The Myth of the RINO?
posted at 9:02 am on May 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
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: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »
39 comments on the Ahnold in the Headlines section.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Yep. Its because there isn’t one. I was wrong earlier to attribute the piece to Levin. I had 3 other articles pulled up at the time and mixed the WSJ piece with one that Levin had written about McCain.
Am I a liar? No.
Was I wrong? Yes. It was careless of me.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 7:35 PM
Yeah, we too can be the party of gay marriage and abortion and global warming and big government and so on and on and on. Let’s be that party. Why not?
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:35 PM
GT:
“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?”
I’m afraid I broke my own rule, which is to avoid analogies like the plague. In my experience, you only end up arguing about the analogy instead of the fundamental issue in question. It seems to me that you’re simply conceding that government is, in fact, the answer, at the consideranble expense of those who continue to fight for limiting its reach. While you might be happy with the results should conservatives control the reins, we are about to see what happens when they lose any influence on those who do.
JM Hanes on May 18, 2008 at 7:35 PM
Well, I see we’ve finally reached the, “I know you are, but what am I?” stage of this riveting debate. I knew it was coming. It was only a matter of time.
Next I predict a “Nuh_uh!” “Uh_HUH!” escalation that will rival the U.S./Soviet arms race.
Don’t touch that dial!
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 7:36 PM
No, seriously. It is amusing.
jaime on May 18, 2008 at 7:36 PM
You were what? I can’t HEAR you!
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Sorry, I can’t shout in Chickenese.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Does this page amount to the braying of a donkey from a bitter stick?
Schtick, maybe.
maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 7:39 PM
No, seriously, you people act like you’re part of a cult, with your own peculiar meanings for words.
In this entire thread, the only person to so much as crack a smile was me. And that was when GT said he was wrong. Not to me, of course. That would have taken too much balls. But still, he admitted it to somebody else.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Ata boy… way to be gracious.
Now. Answer Entel’s question, sphincterboy.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Says the guy who jumped into the debate by calling me a sandy little butt-hole. Wise up, moron, the debate hit the toilet the instant you logged on.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Quit playing the victim. What’s with the bug up ur ass?
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 7:42 PM
The “witless imbecile” can only concur with common sense: “Dr.Zero, you’re my hero.”
I’m not enthralled with McCain as the presidential candidate, but with strong current conservative leadership like DeMint’s and Sessions’s and with the election of downticket conservatives to Congress in the GE, McCain can be persuaded to act in the interest of the country.
Those who stayed home in 2006 to teach the party a lesson gave us a Democrat-dominated Congress and that liberal gargoyle Pelosi, who wields her power with more gusto and take-no-prisoner attitude than any president begins to have. She’ll have a grand old time manipulating BarryBoy.
No vote or third-party vote, based on principle or sheer orneriness, will lead us to liberal hell to pay.
onlineanalyst on May 18, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Sorry, eunuch, I don’t answer requests from trash like you.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Yet you still lack the balls to answer Entelechy’s question.
I have the courage to admit when I’ve made a mistake about who I attributed the article to. Unfortunately for you, that still leaves you as a chicken.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 7:44 PM
And yet still it lives! Quelle surprise!
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 7:44 PM
As Mork from Ork would say:
My collie says:
Maybe — but don’t be surprised if the other commenters start laughing at you — and if they spit on you, don’t come whining to me, okay?
CyberCipher on May 18, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Birds of a feather……………
I would only add that a Conservative is one who sees a bureaucracy with a 50% over head and a 13% production rate, and everything else is graft, waste, and abuse is a problem.
To Liberals, it’s time to raise taxes and throw more money at the problem………
Seven Percent Solution on May 18, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Not a bug, JD. Sand. ;)
His head will explode soon. Just watch.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 7:45 PM
It’s not my question, genius. So answer it. You’re pretty good at demands. Reciprocation? Not so much.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Well, OK. Nevertheless, I’ve been amused by some of your comments. I don’t entirely disagree with you, but I must say: I’m more amused than agreeable.
jaime on May 18, 2008 at 7:47 PM
People like to say that, but when has he EVER shown signs of being persuadable about anything?
A vote for McCain is a vote for liberalism. If you want to avoid liberalism, and you all are insistent that you do, then the next President had better be named something other than Clinton, McCain, or Obama.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:47 PM
When I did something stupid, my father would call me a Dummkopf. He was a man of few words, but would not hesitate to use the belt when it was deserved. I miss my father also.
Johan Klaus on May 18, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Stop hiding! Other than McCain Clinton or Obama?? That just leaves Paul. YOU ARE THE SMARTEST RON PAUL FAN I’VE EVER SEEN ON THIS SITE. You should have just said so to begin with. There was one woman, a nightmare, called muyoso. God i couldn’t stand her.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Sure. I believe you. Honest. To God.
I, too, have found much merriment in your own jocular remarks, even though I realise you may not have intended then as such. That in itself just adds to the humour of it all. Since you clearly have a well developed sense of humor, I’m sure you can understand what I mean.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:50 PM
yeah, I got the belt too. Shame is he didn’t live long enough to hear me tell him I wasn’t pissed anymore. Jeez, fathers and sons. You could write a book about it:)
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Still won’t answer Entel’s question? Still a chicken, I guess.
You’re good at whining and complaining. Are you any good at coming up with a solution? Or is whining and complaining all you’re good for?
You said…. (flenser on May 18, 2008 at 6:59 PM)
You’ve yet to explain 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 7:53 PM
I repeat, is these some special stupidity test people have to pass before becoming commenters here?
Is Paul even running in the general election?
What about the Libertarian and Constitution Partys? And there must be others.
What about derailing McCain at the convention and getting somebody a little less liberal?
There are an infinity of choices out there beyond you peoples bizarre obsession with Ron Paul. Which I find amusing, of course.
:)
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 7:54 PM
The Borg will assimilate him.
MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Flenser, I haven’t seen you post here before, but I really think you are misreading so many of the comments directed towards you. I think many are meant to be taken at face value.
Hope you have a great night. I’m off to watch the Yankees destroy the Mets.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Still waiting on that question of who you’re going to vote for there, phelgm, er I mean flenser. It’s easy. You just type on the little keys and the words apear. You can do it. I have faith in you.
Man, I don’t usually tolerate insolence this long, but what the hell.
P.S. You’re not making many friends here at HA, my man. You seem wholey unable to take a friggin’ joke. Life’s short. Lighten up.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Absolutely!
jaime on May 18, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Fair enough. Lots of candidates then. Do what you gotta do, and good luck to u.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Same here. Biggest regret is that my Dad didn’t live long enough to see what I turned out to be, and me to be able to properly thank him for all he did for me.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 7:58 PM
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 7:42 PM
JiangxiDad @ 7:50
This thread has run the course trying to reach across the aisle all day sharing ideas with someone bent on being obnoxious. Even if you find a point in common, the adolescent will reject it since your coodies are on it. But KUDOS on your long suffering.
jaime put it nicely:
maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 7:58 PM
I hear ya. Gotta go. Baseball calls.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Who - i can you you a long list of people. Start with DeMint, Session, Coburn, Jindal, Sandford etc.
How - a convention fight. Not one single delegate has cast a vote yet. If they want our votes, we want theirs.
I hate to have to break this to you, but the party is already tearing itself apart as much or more than the Democrats. We need a fusion candidate who can bring it back together. Otherwise the big bad Democrats will win.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 8:00 PM
g’nite.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Good night all.
Johan Klaus on May 18, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Have a good one JD! He’s just an insecure kid lashing out at people he doesn’t know at all. He’ll get over it. Or not.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 8:02 PM
I’m not hear to make friends, you jackass. And certainly not with people like you.
Who the [anglo saxon expletive] do you imagine yourself to be? You have an ego of McCainiac proportions.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 8:03 PM
I’m sure that you know differently.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Well I go away for a few hours to treat Hillary for her Bosnia flashbacks and Obama for his split Homie/Squire personality disorder only to come back to find that flenser is still trying to go cold turkey without a nicotine patch. Either that or he has been eating tiger cookies and drinking panther piss all day.
Sigy on May 18, 2008 at 8:05 PM
‘Night Johan. Enjoyed it.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 8:07 PM
I quote that passage simply because it’s one of the more recent that expresses a view that I would call apocalyptic or eschatological conservatism. It’s not the only conservatism, and to my mind it’s not even a particularly American form of conservatism - not that it’s anything new or unusual in American politics.
This kind of conservatism is usually associated with absolute and unshakable uncertainty that the breakdown of one or another institution or set of beliefs or customs will mean the end of everything of value as “we” (i.e., some particular in-group) know it. To people who hold such views, anyone who doesn’t also hold them can’t be a real conservative, since for the true believers it’s always as though the world itself and all the souls who inhabit it are in danger.
For example, for pro-life conservatives of a certain type, it is inconceivable, insulting, and appalling for someone who’s pro-choice to claim to be conservative. Similarly, for Tancredo-ist immigration hawks who believe that the hordes of illegals are going to destroy the US unless they’re stopped, those who don’t share their views can’t be authentically conservative, since the only alternative to their program is the eventual destruction of the nation.
But there’s another way of looking at “conservative” in the American tradition. In other countries, conservatives historically have been those “conserving” inherited class and property systems that may even have pre-dated the formation of modern nation-states. In America, conservatives have constitutional government, and, for lack of a better phrase, the American spirit of inclusive egalitarianism and individual and social freedom, to conserve.
There’s nothing desperate, defensive, pessimistic, or apocalyptic (in the negative sense) about that tradition. It errs on the side (far on the side) of accepting differences of opinion and working them out through compromise within the political system. From the very beginning and before the beginning, this kind of Americanism has accepted, if not always welcomed, terrible contradictions between the beliefs, moral precepts, and even the aims of diverse citizens all of presumably equal good standing. The outlook is, overall, highly pragmatic about moral differences and how to handle them, and, in the modern era, is closely identified with the total political and economic system of democratic capitalism.
It’s accepting of change (”we are the change”), but it doesn’t fetishize change, especially at the cost of liberty.
In its inclusivism, it has also tended to err on the side of inviting people to join in and extending its reach beyond our borders, and sometimes of extending the borders themselves.
It’s generally been hostile or at least inhospitable to the imposition of any absolute ideological or moral system from above - and that’s something some of us are even more concerned about conserving than, yes, the lives of millions of babies or perfect respect for one or another set of laws.
That others can’t accept that we feel that way precisely because our experience convinces us that protecting our children and preserving the rule of law isn’t possible any other way - just as in earlier generations accepting the institution of slavery seemed the price of preserving the chance for freedom - makes politics difficult for us, but no one said life would be easy.
More to the point of this discussion, we reject the idea that the conservative movement belongs to anyone else exclusively, just as we doubt that, in the American context, an exclusivist conservatism could be anything other than a contradiction in terms.
CK MacLeod on May 18, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Well, I’m getting pretty sick of this whole stupid discussion. What is, is, and no charts and graphs presented as ‘evidence’ to the contrary are going to alter reality OR perception.
The real McCainiacs will continue to ignore any evidence that proves that their idol has feet of crumbling clay.
Those of us that actually understand him are unlikely to change our minds as far as actually supporting him verbally or financially…. The fear of Obamillary is the only thing in play to determine if he will even get our vote or not.
There are a lot of people I respect here that are in the ‘hold your nose and vote for McCain’ camp. Sometimes they nearly can convince me to set aside my 33 years of distrust of McCain… Nearly…
I suppose I could maybe ignore the old sort of personal stuff dating back to when we were both still in uniform.
I suppose I could forgive him for limiting my Constitutional First Amendment rights through McCain-Feingold.
I suppose I could forgive him for trying to sneak through his Amnesty for Illegal Aliens bill and suspend my disbelief at his “I’ve learned my lesson on immigration” campaign statements, despite what I know about his personality.
But I just CAN’T forgive, forget or ignore his willingness to destroy the American Economy because he is an avowed GoreBull Warming Acolyte, and is basing so much of his campaign on that nonsense.
We actually had some of that white ‘evidence of global warming’ fall here in my south-central New Mexico neighborhood last night:
http://tinyurl.com/6hkgb2
The American economy (and culture) is going to take a huge hit no matter which idiot gets elected in November. I’d just prefer that a guy with an R next to his name not get the blame for ruining things for everyone.
My long term strategy for the survival of Conservatism, (and America as a great nation) is based on that. So, I’ll work for and give money to the few sensible people in the House and Senate races, and either leave it blank or vote 3rd party/write in for President.
LegendHasIt on May 18, 2008 at 8:11 PM
It is of the highest importance in the art of detection to be able to recognize out of a number of facts which are incidental and which vital. Otherwise your energy and attention must be dissipated instead of being concentrated.
Holmes on May 18, 2008 at 8:13 PM
A convention fight won’t accomplish anything but strengthen the Democrats. It won’t help conservatives nor conservatism. That is why Reagan refused to have a convention fight back in 1976 against Ford. He knew it would do more harm than good. In spite of dwelling on bitterness, Reagan demonstrated grace and maturity by working to help Ford, not against him.
Its a lesson that all Republicans and Conservatives would do well to remember.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Take a deep breath, kid, and try to look in the mirror for once. The mountain-sized ego on display here is clearly your own.
The really amazing thing is that on 95% of the issues, I’m on your side. But if you think you’re going to win people to your way of thinking the way you stomped into this blog and tried to lay down the law… well, you’re just sadly mistaken.
Respect is earned, and it’s wise to read and get to know the culture of a place you intend to post regularly. You’ve got a lot to learn about respect, kid, and I’m not talking about respecting me, which you clearly will never do. And I’m perfectly fine with that. You have been way too touchy on this thread, even to people who would support what you have to say. That speaks to a lack of maturity and a great insecurity on your part.
There are a lot of good people here at HA, many of them hold positions and opinions I disagree with. But I’ve learned to respect them and am better for having read their thoughts and positions. You might try giving someone the benefit of the doubt sometimes.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 8:19 PM
flenser:
“I’m arguing that we should dump McCain and get a conservative on the ticket.”
Oddly enough, that’s what primaries are for. Traditionally, that process requires fielding an electable candidate, but maybe next time you can persuade Republicans to include a “generic conservative” option. I don’t see the do-over concept getting much traction, though.
“You people actually believe the crap he writes?”
Even odder still, I believe the crap in question is the bit where I actualy credited you with some principles. Looks like one of us is due a refund on that speed reading course.
JM Hanes on May 18, 2008 at 8:20 PM
Well said.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 8:25 PM
flenser’s not from NY, he’s from the UK. He was just pulling JD’s leg (or some such).
jaime on May 18, 2008 at 8:25 PM
*sigh*
Last one to the party :(
Ugly on May 18, 2008 at 8:26 PM
Yep. The keg is hitting on empty.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 8:27 PM
MacLeod
Thanks for trying to get this back on track.
Hmmmm. That depends. What exactly is this “spirit of inclusive egalitarianism and individual and social freedom”? It sounds very much like something a liberal Democrat could agree with, depening on the details. Historically speaking, America has not had vast amounts of individual freedom, precisely because it has had social freedom. So I’m not convinced by this.
I’m sure there is a name for the logical fallacy of describing you own position glowing terms and those of your opponents in a negative light. If not, there should be.
It could be easily argued that the whole “we must win the war in Iraq or they’ll be burqas on Broadway” is deperate and apocalyptic and defensive.
I think that this claim is historically inaccurate. At the least, I’m challenging you on it and would like to see you support your claim. You don’t say when this sort of Americanism started. Perhaps you mean in the sixties?
I’m pretty familiar with American history, I think, but I’m at a loss to imagine what you are thinking of here. America has had high immigration in the past. That’s natural, as a fairly empty country. But you seem to think that it was a reflection of some ideological impulse driving the American people to get outsiders to join us.
I’m pretty sure that this entire comment you wrote was a defence of open borders and mass immigration, though you somehow managed not to mention them. In which case, no. Mass immigration and open borders is not compatible with American conservatism. They are not even compatible with American libertarianism or American liberalism.
Your notion of “American conservativism” sounds largely identical to what most of us call liberalism. Do you agree? It wants to “conserve” nothing but endless change for the sake of change.
Conservatism is opposed to total power, period. It makes no difference whether it’s the power of “democratic capitalism”, which conservatism, even neoconservatism, has always been skeptical of.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 8:36 PM
You’re all so busy being amused you think everything is a joke. I’m from NY.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 8:38 PM
CK MacLeod on May 18, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Excellent points, elegant argument. Many thanks.
JM Hanes on May 18, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Nope. It’s yours. You are the one who imagines that this comment section is his private property and is bellowing like an elephant afraid his females are being eyed by a rival. I’m here to discuss politics. Not my fault that the only person who knows how is MacLeod.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Of course, they were all liberal arguments and points. But well made, I grant you.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 8:42 PM
Sure Sport, have it your way.
jaime on May 18, 2008 at 8:43 PM
I caught some of the other commenters here in a lie. In the course of my getting them to admit that, you jumped in and decided to crap all over me. I’m giving you exactly the same benefit of the doubt which you gave me.
I don’t bear a grudge, or get emotionally invested in online debates. You want a pissing content, cool. You want to be nice, that’s cool.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 8:48 PM
Got anything to say on matters political, jamie? Or shall I write a comment explaining how little I care whether some anonymous blog commenter belives I’m from NY?
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 8:50 PM
MacLeod
I give you Federalist #2.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 8:55 PM
Now we’re into National Geographic senarios. You really are quite bad at this debate thing.
You give me way too much power, and hold yourself in unjustifiably high esteem. You are irredeemable, it seems. But hey, I tried.
And yet you’re already pissing all over him, too. You stay classy there, flenser.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 8:56 PM
flenser:
“Of course, they were all liberal arguments and points”
Only if the concept of inclusivism automatically flips some sort of anti-multi-culti switch in your brain.
JM Hanes on May 18, 2008 at 8:57 PM
MacLeods vision is of America as a “gorgeous mosaic”, in David Dinkens phrase. Whatever it’s other merits, I don’t think anyone has ever claimed it was a conservative vision before now.
Even the more liberal Republicans tend to believe that America must be a “melting pot” for those who do immigrate here. So I think I’m on solid ground in rejecting MacLeods vision as unconservative.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 8:59 PM
Have you read a single comment I’ve read on what he wrote? Have you read what he wrote, with a critical eye? There is nothing there which Obama could not have approved of. “Exclusion, bad. Inclusion, good.” But look at the details.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 9:02 PM
I know better of course but Watson is rather insistent that flenser is really James Oddo.
Holmes on May 18, 2008 at 9:06 PM
Says the drooling moron who called me what was it again? A sand filled butt hole? And that seems to be your norm, not a one off aberration.
You people are pathetic. Is there any sort of disagreement which is not “pissing all over” somebody, in your eyes? I’m doing him the honor of seriously engaging his ideas. That’s more than you have given me so far.
His ideas boil down to “what American conservatives want to conserve is liberalism”. That’s false, of course, and I’ll be happy to quote at length from many American conservative thinkers who say otherwise, if he wants me to.
But you can’t stop obsessing over the fact that there is a new guy posting on your threads to even debate the issue.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 9:09 PM
I can’t wait for Flenser’s book, How to Win Friends and Influence People.
Flenser, you say that Reagan didn’t support amnesty. I won’t be so crass as to call you a liar. You’re simply mistaken.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 9:14 PM
Yet again, you lie. You said that Reagan “insisted” on amnesty. You STILL have not been able to back that up.
So you switch to a new lie leaving the old one like a smelly turd in the middle of the room.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Heh. The poor fool doesn’t realize we’re laughing at him, not with him.
Again with the ego. How gracious of you, your highness. And from your pathetic performance on this thread, it’s demonstrably debateable that you’re capable of anything serious.
But by all means, go ahead and continue with your tantrum.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Oh, and for the record, it’s ’sandy little butt-hole’. Details and accuracy are paramountly important, after all.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 9:25 PM
The full text of the debate between Reagan and Mondale is here. Serious commenters, if there are any on this board, may find it a good read.
The person who sounds like McCain is not Reagan, but Mondale. It’s also interesting that we’ve been stuck trying to get employer sanctions for the last twenty four years, at least.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Wander off to Aces. I’ll meet you there and discuss things with you in the language you are accustomed to.
In the mean time, stop sniveling because I’m trying to have a conversation at a level a little above your butt hole fixation. You could always join in, if you are able. Any thoughts on what MacLeod said? On my response to it?
The funny thing is, MacLeod is a known liberal on this site, and you’re all falling all over yourselves to applaud his definition of conservatism as liberalism. To try to annoy me, I assume, though I’d consider MacLeods opinions to carry more than weight then yours at this stage.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Again, don’t sit there with steam coming out youur ears and try to tell me that you’re laughing, With me or at me, you’re not laughing at all.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 9:35 PM
Also, for the record, I have a history here of welcoming new posters (google it, but I know you won’t).
I’m not obsessing at all. I’m just bored and toying with you. From what I’ve seen, there is no point trying to actually debate you. The reason I jumped on your ignorant ass to begin with is because you were in no way civil to people I respect and count as friends early in this thread.
Your tactic has been to immediately disagree with every poster, having absolutely no idea who they are or what they believe or espouse, and then call them liberals or liars and then assume you are the be all and end all of Conservative thought and theory. That’s arrogant, plain and simple.
I call bs. At best you’re a troll, and a very poor one at that. I’m inclined to agree with the poster earlier who said you were a troll at Cap’n Ed’s last digs.
Anyway, your welcome, Cap’n Ed, for the monster thread from all of us who had an amusing afternoon on this post.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 9:36 PM
Actually, I am. I can’t believe you’re still posting.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Yeah, it’s all about you, isn’t it, flenser?
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 9:41 PM
So, McCain’s a RINO. Duh. Why is all this empty (and very boring) discussion necessary?
AZCON on May 18, 2008 at 9:46 PM
It’s not AZ, and I apologize for you having to wade thru it.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Well, I admit I missed most of it because I was on the pot pinching a flenser.
AZCON on May 18, 2008 at 9:51 PM
Absolute nonsense..We lose elections because too any elected folk in our party vote their own aganda and not their constituents. McCain is a raving Rino and will lose in November with an epic loss, unless the dems self destruct.
Many, many republicans are simply not voting for McCain.
I was at a gun show this weekend as a volunteer for my local congressman. I had a score of folk tell me they were long term republicans, they were going to vote for my congressman, BUT, they were sure as heck NOT going to vote for McCain. Masny were really angry over McCains pandering to the global warming cult this week.
JIMV on May 18, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Why lie, Flesner? Are you that desperate.
I said….”Even though he signed the 1986 IRCA, he still insisted on provisions that legalized illegal immigrants already in the US.” (GT on May 18, 2008 at 11:32 AM)
You really are pathetic. Your problem is that you don’t pay attention to what anyone says to you.
For example, you took a snippet of what I said: “his insistence on provisions for the illegals already here”
…and came back with this jewel….
Geez. You really are that thickheaded. That isn’t what said.
1) Reagan is on record supporting amnesty.
2) Reagan did indeed insist on certain provisions concerning the illegals already here.
Why do you insist on twisting my words? If you suffer from some form of dyslexia, I’ll understand. But dude, you got some real issues you need to deal with. You need help.
.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Well as I warned everybody earlier Flenser, clearly did not take my advice. Here’s my much distorted quip.
“Flenser, god love ya, but you have been full of shit as regards McCain for a long time. He’s the nominee. Get over it. Either vote for him or not, but for the love of god shut the F up about his not doing what you like”.
patrick neid on May 18, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Eleven hours ago!!! You were all warned!
patrick neid on May 18, 2008 at 9:54 PM
Bwhaahaahaha! Damn, but that’s funny! But you really didn’t miss much. Good points early on. Troll bashing after that. Six pages though. Pretty impressive level of vitriol from the young one.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 9:57 PM
I used to call it a csdeven.
AZCON on May 18, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Flenser,
Reagan supported amnesty. Yes or No?
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Ha ha! We were indeed.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 10:00 PM
flenzer:
“I give you Federalist #2.”
You’re giving us utopian propaganda, ironically, in an appeal designed to head off precisely the kind of splintering that his vision, were it accurate, would belie. He was a serious anglophile, of course, for reasons which made eminently practical good sense, and he long made it his cause to persuade the fence sitters that Britain, not France, was our “natural” ally — a proposition that was in considerable dispute (see: Jefferson, Thos.). There’s a reason he’s often called the forgotten founder, and while the particular passage you quote may be a favorite among certain social/religious conservatives, it hardly constitutes anything resembling a statement of conservative principles. Jay does, however, go on to suggest that there is safety in numbers, essentially recommending that something very like the “contradictions between the beliefs, moral precepts, and even the aims of diverse citizens all of presumably equal good standing” be resolved within the union, instead of being the proximate cause of its dissolution.
JM Hanes on May 18, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Thank you for your respectful and thoughtful reply to my post. When I put it up, I expected it would be the unheard coda for a dead thread.
That I call your reply, or rather replies, respectful and thoughtful shouldn’t of course be taken as indicating my agreement with their substance. I also hope you’ll forgive me for not responding to every point you make, or take my silence on arguments that for practical reasons I’m setting aside as tacit agreement or, conversely, impertinent non-responsiveness.
Well, one well-known example of its expression begins “we hold these truths to be self-evident…” I trust that you’re familiar with the rest. As for whether or not a liberal Democrat would agree, well I would certainly hope so, for as much as I may differ with that particular liberal Democrat, I hope I can begin any dialog with him from the assumption of shared acceptance of the precepts of our civic life, including those set forth in its founding documents. Quite crucially, I think, these preceded the formation of political parties and the conventional separation of “right” and “left”: Literally, neither existed, at least in their modern forms, at the time of our country’s founding.
The citation from the Federalist Papers is particularly appropriate in this context, since the Federalist Papers themselves are directly associated with the early, inevitable but not universally well-received identification and establishment of distinct, ideologically defined political parties. Jay’s description can be said to serve his argument, but, all the same, to remain the expression of his opinion, and hardly a scientific or scholarly description of the population of the United States, either at the time of the founding, in the years preceding it, or over the future course of the country’s development.
[I’m afraid I’ll have to break off here, as I have some barbecuing chores to attend to}
But one thing: I ain’t no “liberal,” at least in the sense that most people nowadays use the term.
CK MacLeod on May 18, 2008 at 10:01 PM
It was a slow Sunday. Needed a pick-me-up.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 10:01 PM
I couldn’t help but notice the similarities myself. I almost asked if it was cs sockpuppeting, but cs made more sense, most times. Had my differences with cs, but I hope he’s doing ok these days. After Romney tanked, cs just disappeared.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Speaking of Romney, anyone have the odds on him becoming McCain’s VP?
GT on May 18, 2008 at 10:08 PM
I had one major issue with cs: He said some pretty ugly things about Jeri Thompson. I ripped him a new on on it.
AZCON on May 18, 2008 at 10:08 PM
The two senators from Maine.
Oops.
pabarge on May 18, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Don’t have the odds, but personally I’m hoping Romney won’t be the pick. Has nothing to do with his religion, I think he’s a gifted executive and manager. I just think he’d drive more people away than he’d attract. Just my opinion, though.
It won’t happen, but I’d love to see Fred on the ticket. He’s writing for Townhall now, like he used to before he officially announced. If he’d just kept that up, and the podcasts too, through his whole campaign, I really believe things might have worked out differently.
Ah well. Can’t turn the clock back and we have what we have.
Yep. I was there and that was indeed ugly.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 10:19 PM
flenser:
Apologies for misspelling your moniker. Hope I haven’t been doing so repeatedly.
JM Hanes on May 18, 2008 at 10:20 PM
I think Romney might end up being a drag on the ticket, but I’d sure love to see him in McCain’s cabinet.
JM Hanes on May 18, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »