The Myth of the RINO?
posted at 9:02 am on May 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Two weeks ago, I directed readers to an analysis by Keith Poole of UC San Diego on the relative ideological positioning of the three main candidates for President. Poole provides an excellent analysis of Congressional voting patterns called the Poole Report, which provides the broadest basis used for rating members of both the House and the Senate. The Poole Reports use roll call votes that have at least 0.5% of members voting in the minority. For example, the 2007 session of the Senate had 388 data points, as opposed to the ACU’s 25 and 107 for the National Journal, which gives a much more complete look at the partisan nature of voting for both Republicans and Democrats.
Poole’s analysis shows a fascinating and perhaps disturbing trend. Despite the perceptions of many in and out of the blogosphere and punditry, the parties have moved away from compromise, not towards it. Poole’s charting of partisan voting behavior over the last 40 years makes this plain:
Note the progression of the voting pattern, and where today’s candidates would have scored on this timeline with their 2008 positioning. In 1968, McCain would have been on the right wing of the Republican Party, and both Obama and Clinton would have been significantly on the left side of the Democrats. By 1988, McCain exists squarely in the GOP’s mainstream, and both Obama and Clinton remain on the left wing of the Democrats. Now, McCain’s fixed 2008 position puts him on the moderate side of the party, while the mainstream of Democrats have just barely reached Obama and Clinton’s position.
Now re-run the animation and look at what happened to the center in American politics. Forty years ago, members in both parties routinely overlapped, and their mainstreams existed closer to the center. The crossover point came just to the right of center and about halfway to the peak of both parties. In 1988, the crossover point hit about the same spot but much lower on the density scale, and the overlaps of both parties extended much less into the density of the opposition. Now, there is almost no density at the crossover point and the overlap has all but disappeared entirely.
What does this mean? It shows that RINOs and DINOs exist largely as mythology. Congress has become a place where party-line votes prevail on an almost-exclusive basis. Those who believe that we lose elections because of a lack of party discipline and loyalty in the legislature have targeted the wrong culprit. Neither party has a lack of discipline, but both may have allowed a critical gap to open with the American electorate that could threaten the two-party system.
Much has been made of independent runs from Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Ralph Nader, but this shows that they also miss the point. The opportunity for political traction doesn’t come from the extremes of the Left and Right, but from the center. At least in Congress, both parties have abandoned American voters in the center, and are to this day still trending away from them. This could be the greatest opportunity in decades for a real third party to form and represent the gap that the last 40 years has opened between the parties. That opportunity will not be realized at the presidential level, but rather in the House and Senate.
This gap does have meaning in the presidential race. Even though Republicans have many structural problems in this election, they may have nominated the one man who can actually engage the center better than any of the two dozen candidates who ran in this cycle’s primaries in both parties. Not only does McCain occupy a spot on the spectrum closer to the center than anyone else, he’s also perceived to be more centrist. He has a track record of independence in his voting record that frankly is almost nonexistent in today’s politics. While that certainly (and legitimately) frustrates conservatives, it speaks to a wide range of American voters who find themselves lost in a deepening and widening valley between two peaks.
If McCain can capitalize on that and can find messages that resonate with those voters — and especially if he can demonstrate the hard-Left credentials of his opponents — he may find a treasure trove of support in a year where Republicans elsewhere are likely to take a beating.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
I thought the topic was whether McCain was a centerist, and whether the GOP should move towards the center?
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 4:54 PM
I think you’re on to something here.
apacalyps on May 18, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Wasn’t talking about PC. Was more a knock against his intelligence, or more precisely, the lack there of.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Come on, Flenser. Quit ducking the question. Its easy to whine, complain and generally stomp your feet like a two year old when someone disagrees with you.
Come on. Be a man, Flenser. Answer Entelechy’s question. Don’t be a Hillary.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 4:55 PM
You are very slow, and you are defending a commeter who thinks he’s brilliant and witty for saying things such as “I’m finding you to be a sandy little butt-hole”.
So spare me your concern for commenting etiquette. Or to be more precise, your endless faux amusment.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Yes, I think you’ve demonstrated that very effectively.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Levin might have referenced this article.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 4:59 PM
George: You’re Batman.
Kramerflenser: Yeah, yeah, I am Batman.I agree with you 100% flenser. Keep the truth coming… it’s like garlic to vampires… it fends off the liars.
apacalyps on May 18, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Me too! How it can look at the words it writes and not see itself mirrored in them is beyond me. Mistake on my part for lowering myself, I suppose.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 5:05 PM
The two commenters explained quite a bit about McCain. It’s way more complex than far right, right, or center. This year is a very complicated one, especially given the timing.
I wasn’t defending anyone, just trying to reconcile your sensibilities. On the latter part of your comment, thank you for providing so much amusement today, gratis. It’s not faux, I assure you.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 5:07 PM
I’ve had the same thoughts. The in-fighting between Keyes and Baldwin has turned me off at the moment.
Then there’s the high praise its received from Alex Jones. That’s a red flag right there for me.
I’m also bothered by its 12th and 15th platform position concerning the military and banking respectively.
The Constitution Party sounds good. But as in all things, the devil is in the details.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Still don’t have the courage to answer Entelechy’s very simple, very straight forward question, Flesner.
You’re not chicken, are ya?
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Wow. Hire this man! Hearing the truth REally feeeeels goooood. And for the record I supported Bush.
Say it LOUD and sy it PROUD. [raising hand] wooooo-hooo!
apacalyps on May 18, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Many of the posters here are in the center. They are NOT true conservatives. These people are Republicans with liberal tendencies. BIG DIFFERENCE.
apacalyps on May 18, 2008 at 5:14 PM
What is a “true” conservative?
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Boy, that comment really got between your cheeks, didn’t it? Good at dishing it out but not taking it, I see. Sense of self inflated much, oh thin-skinned one?
Just doin’ my job of driving up the post count here at good ol’ HA on a slow Sunday. Pokin’ puffed up trolls will do that, ya know?
Bottom line is that we fundamentally disagree on what to do this coming election. You’re apparently not voting for anyone for President. That’s your right and privelige. I won’t willingly hand my country to obama or hillary. And to be honest, for all those who stay home this election, I think McC’s running to the middle is likely to replace your non-votes anyway.
Am I happy about a McC Presidency? No. Is it more survivable for the Nation than any dem running? Absolutely.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 5:19 PM
I agree GT. Thanks for pointing that out. I would also like to remind everyone Reagen said:
“Without God, there is no virtue, because there’s no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we’re mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.” –- Ronald Reagan
Exactly. Schwarzenegger said, “The Republican idea is a great idea, but we can’t go and get stuck with just the right wing,” Schwarzenegger said. “Let’s let the party come all the way to the center. Let those people be heard as much as the right. Let it be the big tent we’ve talked about. Let’s invade and let’s cross over that (political) center,” he said. “The issues that they’re talking about? Let them be our issues, and let the party be known for that.”
apacalyps on May 18, 2008 at 5:23 PM
GT:
“I don’t support your assertion that conservatives have embraced flagrant exercises in social engineering. I think that a more accurate description would be that they are responding to the flagrant exercises in social engineering.”
Yes, they are responding, but re-engineering is not a conservative solution. It’s just moving your team over to the liberal playing field and leaving your own equipment behind.
flenser:
“You were one of the anti-conservative faction at CQ I recall. Sadly it looks like Ed brought his following here with him.”
LOL! In what reality are Ed and his following too far left to qualify as conservatives? Welcome to flenser world, where the number of approved conservatives looks like a statistical anamoly marching toward its own extinction, shouting, “You’ll be sorry when we’re gone!” It brings to mind the old adage about being careful about who you piss on in your rise to the top; you may be one of the few who ever actually needed to be cautioned about pissing on your way down. I’ll credit you with enough principles to realize that not-voting does not relieve you of complicity in the outcome, but I see no qualitative difference between your attitude and that of the folks who believe that losing the war in Iraq will bring Americans to their Democratic senses.
JM Hanes on May 18, 2008 at 5:23 PM
He’s a very good candidate/politician.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers?
- Barry Goldwater
We hear praise of a power-wielding, arm-twisting President who “gets his program through Congress” by knowing the use of power. Throughout the course of history, there have been many other such wielders of power. There have even been dictators who regularly held plebiscites, in which their dictatorships were approved by an Ivory-soap-like percentage of the electorate. But their countries were not free, nor can any country remain free under such despotic power. Some of the current worship of powerful executives may come from those who admire strength and accomplishment of any sort. Others hail the display of Presidential strength simply because they approve of the result reached by the use of power. This is nothing less than the totalitarian philosophy that the end justifies the means If ever there was a philosophy of government totally at war with that of the Founding Fathers, it is this one.
- Barry Goldwater
MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Holy crap, Ed! A wonkish and somewhat confusing post about conservatism and RINOs on a spring Sunday morning … I’m thinking 28 comments, tops.
400 and counting. Impressive.
Jaibones on May 18, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Man, I thought I read all the comments. When did he say that?
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 5:26 PM
I’m a registered independent because the two other parties are too self-absorbed and too much into sticking their noses into our business, or playing nanny. I vote with the Republicans because I despise the lefties to the bone.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Apacalyps was talking about people who are alive. So someone asked him who they are and what they think.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Aw crap, GT. Now you’ve done it. ;)
The ideological purists are getting pretty tedious.
The GOP is severely broken and rudderless at this point. The only comfort is that the donks are just as broken, if not more.
At least most of the GOP isn’t trying to surrender a clear victory in Iraq and elect a completely unqualified neophyte to the highest position in the world. So we’ve got that going for us, at least.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 5:31 PM
…and how will Obama comply with any of this?
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Obama v. McCain (no Hillary). Seems to have focused attention on November.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Gotta agree. Not that that’s such a terrible thing, as long as everybody’s honest about who they are. There’s plenty of diversity in the Republican party and on the right, and plenty of differing opinions. Good thing, I think.
Just my opinion:
It’s not somebody who thinks the pro-life movement is conservatives acting like liberals. It’s not that conservatives want NO government, it’s that they want the Constitutionally right amount of government to fulfill its Constitutional duties, which is much, much less than what we have today.
It’s not somebody who wants to reward criminal behavior with amnesty and welfare benefits. Especially after that “solution” has been tried, and produced the current mess. Just because Reagan did it doesn’t mean it’s right, or smart, or good.
It’s not somebody who wants to regulate, not just any ol’ speech, but political speech, which should enjoy the MOST Constitutional protection.
It’s not somebody who tries to argue that the Constitution allows the President to create any ol’ Department or Office he likes, when the Constitution is all about limited and enumerated powers of federal government.
It’s somebody, at the very least, who wants to follow the originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Who knows that there’s no emanation radiating off of the Bill of Rights that only old men in robes can see, said emanation comprising penumbras, said penumbras containing fundamental Constitutional rights.
Somebody who believes in rule of law, not rule of men. Somebody who knows that there are very few things the government can do better, or more efficiently, than free people and free markets.
Someone who doesn’t think that every problem demands a government solution. Who thinks that people can do things without government “help.” Who recognize that government is a necessary evil, not a benevolent parent.
Flame away.
misterpeasea on May 18, 2008 at 5:32 PM
Ed:
While I understand the point of the data, I don’t believe there’s as much to the “opportunity in the center” as you.
First & foremost, any third party trying to occupy the center will find itself strangled by the party discipline of the two existing parties. Why? Common interest: power. In Washington, it truly is a zero sum game – - – neither Democrats nor Republicans will want to do anything that enhances the prestige & influence of a so-called ‘center’ party.
Second, with all due respect ….. what “center”? Historically, “third way” philosophies have been left/socialism attempting to disguise itself as something else.
What’s the “center” position on tax policy – - – - we’ll cut them a bit less than Republicans or raise them a bit less than Democrats?
What’s the “center” position on defense spending when REPUBLICANS aren’t supporting sufficient levels for the challenges at hand?
Where’s the “middle” between the current Democrat & Republican positions re: Islamic fascism?
The “appeal” of the “center” is to the ego of the person claiming it – - – - – “I’m not extreme like those other guys … I’m a ‘moderate’ ” There is no coherent “philosophy” there.
BD57 on May 18, 2008 at 5:33 PM
All bolds are mine and mine alone. I have decided that a twice lost the presidency McVain will be more useful in the senate. Look how helpful he was to democrats when he lost to W. Imagine the audacity if The Messiah tries to “Mess with the Mav…..”
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Mahatma. I can’t defend the guy I’m gonna vote for, or my reasoning that strongly. I’m making my own decision for me alone. Best I can do.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Far from it. Well said!
If that list makes one a True Conservative, guess what? I are one, (the opinions of silicon-abrased sphinctoids not withstanding).
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 5:41 PM
flenser: Are you arguing for a Ron Paul presidency? He appears to be “pure” enough by your standards.
Re the 1986 Reagan Simpson-Mazzoli immigration law: Its provisions addressed the problems of illegals; the pity was that the law was not enforced as it should have been. What was wrong with simply insisting on enforcement instead of trying to rewrite another comprehensive bill?
In contrast to S-M, the recent comprehensive immigration plan fast-tracked illegals into permanenct residency and citizenship with little oversight and insufficient time for vetting through the Z-visas, allowing a lot of loopholes for lawsuits and plenty of income for immigration attorneys.
onlineanalyst on May 18, 2008 at 5:41 PM
LOL. People have been trying to get him to say that for over an hour.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 5:42 PM
For starters, I would say someone who is against killing babies and who doesn’t think outlawing abortion is the wrong way to go. Someone who is against homosexuality and who doesn’t think outlawing gay marriage is the wrong way to go. Beyond that, a true conservative would be a person of honor, pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun rights, less taxes, securing the borders, fighting terrorism, etc., etc….
apacalyps on May 18, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Branch Rickey, while I appreciate you praying for me, I forgot to tell you that someone who is not exactly in line with your own principles is not an unpricipled person. This is still a free country and we are allowed to have our own beliefs and principles, I hope.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 5:44 PM
I’m right there with you JD. Making the best of the options available. As I said earlier; being as pragmatic as possible.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 5:45 PM
That is an excellent summation. Bravo’s to ya.
Corsair on May 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM
I totally respect your decision. Best I can do is register a “protest” vote as my state will go McCain – it’s more a wake-up call to down ballot wishy-washy Repubs in my state. I enjoy conversing with you. I apologize for the “bold” format, but I don’t know how to clearly make my point without it, because of the medium; no tone inflection or hand gestures, etc. to make sure others know that it’s not a snarky quip. Does that make sense. I hope so. While using the bold is a way to answer directly it comes off as “shouting” online and I wanted to clarify I was “shouting” using the bold. This whole election (how did we get stuck choosing among senators???) has my head spinning. :)
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM
You’re one of the few trying to keep that tent big enough for a win. Routinely others condemn anything a bit left of far right to a hot place. No flaming from here, dear misterpeasea,
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM
misterpeasea, I just lauded you, and the internet ‘ate’ my message, for unknown reason. Might be ’spit’ back here later.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 5:52 PM
no problems!
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 5:52 PM
There, misterpeasea, it was a quick digestion :)
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 5:52 PM
Okay, so I admit it. I’m a CINO AND a RINO. What you don’t know, is that it is actually worse than that.
Ghandi once said “I’d BE a Christian, if it weren’t for the other Christians.” Although I AM a Christian, I’d BE a Democrat, if it weren’t for the other Democrats that I know.
Shocking? Heresy? Blasphemy? Maybe. Keep in mind that I remember some of the ’50s and ALL of the ’60s. Just as the data in Ed’s post shows, things were different back then. I vividly remember the 1968 campaign. The leading Republican candidates were liberals, viz. Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller. There were plenty of conservatives in the Democratic party, like Scoop Jackson of my current home state of Washington — and who could forget guys like George Wallace. Wallace may have been a bigot, but he sure didn’t qualify as a liberal Democrat.
I remember a time when a conservative like myself could be a Democrat. So the data presented here came as no surprise to me. It corroborates exactly what I’ve been saying for many years now. The political landscape has become more polarized, more nasty, and more intolerant.
Ed’s post shows WHAT has happened, but it doesn’t show WHY. After reading through all the commenters’ posts here, I think that this early (first page) comment comes closest to explaining the WHY:
The reason that the political parties have become polarized is because the PEOPLE of our society have become polarized. When I was a kid, there were a lot of hard-working, law-abiding Democrats around that knew the difference between right and wrong and that were interested in the truth. Today’s Democrat couldn’t care less about what’s right or wrong and most don’t believe that Truth is objective, they think that it is situational.
I am a conservative that does not “fit-in” well with the Republican party. But I hang out with the Republicans simply because I can no longer stomach the Democrats. What do you do with people like me? Kick us out of the “big tent” and post a sign out front saying “No RINOs allowed” or “No CINOs allowed”. There are certainly posters here that want to do exactly that. But is that really the smart thing to do? Do you want people like me to use “the Colored wash room” and/or sit at the back of the bus? If you are a Christian, is that what Jesus would do?
My collie says:
CyberCipher on May 18, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Oops, never meant that,”…someone who is not exactly in line with your own principles is not an unpricipled person.” – I know that; I just didn’t want you to think I was trying to anything “too religious” or “rigid” – sorry was just “teasing” because I often get confused by your “reasoning” {trust me I know on some things it might be “operator error” on my part ;D} and sometimes it comes across that, imho, that your opinions are contorted and your were sticking with a “principle.” May explain why I am an unemployed comedian. Happy Sunday :^)
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2008 at 5:53 PM
You rock!
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Might be because I’m so slow, BR. Happy Sunday to you too,
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 5:56 PM
I’m with you on probably 95% of the things you list. I don’t think gays should be persecuted.
I’m not gay, but I’ve known and worked with too many outstanding individuals who are gay (many of them *shocker* steady church-members) to think it’s in any way fair or Conservative to deny them any and all of the rights I have.
If they can find the monogamous bliss I have been blessed to find with Mrs. B, then more power to them. I really don’t understand the whole aversion to gay marriage. The thing that pissed me off about the California ruling wasn’t the approval. It was the way the voter’s will was usurped by the activist judges.
But to my main point here, you’re willing to cut ties with People like me, even though I am for the vast majority of things you are. But that’s not good enough. I have to be ‘pure’.
Ain’t happening. I’ll take up my faults and weaknesses when I’m face to face with the Big Guy when it’s my turn to meet Him. I, and no human I’ve ever met, has the ability to be ‘pure’. It’s an illusion, and a self-agrandizing one at that. (That last line is not aimed at you, btw)
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 5:56 PM
see, I can admit operator error. Sorry JinxiDad! meant NOT SHOUTing heh!
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2008 at 5:59 PM
My collie says:
CyberCipher on May 18, 2008 at 6:03 PM
I agree people need to be honest. Many here are centrist in their views, some even liberal, but they don’t tell you. They would have you believe they are right-wing conservatives… which is deceptive and here is where we part misterpeasea (which is fine). I think bringing the Republican party to the center will be a disaster for America. This is NOT what grassroots conservatives want, nor have asked for. But, the establishment snobs don’t care. People are being fooled. We are witnessing the beginning of the end of moral America headed for the liberal ideas and policies that will be the downfall of a once great nation that feared God – the One protecting them all along.
apacalyps on May 18, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Gotta go have a nice day.
apacalyps on May 18, 2008 at 6:07 PM
You’re not so dumb yourself, ya know. Great post.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Did we ever get an answer from flenser, re who he’s voting for this November? Seems to have gotten awfully quiet.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 6:13 PM
I’ll have to disagree. The “playing field” was moved. If the Red Sox are going to play the Yankees, doesn’t it make sense to play where the ballfield is?
GT on May 18, 2008 at 6:21 PM
No. Looks like he chickened out.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Well said!
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 6:25 PM
If he chickens back in, just ask him to rate America’s Imperialism on a scale of 1 to 10!
RushBaby on May 18, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Heh. Paulite?
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Well, not too good for Jews, Catholic priests, homosexuals, gypsies, etc…but great for several years for the “Great Speech Giver” (Hitler) & “Eugenics Devotees” (Nazis Loved Margaret Sanger) & “Reasonable Scientists” (Dr. Josef Mengale). HRH Patrick Neid need not reply.
Above, are all rhetorical responses.
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Haven’t they banned you yet?
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Well, I don’t know if he’s a Paulite or not. I’m not seeing any evidence of that yet. I think Flenser’s heart is in the right place (maturity not withstanding). I think we all can pretty much agree where we’d like the US to be politically. The argument is how we get there.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Yep. Looks like Flenser’s chicken.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Yep.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 6:56 PM
No, you witless imbecile, I’m not. Do people have to pass some sort of stupidity test before they get to post here? I’m arguing that we should dump McCain and get a conservative on the ticket. Mot an “extreme” conservative. Hell, somebody as conservative as Bush would do.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Look like techno_barbarian’s a drooling moron. Of course, was it ever in doubt?
Hey, GT, that’s three separate lies I caught you in.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:00 PM
You people actually believe the crap he writes?
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:02 PM
ROTFLMAO!!! You sound just like my dear departed father when I did something really stupid. Oh man, that put a smile on my face to hear those words again. LOL!!!
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 7:04 PM
I have no idea whether Levin referenced it or not. But he sure as hell did not write it, which is what GT was claiming. If GT’s fingers are moving, he’s probably lying.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:04 PM
“A real live thoughtful comment. Thanks.”
Alas, I suspect I”ve since exited your good graces, although I’ll have to catch up on the thread to find out.
“Factually inaccurate, and not at all responsive to what I said. In fact, I rejected the idea you are attributing to me – that “social conservatives” are attemping to define the fetus as “person” in law.”
Although I may not have made it clear, I was attributing the push for fetal personhood to socially conservative activists. I cited you for disingenously framing social conservatives’ intentions, which you, yourself, almost immediately proceed to confirm:
” If you believe that innocent human life is being taken, as many “social conservatives” do think, then it’s a conservative response to try to stop that.”
Defining the fetus as a person in law proceeds apace, from laws designating the murder of pregnant women as a double homicides, to reformulating the legal language regarding healthcare for a pregnant woman as healthcare for a woman and her unborn child. On an individual basis, most of these initiatives either take advantage of horrified public reaction to events like the Laci Peterson homicide or are presented as unremarkable changes to which objections are dismissed as overwrought. Taken collectively, however, they are part of a concerted effort to establish a body of law as to fetal personhood upon which the case for abortion as murder will ultimately be taken, not to Congress, but to the Supreme Court.
” But by that definition the Feds had no business in getting involved with slavery.”
Aside from the fact that the Feds were involved in the slavery issue from the get go, that analogy doesn’t even begin to encompass the slippery slope argument I’ve been making here.
“But you seem to be implying that they think this way in an effort to get their grubby statist fingers on power. Perhaps they really believe that life begins at conception?”
Not so, nor do I question the sincerity or the depth of such beliefs for an instant. I’m arguing that there is nothing inherently conservative about co-opting a liberal approach to problem solving on the judicial and federal playing field. I am not arguing that they seek empower themselves, but quite the contrary. In their willingness to expand the power of government to eliminate abortion, they are ultimately empowering that government — a government not exclusively of their own making — to control almost every aspect of reproduction.
You may consider this a libertarian argument. I do not. I start from the premise of bias toward small government and local control, not the elimination of thereof. I would actually call myself a Republilcan, as opposed to a Conservative, although conservatives — and the press as well — have developed the annoying habit of conflating the two. You seem to go even further still, conflating social and political conservatism as though there were no discernable difference between the two. If it is not possible to be a pro-choice conservative, then are you not making my own case for me?
JM Hanes on May 18, 2008 at 7:05 PM
Lack of maturity, check.
Would you have passed if they did?
Who and how? Give of the name of who you support and how that person could win the nomination at the convention without tearing the party apart like Hillary seems bent on doing to her’s? Specifics please.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 7:05 PM
Flenser. Whatever you are, and whoever you’re voting for, you are funny as hell.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 7:05 PM
Wow. Hire this man! Hearing the truth REally feeeeels goooood. And for the record I supported Bush.
But maybe they and you could stop lecturing conservatives on what conservatives should do.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:06 PM
You realize I gave you a link to the article with the author’s name on it.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 7:07 PM
My last was a reply to flenser.
JM Hanes on May 18, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Sounds like he was a good judge of character.
Yes, Entelechy already has the whole faux amusment sctick down pat.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:08 PM
hahahahaahahaha. you’re a NY’er, huh?
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 7:09 PM
that’s “shtick,”, but doesn’t matter. I’m seriously laughing out loud here, no faux about it. Sorry if that wasn’t what you intended.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 7:10 PM
GT
You mean this atricle? I don’t see Levins name on it. Can you point it out?
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Sure you are. I guess the whole circus here really thinks that saying this nonsense makes them part of the in-crowd. Hey, whatever makes you look cool in front of your little friends.
We both know that you are “sorry” in exactly the same sense that you are “laughing”. Which is to say, not at all. But if carrying on like this gives you some sort of pleasure, knock yourself out.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:16 PM
How’d you guess?
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Tell you what, Flenser. I’ll answer your question if you answer Entelechy’s.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Flenser. Seriously, no kidding. Just my sophmoric sense of humor which never really got past Animal House or Caddyshack. I assure you I am not laughing at you. OK?
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 7:20 PM
No, you’ll admit you were lying first.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:21 PM
because you sound like the wise-asses who made up my circle of friends.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Thanks, but I never thought that you were. I think I made that clear.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Chicken.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 7:23 PM
See what I mean? Um… “Look like techno…” And I’m the drooling moron?
Well, I do get a kick out of Ace’s place too, so I’ll wear that moron moniker proudly.
But, once again, you prove my silicon-abraded sphincter evaluation, little man.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 7:25 PM
I linked to the article you claimed was written Levin. it has no author listed. It seems to be a WJS “opinions of the editors” piece. It does not sound anything like Levin though.
Lying chicken.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:26 PM
A link will prove the point.
Johan Klaus on May 18, 2008 at 7:27 PM
What? That’s he’s a chicken?
GT on May 18, 2008 at 7:27 PM
Why, yes. You drool. And you have the IQ of a moron. Hence, you are a drooling moron. Little boy.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Well I damn sure am. This one’s a hoot!
You’re a better man than I, JD.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 7:28 PM
There’s no name on the WSJ piece.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Danke.
Johan Klaus on May 18, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Because he completely disarmed me with the witless imbecile and drooling moron stuff. My dad “had a way with words”, and I still miss him. Reminded me of him fondly, and stopped giving a damn about politics for a few minutes. Not sure if Flenser got what I meant. Really was LOL.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 7:30 PM
I gave a link, as did Entelechy.
Here it is again.
No mention of Mark Levin that I can see, or that came up in a search on the page.
I also googled the articles name with Levins name. Nothing.
I think GT is pulling stuff out of his smelly orifice.
But he can easily prove me wrong.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:30 PM
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 7:31 PM
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Must I really go through the five comment pages?
On topic, I just saw @ Drudge from SFGate Schwartzenegger wanting to REBRAND the GOP. No surprise at all that Arnold has this in mind. But nudge, nudge, right wing please fly away.
maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 7:32 PM
It’s like come infectious disease. Now I’m worried that if I hang around here too long, I’ll be telling people “I’m very amused” through gritted teeth, like you guys.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 Next »