legislatures have finally taken to addressing this issue in a manner compatible with the Republican Form of Government guaranteed by our Constitution. That is, they are voting on legislation aimed at resolving this question at the level the Constitution requires such questions to be resolved – by the States, or the People, themselves and NOT by 9 unelected individuals in robes.

My understanding of the conservative position on these issues is that the letter of the Constitution be honored in resolving any conflicts that arise from them. And no one is denying another’s “right” by insisting that our fundamental law – our Constitution – be honored to the letter.

The overwhelming threat to our Republic at the moment is that fact that – like emotional and intellectual adolescents – the moral adolescents of the American left lack the patience required to see their chosen ideologies realized in a manner that conforms to the fundamental law of the nation that guarantees their freedom. Leftists and self-labeled “liberals” simply don’t like the fact that it’s more difficult to live within the constraints and the requirements of Constitutional lawmaking.

So, when one doesn’t have the votes – as BHO admitted in the context of questions about firearm confiscation – it’s much easier and faster to litigate that which one lacks popular support to legislate. Much easier to divine a new right out of whole, indecipherable, legalese cloth than to go through the grueling and time-consuming process of Constitutional Amendment. Ultimately – at least among those serious individuals worthy of consideration – I believe this is the conservative position on these issues.

Conservatives will naturally fight to conserve the definition of an institution like heterosexual marriage, which has stood for some 5000 years and which is a cornerstone of civilization. That doesn’t make them “anti-gay”. Similarly, conservatives will naturally fight to preserve innocent life once it’s conceived. That doesn’t make them “anti-choice” or “anti-privacy”. Those epithets only have meaning within the carefully constructed and lovingly nurtured 2 + 2 = 5 world we now inhabit due to decades of argumentum ad temperantiam compromise with the moral adolescents of the left.

The PROBLEM – and this goes to Ratatosk’s point, I think – is that instead of responding with exactly this position, conservatives allow themselves to be prematurely dragged into a debate on the issue itself. They are then easily labeled “anti-gay” or “anti-choice”, as though that were the crux of the question, when it’s not. The question is how those issues are to be resolved in a Constitutional Republic. Back out the compromise and return to truly Constitutional lawmaking, and epithets like “anti-gay” and “anti-choice” completely lose all meaning, along with the associated straw man fallacies about conservatives, as constructed by Alston and Blackwell, above.

May 7, 2009 - 11:15 am 248. Bilgeman:

#245 G Alston:
“If anything the anti-socialist position ought to be…“I will defend to the death your right to say that whith which I disagree.””

Oh please!
Far from dying for it, you won’t even VOTE for a candidate with whom you share every other position BUt abortion and gay rights.
At least that’s what your rhetoric here tells me.

Haven’t you already betrayed your anti-socialist principles by tacitly buying into the Left’s definition of “Hate Speech”?
(Conveniently aimed at opposing political viewpoints, too…surprising, that).

That has been the genius of their attack against us…very chess-like, established the supporting pieces, and then send in the attcking pieces.
And they’ve hung you up on single-issue pegs that will cause you to vote against what you KNOW to be your own best interest.

In our earlier exchange, up at #184, when you said that you didn’t know how to fix the Big Tent, I replied:

“My answer would be to free your mind, and your ass will follow.”

Do you not see how, with these two “threads” of issues that you keep bringing up, they have ensnared your thinking?

And since it works, you will never, ever hear the end of it.

Until you see it for the cynical mind-control mechanisms that they are, you will never be free of them.

The proof of the pudding lies in the answer to two simple personal questions:

1) Are you homosexual?

and

2) Are you a female?

If the answer to both is “no”, then why should you care to the extent that you do about these particular issues?

If the answer is “yes” to one, then why does the other issue so occupy you?

If the answer is “yes” to both, then why are you here at PJM?

See what I mean?

May 7, 2009 - 11:16 am 249. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Blackwell
RE: Another Contradiction

Our values are freedom and liberty. Those are inconsistent with using police to enforce religious or social beliefs on everyone else because we think we know better. — Blackwell

Only if it goes YOUR way, eh.

What was it a while back about a minister who was praying with a group on a public sidewalk in Wichita was arrested by police.

This sort of two-faced, i.e., hypocritical behavior is common amongst those who claim to be ‘liberal’. And it’s been going on for quite some time, as indicated by the following quote from an article in 1999….

Chicago’s rebuff of the Southern Baptist Convention’s plans to meet in the Windy City next summer, on the grounds that the large Christian group might foment “hate crimes” against minorities, is sounding alarm bells among Christians who fear that merely speaking openly about their core religious beliefs will soon be considered a crime. — WorldNetDaily, 3 Dec 1999

And as for forcing one’s beliefs on others…..

….try THIS.

And THIS.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....and Blackwell isn't going to enjoy the exposure.]

May 7, 2009 - 11:26 am 250. Bilgeman:

#246 Blackwell:
“Those are inconsistent with using police to enforce religious or social beliefs on everyone else because we think we know better.”

Quite, would you kindly ask the Gay Lobby to cease doing exactly that?

Y’know…homosexuality was medically considered a mental illness as short a time ago as the 1970s, when the DSM was amended.

You’re putting a lot of faith in a conclusion of psychiatric “soft” science of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.
Maybe it’s time that that amendment should be revisited and re-evaluated.

May 7, 2009 - 11:50 am 251. goy:

- Maybe it’s time that that amendment should be revisited and re-evaluated.

This is very likely happening right now. And not in a good way.

The individuals that have been put in charge of the APA’s Division 44 – particularly Ken Zucker (who promotes “conversion therapy” for transgendered individuals) and Ray Blanchard (who invented the fake mental illness of “autogynephilia”) – are notorious for not only pathologizing gender identity but conflating it with sexual orientation/preference as well. Both harbor views that are in direct conflict with the mainstream research, as well as basic common sense, in this area.

It’s not at all unlikely – if the professional records of these two are any indication – that DSM-V will once again include references to homosexuality as a mental disorder, in the context of prescribed treatment for genetically or hormonally transgendered individuals. This would set an irrational and very dangerous precedent (characteristics that pervade the DSM, given that there is virtually no real science, per se, involved in the field of psychiatry) – not only for transgendered individuals, but for gay and lesbian individuals as well.

May 7, 2009 - 12:55 pm 252. G Alston:

#247 — Rather, it is presently – and only relatively recently – recognized as a “fundamental right” per judicial fiat, based on a tortuous and very novel interpretation of the “right to privacy” that is clearly not in harmony with the intent of the Constitution as originally ratified by the Founders.

Good luck with the “judicial activist” argument, seeing how a number of people a great deal smarter than you are have failed for many years now to make hay with it. Maybe it’s because they’re wrong. QED.

#247 — Conservatives will naturally fight to conserve the definition of an institution like heterosexual marriage, which has stood for some 5000 years and which is a cornerstone of civilization. That doesn’t make them “anti-gay”.

Nope. It’s purely a religious phenomenon. See Pelto #249. Who demonstrates against gays marrying? It’s not the left. It’s not the non religious. It’s not the traditionalists. It’s the rabidly religious. Activist pastors, if you will. (You have to laugh here. It’s funny. The perfect counter to the canard about activist judges, but this is actually true. Even says so right in Pelto’s link.)

For the longest time I didn’t catre if gays got hitched; it’s not my affair either way. On the other hand I’m slowly becoming an avid and enthusiastic supporter — anything which causes fundmentalist christian wingnuts to come unhinged is a good thing.

#248 — Haven’t you already betrayed your anti-socialist principles by tacitly buying into the Left’s definition of “Hate Speech”?

No such thing as hate speech.

If the answer is “yes” to both, then why are you here at PJM?

Gay females can’t possibly be anti-socialist? Who knew?

#249 — What was it a while back about a minister who was praying with a group on a public sidewalk in Wichita was arrested by police.

You need to get on the same page as goy #247 who seems to claim that the gay thing isn’t a religious argument. According to the article you reference it is nothing BUT religious.

May 7, 2009 - 2:38 pm 253. Chuck Pelto:

TO: goy
RE: Actually….

…G Alston is half-right.

The problem is that G Alston, and very few others, are willing to accept the idea put forward so long ago….

Those who would treat politics and morality apart will never understand the one nor the other. — John, Viscount Morley of Blackburn

Herein, I say ‘politics’ is the equivalent of ‘law’, as politicians make the ‘Law of the Land’.

Just look around you. At the likes of G Alston, Blackwell, OOMO-cum-Anonymous, Jack, et al. None of them can grasp the connection between the two.

And from whence does ‘morality’ arise? Anything to do with ‘religious beliefs’?

These people are the proverbial fools described time and again in Proverbs.

And since they’ve got to the numbers that can elect officials…..guess what…..

….your watching it happen around you.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Power does not corrupt man; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power. -- George Bernard Shaw]

May 7, 2009 - 2:48 pm 254. Avitar:

Short answers is that Republicans do tolerate “moderates” just not Liberals unworkable ideas. History is the conservatives guide and we now have 29 years of scar tissue on our backs for trusting liberals in our party.

I remind you that you are being silly. Reagan trusted George H W Bush, a moderate as is George W Bush, but even he had to run with a turncoat liberal “Republican” congressman trying to split the party and deliver the Presidency back to Jimmy Carter.

The 1994 Contract with America would have been 1000% more successful if not for Liberals like Nancy Johnson sabotaging Newt Gingrich at every turn. We could have had six years of balanced budgets and domestic energy filling 80% or more of our needs by now if she had not knowingly entertained 100% false charges against Speaker Gingrich but she wanted a leadership that could be rolled by her liberal special interests.

May 7, 2009 - 2:51 pm 255. Chuck Pelto:

TO: G Alston
RE: Yeah?

#248 — Haven’t you already betrayed your anti-socialist principles by tacitly buying into the Left’s definition of “Hate Speech”?

No such thing as hate speech. — G Alston

Please explain away THIS.

It’s a bill being considered by Congress right now.

And then there is THIS.

Another such bill before Congress right now.

Are you just totally ignorant? Or worse?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Ignorance is when you don't know something and other people find out.]

May 7, 2009 - 2:54 pm 256. Chuck Pelto:

TO: G Alston
RE: It’s Not Just a Religious Think

You need to get on the same page as goy #247 who seems to claim that the gay thing isn’t a religious argument. According to the article you reference it is nothing BUT religious. — G Alston

Or have you failed to notice that the vast majority of victims of HIV/AIDS are homosexuals, or IV drug users?

Did you ever see that picture from the All Gay Chorus of San Francisco? Where all the original members wore white shirts and all the ‘replacements’ wore black?

A very ‘dark’ picture that.

And, still and all, there is no cure for HIV/AIDS. Like all RNA-virus infections….it eludes modern science.

So, if you look at it from a scientific perspective, homosexuality is definitely NOT a good thing to do in society.

What’s my point, here?

You’re more stupid than you appear….once people start thinking about it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Stupid, adj., Ignorant and proud of it.]

May 7, 2009 - 3:00 pm 257. Chuck Pelto:

TO: G Alston
RE: Sooooo…..Tell US….

…vis-a-vis the first link I offered in item #255 (above)….

….do you support pedophilia?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I seem to recall that the APA was supporting it in their journal about 10 years ago, according to reports I recall seeing at the time.

May 7, 2009 - 3:56 pm 258. Bilgeman:

#251 goy:
“This would set an irrational and very dangerous precedent (characteristics that pervade the DSM, given that there is virtually no real science, per se, involved in the field of psychiatry) – not only for transgendered individuals, but for gay and lesbian individuals as well.”

Perhaps it would, but could it be that the dangerous precedent was set already when the DSM was amended to what it presently is?

There was a lot of “defining deviancy downward” going on contemporaneously with the APA’s action then, so much so that no less a knuckle-dragging Rethuglikkkan Moral Majoritarian than Daniel Patrick Moynihan felt compelled to comment upon it.

It does cause one to wonder if these folks really DO have something wrong with them, and have been left untreated for all these years.

I would draw your attention to the fact that prior to any APA or DSM ever being ginned up, society considered and called such people “pUrverts” and “deviunts”.

(Sorry for the spelling, but the moderator here doesn’t seem to like those words).

It certainly bears thinking about.

May 7, 2009 - 4:45 pm 259. G Alston:

Pelto — And from whence does ‘morality’ arise? Anything to do with ‘religious beliefs’?

And here we were just talking about the underlying problem with the current situation — the inability of the “social conservatives” (religious nutbars, mostly) and mainstream republicans to mesh cleanly — is the insistence on the conservative’s part to interject religion.

Commentary on CNN today was interesting; the question was whether the GOP would become more moderate as per Colin Powell and gain national political traction or circle the ideological wagons as per Rush Limbaugh and become a regional party.

OK… so we all know which camps we’re in, don’t we?

May 7, 2009 - 4:46 pm 260. Bilgeman:

#252 G Alston:
“No such thing as hate speech. ”

I’ll remember that…you should too. Whenever a Leftist or a Moderate assails a Conservative’s political position as being based on “Hate”…that will be an automatic loss for that person, right?

“Gay females can’t possibly be anti-socialist? Who knew?”

Apparently, they can’t.

If they embrace their gayness and their femininity more tightly than their anti-socialism, and there are no other options, then by default, they are socialist.

May 7, 2009 - 4:54 pm 261. G Alston:

#257 Pelto — So, if you look at it from a scientific perspective… [snip]

That certainly explains the thousands of scientists marching in anti-gay protests all over the country.

May 7, 2009 - 4:55 pm 262. goy:

@252. G Alston: - Good luck with the “judicial activist” argument…
Thanks.

Oh, wait. I didn’t actually pose that argument. You just lied and pretended I did.

One wonders if you people can even dream without a straw man to guide you. Given your fantasies about marriage, the answer would appear to be… “no”.

Nope. It’s purely a religious phenomenon.
I suppose that explains all those ‘religious’ Justices of the Peace, huh.

May 7, 2009 - 6:08 pm 263. Chuck Pelto:

TO: G Alston
RE: Heh

That certainly explains the thousands of scientists marching in anti-gay protests all over the country. — G Alston

And you think all scientists are ‘apolitical’?

Two words….

“Global Warming”.

’nuff said.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....you're denser than advertised.]

May 7, 2009 - 6:11 pm 264. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: G Alston

the insistence on the conservative’s part to interject religion. — G Alston

Obviously the vaunted American public education system has failed US all. Look at this. G can neither (1) read English nor (2) make a cognitive connection between morality and law.

And, just for sauce on their goose, they don’t understand that atheism is a religious belief too.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[There's no known cure for just plain 'dumb'.]

May 7, 2009 - 6:18 pm 265. G Alston:

Pelto — (2) make a cognitive connection between morality and law.

Morality and law are one argument; arguing that morality is solely the result of religion is another.

And no, atheism isn’t a religious belief.

May 7, 2009 - 6:28 pm 266. goy:

@258. Bilgeman: - Perhaps it would, but could it be that the dangerous precedent was set already when the DSM was amended to what it presently is?

No. The dangerous precedent is the DSM itself. Reasons abound, but they have little to do with political ideology and everything to do with pharmaceutical companies wanting to sell drugs for every imaginable (and imagined) malady, psych clinics wanting to be paid irrespective of whether they provide a service, insurance companies needing quantifiable billing criteria in a realm where very little can actually be quantified, psychiatrists wanting cover for the drug prescription mistakes they make and the APA wanting what the AMA and most other elites want: power over other people.

Irrespective of what society may have convinced itself to believe at any previous point in time – and cognizant of the fact that the mob tends to fear what it doesn’t understand, and tends to attack what it fears – there’s no scientific or other evidence of which I’m aware to suggest that gay, lesbian, transgender, transsexual, intersexed or other normal variations of human gender and sexual orientation fall into the category of perversion or deviance. Society also once thought the Earth was flat and had a satellite called the Sun at one time as well. Thankfully, humans have the capacity to learn.

May 7, 2009 - 7:06 pm 267. goy:

- … atheism isn’t a religious belief.

Sure it is. Just as Climate Crisistianity is a religious belief. Without proof, adherence requires faith.

May 7, 2009 - 7:08 pm 268. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: G Alston

And no, atheism isn’t a religious belief. — G Alston

I rest my case….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Denial is not a river in Egypt. Or, if it is, it flows through G Alston’s brain, in stead of regular cogent thought…..

May 7, 2009 - 7:13 pm 269. sheesh:

250. Bilgeman: . . . “Y’know…homosexuality was medically considered a mental illness as short a time ago as the 1970s, when the DSM was amended . . . Maybe it’s time that that amendment should be revisited and re-evaluated.”

Normally I think you’re just insipid, but every now and then you take it all the way up to flat-out stupid. This one sets a new personal best. Let me put it in terms you will appreciate, take you down memory lane . . . If you were standing in front of me right now I’d slap you like a drunk hooker.

Tell you what, as long as you’re strapping on the WayBack Machine, swing by the Moron Temple circa 1978 and tell us what they’re doing. Re-evalute for us. Effing schmuck.

May 7, 2009 - 7:33 pm 270. Bilgeman:

#259 G Alston:
“Commentary on CNN today was interesting; the question was whether the GOP would become more moderate as per Colin Powell and gain national political traction or circle the ideological wagons as per Rush Limbaugh and become a regional party.

OK… so we all know which camps we’re in, don’t we?”

Yes, we do.
Your mind is enslaved.

Don’t you think it a bit peculiar that you take CNN’s conclusions on the GOP’s future as authoritative?

Re-read what you wrote and what I quoted just above.
Go on, I’ll wait.

Do you not see where they spoon-fed you what they wanted you to think and then you carried it in and dumped it on the floor here?

CNN as much as dictated that if the party follows the Rush camp, CNN will treat it as a regional party, if the GOP blows it out its’ Colin, CNN will not say bad things about it, (until campaign season).

But let me point out some facts to you…

Rush Limbaugh has millions of listeners across the USA because people agree with, or are entertained by him.

No-one listens to Colin Powell much anymore, and frankly they should have stopped listening to him in early 1991, when he wussed out about the Iraqi “Human Shrapnel Magnets” on the Highway of Death in Kuwait.

So CNN could conceivably have it exactly backwards, and that by being more “Rush”, the GOP would resurge.

Now ask yourself this…deep down inside, where do you think the producers of CNN WANT the GOP to go?
And do you think that they WANT the GOP to be victorious?

May 7, 2009 - 7:51 pm 271. Bilgeman:

#265 G Alston:
“And no, atheism isn’t a religious belief.”

Would you settle for the term:

“an ANTI-religious belief”?

Without evidence that God does NOT exist, you CHOOSE to BELIEVE that he does NOT.

It’s Faith, perverted and deviant, but it is Faith all the same.

Are you beginning to catch a theme here?

Normal and healthy human drives twisted into self-destructive ends for short term irresponsible pleasures?

May 7, 2009 - 7:57 pm 272. sheesh:

271. Bilgeman . . . “Are you beginning to catch a theme here? Normal and healthy human drives twisted into self-destructive ends for short term irresponsible pleasures?”

Yeah, I caught that theme early on with you, 3000. But you better be careful . . . Your shame is showing. I suggest the seminary. Or the merchant morons. Either way you’ll be surrounded by boys just like you.

May 7, 2009 - 9:43 pm 273. Blackwell:

Pelto at 249

The GOP stands for principles–in addition to allowing consenting corporations to do merge while insisting that people cannot. It needs to return to them to win votes and govern fairly, and that is not acomplished by acting as badly as the other side. Ask Caeser, Sulla, Marias or Pompey.

There is no inconsistency in demanding that the GOP act like adults even if one party trends to voter fraud, deficit spending and waste.

And recognizing this is not softheaded: the GOP lost precisely because it started acting like democrats had acted. After being voted into the white house for most of 40 years, and congress for a mere 12, the GOP began to treat voters as the stupid people they tell us the democrats think they are.

The GOP loss in 2006 and 2008 had nothing to do with bad behavior by the democratic party.

May 7, 2009 - 9:47 pm 274. Blackwell:

By the way Mr. Pelto, I am all for giving kids some exposure to religion to inhibit cruelty to people and animals, even if it warps their sex lives for a while, and enriches churches that don’t pay taxes.

But you don’t bring much to the table by insisting that religion is your guide to political decisions. Which religion shall determine politics? Which faction of that religion?

What does it have to do with the niagra of deficits? The schools rendered nearly non-functional by unions? The state employees leeching off tomorrow’s tax revenues while hospitals close for want of funds? It does not seem to bother you. You are worrying,like some midieval flagellant, about whether a woman you have never met should get an abortion as allowed by law, or some gay guy on the next block can get married. I can’t believe this makes sense to you.

May 7, 2009 - 11:16 pm 275. typos_R_us:

As usual, Moran misses the point. If you turn the Republican party into the Democratic party lite, Why have a Republican party? Maybe Mr. Moran wants a one party state? There is a word for that. If one party is left and the other is far left, where is the choice?

May 8, 2009 - 2:44 am 276. Eric Florack:

Sorry, but no amount of you twisting words is going to make telling women what to do with their bodies sound like freedom and liberty.

Sorry, but no amount no amount of you twisting words is going to make killing babies sound like freedom and liberty. Once you remove the cultural values from conservatism, all you have is a mere shell… meaningless and impotent, and easily identifiable… as the voters did last November.

May 8, 2009 - 5:35 am 277. Bilgeman:

Grody blog-slave:

It seems like I hit a nerve there, as Col. Pelto might put it, lost of sympathetic secondary detonations here.

“If you were standing in front of me right now I’d slap you like a drunk hooker.”

An example from your business and leisure activities?
How nice..
Your customers must have some loooong arms to reach over the top of your public toilet stall.

“Your shame is showing. I suggest the seminary. Or the merchant morons. Either way you’ll be surrounded by boys just like you.”

I’ve always gotten along rather well with the few openly gay shipmates that I’ve sailed with.

I’m very compassionate towards people who might be mentally ill, y’see, and an “-osis” in one part of their lives doesn’t necessarily impair them in other parts of their lives.

Let’s see what you’ve reacted with here…Anger, Denial, Ridicule,(with a strong dose of Projection)…what comes next?

May 8, 2009 - 5:36 am 278. Eric Florack:

But you don’t bring much to the table by insisting that religion is your guide to political decisions

I suggest that’s thin enough you can read through it. It bespeaks a large lack in your understanding of religion, for one thing.

I’ve already said in this thread, that politics is not a game unto itself. Ideally, it is a reflection of our values, and our culture. And what values are closer to us than those expressed in our religion? Assuming we take that religion and it’s moral teachings, seriously, that is.

What does it have to do with the niagra of deficits? The schools rendered nearly non-functional by unions? The state employees leeching off tomorrow’s tax revenues while hospitals close for want of funds? It does not seem to bother you.

What you seem to be missing is the underlying issue on all these points; Morality. Consider the following progression:

Entrepreneurship is a product of capitalism, and cannot exist outside that environment. Capitalism in it’s turn, is a product of freedom. Similarly, capitalism cannot exist outside an environment of freedom, which is in turn a product of morality. you’ll have arguments with the placements, I’m sure, but the point I’m making is that they are in fact linked. Notice, please, the increase in our governments immoral behavior toward it’s citizens as we move farther away from our religiosity.

May 8, 2009 - 5:53 am 279. Bilgeman:

#266 goy:
“Reasons abound, but they have little to do with political ideology and everything to do with pharmaceutical companies wanting to sell drugs for every imaginable (and imagined) malady, psych clinics wanting to be paid irrespective of whether they provide a service, insurance companies needing quantifiable billing criteria in a realm where very little can actually be quantified, psychiatrists wanting cover for the drug prescription mistakes they make and the APA wanting what the AMA and most other elites want: power over other people.”

That seems a valid criticism, and what I would cynically expect…every industry is doing the same thing, to a greater or lesser degree: protecting and expanding it’s “rice bowl”. So the Pshrinks want to push pills and get paid by treating homosexuals…why should we treat homosexuals any differently? The Pshrink Industry is coming up with doses for everybody else and for every reason under the sun.

In this particular case, they may even have a valid reason for doing so.

Like the poisoners’ motto: “The Danger is in the dosage”, the spectrum of human sexuality is populated, at both ends of the bell curve, by pathological personalities.

Giving one end of that spectrum a “protected victim” political status is tantamount to giving cover cover for all kinds of self-destructive behaviors to flourish…and let’s be honest here, the Gay world, both individually and as a whole, displays FAR more than it’s share of self- and plain old -destructive behaviors

“Irrespective of what society may have convinced itself to believe at any previous point in time – and cognizant of the fact that the mob tends to fear what it doesn’t understand, and tends to attack what it fears – there’s no scientific or other evidence of which I’m aware to suggest that gay, lesbian, transgender, transsexual, intersexed or other normal variations of human gender and sexual orientation fall into the category of perversion or deviance.”

In our political climate, do you think it would be possible to conduct or release a study that DID demonstrate exactly that, (if that’s what the evidence showed?).

Please.

And what studies were used back in the day, to determine that homosexuality was NOT a mental illness?

I’m saying that the amending of the DSM should be revisited and reviewed, that’s all.

But even by suggesting that, I mashed the blog-slave’s “flip out” button.

He would rather that we let millions of people who may have anything from a mild neurosis to a full blown sexual sociopathy walk around untreated rather than simply double-checking the evidence for what is, when you peel back the layers, the ONLY basis for these folks’ claim to normalcy.

“Society also once thought the Earth was flat and had a satellite called the Sun at one time as well. Thankfully, humans have the capacity to learn.”

Didn’t I tell you? The Earth IS flat. I sailed around it twice and I can tell you it was a hell of a time dragging an 800′ long ship across the bottom of this joint.

Your point about bad science is well taken, but bad science is not exclusively the province of the Middle Ages or the post millenial.
Back around the time the DSM was altered, we were headed for a new Ice Age, and were facing a Population Bomb.
Part of how we learn is by challenging the stuff we thought we had learned before in the light of new facts and phenomena, is it not?

May 8, 2009 - 5:58 am 280. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Blackwell
RE: Say What???!?!

Pelto at 249

The GOP stands for principles…. — Blackwell

And what does that have to do with my item at #249?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Care to share whatever it is you’re snorting?

May 8, 2009 - 6:07 am 281. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Blackwell
RE: Missing the Point….

But you don’t bring much to the table by insisting that religion is your guide to political decisions. Which religion shall determine politics? Which faction of that religion? — Blackwell

….entirely. And I suspect deliberately at that.

You’re either being obtuse or dense or much, much worse.

Which religious belief is determining politics right now?

RE: Deficits and Non-Functional Schools

What does it have to do with the niagra of deficits? The schools rendered nearly non-functional by unions? — Blackwell

Again, you are being deliberate in your ‘ignorance’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]

May 8, 2009 - 6:10 am 282. sheesh:

277 Bilgeman . . . You’re not paying attention. I said I already picked up on your theme. No need to reinforce your tendencies. You’re a perv. We all get it.

May 8, 2009 - 6:36 am 283. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Bilgeman
RE: [OT] Got It!

Let’s see what you’ve reacted with here…Anger, Denial, Ridicule,(with a strong dose of Projection)…what comes next? — Bilgeman @ Item #277

277 Bilgeman . . . You’re not paying attention. I said I already picked up on your theme. No need to reinforce your tendencies. You’re a perv. — sheesh

Looks like he chose options 1 (anger) and 3 (projection). There may have been a dash of 2 (denial) in there as well.

And notice how he’s lied to us all about going away and returning with a new ‘identity’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[If you had an identity in the first place, you'll never have an identity crisis. -- CBPelto]

May 8, 2009 - 6:53 am 284. G Alston:

#281 Pelto — Which religious belief is determining politics right now?

Funny you mention that. This came across this week:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/05/06/texas-is-only-6000-years-old/

Religion is becoming less influential among moderate republicans because this sort of thing. It’s clear that the majority of nutjob belief in the USA is rabid christians (followed only by climate wierdos.)

Which one’s worse? Hard to say.

May 8, 2009 - 7:38 am 285. sheesh:

283 Chuck Pelto and Bilgetwink . . . in time, CP, in time. I know you want to start my guessing game, but you see, I am the decider.

Now as to your womanly weeping about nasty things said . . . I suggest this: “Grow a thicker skin. Swapping barbs and insults along with the discussion is all part of the fun of the Wonderful World Wide Web.”

Now, it’s clear I have no respect for your opinions, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that you have no respect for your own. But hey, it’s not like you’ve had principles anytime in the past. Why start now?

May 8, 2009 - 7:55 am 286. Bilgeman:

#293 Chuck Pelto:
“And notice how he’s lied to us all about going away and returning with a new ‘identity’.”

Can you make any sense of it’s latest yammerings?

I suspect that it’s gone right ’round the bend and is now clinically unhinged.

May 8, 2009 - 8:14 am 287. Chuck Pelto:

TO: G Alston
RE: As If….

Religion is becoming less influential among moderate republicans because this sort of thing. — G Alston

….I didn’t know that? Heh. You’re appearing less intelligent all the time with your preaching to the choir, as we like to say. If you were intelligent, you’d have realized that it was unnecessary to waste bandwidth telling people what is blatantly obvious.

But rather, I suspect you only wanted to ‘crow’ about the sorry state of affairs in this world, thinking that everythings coming up ‘roses’ for you, not for me.

However, if you understood your ‘enemy’ better, i.e., read and understood his Book, you’d realize that we saw this coming from 2000 years ago.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Prophecy provide the proof that gives us confidence that we know the outcome. After all, we've read the end of the Book.]

May 8, 2009 - 8:30 am 288. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Bilgeman
RE: I Think….

Can you make any sense of it’s latest yammerings?

I suspect that it’s gone right ’round the bend and is now clinically unhinged. — Bilgeman

….you’re right. Between the SABOT and HEAT rounds coming from you, me, goy, Delia and some others, he’s becoming so rattled he can only ‘vent’ spleen. It’s like that incident on the Russian Front during WWII, where a group of Soviet tanks had a Nazi King Tiger disabled. But could not quite get a catastrophic kill on it because of its thick armor plate.

They kept firing at it and after a while the Nazi crew was so overwhelmed with the armor piercing rounds ricocheting off the turret that they came out dazed and confused.

We’re seeing the same sort of thing with sheesh.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The ultimate test of Life is not being the winner of a popularity contest.]

May 8, 2009 - 8:35 am 289. Bilgeman:

#284 G Alston:
” It’s clear that the majority of nutjob belief in the USA is rabid christians (followed only by climate wierdos.)

Which one’s worse? Hard to say.”

Which one has enlisted the government to tax the coal you use for heat in the winter and the CO2 you exhale?

May 8, 2009 - 8:41 am 290. goy:

@279. Bilgeman: - That seems a valid criticism, and what I would cynically expect…every industry is doing the same thing, to a greater or lesser degree: protecting and expanding it’s “rice bowl”.
Eh… sorry – no amount of “other folks do it” justifies the abuse I’ve personally observed being inflicted on individuals, clinic employees, insurance rate-payers and U.S. taxpayers through abuse of the DSM as a bureaucratic fallback, tantamount to “I was only following orders”. When you’ve actually worked in the clinical psych field for 5 or 10 years, let’s discuss all that.

- So the Pshrinks want to push pills and get paid by treating homosexuals…
Do they?

- … why should we treat homosexuals any differently?
Differently from what? Or are you saying you or someone you know is currently being treated for heterosexuality?

- … the spectrum of human sexuality is populated, at both ends of the bell curve, by pathological personalities.
That’s just something you made up. Furthermore, it’s a gross oversimplification AND a sweeping generalization that you can’t simply throw at any group you please just because you, personally, have a problem with them.

- In our political climate, do you think it would be possible to conduct or release a study that DID demonstrate exactly that, (if that’s what the evidence showed?).
Not only do I know it’s possible, but I can point you to the cast of frauds who are doing exactly what you suggest at this very moment. Only they’re not citing evidence or any actual research, rather they’ve used anecdotal, junk science in almost exactly the same way the Climate Crisistians lie about anthropogenic global warming. The problem, however, is that – as with meteorology and climate physics – you need to actually dig into the issue, deeply, to really understand the nature of the problem and, further, to understand the nature of their lies.

- And what studies were used back in the day, to determine that homosexuality was NOT a mental illness?
Better first find out what studies were used back in the day to determine that it was a mental illness. Or… is this just one of those things that “everyone knows”? While you’re at it, you should do a little research to understand how the DSM is constructed. It’s a catalog of menus, built out of mostly junk, “consensus” science which, again, is no different from the “science” used to lie about anthropogenic global warming.

- I’m saying that the amending of the DSM should be revisited and reviewed, that’s all.
And I’ve explained that it is. And not in a good way. But here… LMGTFY.

- Your point about bad science is well taken, but bad science is not exclusively the province of the Middle Ages or the post millenial.
No. That was exactly my point, but apparently I didn’t stress that enough. Junk science abounds today. Whenever you see so-called “science” which relies on consensus – as we do, for example, with things like anthropogenic global warming and vast majority of the definitions found in the DSM – you can be sure that you’ve found some. Science is not a democracy, where the majority rules. If it were the Earth would still be flat and the Sun would revolve around the Earth.

- He would rather that we let millions of people who may have anything from a mild neurosis to a full blown sexual sociopathy walk around untreated …
I think that’s an exaggerated straw man that I don’t see in his commentary. Apparently this straw man thing is more contagious than swine flu.

- … rather than simply double-checking the evidence for what is, when you peel back the layers, the ONLY basis for these folks’ claim to normalcy.
Evidence? Where? Bilge’, if this is what you truly believe, then I’ll have to tell you that you’re woefully misinformed on this topic. Gay and lesbian people exist. So do intersexed, transgendered and transsexual people exist. This has been the case since the beginning of recorded history. Because these people happen to be in the minority, it doesn’t automatically follow, as you erroneously suggest above, that they are “at the ends of the bell curve” and therefore, based on further novel but unsupportable assumptions, that they are predisposed to manifest behavior that is perverse or deviant. Science does not support that conclusion. And if we’re going to fall back on religion, not even Christianity supports that conclusion, IMHO. Variations in human emotional development, gender and sexual orientation are way too complex to be plotted on a simplistic, two-dimensional bell curve. But of course that mode of characterization appeals to someone who hasn’t taken the time to explore the subject very deeply, which is probably about 99% of the human population. And that’s all I’m going to post on the topic, since (1) there are plenty of other places to get ‘edjikated’ on the issue and (2) …

… more importantly, discussion along these lines simply falls into precisely the trap I warned about up above. You’re getting sucked into arguing the issue, rather than applying energy to the only thing that matters: determining the right way to resolve the issue – in a civilized society.

The Constitution is a marvelous thing, if only we’d use it as intended. With respect to the question of same-sex marriage, as with all other issues on which the Constitution is mute, the matter should be left up to the individual States or the People, themselves, unless sufficient support can be mustered (either way) for a Constitutional Amendment. That’s the way things (are supposed to) work in a Constitutional Republic. Not through judicial fiat. Not through federal law that creates a fundamental, but heretofore nonexistent “right” out of whole cloth by marrying the right to privacy with another new, novel interpretation of the commerce clause. But by following the simple rules outlined in the Tenth Amendment that were devised to guarantee our Republican Form of Government.

Before we move to settle the issue on that basis, all other discussion on the topic – e.g., whether or not you’re correct in assuming that all gays are secretly deviant, whacko child molesters – is a distraction which only serves to divide us based on our various (often irrational or simply baseless) preconceptions, rather than uniting us based on the manner in which we agree to disagree, i.e., Constitutionally.

May 8, 2009 - 8:57 am 291. Bilgeman:

#290 goy:
“- So the Pshrinks want to push pills and get paid by treating homosexuals…
Do they?

- … why should we treat homosexuals any differently?
Differently from what? Or are you saying you or someone you know is currently being treated for heterosexuality?”

You’re smart enough to know what I mean. The profit motive has caused an explosion in diagnosable “syndromes” that need “treatment” to a stunning degree.
Why should homosexuals be surprised that they are not targeted for marketing by the Pshrinking industry?
Isn’t that what YOU meant when you said this:

“Eh… sorry – no amount of “other folks do it” justifies the abuse I’ve personally observed being inflicted on individuals, clinic employees, insurance rate-payers and U.S. taxpayers through abuse of the DSM as a bureaucratic fallback, tantamount to “I was only following orders”. When you’ve actually worked in the clinical psych field for 5 or 10 years, let’s discuss all that.”

If it wasn’t, then by all means, let’s discuss it. I can swap tales of unseaworthy vessels on the high seas and you can dish on Quackery in the psych ward.

“… more importantly, discussion along these lines simply falls into precisely the trap I warned about up above. You’re getting sucked into arguing the issue, rather than applying energy to the only thing that matters: determining the right way to resolve the issue – in a civilized society.”

And in your opinion, revisiting and challenging the bona fides of the DSM edict that made homosexuality “Not mentally ill” is invalid?

I read some of your links, and found that there was a lot of nuanced wording about the DSM V Working group members.

What, are the ONLY members allowed to review the DSM supposed to be those who pass the LGBTQ “litmus test”?

Didn’t you assert this?

“Science is not a democracy, where the majority rules. If it were the Earth would still be flat and the Sun would revolve around the Earth.”

And by their objections to the inclusions of the Clarke people, isn;t that EXACTLY what the LGBTQ people trying to accomplish?
Stifling dissent?

But you are quite right, we are discussing the issue itself, and perhaps not in the proper forum.
I’d observe though, that it is the Gay Lobby that injects their sexuality into the political realm…not vice versa, so if politics is where they want to argue their case, then politics is where they can find their response.
And at the popular state level, that response has been pretty unequivocally against

I will take this discussion up elsewhere, but speaking to the issue, I would ask you to think about something you wrote:

“This is the 21st century challenge, if you will, for human culture now that we have reached a stage where, at least with respect to preservation of the species, gender-based roles in and of themselves – and the bifurcated manner in which we see each other in terms of gender and sexuality that has gone along with them – have become obsolete.”

Two points of contention leapt out at me.

The first is that you are speaking for the species as a whole.
You know just as well as I do that the majority of the species exists nowhere NEAR the material comfort level that we in the West and certain areas of the Far East have.
Most humans still lead lives that are nasty, brutish and short.

The second point is that our OWN happy subsistence level can revert to savagery in as little as three days without running water, electricity, and air-conditioning…toss in an uncertain food supply, and you’re right back in the Third World…was this not the lesson of post-Katrina New Orleans?

In fact, it can happen much more quickly…you can go from all the modern acoutrements of life on a cruise ship to an open lifeboat in a storm tossed sea in less than an hour.

That being undeniably the case, the biologically-based psychological programming for traditional gender roles is not something to lightly consign to obsolesence.

Here’s some honesty on my part… the theme of this, and several other essays lately has been about playing political hardball with our political opponents.

While I believe that the issue itself has merit, I am also cynical enough to see it, and to use it, for the potent political weapon that it is.

Look at the responses that it gets.

A little harsh, but hard to argue with…

May 8, 2009 - 10:36 am 292. Bilgeman:

#290 goy:
One last thing:

“- … rather than simply double-checking the evidence for what is, when you peel back the layers, the ONLY basis for these folks’ claim to normalcy.
Evidence? Where? Bilge’, if this is what you truly believe, then I’ll have to tell you that you’re woefully misinformed on this topic.”

Am I?

Okay.

But then tell me this…how do ANY of us know that we’re NOT insane?

I’d submit, and strictly from a rank layman’s POV, that the answer lies in how much ,and in what ways, we are like to, or different from, everybody else.

And if this admittedly gross oversimplification has any validity, then science, at least in the “soft” fields, is indeed mob-ruled.

So to be pragmatic about it, you’d best be on the right side of the mob, yes?

May 8, 2009 - 10:52 am 293. goy:

@291. Bilgeman: - You’re smart enough to know what I mean.
Of course I am. 136 GT, remember? Based on your comments conflating gays and lesbians with pervs and deviants, I know precisely what you were driving at.

- And in your opinion, revisiting and challenging the bona fides of the DSM edict that made homosexuality “Not mentally ill” is invalid?
You’re ignoring the question I posed about the edict that declared homosexuality a mental illness in the first place. Either way, if you’re asking my opinion I’m pretty sure I’ve already made that clear: I don’t think the DSM is a valid tool for diagnosing mental illness any more than poorly designed computer models are a valid tool for predicting long-term climate changes.

- Two points of contention leapt out at me.
There’s a section on that blog page for comments. Go nuts.

May 8, 2009 - 11:20 am 294. G Alston:

#287 Pelto — But rather, I suspect you only wanted to ‘crow’ about the sorry state of affairs in this world, thinking that everythings coming up ‘roses’ for you, not for me.

No, Chuck, it’s a travesty. I think you read far too much into what I say.

Religion is a wonderful thing and is the source of much comfort to billions. The nutjob faction (a tiny minority of the religious) is what turns people against it and are the cause of it being marginalised.

They also have broken science in a way: the Al Gore “debate is settled” is a copy/paste of the way scientists learned to treat the nutjobs trying to push creationism in schools. They finally learned that debate did little more than lend false legitimacy to the creationists idiotic positions. The Al Gore faction has managed to ramrod climate stupidity as the result of this.

If only the nutjobs had the common sense and courtesy to leave well enough alone, much of what ails politics and science would not exist.

May 8, 2009 - 12:17 pm 295. G Alston:

#262 goy — Oh, wait. I didn’t actually pose that argument. You just lied and pretended I did.

Judicial fiat, activist judges. Same argument, different variant. I’ve heard all of them. All boils down to the same argument, the claim being that the SCOTUS invented rights that weren’t there.

Either way, it’s still WRONG.

May 8, 2009 - 12:21 pm 296. Bilgeman:

#293 goy:
“You’re ignoring the question I posed about the edict that declared homosexuality a mental illness in the first place.”

Not intentionally, there were other points that I wanted to make, but didn’t want to create a MEGO uberpost.

To directly address your question:

Yes…when the DSM was first ginned up, homosexuality indeed might have been included because “just everyone knows” that they’re koo-koo.

But they had to start SOMEWHERE.

They may even have been wrong…BUT, they might also have been right.

Point is, the DSM was revised to make homosexuals “Not Crazy Anymore”.

Is that supposed to be it?

The final and definitive word was discovered, adopted, and handed down in the early 70’s, never to be revisited?

Sounds rather like a Venezuelan election for President-For-Life status, or an Al Gore “Election Recount”, huh?

“I don’t think the DSM is a valid tool for diagnosing mental illness any more than poorly designed computer models are a valid tool for predicting long-term climate changes.”

Then wouldn’t that lend MORE, rather than LESS support for refining the thing? If it’s as full of it as you say, (and i have no basis to doubt you), then give the thing an “enema” and print the resulting edition inside a matchbook cover, right?

Perverts and Deviants as a descriptor for homosexuality is a historical fact, and absent the pejorative overtones since acquired, the words’ meanings themselves may have the truth of it.

Normal, vital, and healthy human drives altered and twisted into harmful and self-destructive ends.

May 8, 2009 - 1:14 pm 297. sheesh:

296 Bilgeopath . . . “Perverts and Deviants as a descriptor for homosexuality is a historical fact, and absent the pejorative overtones since acquired, the words’ meanings themselves may have the truth of it. . . Normal, vital, and healthy human drives altered and twisted into harmful and self-destructive ends.”

You speak of homosexuals the way Mormons (used to?) speak of blacks. Look it up. It’s disgusting. Maybe not to you, though.

here’s a taste:
“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly without the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.” – the honorable Brigham Young

“”Had I anything to do with the negro , I would confine them by strict law to their own species and put them on a national equalization.”” – the prophet Joseph Smith

“”I would not want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. “Darkies” are wonderful people, and they have their place in our church. . . . Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race … and they have been ‘despised among all people.’ Joey Smith once more

And those are the tame ones! Mormon doctrine until 1978!

You’re in fine company. I’m sure Glenn Beck is whimpering with pride over your bigotry. I remind you . . . “absent the pejorative overtones since acquired, the words’ meanings themselves may have the truth of it” . . . grow the F up, you sorry, repressed homo candyass. (Nothing pejorative there, honest.)

May 8, 2009 - 2:06 pm 298. Chuck Pelto:

TO: G Alston
RE: No….

The nutjob faction (a tiny minority of the religious) is what turns people against it and are the cause of it being marginalised. — G Alston

….the real ‘nutjobs’ are the ignorant and hateful people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

You know. You see them every day…..

….when you look in the mirror.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]

May 8, 2009 - 3:30 pm 299. sheesh:

298 Pelto . . . When you look in the mirror? . . . What are you, five years old? You have the intellect and the attitude of a pre-teen. Do they let you drive in your state? Or do you let the good liberals assist you with meals on wheels?

May 8, 2009 - 4:21 pm 300. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: TARGET!!!!

“What are you, five years old? You have the intellect and the attitude of a pre-teen. Do they let you drive in your state? Or do you let the good liberals assist you with meals on wheels?” — sheesh

Folks. THAT is a catastrophic ‘kill’. How can I tell?

All the secondary detonations.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. And I suspect it’s because of my outing him over on that other thread we’ve all been on of late….

May 8, 2009 - 4:44 pm 301. Bilgeman:

#300 Chuck Pelto:
“Folks. THAT is a catastrophic ‘kill’. How can I tell?
All the secondary detonations.”

Ah-yep…I learned it that way too.

But I don’t recall so much wailing and blubbering.
What’s up with THAT?

Maybe the blog-slave is approaching that thing the Pshrinks call “Catharsis”?

May 8, 2009 - 4:53 pm 302. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Bilgeman, et al.
RE: All the Other Noises

“But I don’t recall so much wailing and blubbering.
What’s up with THAT?” — Bilgeman

That’s what few brain cells he has left bewailing their association with him.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[What would he do if he HAD a brain? -- Dorothy, from The Wizard of Oz (paraphrased)]

May 8, 2009 - 5:05 pm 303. goy:

@295. G Alston: - Judicial fiat, activist judges.
Clearly, you don’t understand the difference. Or why it’s so important.

.

@296. Bilgeman: – Yes…when the DSM was first ginned up, homosexuality indeed might have been included because “just everyone knows” that they’re koo-koo.
Might have… could have… maybe was… etc. You’re still evading the point – perhaps not intentionally, but you’re still avoiding it. You question the change to the DSM in the 70s, but you don’t seem to question what went into the definitions in the first place. I find that to be a less than consistent view.

- Then wouldn’t that lend MORE, rather than LESS support for refining the thing?
No. The concept itself is the problem. Psychoanalysis can’t be boiled down to a Chinese menu of symptoms. The fact that the thing has grown geometrically over the years should be making that fact obvious to someone by now.

Normal, vital, and healthy human drives altered and twisted into harmful and self-destructive ends.
There’s nothing scientific that supports this view.

May 8, 2009 - 5:25 pm 304. sheesh:

297 a catastrophic kill indeed . . . And yet those pesky Mormon opinions persist in the minds of latter day creeps – proof that the spirit Mountain Meadows is alive and well and living in Pajamastan. Classic avoidance behavior.

May 8, 2009 - 6:02 pm 305. Bilgeman:

Hmmmm, it seems that my favorite moderator is back.

The blog-slave can call me “a repressed homo candyass” and it posts.

But when i suggest that he retreat to his toilet stall and suck on something to make himself feel better, my post gets deleted.

Hey Mod…phuk U!

May 8, 2009 - 6:12 pm 306. Bilgeman:

#297 blog-slave:
“You speak of homosexuals the way Mormons (used to?) speak of blacks. Look it up. It’s disgusting. Maybe not to you, though.”

I’m not Mormon and I’m not Black, freak-child.
We weren’t discussing either of those groups…in fact, I don’t think either has been brought up in this entire thread, until now.

Any other irrelevancy you have to blurt forth in place of an argument, mutant one?

And btw, the conflation of Gays as oppressed Blacks is just soooooo “2008″.
That whole schtick blew away like a fart in a typhoon with the returns from California Prop 8.

BOTH groups of Americans told you to go piss up the rope.

“grow the F up, you sorry, repressed homo candyass. (Nothing pejorative there, honest.)”

I was right, you HAVE lost what little marbles you had remaining…now you’re just spewing ad hominem attacks and naked insults.

At least I can hope that you will now desist from your incredibly feeble attempts at humor.

And I hope you remembered to wrap your monitor in saran-wrap to protect it from the spittle and other substances fying at it from out of your gob.

Why don’t you crawl back to your toilet stall and suck on something?
That should make you feel better, you bugsy kook.

May 8, 2009 - 6:15 pm 307. JohnFNWayne:

How come no one asks why moderates never tolerate conservatives?

The Democrats love the extremities of their base. They are beholden to them. The Republicans treat their base like they have swine flu.

May 8, 2009 - 9:10 pm 308. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Heh

Another pair of ‘hateful’ comments deleted.

I was answering goy on his idea about…

“Normal, vital, and healthy human drives altered and twisted into harmful and self-destructive ends.
There’s nothing scientific that supports this view.” — goy @ 303

In it I mention the All Gay Chorus of San Fran, which I mentioned in item #256 of this thread. I cited the mortality rate they had experienced from AIDS.

This I followed with the every-so-hateful passage from Romans 1:21-27.

Post.

Then, after a few moment looked again at Romans 1:27 and realized that there’d been something like AIDS kicking around that Paul was writing about in HIS time.

Post.

Now I see those ‘hateful’ comments, which only spoke the truth, are ‘disappeared’.

As HalifaxCB said somewhere around here….things about AIDS, i.e., the truth, get swept under the rug.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]

May 9, 2009 - 1:42 am 309. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Bilgeman
RE: Favorite Moderator Back?

Hmmmm, it seems that my favorite moderator is back. — Bilgeman

Heh…..

…do we want to come up with a name to identify this particular cretin?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Who's in charge here?

I'm not, but I'm full of ideas. -- Dr. Who (Baker)]

May 9, 2009 - 1:45 am 310. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Bilgeman, et al.
RE: Hate Speech, Indeed

And yet those pesky Mormon opinions persist — sheesh

As was pointed out how the Californicators of the homosexual persuasion, blame all their woes on the Mormoms, sheesh manifests his hate along the same lines.

Why? I suspect because he’s ignorant AND hateful. Just like G Alston. Only he’s more ‘energetic’ about it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. If that ‘Hostile Blogger’ bill is passed into law, I wonder if they’ll use selective application of it. Otherwise, Daily Kos is going to disappear…..

May 9, 2009 - 1:50 am 311. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Bilgeman, et al.
RE: [OT] Next Time….

….I see Stephen Green at a bloggers gathering here, I think I’ll bring this matter up to him.

I suggest that if others encounter other columnists here, ESPECIALLY Roger L. Simon, they mention this interesting behavior on the part of certain moderators.

I’d like to see the moderators Rules of Engagement AND know if PJM has a way of tracking who deleted what and what the content was that caused them to delete it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]

May 9, 2009 - 1:59 am 312. Bilgeman:

#309: Chuck Pelto:
“…do we want to come up with a name to identify this particular cretin?”

How about “Phagagenda”?

What is now at #306 was what had been “poofed” earlier. I banged out #305, then re-posted the comment, and apparently Phagagenda must have been embarrassed enough by his or her blatant double-standard that he/she let it through, or another more even-handed moderator was on watch when I reposted it.

I’ve asided earlier to our Mods, asking if there’s a written comments policy here at PJM, but so far, no guidance to any kind of standard.

So I guess what is acceptable and not acceptable is left up to the discretion, and the biases, of each individual moderator.

And, like you, I’ve noticed this arbitrariness most when homosexual issues are being discussed.

May 9, 2009 - 6:10 am 313. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Bilgeman
RE: Perhaps

How about “Phagagenda”? — Bilgeman

The two that should have been #s 304 and 305, as I relate in item #308 (above) had to do with homosexuality, mortality rates therein as ’scientific evidence’ cross-referenced with Romans 1:21-27.

But the previous incident, as I captured it, related to abortion.

So, it’s more than just homosexuality that they are doing this “you can’t say that here”.

What’s the commonality? Or are there more than just one?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Ban Censorship!]

May 9, 2009 - 7:23 am 314. sheesh:

BP3K and Pelto . . .You clowns whine about things that don’t even happen. “Where’s my poosssssst? . . . He called me a candy-ass! Look, it’s right there. Mister Moderaotr are you listening? I’m gonna tell mean old mister moderator to F off only I’ll use “ph” instead of “f” . . . that’ll fix him. Did I do good, guys? Did I do good?”

But lo and behold there’s your “censored” post. Is there ANYTHING you punks won’t complain about? . . . “I’m gonna tell Roger on you!” . . . You really need to butch up and quit being such nancy boys. You’re a disgrace to your gender (assuming it’s male. I’m not convinced anymore.)

May 9, 2009 - 8:07 am 315. sheesh:

306. Bilgeman: . . . “I’m not Mormon and I’m not Black, freak-child. We weren’t discussing either of those groups…in fact, I don’t think either has been brought up in this entire thread, until now.”

The subject matter was intolerance – I believe it went something like this: “Perverts and Deviants as a descriptor for homosexuality is a historical fact, and absent the pejorative overtones since acquired, the words’ meanings themselves may have the truth of it. . . Normal, vital, and healthy human drives altered and twisted into harmful and self-destructive ends.”

Now why Mormons and blacks would be relevant? Maybe because of this:
“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly without the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.”

Call me crazy, but I see similarities there. You don’t because you’re the one guilty of such nonsense. i don’t blame you for trying to distance yourself from it, but you just can’t.

May 9, 2009 - 8:13 am 316. Bilgeman:

#315 Elmer Fudd, blog-slave:
“Now why Mormons and blacks would be relevant?”

“Call me crazy…”

Yep. you answered that one yourself.

I’d only add that you’re desperate and grabbing at straws.

Tell me this, deranged mutant, if you oppose smoking, does that make you a Nazi?

The Nazis were opposed to smoking, (they were helped along by the Allied blockade, which made good tobacco scarce).

“…but I see similarities there.”

And let’s bring it on home and frame your, uhhh, logic in your personal circumstances:

Toilet-paper holders are commonly found fixtures in toilet stalls
You ALSO are a fixture in a toilet stall, are you not?
Ergo, you must be a toilet-paper holder.

May 9, 2009 - 9:05 am 317. sheesh:

316 BM3K . . . I understand. No one likes being called out for intolerance. It’s only natural you would do everything possible to deny it. Please, continue. There are many more excuses you haven’t yet offered.

And yet another toilet reference. Congratulations, Nancy, you get a merit badge for that one. Quite the impressive sash you’re building. Reminds me of Miss California. Tell me, when are your nude photos gonna surface?

May 9, 2009 - 9:27 am 318. Bilgeman:

#317 Elmer Fudd, blog-slave 4 tolerance:
“I understand. No one likes being called out for intolerance. It’s only natural you would do everything possible to deny it.”

Yep, that must be it. I will not allow you to use the state to impose your perversion of marriage upon me, so I must be intolerant.

Does that about cover it?

Okay…so i’m intolerant of allowing the possibly mentally ill to make public policy.

And guess who my allies are in this?

A majority of Blacks and a majority of Mormons ….in California, no less.

“And yet another toilet reference.”

Not so surprising…every time I read one of your comments I get the feeling that I’m looking into a toilet bowl.

May 9, 2009 - 9:53 am 319. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Anyone
RE: [OT] Just a Thought….

….BUT….

….was ’sheesh’ around when we were dealing with OOMO?

I ask because sheesh has admitted to being a multiple-personality type. And, also, OOMO admitted to be an obese, twinkie-loving, post-operative trans-sexual, while sheesh has been manifesting a certain degree of ‘position’ suggesting he/she/it has a definite ‘issue’ with sexuality.

Additionally, OOMO manifested themselves as “Anon.” and “Anonymous” after the OOMO moniker disappeared.

It’s just a thought that maybe OOMO and sheesh are one-in-the-same.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Who are we talking to NOW, Sybil?]

May 9, 2009 - 12:21 pm 320. sheesh:

319 CHUCK PELTO . . . CAUTION: BRAINIAC AT WORK.

Geez, Chuckie, make an effort, will ya? Come on, try to keep up. Delia, perhaps you could grab one of CP’s fingertips and lead him to the SnoCone machine. Wanna SnoCone, Chuckie?

May 9, 2009 - 2:15 pm 321. Bilgeman:

#319 Chuck Pelto:
“OOMO admitted to be an obese, twinkie-loving, post-operative trans-sexual, while sheesh has been manifesting a certain degree of ‘position’ suggesting he/she/it has a definite ‘issue’ with sexuality”

oomo/ooyo/ooever admitted that? Really? I never knew, and frankly never cared.

Maybe sheesh is the woman that oomo/ooyo/ooever dreamed of being.

Really, WHOGAS?
The blog-slave is still the blog-slave, even with it’s deviant sexuality, it’s unclean acts of public self-pollution, and it’s Elmer Fudd muscle car fantasies.

For all I know it was probably once sambo hux.

If past is prologue, it’ll probably get it’s dose of masochistic jollies from the “sheesh”-puppet,then drop it, until after a while, it’s self-destructive tendencies will compel it to assume another retarded screen name and crawl back to we, it’s masters, for yet another round of contempt and abuse.

Whatever disguise it chooses to wear, you can always count on it to return to it’s special toilet stall at the truck stop.

It just can’t NOT service that old glory-hole…but for that, it would have no form of physical human contact whatsoever.

May 9, 2009 - 4:01 pm 322. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Bilgeman
RE: [OT] sheesh

If past is prologue, it’ll probably get it’s dose of masochistic jollies from the “sheesh”-puppet,then drop it, until after a while, it’s self-destructive tendencies will compel it to assume another retarded screen name and crawl back to we, it’s masters, for yet another round of contempt and abuse. — Bilgeman

Try not to get too deep into this S&M business with this poor creature.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Pretend to spank him. He might be a Pseudo-Masochist.

May 9, 2009 - 6:00 pm 323. The Famous Mo:

Rick, you are either high or…well, for your sake, let’s hope you’re just high.

We’ve been listening to the moderates for the last eight years. And we’ve gained what from it?

Two words: PRESIDENT OBAMA.

Thanks to moderate strategy, we not only lost our majority in House and Senate, but we have so few seats that we can barely meet filibuster requirements, and that’s only if we can shove Snow, Collins, and the rest of the left-leaning idiots into a broom closet during the important votes. This has gained us unsecured borders, allowing the Mexican drug wars to spill onto our cities, trillions of dollars in TARP and bail-outs and pork with no oversight and no one with any idea where the money has gone, our military and intelligence folks forced to do their jobs with both hands tied, hobbled, and blindfolded, our debt quadrupled in ObeyMe’s first 100 days and much more promised in days ahead…

Yeah, how’s that moderate strategy working for us?

You know what has been PROVEN to work? CONSERVATISM. In EVERY instance it has been allowed to be properly applied, without you moderates and liberals throwing anchors on it, it has worked beyond anyone’s wildest expectations and always to the betterment of our country.

Whereas liberalism and moderate-ism has, when left unchecked, proved an utter disaster, requiring CONSERVATISM to bail your sorry butts out of the fire. AGAIN.

May 10, 2009 - 9:55 am 324. Bilgeman:

#322 Chuck Pelto:
“Try not to get too deep into this S&M business with this poor creature.”

We draw it’s attentions simply by being what it cannot.

That’s it’s nature.

It seeks our essence, but must settle for our scorn and contempt.

Look at how it treats the females on this board.

Envious and hateful.

Deviant and perverted. The twisted little freak leads a hideous tragicomedy it calls a life.

Takes all kinds, don’t it?

May 10, 2009 - 3:09 pm 325. Lucianna:

I am a fiscal conservative, but on social issues I am very liberal. I am pro-chioce, the granddaughter of mexican immigrants, and the loving sister of a gay man that I would like to see happily married some day. I am currently without party but I would never join the GOP because no matter what I believe about fiscal responsibility and smart government spending, my opinions about choice, amnesty and the like will never be tolerated. I don’t want to be in a party that is constantly spewing vile derogatory comments at me. That’s why I left the democrats.

I think I am a good representation of younger people that could be attracted to the GOP but won’t join. For example, how can you be against big government and for government control of abortions? How can you be against big governement and for strict government control over marijuana? The government would have to be more powerful and more expensive in order to fulfill either of these goals. If you want a small government you would have to be for individual social liberty because less government leads to less government control over social issues.

Anyways, I think the libertarian party is the current home of the younger and more honest conservatives. Good luck with rebuilding the GOP, but without greater tolerance I think they are sunk.

May 10, 2009 - 5:45 pm 326. Bilgeman:

#325 Lucianna:
“I am currently without party but I would never join the GOP…”

Then why are you here?

May 11, 2009 - 6:24 am 327. sheesh:

326 Bilgesqueeze . . . “Then why are you here?”

Clearly she’s being paid by George Soros.

May 11, 2009 - 9:09 pm 328. mamma:

The problem is in the definition of “moderate”. Moderate is a relative term. The moderate of today is a very different animal than the moderate of 30 years ago.
There is nothing “moderate” about abortion, gay marriage,or amnesty for illegal immigrants. Those are all radical positions. They just seem moderate compared to the leftist lunacy of the current political climate.
So for the time being, forget the big tent. What we need now is a fortress. The Republicans need to hold the line and protect the Constitution and our civil rights.

May 13, 2009 - 6:14 am 329. mamma:

Erasmus- re: Terri Shiavo – which individual did you think needed leaving alone? The individual who was starved to death by order of the government even though she had family and friends who were willing and able to take care of her until her natural death? Or the individual who used the the government through the courts and judges to kill his useless wife so he could marry his new honey and inherit Terri’s money?

May 13, 2009 - 6:32 am 330. Marcus Aurelius:

Here’s why the GOP will remain in the sewer:

Ideological Elitism and the Demand for Thoroughbreds

Morons like Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, Coulter and the rest of the conservative cheerleading squad is so busy badmouthing everybody who doesn’t fit into their parochial and puny little notion of what a worthwhile American is are repulsed and vote Left, that’s why.

That and the GOP is seething with religious zealots and hypocrites that make Christopher Hitchens look pious by comparison.

The GOP needs to seriously clean up its act! FoxNews is an embarrassment and it’s directly associated with the political right. Their not doing us any favors.

Oct 14, 2009 - 1:29 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: