Comments on: Conservatives Suffer From “intellectual Deterioration”

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Tue, 19 May 2009 11:01:35 +0000

Mheer: Everybody knew that Saddam had violated the treaty. But prior to 9-11, Bush NEVER suggested that America should go to war against Saddam on that basis.

No Republicans were saying, prior to 9-11, that America should go to war against Saddam just to enforce the treaty.

Therefore, that "reason" is bogus.

By: Mheer

Mheer — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:43:58 +0000

Sinz54, sorry, those things you mention are not conservative values.

The invasion of Iraq was based on our membership in the UN requiring our enforcement of the UN treaty ending the Gulf War. When the UN refused to do anything themselves we should have pulled all our forces out of that part of the world and left the UN. "No entangling alliances." The UN has been a force for oppression and turmoil, never world peace. Not being a member would be a conservative value.

The invasion was not pre-emptive. Bush in his incompetency yammered on about weapons of mass destruction, but that should not have even been brought up. Iraq was in violation of the peace treaty, and subject to resumption of hostilities because they were targeting US aircraft patrolling in the no fly zone, they were not documenting the destruction of their WMD, and they were not cooperating with the inspectors. Bush could not even state the proper reasons of their violation of the peace treaty and instead stated his conclusions from those reasons. Huge political blunder. Bush had all the grace of a duck in the desert.

By the way, Bush is not a conservative, he is a liberal by my definition, so you get him. Spend, spend, spend. Bush meant well, as all liberals do, but his policies, like all liberal policies, lead to ruin.

By: Mheer

Mheer — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:14:50 +0000

Barker13, I agree with your points. No doubt that Sarah Palin is not an intellectual, but she is a better governor than Schwartzenegger ever could be. Other states could also use practical conservatism over intellectuals taxing the substance out of the economies of their states.

There is little doubt that, even though she is not a good choice for president, she would have been better than anyone else who was on the two tickets. These were really lackluster contenders. The only panel that could possibly be worse would be Carter x4.

By: balconesfault

balconesfault — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:53:13 +0000

barker wrote: "As to your shot at Sarah Palin...

"No. She's not the most "intellectual" governor out there, but I sure as hell wish she were my state's governor."

Hey - I'll swap Rick Perry for her! I do believe that Sarah is smarter than Rick.

By: Dustin Ferrell

Dustin Ferrell — Mon, 18 May 2009 12:41:29 +0000

Yes, yes, we've heard this many times before, Judge. Enough.

Republicans should just act as libertarians and remove the religious underpinnings. We must be run by atheist or at least secular University of Chicago economics professors. (I am curious how many deeply religious people would consider this "expansion in the public square" a load of nonsense)

People who don't like the anti-Palin hysteria do, by definition, consider her an intellectual lead for the Party, and were not merely offended by some of the nastiness directed her way. And, naturally, they all want her for President in 2012. I see why Mr. Frum posted you here.

Your sneer at "religioin and emotion" hardly deserves a response, but you hit your intended target. People who disagree with you cannot have "firm intellectual groundings."

Frum and Posner. There is your intellectual decline. And that is a real shame.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Mon, 18 May 2009 11:55:11 +0000

mpolito sez: "The notion that abortion cannot be opposed intellectually is such rubbish; it involves a major concession to the left....William F. Buckley was pro-life."

William F. Buckley wanted to *persuade* the nation that the pro-life position was intellectually correct. That's a far different thing from using Government power to ban abortion even for pro-choice Americans, which is what the Religious Right has been doing.

Let's just take all those calls for Constitutional Amendments out of the GOP Platform, for starters. Leave in all the words about the rightness of the pro-life position. Just take the hammers and clubs out of it.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Mon, 18 May 2009 11:46:21 +0000

Mheer sez: "Posner would rather have legal relativism ("pragmatism") than inalterable standards."

Let's examine some of the policies that were enthusiastically supported by conservatives, and see what "inalterable standards" they deal with.

The U.S. launched a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, on the grounds that Saddam "might" give some of his WMD to terrorists. How much WMD? Our intelligence was based on extrapolation, not hard data.

What "inalterable standard" is involved here? That the U.S. will attack any nation that may possibly pose a threat to it in the future? Is that a traditional conservative position?

Conservatives seek a Constitutional Amendment to make marriage between a man and a woman. This would override the Vermont state legislature, the representatives of the people of Vermont, who voted to allow gay marriage. Is that consistent with the traditional conservative principle of federalism? Or the traditional conservative principle of a limited Federal government?

By: barker13

barker13 — Mon, 18 May 2009 11:25:00 +0000

"I sense intellectual deterioration of the once-vital conservative movement in the United States."

OK. (*SHRUG*)

Do you sense the same (or less... or more...) "intellectual deterioration" on the Left? How'bout with regard to the nation as a whole? Heck... how'bout "The Academy?" By and large do you believe the faculties of our universities are of the intellectual caliber of days gone by?

"Until the late 1960s (when I was in my late twenties), I was barely conscious of the existence of a conservative movement."

Wow. OK. Surprising... but if you say so...

(*SHRUG*)

"I saw no need for the estate tax to be abolished..."

OK. (Understood.)

[I saw no need for marginal personal-income tax rates {to be]further reduced..."

Again... ok... I understand.

"[I saw no need for the government [to be] shrunk...."

Now we're definitely on different sides. (*SHRUG*)

"[I saw no need for pragmatism in constitutional law [to be] jettisoned in favor of "originalism"..."

WHOA! You wanna be a "pragmatist" Judge... run for office - legislative or executive.

"...the financial crash last September and the ensuing depression. These unanticipated and shocking events..."

"Unanticipated" and "shocking" to you, perhaps, but not to me and not to others.

Hey... perhaps me and a bunch of other folks who you've never heard of are the true "intellectuals" here, because we saw this sh... er... stuff... coming down the pike.

People like me saw the dot-com boom inevitably leading to the dot-com bust; folks like me saw the deindustrialization of America and "finance" as fetist to be the evils they were. We understood that "Man doth not live upon debt alone." (*SNORT*)

As to your shot at Sarah Palin...

No. She's not the most "intellectual" governor out there, but I sure as hell wish she were my state's governor.

(*SHRUG*)

BILL

By: ChristianMiller

ChristianMiller — Mon, 18 May 2009 10:38:54 +0000

danbmil99,

You vote for Obama vs. Mc Cain and call yourself a "swing" voter? Aren't you on record saying you have never voted for a Republican? Previous votes being for Nader (twice, once out of spite at your leftist friends) wasn't that you? Along with Perot and someone from the Communist Party? You are actually quite a swinger in that you seem to have no orientation.
It is a question because I could have you confused with another commenter.

If so,

you aren't a swing voter you are a spite voter and you are not representative of a very large group of people.

By: danbmil99

danbmil99 — Mon, 18 May 2009 03:48:13 +0000

"the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence..."

Very well put. But all the ditto-heads hear is someone slamming their "core principles", which are the talking points they've been told to ditto. Ergo, you must be a secret liberal sympathizer.

If you don't like our party of knee-jerk religious reactionaries, why don't you just vote for Obama?

Newsflash: WE JUST DID.

But that doesn't make us liberals. It makes us the swing vote, and you better get your game on to bring us back. Telling us to vote dem because we fail your litmus tests is -- it's retarded. I can't think of another word that expresses how stupid this attitude is.