Conor Friedersdorf offers a fascinating analysis of the counter-reaction in the right blogosphere against any recognition of what Sarah Palin did to herself on July 3.
Conor is analyzing the strange nervous breakdown over at the Ace of Spades blogspot. The main blogger criticized Palin as a quitter – was criticized by his readers – and reacted by… quitting (or the blog equivalent: suspending work for a week).
The issue: the Ace blogger resented being “lumped in with David Frum.” Alas for him, his critics were completely justified. His post July 3 reactions to Sarah Palin did indeed reprise and amplify the kinds of things I’ve been saying over the past 18 months.
I am really tired of being slammed for being the guy who doesn’t just want to go along with silly fantasies and dreams because they’re pleasant… I’m sick to death of being told that my addiction to reality and aversion to fantasy is somehow cowardly or defeatist or lacking in virtue.
Sorry Ace, it’s inescapable: You’re lumped.
So let me give some advice to the Ace blogger, elitist to elitist: don’t be frightened, don’t complain, and don’t get weary. It’s going to be a long struggle to renew conservatism and the Republican party, but the alternatives are worse: marginalization, defeat, and the continuing drift of the country in wrong and dangerous directions. Rediscovering responsible and effective politics will requre a lot of relearning from all of us, but everybody should be welcome who wishes to contribute to the project of reform.
Your invitation to the next cocktail party is in the mail.
37 responses so far
1 barker13 // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:03 pm
“…Ace of Spades blogspot.”
(*SNORT*) You’re kidding… right, David?
“The issue: the Ace blogger resented being “lumped in with David Frum.””
(*SNORT*) Oh, yeah… that’s an “issue” of national importance – nay, international crisis!
David. You have your own blog. You’re a nationally known (by folks like us) pundit. Seriously, dude, I simply cringe when you post these disparate pleas for attention as an “important” figure.
Seriously… David… Seriously… (*SHRUG*)
“So let me give some advice to the Ace blogger…”
No. Why don’t you instead keep your focus on your own blog, here. Indeed, when you’re willing to “climb down into the mud” with your own blogs posters perhaps yours truly and other posters will take you more seriously – as you apparently desire.
David. Again… you’re coming off as “smarmy.” This isn’t an “attack.” I’m trying to HELP you.
Think about it, David… you have posters from all over the ideological spectrum. Yet… you elicit common reactions when it comes to issues of seriousness and character.
Forget using “Ace of Spades” and its “main blogger” as a device to speak to your critics here; instead, speak to us directly.
What are you afraid of…???
David… when you’ve largely pushed thoughtful and extremely intelligent posters like Mike K, Brutus, and the long missing Franco off the pages of NewMajority, that’s a sign that if we’re to take you at your word in reference to what you want this blog to be… well… that if that’s the case you’re failing miserably.
BILL
2 sinz54 // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:25 pm
barker13: What evidence do you have that Franco was “pushed off New Majority”? As far as I could tell, Franco left after his regurgitation of standard Limbaugh-style talking points failed to crush or even deflect New Majority.
3 Kathleen // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:33 pm
First of all it’s not “Ace blogger” and it’s not “blogspot.” Second of all, Ace is about as far from being an elitist as one can get, so you might want to rescind that invite.
Why don’t you let us real conservatives worry about our party. I have a feeling that with the help of Sarah Palin, who you hold in such disregard, we will return “from the wilderness” in the mid term elections.
4 barker13 // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Re: Sinz54 // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:25 pm –
I wrote “pushed off” as opposed to banned (which I certainly don’t known, claim, nor even believe he was) deliberately.
I meant “pushed off” in the same sense that you and other use similar language in speculating about the effect the Limbaugh’s and Palin’s have on “moderates.”
Understood.?
Now… let me ask you… was that a SINCERE question, Sinz? Were you REALLY “confused” about my meaning?
And as to your childish name-calling attack on Franco, all I can tell you is that based upon reading hundreds of your posts and hundreds of his, Franco is at least your intellectual equal while in terms of policy definitely your superior in terms of being on the “right side” on the issues more often than not.
Sinz. It’s Frum’s blog. Why not address your questions to him? I mean… as constantly demonstrated I’m ready, willing, and able to not only ASK questions of others, but to ANSWER questions posed to me.
(*SHRUG*)
Hey… Sinz… if you don’t believe Frum often comes across as “smarmy” and lacking in both intellectual consistency and character… feel free to share those feelings. I’m sure David would appreciate your “defense.”
Addressing ME instead of Frum…
(*SHRUG*)
Lame.
BILL
5 Cforchange // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Hey David all quiet on the Shay front – let’s hope somebody is looking into it. Palin and Shay toghether really could get something going and yes Kathleen, it could be popular. Tatoo’s are popular. Popular doesn’t mean beneficial.
6 midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Bill,
The Francos seem to fade from view only to reappear when there is a need to defend their idols. I’m not sure why Frano is not around any longer, but I have noticed a recent trend here – the discourse is professional, intelligent, and civil. Look you and Otto are BFFs now! Who’d a thunk that? I have noticed that agreeing to disagree is winning out over name calling. We seem to be conceding points rather rigidly sticking to a position. Heck, I just found out that I’m a Theistic Evolutionist! I am learning, gaining knowledge, forming opinions and changing. In my view, this is what this site is supposed to be about. There is still room for ribbing – but it doesn’t seem to going on in a snide, vicious manner. This is just my observation from the past few weeks. Of course it rears its head when the trigger names come up – Limbaugh, Palin, and others, but that is not the norm. Heck the last messages that were deleted was yours and mine regarding urban schools. Personally, I hope this trend continues and the posters and bloggers here continue to be thoughtful and civil.
Dave
7 Dustin Ferrell // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Kathleen (not Parker, I assume): Something’s terribly wrong when we’re putting David Frum on one side, and “real” conservatives on the other. I disagree with David from time to time, but this is silly.
Also, I was a Palin “supporter” in the initial days, thinking the elitists in the party were being unfair. There was some nastiness in the tone, but ultimately, I was wrong. We cannot afford to spend another election cycle in denial.
8 Jewels // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Heh. It appears you’ve hit a nerve, Mr Frum. ^_^
This is all … highly amusing.
9 Robert Graves // Jul 15, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Sarah Palin and the millions of people who support her are the New Majority. She has an enormous base of committed supporters; many (most?) of them are self-identified Independents. Within three to five years Palin could organize the political center in ways that transform American politics. However, I’d like to see moderate Republicans, social conservatives, and conservative Democrats work together to build what the Republican Party can’t do, and the Democratic Party won’t do.
Hear this, Mr. Frum? Why don’t you and Mrs. Palin have a cup of coffee someday soon. Then, if there’s room for more discussion, perhaps you could visit her in Alaska. She and her husband are the very soul of hospitality, and Alaska is beautiful at this time of the year.
10 midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Sounds like a fair deal to me David. What could a cup of coffee hurt?
11 barker13 // Jul 15, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Re: Midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:54 pm –
“The Francos seem to fade from view only to reappear when there is a need to defend their idols. ”
OK… but for the sake of argument if we agree on that… the question remains: Where’s Franco?
(Jeez… I hope nothing’s happened to him.)
“Dr. T,” well, he was a different story. Although like Otto he was capable of making good points, also like Otto he was more “knee-jerk” troll.
“…the last messages that were deleted was yours and mine regarding urban schools.”
HUH…?!?! What posts of ours did Frum or one of his lackeys delete?
BILL
12 midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 4:27 pm
The #&%* You Tube article and posts – draconian measues for fixing urban education.
13 barker13 // Jul 15, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Re: Midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 4:27 pm –
Hmm… not ringing a bell.
You’re not talking about the “F$@#*N$ Wit Da Teacha” thread, are you? Everything seems to be there.
I don’t recall any “#&%* You Tube” article and posts.
Mid… please… if I’m losing it – early senility – let me know! (*GUFFAW*)
BILL
P.S. – FWIT, I’m enjoying the posts of Robert Graves.
14 JohnMcC // Jul 15, 2009 at 6:34 pm
We’re witnessing the suicide of the Repubs. Whigs, anyone?
15 sinz54 // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:07 pm
barker13: I’m always sincere.
When you wrote that “Franco” was “pushed off of NM,” I assumed you meant that he had been chased out or intimidated out in some way.
That is the way that center-right folks like me have been treated by the GOP base. We didn’t leave on our own. We were personally attacked, our motives impugned, and told that we would better fit the Dem Party.
But Franco didn’t get that treatment here. Nobody tried to have him banned. I took Franco’s accusations, labels, and insults. I usually didn’t respond in kind. I stood my ground, stated my peace, and refused to accept his way as the only way for conservatives. David Frum did the same thing. And I think that eventually, Franco gave up trying to crush dissenting views on this blog and just left.
New Majority is one conservative blog that the GOP base doesn’t control.
16 ottovbvs // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Remember that sign people used to stick on office noticeboards
“The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
17 sinz54 // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:14 pm
barker13: I think David Frum’s heart is in the right place, but he can’t seem to rid himself of his bitterness toward the Religious Right. As a result, his articles seem to swing back and forth between puff pieces on divorce, thoughtful discussions of issues, and nasty personal attacks on Limbaugh and others.
You may not have read my posts where I told David Frum that I wasn’t interested in joining any personal vendettas against Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh. And that I was here to discuss only issues, not join in personal attacks against them or any other public figures.
18 ottovbvs // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:20 pm
midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:54 pm
……….No need to go overboard…..Peace has not been declared!…..I’m not likely to agree with you about much although apparently we are on the same page about Wal Mart, but I can see where you’re coming from although often it’s based on misinformation……..that goes for most of the people one encounters……..there are a few from the far side but there are always are………the debates that go on here are really a reflection of the schisms in its coalition that the GOP is experiencing. The three legs of the stool(national defense, social and financial conservatives) are to some extent breaking asunder. It’s actually the financial conservatives(I’m very typical) although with something of a geographical dimension who are jumping ship. There’s enough community of interest in the main, although again with the geographic caveat, to keep the socials and defense conservatives together but that the 25% of the country that’s registered Republican basically. As long as the GOP is locked in this configuration it’s doomed, but the problem (which this piece is really all about) is that it’s self reinforcing.
19 ottovbvs // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:24 pm
sinz54 // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:14 pm
“You may not have read my posts where I told David Frum that I wasn’t interested in joining any personal vendettas against Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh. And that I was here to discuss only issues, not join in personal attacks against them or any other public figures.’
………….Frum’s comments aren’t about personal vendettas for godsake……..he and many others are pointing out the negative effects these individuals are having on the GOP……..You’re welcome to disagree with him but it’s not a vendetta
20 dragonlady // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Ottobvs, there’s something visceral in Frum’s reaction to Limbaugh and Palin. I don’t know if it’s a vendetta but there’s clearly something hitting at an emotional level. I’ve read other pieces which much more objectively make the case of how they can hurt the GOP, and they refrain from being nasty. But Frum doesn’t do that–he just runs around name-calling, making a bunch of accusations, then claiming they will push us into extinction. Leadership is important to discuss but if he can’t seem to do it objectively, then he’s not going to make the case to lot of folks.
21 ottovbvs // Jul 15, 2009 at 9:12 pm
dragonlady // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:18 pm
“Ottobvs, there’s something visceral in Frum’s reaction to Limbaugh and Palin”
……..Well he thought/ thinks she was a dope as do many others including me (a clear majority of all voters but not Republicans)……..Now you can invest it with the term visceral if you like, I don’t think his comments have been any more visceral than those of Noonan, Murphy, Parker and others on the right. As often happens you want to personalize this……it has nothing to do with personalities….If Palin had demonstrated intelligence and acumen equal to her figure I’m sure David would be falling all over her.
22 dragonlady // Jul 15, 2009 at 9:53 pm
ottovbvs, don’t twist my words. I’m making an observation about David’s pieces on Palin and Limbaugh. And I read the other authors you cited and their pieces on Palin are not objective. If you disagree, whatever dude, but Frum is not helping convince others on Palin in the current manner.
23 aDude // Jul 15, 2009 at 9:55 pm
The concern by many conservatives is that they have a very strong basic philosophy of limited government (and by extension, low taxes), free trade, and personal freedom. This was the message of the conservative movement from the 1950’s into the 1980’s. If you would hear Buckley, Freidman, or Reagan, you heard coherent thought, not overblown rhetoric. And it acheived electoral success.
Even today, with the Democratic Party in power, that message needs to be clearly and thoughtfully stated. Bloated government (and high taxes) and protectionism are a threat to the future of the Republic.
The problem is that messsengers like Palin and Limbaugh aren’t making the case. Instead there is entertaining but inflamatory labels (feminazi, socialist, “pals around with terrorists”) that cheer the base but annoy the middle.
Where are the articulate spokesmen for conservatism today? One thing is certain: you won’t find them on EIB, Fox, or in Alaska.
24 ottovbvs // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:20 pm
dragonlady // Jul 15, 2009 at 9:53 pm
“ottovbvs, don’t twist my words”
…………How precisely am I twisting your words?…..and I like precision……You said David was conducting a vendetta against Palin because he had “visceral” feelings about her (Are you a psychiatrist btw as well as national security expert?)…….I pointed out this wasn’t the case it was because she’s a dope and if she hadn’t been a dope he’d probably be fawning on her…….. As for the others who think she’s a dope perhaps you could also let us know whether they are conducting a vendetta against her because they have visceral feelings.
25 dragonlady // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Time to stop feeding the trolls!
26 barker13 // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Re: Sinz54 // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:07 pm –
“I’m always sincere.”
(*SMILE*) You know, Sinz… I believe you. (*WINK*)
“…told that we would better fit the Dem Party.”
But, Sinz, *I* tell you that all the time. I tell you that sincerely, as a matter of strategy, not as an “attack.” I sincerely believe that the country would be better off if “center Right” folks would move in mass to the Democratic Party and take it over; work from within to purge the Left from power.
Although I’d still root for and work for the more conservative candidate (or should I say the candidate who most fit into my idea of true libertarian leaning constitutionalist conservatism), if “my” side lost at least instead of an Obama we’d hopefully get a “Sinz.” (*WINK*)
“New Majority is one conservative blog that the GOP base doesn’t control.”
Sinz. Your problem is that you live in some sort of alternate reality where NewMajority is a “conservative” blog. It’s not. (Hell, you’re the one constantly railing against the folks American society from the Academy to the Media to the General Public identifies as “the conservatives.”)
No. NewMajority is Frum’s blog effort to stay relevant. It’s “traditional country club” Republican at best; perhaps you might even go retro and call it “Rockefeller Republican.” (*CHUCKLE*) But, no, as much as we’d all like to claim the mantle of Reagan as our own, Reagan would have loved Palin and Reagan did love Rush. (*SMILE*) Yes, Reagan conservatism was different than GW Bush “conservatism,” but Palin, Rush, Gingrich, Ronny… they’re all basically the same “species” of conservative – it’s you and moreso Frum who are “off the reservation.”
Honesty, Sinz. As Sinatra sang, “Wake up to reality!” (*WINK*)
Re: Sinz54 // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:14 pm –
“I think David Frum’s heart is in the right place…”
I don’t. (*SHRUG*) No. Seriously. I don’t. This doesn’t stop me from praising Frum and agreeing with him when my agreement and praise is warranted. Nope. It’s just that as I keep on noting, Frum is the kind of smarmy elitist “staffer type,” “insider type,” whom authors of fictional political/military thrillers base the smarmy, self-interested, stab you in the back in a heartbeat, “club” types who make politics such a cesspool.
Sinz. Believe me. I know these types. I know the “Frum’s” up close and personal.
Hey… my opinion… my perspective. (*SHRUG*) Perhaps I misjudge the man… but I doubt it.
“…his articles seem to swing back and forth between puff pieces on divorce, thoughtful discussions of issues, and nasty personal attacks on Limbaugh and others.”
Exactly. (*SHRUG*) But it’s not simply the nasty personal attacks. Hell… I play rough too. It’s the sleezeness… the smarminess. It’s all the times Frum has been disingenuous as well as mean spirited. Hey… put it this way: I’ve never met Frum, but I imagine him as having a limp, sweaty handshake. (*SHRUG*) And since Frum himself brought up France in a previous post… think “Vichy.” (*WINK*)
“You may not have read my posts where I told David Frum that I wasn’t interested in joining any personal vendettas against Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh.”
Well that’s great, Sinz, but one doesn’t win medals by simply doing the right thing. Besides that, you’ve taken your fair share of shots at those you consider the “hard” Right or “Religious” Right. Still… I gladly note that you’re not a hater, you’re not the kind of person who would deliberately distort reality. When you and I disagree… (*SHRUG*)… well, I understand that you sincerely hold your position because you think it’s the right position to have. Frum – as YOU noted – can’t seem to get rid of his bitterness and worse, he’s willing to use cheap shots while venting his hatreds.
ANYWAY… enough about Frum.
BILL
27 barker13 // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:15 am
Re: Adude // Jul 15, 2009 at 9:55 pm –
“The concern by many conservatives is that they have a very strong basic philosophy of limited government (and by extension, low taxes), free trade, and personal freedom. This was the message of the conservative movement from the 1950’s into the 1980’s. If you would hear Buckley, Freidman, or Reagan, you heard coherent thought, not overblown rhetoric. And it acheived electoral success.”
Hmm.
Which Party controlled Congress (both Houses as often as not) during the majority of the ’50’s, ’60’s, ’70’s, and ”80’s?
As to presidents…
Truman (D), Ike (R), JFK (D), LBJ (D), Nixon/Ford (R), Carter (D), Reagan (R), Bush (R)… and then two terms of Clinton followed by two terms of Bush followed by Obama.
…except for the Reagan years a pretty mixed bag.
(*SHRUG*)
Ike was an establishment Republican. Nixon was a law and order, strong military defense, and BIG GOVERNMENT Republican. Ford was the ultimate establishment Republican. (Recall… that side of the GOP was NOT the pro-Reagan side.)
To contrast…
When the Republicans took over Congress in ‘94 it WASN’T the “establishment” GOP which won the day, it wasn’t the “country club” GOP which chased Wright, Rostenkowski, and that whole corrupt bunch out of their leadership seats. No. It was the “radicals” led by Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey.
(*SHRUG*)
Hmm… and WHOM did the victorious GOP Class of ‘94 make an honorary Member…??? Was it David Frum? Was it some “moderate” Republican establishment voice? No. It was Rush Limbaugh.
(*SHRUG*)
Folks… I like fiction as much as the next guy, but this historical revisionism about how “moderates” were the “successful” past and they’ll be the successful future of the GOP just doesn’t jive with reality.
“Even today, with the Democratic Party in power…”
(*SIGH*) (*HEADACHE*) Adude… you’re just not GETTING it. The problem for the GOP was that starting as early as ‘00 and certainly by 2006 the American People looked upon the governing GOP as RINOs – or better yet, CONSERVATIVES in name only. (And who could blame them? They were right!)
Adude… while of course the nation has now jumped from the frying pan into the fire, by 2006 it looked to most non-Leftists as if the Democrats (the big spenders, the incompetent, the irresponsible, the corrupt) WERE running Congress! (And again… they were basically right! The Republican establishment of the mid-2000’s had betrayed conservatism just as George H.W. Bush did years earlier.)
“The problem is that messsengers like Palin and Limbaugh…”
First of all, don’t equate Palin with Limbaugh. We’re talking apples and oranges – one’s a nuts and bolts political Party actor and the other is an entertainer who also happens to be in large part the most broadly known “conscience of conservatism.”
NOW… as to the latter… as to Rush… keep in mind that no matter how “big” he is in terms of name recognition and RELATIVE audience, we’re a nation of more than 300,000,000 people; Rush reaches what… five million or so – seven million maybe? My point is, in the grand scheme of things most Americans will never listen to Rush Limbaugh for hours a day, weeks at a time; what they’re exposed to is the MSM’s portrayal of Limbaugh.
To come full circle, my view is that NOT ENOUGH people are exposed to Limbaugh. Not enough people are exposed to Sarah Palin – Palin unfiltered by the MSM.
Anyway… (*SHRUG*)
BILL
28 ottovbvs // Jul 16, 2009 at 8:03 am
dragonlady // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:52 pm
“Time to stop feeding the trolls!”
………..One awaits a coherent answer but it never comes of course
29 sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:35 am
ottovbvs: I considered Frum’s comments about Limbaugh’s drug history and physical stature as completely out of line. That was an attack on Limbaugh’s character, and completely unwarranted. Lots of folks (even Democrats!) have gotten hooked on prescription painkillers that were originally prescribed legitimately for chronic pain. It’s not any kind of moral failing.
David Frum didn’t stick to disagreeing with Limbaugh’s views. He had to attack Limbaugh as a person?
30 sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:46 am
barker13 sez: “Your problem is that you live in some sort of alternate reality where NewMajority is a conservative blog. ”
As a science fiction fan, my response to you is: Who is to say which alternate universe is the proper one, the “correct” one?
For too long, we’ve been living in an alternate reality in which Constitutional amendments to ban abortion and gay marriage nationwide (even in liberal states, overriding their own marriage laws) is considered “conservative”; banning even online Internet poker is considered “conservative”; and waging a war in Iraq to bring “democracy” to the benighted peoples of the developing world is considered “conservative”.
I regard that alternate reality as no more “conservative” than the one I have chosen, and very likely even less conservative.
31 ottovbvs // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:51 pm
sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:35 am
“David Frum didn’t stick to disagreeing with Limbaugh’s views. He had to attack Limbaugh as a person?”
………….The problem is Limbaugh’s image and drug history were highly relevant to the point Frum was making…….A grotesquely overweight, red faced, blustering white guy with a history of drug taking is hardly the image you want on your electoral product……the fact you can’t discern the relevance says something about you as does the assertion that getting hooked on drugs is not a moral failing…..Of course it’s a moral failing…..I have no personal problems with moral failings as long as they don’t cause me too much inconvenience…..I’m entirely tolerant of them in fact but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist
32 barker13 // Jul 16, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Re: Sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:46 am –
“Who is to say which alternate universe is the proper one, the “correct” one?”
How’bout… umm… ME!
No, no… can’t have one man rule; let’s make it… umm… Me, Myself, and I. (*WINK*)
“For too long, we’ve been living in an alternate reality in which Constitutional amendments to ban abortion and gay marriage nationwide (even in liberal states, overriding their own marriage laws) is considered “conservative”…”
The policy proposals themselves may be argued as not conservative, but the recognition of the CORRECT CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES that must be followed in order to add to or subtract from the Constitution is “conservative” to the core.
(But, hey… Sinz… I thought you and the Sinzites wanted to get away from arguing social policy and stick to economics and defense…???) (*SLY SMILE*)
*** HEY! Share with me (us) your favorite Sci Fi authors.
Me? As you might guess… I’m a Heinlein man!!! For “modern” stuff… contemporary Sci-Fi… David Webber is my guy.
Anderson… Asimov… Keith Laumer… I could go on and on.
How’bout you? (Let me guess… Arthur C. Clarke? Big fan?) (I’m more of a Crichton kinda guy.)
BILL
33 brutus1791 // Jul 16, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Barker says: How’bout… umm… ME!
Aha! And we have the new Prince! Creating reality as is fit
(not a put down, I assure you) The Unitary Executive lives on NewMajority.
Sinz Says: “For too long, we’ve been living in an alternate reality in which Constitutional amendments to ban abortion and gay marriage nationwide (even in liberal states, overriding their own marriage laws) is considered “conservative”…
I very much appreciate Barker’s response to this. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Ends… the means in which some people are trying to make these changes are genuinely Conservative. They are not circumventing the Constitution, nor thinking of ways to do things until it has to rise to the level of Constitutional pontification (Supreme Court) as the left likes to do with their Circus Courts (borrowed from Levin). Either way, I disagree with the marriage amendment, but our problem lies in the old COmmerce Clause in which non-traditional marriages would cross state lines and their marriagial contract would have to be recognized in the next state.
The other situation, that nugatory notion of Life and what-not, is easily solved when one reads the Social Contract we are all bound by… “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property if you’re a Lockean
.
Barker, never a fan of SciFi (or as the channel now has it, SyFy). I did enjoy “Ender’s Game” though, when I read it during the days of my youth (Rousseauian days). And Crighton, how could one go wrong? I stick to the political philosophy… and Douglas Preston/Lincoln Child… guess they could be SyFy?
34 barker13 // Jul 17, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Re: brutus1791 // Jul 16, 2009 at 4:11 pm –
“…Douglas Preston/Lincoln Child…”
Long live Pendergast and D’Agosta!
Hey, Brutus, let me ask you, have you read much (any?) Heinlein? I mean for political/social philosophy Heinlein was the man! If you’ve never read “Starship Troopers” start there. “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” would also be another novel I’m guessing you’d appreciate. Finally, the novelette “The Man Who Sold The Moon” should be right up your ally.
Oh… and back to Lincoln Child (kinda)… have you ever read Lee Child’s “Reacher” novels? I can’t recommend them highly enough. I’d advise any new reader to start with “The Enemy.”
BILL
35 The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Ace of Spades Is My Blog Hero, But . . . // Jul 18, 2009 at 8:53 am
[...] you’re still my hero, Ace, no matter what David Frum says. StumbleUpon| Digg| Reddit| Twitter| [...]
36 sdspringy // Jul 19, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Otto:….
………….The problem is Limbaugh’s image and drug history were highly relevant to the point Frum was making…….A grotesquely overweight, red faced, blustering white guy with a history of drug taking is hardly the image you want on your electoral product……the fact you can’t discern the relevance says something about you as does the assertion that getting hooked on drugs is not a moral failing…..Of course it’s a moral failing…
I certainly enjoy the kind of leftist superiority the Otto likes to exhibit. It makes for such fun when you plug the Dems into the grotesquely overweight, Kennedy, red faced, Clinton, Blustering, Biden white guy with a history of taking drugs, Obama. Oh wait not white. Really thought I had a streak going there. I also cannot believe Otto that you would express any comment concerning moral failings, being so nonjudgemental and leftist and all.
Of course Dem voters are typically nonjudgemental when electing their representatives. You can have sex with your male page, Stubbs, kill a companion, Kennedy, female page gone missing, Condit
crosses and cape, Byrd, do nasty things with cigars, Clinton, be a complete idiot, Frankenn, and of course run a brothel from your home, Frank. Get reelected everytime. Now what does that say about a Dem voter.
37 ottovbvs // Jul 19, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Actually sdspringy instead of an unusually angry and bilious piece of ranting you should have read what I said more carefully…… I displayed zero moral superiority…..I’m entirely tolerant of moral failings probably because I have a few myself(no doubt you have none) ….I recognize that man is human and has human frailties…..I also have some sense of perspective, adjudging bonking interns to be somewhat lower on the scale of human frailties than lying us into wars in which thousands of our kids have been killed and maimed…..none of this was massively germane to my central point that a fat, red faced, drug addict is hardly a good front man for a party that trumpets its moral values but it seems to have got you awfully excited………..Now here’s something else for you to get excited about……a few comments from your fellow christian Republicans at the hot air right wing website on the passing of Uncle Walt…..such lovely people…..some of them share your enthusiasm for Ted Kennedy too:
“Personally, I hope his extended family all die of excrutiating cancers. Karma, you know?
I’ll shed no tears over the death of a Lefty turd like Cronkite. As a matter of fact, if I could piss on his grave, I would.
I am sick of kissing the ass of people who screwed not only their country and their profession, but millions of innocents, because the media tells me I am supposed to.
Go. To. Hell. You. Lying. Bastard.
I got excited whe I saw the fox news alert, saw the grey hair from across the room, and then my weekend was ruined it wasn’t the timely demise of Ted Kennedy. Oh well……patience I guess.
Good bye Walter. May the worms enjoy you more than I did.
May he rot in hell.
Soon Ted will die and Walter, JFK, RFK and Ted can ride around Hell in Teds Olds, pickin’ up women.
Waitress sandwich anyone?
Walter Cronkite actually makes my list of greatest MASS MURDERERS in History! So, yup, he can burn in hell!!
Twist in Hell, Cronkite. I hope the only relief you find in the Lake of Fire is a million murdered Cambodians spitting on you.
Rich liberal hypocritical fool……see ya! Now we only need Teddy to retire or expire and maybe we’ll see windmills in Natucket sound.”
You must log in to post a comment.