Of liberal bile and conservative wit and wisdom
Bookworm on Sep 05 2008 at 8:23 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
John Hawkins hit two home runs today. The first is his Town Hall article about the motivation behind the appalling attacks against Sarah Palin. The second is a post at his own blog, Right Wing News, giving twenty of his favorite quotes from the Republican convention. Both make for enjoyable and enlightening Friday reading.
Related posts:
- The First Crypto-Conservative/Neo-Conservative Carnival
- What conservative bloggers are thinking.
- Conservative politics in a nutshell
Email This Post To A Friend
53 Responses to “Of liberal bile and conservative wit and wisdom”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Bookworm, it’d be nice to see you quote intelligent conservatives (e.g., Stein, Krauthammer, Krystol, Broder, Roberts, Wills, et. al.) when you post your recommended readings. In the words of John Stewart, you are hurting America when you post this nonsense.
The left rejects Palin because she is not a feminist and would be bad for women’s rights as the left defines them. For example, she would overturn Roe v. Wade and won’t even allow abortions in the case of incest or rape. She also would limit access to contraception, which helps to allow a woman to control her future life choices. Now, regardless of your personal views on the issue, it is easy to see why liberals would not support her, and it has nothing to do with sexism. While the GOP is excited about a female candidate–as it would be with a black one–the floor of the RNC had far fewer women and minorities, suggesting your party and its members can hardly be criticizing Democrats (unless you think those women and minorities at the DNC are deluded or stupid). Also, I don’t know which liberals called Condi Rice “mammi” since the author would fail out of high school English given his level of sources, but these straw men argument might make conservatives feel good, but they are totally out of touch with reality. Liberals are not thrilled with Condi Rice because she has not been a very good Secretary of State, for a whole slew of reasons beyond the scope of this post. Finally, the hatred felt for Coulter, Malkin, Thomas and Rice is no greater than conservative hatred for Al Franken, Jeanean Garofalo, Justice Stephens or Warren Christopher. And the author, I’m certain, has no problem with that hatred or hatred in general, just hatred thrown at his ideological heroes. This is not good for America.
You didn’t leave a gushing post about McCain’s speech, as you did for Palin. I assume that means you thought it a bad speech. I thought it a particularly good one because it was quiet, non-ideological, and poignantly highlighted that the GOP has failed America and that McCain is willing to look at more liberal ideologies in order to find good ideas. Your posts are all unbalanced, highlighting conservative wit against liberal vitriol–I don’t remember a single positive thing written in your blog about a leftist candidate, thinker or pundit in the seven months I’ve read its content–but McCain’s view is more balanced, nuanced than that. He knows that the right balance is not on the right but somewhere between the two parties–a belief that I also hold fervently to. He is much better for America than Palin, who is far too partisan, as well as inexperienced, to make a good President, now or in the future. I feel much more comfortable casting a vote for McCain now than I did before the speech and I think reasonable people who can see through ideological hypocrisy will as well. You ought to have congratulated him on that speech last night rather than playing with straw men, anti-Palin comments from unknown citizens of Alaska or linking to like-minded bloggers who write unsourced, unsupported arguments for why liberals don’t support Palin and really are just masogynist, racists fascists.
You do understand, don’t you, that Palin can’t overturn Roe v. Wade? All she can do if she ever becomes President, is appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, and all they can do is return the abortion issue to the states, and all they will do is either maintain the status quo or tighten restrictions on abortion somewhat. This is not 1955 anymore.
As for the horrible racist smears against Condi Rice, you clearly weren’t paying attention. The attacks were savage and came from well known Leftist commentators (such as Ted Rall) and blogs (such as Daily Kos).
Regarding the McCain speech, I haven’t heard it yet (it’s still on TiVo), so don’t feel myself competent to comment up on it. I’m sure that when the time comes, I will congratulate him. I gather from reading others that the speech is exactly what I would have expected from him: simple declarative sentences, spelling out pragmatic positions, with flashes of humor and higher rhetoric.
Re your last point, I admit that I didn’t notice that John Hawkins didn’t put in a lot of hyperlinks. As it was, I recognized every one of the facts to which he alluded and could readily summon up hyperlinks if I so desired. Indeed, in re Condi, here’s a hyperlink for you. If you go to Michelle Malkin (and I know you don’t like her), but if you go to her and do a search for “Steele racism” or “Rice racism” or “minorities racism,” you’ll pull up a vast number of posts that replicate the truly vile attacks leveled against those minorities who dare to step off the liberal pale.
>>The left rejects Palin because she is not a feminist and would be bad for women’s rights as the left defines them. For example, she would overturn Roe v. Wade and won’t even allow abortions in the case of incest or rape.>>
So that’s it? That’s feminism? being able to have sex with no concern about the consequences? just like men do?
Talk about being considered nothing but a “sexual object”…
That’s appalling.
Palin is the apex of feminism.
No. That’s part of the leftist view of feminism, and that is why they don’t support Palin. Not sexism, as the author argues. Palin is the apex of feminism, IN YOUR OPINION!! But not that of millions of women who vote democratic and are rejecting her even though she is a woman.
Bookworm, I would never condone any form of racism. I have personal reasons, which if known, would make that eminently clear. I just don’t believe that either party or ideology has a lock on racism, because I personally have seen it on both sides of the political spectrum. I don’t need to “smear” Rice to dislike her policies and performance. As a person, I believe she is great and would love to sit down for dinne with her to talk IR. But it would be a heated debate, because I disagree with her policy positions greatly.
I am aware of the legal process to overturn Roe v. Wade. My point is that a President Palin would appoint the justices (and the liberals are the grey-beards on the Court at the moment) that would do so. There are several states that still have anti-abortion laws on the books, which are not enforced because they cannot be but would be immediately following such a ruling. One fact that neither conservatives or liberals know, by the way: an economist studied how many abortion clinics would close in the event of a Roe reversal, and he found that it was something like 10-14 only across the entire country; this is because the subtle social pressures, not to mention the still recent history of clinic bombings, in red states are already forcing women to go to blue states to have the procedures done. So the reality is that not much would change even with a Palin Presidency and Roe reversal, but most people (liberal or conservative) do not understand this, as this is a very emotional issue.
I’m glad you don’t condone racism, dg. Neither do I. The point is that Democrats, who hold themselves out as the racial saviors of the party (and the feminist saviors too), rather rabidly attack people of color and women who don’t tow the line. And they don’t attack them on policy grounds, they attack them in crude racial and sexist terms.
As for abortion, one of the things I loath are judges who don’t follow the law. It makes it impossible to manage cases, and harms the stability and reliability of our judicial process and fundamental institutions. I want strict constructionists. Let the chips fall where they may. If nationalized abortion rights are important, they should be brought about by Constitutional amendment, not judicial fiat. The same holds for any other rights that were dragged into the Constitution, regardless of the fact that they don’t exist there in the first place. To bend the Constitution to every judge’s will is not destroy it — and to destroy the freedom of all Americans, and I mean that most sincerely.
Which Democrats have held themselves out as racial saviors of the party? The Democrats have more women and minorties in them because their policies have more appeal to those groups. There are racists in both parties, and there are those who make ad hominem attacks rather than policy attacks on both sides of the ideological spectrum. Many on this site are guilty of making ad hominem arguments, albeit not the vicious kind that you have mentioned.
I also believe judges should follow the law and legal precedent. And stare decisis is an important legal principal that the current court has ignored more often than any other in modern history. Jeffrey Toobin has written about this (see his book The Nine). So I don’t think conservatives have a lock on the virtues of following the law. I mentioned elsewhere that one pre-WWII Supreme Court justice said that the law is 75% what your emotions tell you it is and 25% is the legal justifications you make to support that initial instinct; he was a conservative justice. I think this makes sense, since words are intrinsically ambiguous and historical analysis is inherently uncertain. Scalia’s ruling on the DC hand gun ban was a brilliantly argued one, but he could still be wrong about whether the founding fathers would have wanted citizens to possess guns outside of a militia and he had to infer language that was not there in order to reach his conclusion. The black-and-white debates over strict constructionism are really naive and mask a huge amount of inference (judge-made law, if you will) that goes on amongst conservative and liberal legal scholars. That’s why Justics Thomas’ comment that judges do not let their political philosophies impact their fulings was dubious at best.
dg,
Did Blackmun follow stare decisis in deciding Roe? Can you seriously call reasoning based on the ‘emanation’ of a ‘penumbra’ respect for stare decisis, or compare Scalia’s ruling in the DC gun ban case to the Roe court’s judicial activism?
The Wikipedia article on Roe cites noted legal scholar John Hart Ely (who was critical of the interpretive methods of Bork and Scalia), who said this regarding the Roe decision:
“What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure.”
Stare decisis? Come now…
(I initially wrote ‘enacting’ instead of ‘deciding’ in that first sentence. A Freudian slip?)
It isn’t just conservatives that oppose Roe vs. Wade on legal grounds. The accompanying link to the Wikipedia entry (scroll down) includes a nice summation of “legal criticisms by Liberal scholars” – see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
As far as your assessment of the Scalia opinion on the 2nd Amendment, you may or may not be aware that there has a tremendous body of research developed into the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Scalia rather brilliantly argued his point and referenced that research appropriately.
But, on the 2nd Amendment, let’s do a common sense reality check and step back into time, if you will – can you SERIOUSLY argue, knowing what you know about American history, that any politician in the late-18th Century would seriously support disarming Americans unless they were members of a controlled militia?
Whether Roe vs Wade or 2nd Amendment, unfortunately much of the discourse thereon and the charges hurled to and fro fail the common sense test. Do you really want to live in a country where, irrespective of what is written, the interpretation and application of the law is left in the hands of a small governing council of unelected individuals (a Politburo)?
dg said:
Can common sense have no place in law?
Let’s see, you live in the wilderness of Virginia, you’re nearest neighbor is hours away, there are predators, both human and animal and you’re only source of protein comes with a steady hand and keen eye. Right, the founding fathers didn’t want you to have a gun unless you’d joined the militia.
BrianE, according to strict constructionists, the answer to that question is no. That is why the wilderness of Virginia example or the gun-ridden inner city streets of DC example are not controlling to Scalia. Only what was contemplated in 1776 or within 20 years of this date.
BobK, I am not suggesting that Roe is the only case in which stare decisis is ignored. If you consult Toobin’s book or other critiques of the current court, you will find examples.
Danny, I am aware of the liberal critics of Roe v Wade. I happen to agree with them. I do not know what common sense test you are referring to, since one man’s common sense is another man’s idiocy. I simply do not like hearing people talk about plain language or strict constructionist readings when the analysis is more complicated and equivocal than that.
DG – I think that I am not at all clear by what you mean about “strict constructionism” and how it could possibly arrive at a conclusion OTHER than what Scalia did on the Washington D.C. ruling or on BobK’s example. Please elucidate.
As I indicated, Scalia drew upon volumes of scholarship on the thinking (intent) that led to the 2nd Amendment at the time that it was included in the Bill of Rights (1789, not 1776).
As far as “common sense”, no…I don’t think that “one man’s common sense is another man’s idiocy”. People, in toto, do tend to exhibit a common sense that dilutes out the sorry bleats of idiotic individuals. It’s when we put too much faith in individuals that we tend to get in trouble – that’s one reason, perhaps, that we must be more discriminating in identifying those individuals that know the difference between the two.
Danny, if the framers didn’t want to link gun ownership to militias, then why put it in the language? If conservatives believe in plain language reading, then why did Scalia need multiple pages to address the syntax of a single sentence in the ruling? There is no historical interpretation that is clearly superior to another, as all historical analysis is subjective. And, as for common sense, since you are an expert on this patently obvious litmus test: what is the common sense driven outcome for a gun ban not in the Virginia wilderness but in an inner city neighborhood of D.C. with daily gun violence?
dg,
There are numerous examples of judicial activists criticizing the Roberts court, too true.
The root of this discussion is your opinion that Gov. Palin would appoint justices that *would* vote to overturn Roe, and that this would be bad for women’s rights as defined by the left. I agree with that perception. I don’t agree with your implication that constitutional interpretation is in it’s very nature ambiguous and imprecise; or that Scalia might be ‘wrong’ in his analysis. I think you misapprehend the nature and purpose of constitutional review.
Would you grant me that it is SCOTUS’ constitutionally mandated task to provide guidance on whether a particular governmental action lies within the permissible bounds of governmental action? If you grant that, would you further agree that it is *not* the task of SCOTUS to add to, subtract from, or otherwise alter the permissible bounds of governmental action? (I know, I know… Article 3, Section 2 enumerates more powers – but we’re talking about the review function of the court now…)
Given those two preconditions, I’d identify constitutional review as the process of applying the principles stated in the founding documents to the shifting morass which is contemporary society in order to determine what is proper governmental action. I’d further identify judicial activism as the process of materially changing through judicial decision the permissible bounds of governmental action… such as ADDING an individual or state right not otherwise enumerated in the Constitution (especially since the 10th Amendment specifically reserves such rights to the states and the people).
In the DC gun ban case, Scalia used his analysis to define what the explicitly stated Second Amendment rights mean in the context of 21st century America. He exhaustively analyzed sources to define the general principle behind the Second Amendment, so that the court could decide whether the DC gun ban was permissible government action. There is no ‘may have been wrong’ involved in this, because the definition of the general principle does not require knowing the actual thoughts of the founders – it is, by necessity, a function of the current court. Scalia DEFINED a constitutional principle through analysis of the explicit text of the Second Amendment, then determined whether a particular governmental action was permissible in light of that principle. That is constitutional review.
Prior to Roe v. Wade, the Texas legislature had acted to make the performing of an abortion an illegal act. As abortion was not mentioned or implied within the U.S. Constitution, under the 10th Amendment, whether this procedure was allowed or prohibited was left to the individual states. The Roe court, needing to find some right that would trump Texas’ right to regulate under the 10th Amendment, decided that the decision regarding abortion was a fundamental right of all women. Blackmun ADDED a fundamental right not otherwise stated or even implied in the Constitution, then determined whether a particular governmental action was permissible in light of that right. In effect, Blackmun AMENDED the Constitution, though the correct process for amendment was clearly spelled out in the document itself. That is judicial activism.
And that’s why I must vote for Sen. McCain; with or without Gov. Palin. I believe he understands constitutional review. I believe Sen. Obama understands judicial activism.
Three words say it all: Supreme Court Nominees.
>>if the framers didn’t want to link gun ownership to militias, then why put it in the language?>>
I believe that at the time, all males between 18 (?) and 60 (?) were considered “the militia”. In other words, in times of trouble every able man is drafted, and he better bring his own weapon and be able to shoot it. That’s a militia.
>>what is the common sense driven outcome for a gun ban not in the Virginia wilderness but in an inner city neighborhood of D.C. with daily gun violence?>>
Certain people will either become more respectful of others or they will be eliminated.
DG – “There is no historical interpretation that is clearly superior to another, as all historical analysis is subjective.” I suspect that you are the product of a modern post-Enlightenment education – there is no “objective” truth, only matters of opinion, right?
One of the (several) points of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the right of individuals to defend themselves. If the State assumes the right to decide if and when and how you can defend yourself, then your right to life exists only at the pleasure of the State – i.e., you are no longer a free individual but a subject of the State (have you ever read a British or Canadian passport?).
The issue in D.C. was not about the right of criminals to carry weapons (which is banned but apparently unenforceable), but of the right of individuals to protect themselves against criminals. The bigger implications of banning guns aside (think Jews, Germany, Hitler), the belief that criminals can somehow be denied access to firearms is like thinking that, well…criminals can somehow be denied access to drugs.
When England and Australia banned the ownership of firearms – murders by firearms surged. Now, why do you think that might be?
>>why did Scalia need multiple pages to address the syntax of a single sentence in the ruling>>
Because he wanted to close all the avenues of deliberate misunderstandings by people who have as a goal removing the only defense the people may have against a government which they no longer trust.
You really don’t understand that the Constitution is framed to protect the people _from_ the government, do you!
No, Suek, I guess I must have completely slept through my constitutional law classes. Thanks for enlightening me on the finer points of the subject. By the way, which law school made you an expert?
BobK, thank you for the very well written post. I appreciate your expertise in this area. However, I do not understand what appears (to me anyway) to be an inherent contradiction in your logic. On the one hand, you are rightly pointing out that judicial appointments to SCOTUS are very important and will largely inform your vote. And I agree with this sentiment. On the other hand, you also seem to be suggesting that Scalia could not have arrived at any alternative interpretation of the historical sources to define the original intent behind the Second Amendment. This latter view would suggest that Stephens, had he written the majority opinion, would have invariably arrived at the same conclusion. As you likely would admit, he likely would not have. Hence, the “exhaustive” analysis is also highly subjective and likely informed by political philosophies and human biases that are inherent to the mind of Scalia. This is what I am referring to when I speak of ambiguous or imprecise processes by which we arrive at legal interpretations. Please help me understand what I am missing…
dg
you had me interested until the credential check
if your expertise from the loftiest law school insufficient to explain a law to the common man for whom the law is to govern, then i think that leaves something lacking.
In responding to dg, I’d like to point out that the worst examples are the most recent.
Consider attacks on Ken Blackwell and Michael Steele. In particular, those so-nice protestors throw Oreo cookies at them and call them “Oreos”. You know: Black on the outside, white on the inside. For being of a particular race, yet daring to hold opinions that do not toe the ideological leftist line.
And they have been engaged in an absolute frenzy of similar attacks on Sarah Palin for the last week. Every year it gets worse.
How are we to judge conservative activists in the face of all this rabid viciousness by progressive activists? We will have to wait until a point in time when Democrats control both houses and the Presidency. Then we will see how the conservative activists react. I personally am 100% certain that you will not see anything like what you have been seeing for the last eight years from the rabid left. You will not see it. You will not see it.
There’s a reason for this. In the recent past – I’d give it two decades – liberals have been focused entirely on how everything FEELS. Logic, analysis, and reasoned debate are discarded in favor of frothing rants. (Luckily that rarely happens here in Book’s domain, but as I’ve repeatedly said, Book’s site is a rare oasis among the Web’s furious insanity.) Because the focus is on feelings, they intrinsically are more and more justified in letting their rage flow. “If it feels good, just do it!” ought to be the mantra, because that is all I see. It’s childish at best, horrifying at worst.
Huan, I’m not sure I follow…
Mike, I’d prefer not to get into a pissing contest with you with regards to which party or ideology has the more vicious critics. Conservatives also have emotions and let them flow on issues where the feelings are strong. I’ve seen them incite riots in Florida during the 2000 election, and I know some have even hurled bombs into abortion clinics. I think it is safe to assume that the basic psychology of people is pretty similar across the spectrum of political views. It may seem that the left is more hurtful, since, as a conservative (assuming you are one), you would be on the receiving end or sympathetic to those that are in the case of left-wing criticism or attacks.
dg,
Your argument is fair in #23, but I do disagree. You can point to incidents; and it is true that I can point to incidents as well. But I hold to the idea that the sheer volume and number of incidents on the left far, far exceeds what is seen on the right. I could certainly be wrong, but I don’t believe I am wrong.
By the way, I’ve enjoyed your arguments; you are no ranter. I especially would like to comment on this from #13:
“why did Scalia need multiple pages to address the syntax of a single sentence in the ruling?”
I swear I have never seen a convincing explanation of what the 2nd Amendment actually means. Someone, somewhere, MUST KNOW what that bizarre comma actually is intended to mean, in 18th century grammar! Someone, anyone? But I’ve never seen a convincing explanation, either way. I have no idea. I can’t even assume they deliberately kicked the can down the road by gutting the amendment of any meaning whatsoever. I can’t figure it out, and I’ve never heard a convincing explanation of why that comma is where it is, and what it meant to THEM.
dg
your post #19
Mike, I would encourage you to read Scalia’s opinion on the DC handgun case. It is truly brilliant, and his style of writing is highly accessible. I think he gives an interesting if not (to me) satisfying answer to the question. For those in favor of broad-reaching protections of their right to bear arms, it will seem more satisfying and perhaps provide you with the ammunition (figuratively, of course) you need to defend your Second Amendment view.
Huan, sorry to be harsh on #19 (and on Suek). I’m not used to being called a liar simply for expressing my views. I’ve tried to respect her views but engage them. The comment in #18 should not have sent me a little over the top, but it did. I apologize to you and to Suek for the snarky remark.
dg,
I don’t believe there’s an inherent contradiction. I didn’t mean to state that Scalia’s was the only possible conclusion. I meant to show that analysis and interpretation such as that Scalia engaged in is the proper function of the court.
If Stevens had engaged in a similar process, come to a different conclusion, and managed to convince four other Justices of the validity of the analysis, thereby DEFINING the ambiguous portion of the Second Amendment that allows the government to prohibit ownership of handguns; and then found that the DC gun ban was a permissible exercise of governmental authority in light of that portion of the Constitution – that would be constitutional review.
If, in deciding the case Stevens discovered a wholly new power of the state to prohibit handgun ownership (neither stated nor inferred nor reasonably implied in the Second Amendment) (can anyone say “emanation of a penumbra”?) – that would be judicial activism.
That’s about as clear as mud, isn’t it? But at least it makes sense to me.
Also, the Wikipedia entry on the second amendment is itself pages long. I wouldn’t presume it to be more authoritative than any Justice’s reasoning, but its length also speaks volumes.
It discusses proponents of various interpretations of the amendment, including those versions of it prior to its adoption and sending to the States. But neither the Wikipedia article nor any other I’ve seen convinces me of the actual meaning, because of the final comma. The arguments, to me, seem to favor an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, regardless of any “preamble” discussing the militia, and therefore are an individual’s right, regardless of circumstance, regardless of whether one lives in a rural area or a city. Regardless of which state one resides in. But that may simply be my own interpretation.
Apologies to dg – this is a busy thread and my responses are out of flow. No, I have not read Scalia’s argument. I agree with you, in that I’m sure I would find it very persuasive.
I have on occasion completely disagreed with him, however. I should read his Heller opinion.
BobK, the point I was trying to highlight is that some conservatives often fall into the mental error of suggesting that there are only two possible judicial interpretations: the one that a conservative justice like Scalia would make and judicial activism. While I agree that Roe v. Wade is widely interpreted as a blatant case of the latter, there are many on the right who would have denounced a narrower interpretation of the Second Amendment (e.g., only allowable when used by members of a militia) as judicial activism even though it can be argued it is merely a different reading of original intent and the application of it to “the shifting morass that is contemporary society” (I really loved how you put that!), both of which are highly subjective endeavors rather than the objective or scientific or mechanical (i.e., “plain language” or “strict constructionist” reading) processes so many people allege them to be. I think we are in agreement that there is inherent ambiguity and subjectivity in the process, even when the interpreter remains within the “penumbra” of the historical sources and the legal text in question. Is that fair?
Joel Barlow, in “Advice to the Privileged Orders in the several ” wrote a political essay that may give a clue to what the framers were thinking.
Barlow spent a number of years in Europe where he became enamored with the democratic and religious thought of many European contemporaries. In 1792 he wrote this essay, in which he presented the doctrine of governmental responsibility.
In a letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, dated October 17, 1788 after Madison had relented to the idea of adding the Bill of Rights we see some of the thinking.
Thinking through the implications of these statements should give someone enough ammunition to make a case.
Fair enough, dg, and like Mike Devx I enjoy your postings. I think discussions like this show that people can disagree (as we apparently do on the issue of appropriate means of Constitutional interpretation) and still engage in reasoned, respectful discourse. Book, thanks for hosting a site that allows and encourages this. Best of the web, without a doubt!
I agree that there is subjectivity in the process, and that reflects both the proper function of the court and the wisdom of the founders in setting up a system that can adapt to changing societal conditions while remaining true to root principles. It’s also why SCOTUS appointees (and the Presidents who appoint them) really ought to be afraid of the power they wield, rather than enamored of the social ‘good’ they can accomplish at the bench.
Thanks for the reference to Barlow, BrianE. I have put it on my “must find and read” list.
Jefferson’s observation that “The few cases wherein these things may do evil cannot be weighted against the multitude wherein the want of them will do evil” offers a clear retort to today’s enervated relativists today who can no longer distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, morons and prophets, common sense and idiocy.
The advantage of a classic Enlightenment education over today’s post-modernist education apparently is that, whereas both may teach people how to think, the former taught people how to choose.
>>I’m not used to being called a liar simply for expressing my views.>>
I did not call you a liar, dg.
If you think so, then I was unclear. Please indicate what I said that gives you that impression – I’ll try to clarify.
BobK, well said. I totally agree.
Suek, no worries. I’ll try to remain more civil and respectful and will continue to expect the same from you.
You ought to have congratulated him on that speech last night rather than playing with straw men, anti-Palin comments from unknown citizens of Alaska or linking to like-minded bloggers who write unsourced, unsupported arguments for why liberals don’t support Palin and really are just masogynist, racists fascists.
You need to go back to the Democrat re-education camp. You can’t be a racist when she’s white.
Btw, Good stuff Book. You can’t fight an enemy well until you know their beliefs and methods of thinking and deciding.
The left rejects Palin because she is not a feminist and would be bad for women’s rights as the left defines them.
Funny. I didn’t know you had to be a feminist to be a protector of women’s rights.
Guess that solves the question. If you ain’t a Democrat, you can’t be for protecting children, either.
No. That’s part of the leftist view of feminism, and that is why they don’t support Palin.
Also didn’t know Leftist feminism don’t support Palin because they think Palin can’t be both a good mother and a VP at the same time.
Reminds me of why people said Leftist feminism is about locking up women and making them into slaves, rather than liberating them.
Indeed, Palin is the epitomy of the example of women’s rights and liberation to us, for we actually care about women and their rights as human beings. The Left never has. Oh so right of you, dg, to notice that.
Which Democrats have held themselves out as racial saviors of the party? The Democrats have more women and minorties in them because their policies have more appeal to those groups. There are racists in both parties, and there are those who make ad hominem attacks rather than policy attacks on both sides of the ideological spectrum. Many on this site are guilty of making ad hominem arguments, albeit not the vicious kind that you have mentioned.
What a ridiculous farce of an argument posing as logic. Suddenly “some or many” equates to “they are”.
You don’t even know who “they are”, dg, so stop talking about them: whether they be in the Democrat party on this blog. A flim flam argument based upon the evidence standard of “this is right because many are this way”.
Liberals are not thrilled with Condi Rice because she has not been a very good Secretary of State, for a whole slew of reasons beyond the scope of this post.
We’re talking about the time period before she became Secretary of State. So you have to stop mistaking facts and events. Like now.
Y, it’s true that she was also a bad NSA head. But I was indeed referring to her time as Secretary of State. On the other posts, I really don’t follow the logic. Sorry.
I’m definitely not a liberal. I anticipated the possibility of Condi as a possible future president and was eager to see that happen.
Now I don’t. I’ve been very disappointed in her. Certainly 10 -20 years down the road may reveal information that shows that she really has been extremely capable, but I really have not seen that as being the case.
It may or may not have been Rice’s incompetence (or lack of conservative principles), but I’m afraid no person can tame or control the State Department.
If you remember a few years ago, Newt took on State and was roundly criticized, but it has become clearer, that the State Department operates as an entity to promote the State Department. Any resemblence to the United States is purely coincidental.
John Bolton for Secretary of State!
BrianE, no surprise here, but my critique of Rice is different than yours and has little to do with an effort to “control” the State Department. Her policies, just in the recent confrontation in Georgia, reveal someone who is ready to bring the US into WWIII with Russia (as Nato membership for Georgia would have done, and which she, like Bush, is in favor of) over 25K people in a tiny republic that no one has heard of. This is sheer stupidity. But, of course, there is a gas pipeline hanging in the balance, not to mention big contracts to Halliburton, so maybe it is a little more rational (albeit still treasonous) of a policy than meets the eye. No wonder Cheney is in favor also…
dg said:
Population of South Ossetia is 70,000.
No one, including Bush, whose policies Rice represents (not her own) is contemplating military action. The EU has already balked at sanctions, since winter is approaching and they receive gas from Russia.
We are also talking about Abkhezti, with a population of 200,000, which is next on Russia’s radar. This is more about what signal this sends to the rest of the former satellite states bordering Russia than the pipeline.
I stand corrected on the population. My memory failed me. I still stand by my former argument, however. Georgia has sought and the Bush administration seeks to grant Nato membership to this republic. Under the Nato charter, we would be required to come to the military aid of Georgia given the Russian invasion of this country. Rice’s contemplation of military action would have nothing to do with our treaty obligations. The combined populations of the two enclaves cited is less than Burbank, California and certainly not worth going to war with Russia over. Yet the Bush administration’s policy remains one of bringing Georgia into Nato. This is a foolish policy.
sorry, meant to write: …less than Burbank and Glendale, California… But you get the idea.
DG – Russia didn’t invade Georgia because if felt threatened by Georgia. They wouldn’t have invaded Georgia if Georgia had been part of NATO because the stakes would have been too high. They invaded Georgia because they could get away with it and…they were right. If Obama (Mr. Zero) gets elected, there will be much more of this because…Russia will know that they can get away with it. Putin will eat Obama for breakfast.
This is not new, by the way – Russia has been doing this for hundreds of years.
“But, of course, there is a gas pipeline hanging in the balance, not to mention big contracts to Halliburton, so maybe it is a little more rational (albeit still treasonous) of a policy than meets the eye. No wonder Cheney is in favor also…”
- so, let me get this straight. It is OK for Russia to invade Georgia to get control of the pipeline because, at least this way, Cheney Darth Vader and Halliburton won’t get big contracts. Uh-huh!
So, in your world view, Russia is motivated by legitimate concerns about self-defense, while the Georgians and Americans are motivated by greed. You either have no idea of how the world works or, at some point in your life, you felt a need to start hating your country and people by projecting your worst motives on us while projecting your own ideals and best intentions onto those who are “not us”.
You’re not alone, by the way. I knew many people like you in the expat community when I lived overseas. There, though, I could attribute it to a Stockholm Syndrome – they were falling all over themselves to be accepted and liked by seeking the approval of their host countries. What’s your story?
Wow. There is only one possibility for my thinking: that non-Americans are blameless, Americans are evil and I am deluded. Nice logic there, Danny…
How about Real Politik? You know, that long-standing philosophy of international relations that even Republicans from Kennan through Scowcroft have adhered to. That theory would say that Russia absolutely would have invaded its adjacent neighbor even if Georgia were in Nato to maintain a buffer around its country and prevent the US from installing missiles on its border–do you really think we’d let the Mexicans put Soviet missiles 5 miles from El Paso or are you completely unaware of the Cuban Missile Crisis?? The Russian foreign minister two weeks ago stated dryly that the US rhetoric about supporting democracies in the Caucusus is merely that, because they know that the US is not prepared to go to war over it; however, Russia is. Proximity matters, as military strategists since Clauswitz and Sun Tzu have known for centuries. I think you are being naive, with all due respect.
As for my logic, I think that there are foolish Americans and foolish foreigners. I am not passing judgment but merely running through the game theoretic results that will flow from our taking a stand in a country that we are not prepared to lose many more lives than the Iraq War has taken, and the Russians, who know this, will not be deterred. That is why I said the policy is foolish.
The reason I took a shot at Cheney is because there are lots of other aspiring democracies to support, but we seem to only give legitimacy to the aspirations of those with oil assets. Now, I actually do not have a problem with this policy, since it is what Realpolitik would prescribe—except in the case of Georgia because the stakes are too high even factoring in the pipeline. But I would really appreciate a little more honesty. Straussians, as you may know, do not like honesty, because they believe the masses should remain in the dark, deluded by the patriotic rhetoric and propaganda of their governments. But I’m not a Straussians nor even a neo-con, and I find the double-speak on supporting young democracies highly hypocritical.
That is my story. And, hopefully, you can see that it isn’t the simple, liberal caricature that conservatives feel so comfortable attacking. Straw men, straw men, everywhere…too easy to be taken seriously. Sorry.
By the way, if you ask intelligent Chinese why they are not in a hurry to facilitate the fall of the dictatorship in North Korea, which they clearly could given their control of energy supplies (e.g., natural gas) into the hermit kington, they will point to the negotiations to put missiles in Poland. Ostensibly targeting Iran, they can be as easily used as offensive weapons against Russia. The Chinese understand that a united Korea would be aligned with the US and could put such missiles on their border. Sometimes you get the opposite result that you want…
dg said:
And the purpose of that would be?