The American Spectator

John| 1.23.09 @ 6:51PM

When the GOP takes Harry Truman seriously, then we will begin to win again.

"If you give the voters a choice between a Democrat and a "Democrat" they will choose the Democrat, every time." (apologies if the quote is not completely exact.)

Moderates have been ousted because they stand for pretty much nothing, except holding office. Eventually they lose because there is nothing there to actually "believe" in. The voters move on.

The Northeast is unlikely to see any real winners on the GOP side until they abandon the "moderation" and move back toward principled Conservatism. Once flinty, self-sufficient Yankee Conservatives inhabited the mountains of New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine.

They were pushed out by soft lefties from the big cities who brought their addiction to Leftist politics with them as they fled their self-constructed cesspools of the big cities.

Sad but completely understandable. Everything North of the Potomac River and east of the Mississippi is rapidly becoming another country. It is one the founders would little recognize and definitely disapprove of.

It will not be recouped. It is a lost cause. Give it to Canada. Canadian is what it wants to be, anyway.

r/John

BJC| 1.23.09 @ 7:14PM

And there are some things you begin hinting at, Jim -- that Republicans have in part been victims of their own successes. The foremost, most dangerous issues are the easiest to unite Republicans, RINOs, conservative Democrats and independents around. Examples? Once a Northeastern Republican mayor has implemented Republican crime control policies to undo disastrous Democrat policies, it's then "safe" to move on to other "wish list" issues about divvying up political spoils and other such urban matters. Once Ronald Reagan had defeated the old Soviet Empire, and Bush(41) had gone squishy, it was "safe" enough to take a flyer on Bill Clinton. Didn't work out too well -- WTC I, Khobar Towers, African embassies, USS Cole, plotting for WTC II aka 9/11. Bush(43) has prevented another attack on the scale of 9/11 so it's "safe" to take a flyer on BHO.

And lots of voters aren't as much political information mavens as AmSpec writers and readers -- they take specific forefront political positions as "proxies" for understanding whether they can support a candidate or not. So, they tend to conclude a "tough on crime" contender is not simultaneously an "all abortions all paid for all the time" supporter when that isn't ballyhooed during a campaign distinguishing the contestants from each other.

Alan Brooks| 1.23.09 @ 8:30PM

i miss the good old days.

i is so empty now.

Alan Brooks| 1.23.09 @ 8:31PM

it is so empty now, cold. smarmy.

Alan Brooks| 1.23.09 @ 9:52PM

"it seems a little too simple to say the problem is social conservatism"

sure is overly simple. if only it WERE our 'problem'.

Interloper| 1.23.09 @ 10:17PM

There is no proof that George W. Bush prevented any terrorist acts. Crediting him with that is a desperate effort to say he was successful at something.

ruth| 1.23.09 @ 10:26PM

Give it a rest, Intergroper, your guy won. Now let's just see if the Rogue's gallery he calls his cabinet can keep our country safe. The onus is on you now, boy.

NH| 1.23.09 @ 11:10PM

Not lost! All conservatives please, move to NH.. There is a movement here and you will be welcome...

www.cnht.org
www.nhlibertycalendar.org
www.nhliberty.org

Alan Brooks| 1.23.09 @ 11:36PM

NH,
i like conservatives, it's just libertarians...you see,
uh.. they are very energetic, industrious, but um, their teeth are very sharp... and... uh... best to leave such people alone in NH... stay away and let them do their own things, like.

not to get out of line or anything.

ConservativeWanderer| 1.24.09 @ 8:19AM

We should probably listen to the words of Reagan:

---
I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.
---

The whole speech can be found here:

http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/reagan/reagan1975.asp

Brian Kirk| 1.24.09 @ 8:48AM

No proof that Bush prevented any terrorist attacks? Did I miss the news? Have we been attacked since 9/11?

puffdaddy| 1.24.09 @ 9:28AM

I think it will be tough winning the Northeast. I grew up in Massachusetts and have lived in Brooklyn for 30 years. My neighbors in both places are entrenched. Every time a conservative pollster visited the neighborhood, the person would write on our community blog about being "threatened" to vote for McCain. Excuse me a moment while I finish laughing. Are they kidding? Then a bunch of other neighbors would write in assuring the little old lefty down the block that she or he was safe. I would love to volunteer for a candidate, local or national, but not if it means ringing bells or making calls to my neighbors. My tolerant diversity loving neighbors (who are lovely as long as I keep my opinions under wraps) would have me run out of town. I could not convince them to look at the other side no matter what I did.

Alan Brooks| 1.24.09 @ 9:50AM

don't broaden the base, better to lose honorably than to include those you secretly despise.

yes, despise.

Bob| 1.24.09 @ 10:23AM

Here we go again Antle -- another irrational response to a pragmatic solution. The major problem with the Republican party is that it is getting smaller and more regional. It is comprised of fewer registered voters -- less than 30% -- than any time in recent history. Meanwhile, the growing populations are minorities and the young. The evangelical population is more diverse than ever with many of them opting to fight poverty rather than abortion.

So your solution is to appeal to these people with fundamentalist beliefs that drove them away in the first place. Furthermore, the Democrats are growing, because in addition to Republicans becoming more fundamentalist (like Islamic radicals), but they continue to put up candidates who are incompetent and anti-intelligent. Bush and McCain bragged about how poorly they did in school and Palin didn't have the knowledge of most of the posters here.

So, the problem is not conservatism, the problem is that people like you are reactionary and want to clone Reagan. Reagan was great for his time, but this is a different time with a different population.

Your solution requires the assumption that the stranglehold that social conservatives have over what is left of the Republican party will not turn away voters. Young people do not want older religious zealots telling them what to do. Social conservatives are a problem in that they have veto power in the primaries because they are currently the activists. If your activist base does not include a broader sample, you lose.

The party needs to stick to secular conservative principles while becoming more libertarian on social issues. That is where the New Majority and most THINKING Republicans are going.

Rationality is not a primary attribute of this forum, is it...

Eric Dondero| 1.24.09 @ 10:38AM

Bob, is of course, wrong again. He thinks he knows libertarians, but doesn't have the first clue.

The Republican Party is already libertarian on social issues. Who is it opposing all the smoking bans on bars and restaurants nationwide? Who is it in South Dakota who is standing firmly against the implementation of mandatory seat belt laws? Who is it that's calling for the rights of 18-21 year old returning Iraq-War Veterans to drink a beer?

Republicans, Republicans, Republicans!

There are other "social issues" besides just abortion and gay rights.

Yes, you could make the argument that Democrats are slightly more libertarian in those two areas. But I'd rather have the right to drive my car without a seat belt on, which is far more of a priority in my life, than give my gay buddies the right to get a marriage certificate at the downtown courthouse.

Bob| 1.24.09 @ 11:07AM

Eric, you make some good points, but there is a difference. Smoking affects my health and costs our health care system billions each year. I don't want to pay for your bad habits. Abortion and gay rights affects only those who participate. Regarding seat belts, you also have a public cost issue. If you not wearing a seat belt raises my insurance costs and allows you to sue me, I've got an issue.

Besides, where in the Republican platform do they call for getting rid of smoking bans?

I don't care about what you do unless it directly affects me negatively with either my health or my finances.

ConservativeWanderer| 1.24.09 @ 12:40PM

Those of you (like Bob) who want an interventionist government to "take care of" whatever you see as a problem have a true home... the Democratic Party.

The GOP will get nowhere by being Democrat-Lite. Why would people vote for a cheap imitation when they can vote for a real Democrat?

That's what Reagan was speaking of... we need to offer the voters a real difference, not a pale copy of the Dems.

Some of you are deliberately closing your eyes to that reality, and I pity you.

cliff| 1.24.09 @ 2:02PM

There is no proof that George W. Bush prevented any terrorist acts.

Actually, yes there is, lots of it. But even if you were right, it would be just as much evidence as you have that Clinton helped the economy in the 90's.

ruth| 1.24.09 @ 3:05PM

I don't know, Cliff, Clinton left the economy in a recession; George Bush has not left our national security in tatters (Clinton left us in that, too).

Bob| 1.24.09 @ 4:26PM

Actually, Wanderer, I want a less interventionist government than you. I don't want them to tell anyone they can't have an abortion or they can't marry. Those things should not be addressed. I don't want them establishing an interventionalist tax policy that gives tax breaks to special interests -- I want the same flat tax for everyone. You seem to want these things. So YOU are the interventionist, not me.

ConservativeWanderer| 1.24.09 @ 4:43PM

Bob, I am sure you can point to the exact quotes, either here or at my own blog, where I've advocated the policies you claim I do above.

Please do so immediately, or be branded a liar.

Bob| 1.24.09 @ 5:02PM

Wanderer, it is YOU that tried to brand ME as an interventionist. So, perhaps, you should brand yourself as a liar???? I've been consistent in my libertarian leanings and my positions on limited government. In addition, all I said was that YOU SEEM TO BE more interventionist than me. Are you for a flat tax with no deductions and no special rates for cap gains? Are you for leaving things like abortion and gay marriage to the individual and not the government? Please tell me I am wrong about you....

ConservativeWanderer| 1.24.09 @ 5:15PM

Ahh, but Bob, I can point to the exact quotes.

"Smoking affects my health and costs our health care system billions each year."

"Regarding seat belts, you also have a public cost issue. If you not wearing a seat belt raises my insurance costs and allows you to sue me, I've got an issue."

Therefore, you are interventionist with respect to smoking bans and seat belt laws. (For the record, I don't do the first and always wear the second.)

Therefore, unless that was some other Bob that posted that above, I am correct in calling you interventionist. And if it was another Bob, then I am safe in calling HIM an interventionist, even if he isn't you.

Voila. Now, where's those quotes of mine that show that I am interventionist?

Bob| 1.24.09 @ 5:24PM

Ah, Wanderer, it seems as if you don't understand the concept of interventionism. When you drive a car and you decide not to abide by red lights and stop signs, you endanger my life. It is not interventionism to say you cannot do that. When you smoke in a restaurant and I breathe in that smoke, you are endangering my life in a similar fashion. When you raise my insurance rates by not wanting people to wear seat belts (and I was in the insurance industry for a part of my career), you raise my insurance rates. It is not interventionism to either make you stop that behavior or make you pay for my insurance premium.

So no, I am not an interventionist. Now, I made a comparative statement between you and I. Please tell me that you don't want any laws regarding abortion or gay marriage that restricts that behavior and then I'll agree that you are not more interventionist than me.

ConservativeWanderer| 1.24.09 @ 5:43PM

My, my, it must be nice to be able to redefine words to suit your purpose. Did ya learn that from Bill "it all depends on what the definition of 'is' is" Clinton?

You've been fun to play with, but as you cannot point to any evidence for your statement about me, I'm gonna file you in the "liar" and "troll" categories, and I generally ignore folks in those categories.

Good day, sir. I said, GOOD DAY!

ConservativeWanderer| 1.24.09 @ 5:47PM

One more thing, Bob.

This is America. I don't have to prove that I am innocent of your charge of "interventionist," you must prove that I am guilty.

You've spread a lot of manure here today, but you've not advanced a single shred of evidence that I am what you say I am. Therefore, your charge stands unproven.

Don't bother demanding that I defend my innocence again, I'll just remind you of the facts above.

W. James Antle III| 1.24.09 @ 5:48PM

Nowhere do I say that the Republicans should run social conservatives in the Northeast or try to increase its appeal among "fundamentalists." I just don't pretend that turning the Republican Party into the Party of Bob will make it victorious.

Sebastian B. O. Buniontow V| 1.24.09 @ 6:09PM

Dear Gentleman and Ladies:

The Republicans ran one of the most liberal presidential candidates in recent times and where did it get them?

It was not like McCain was on the campaign trail beating the social conservatism drum, much the opposite.

Moreover, it seems to this observer that the NewMajority canard assumes that putting social conservatism on the shelf would be an overall additive in future national election contests. This is an entirely false assumption.

The 2008 election saw a unusually high number of conservative voters sit on their hands rather than vote in the election.

Rest assured, if the party moves left and its diminishes social conservative tenets that the percentage of stalwart conservative voters will simply opt out of future elections or advocate for a third party.

Sebastian B. O. Buniontow V| 1.24.09 @ 6:12PM

It would help to visualize the Republican Party as a leaky bucket. You may accommodate the NE and possibly curry their votes but the bucket will leak out social conservatives at the same time.

ruth| 1.24.09 @ 6:37PM

"The party of Bob." I'm speechless.

Bob| 1.24.09 @ 7:15PM

Antle, I reread your article and you are certainly correct in your statement to me -- you did not say that the party should run social conservatives in the Northeast. However, the implication that social conservatives have not hurt the party in the NE is not entirely valid. The party is smaller, and is less diverse both ethnically and geographically. The Democrat party is growing and so are independents. I would submit that the place where social conservatives have hurt most is in their veto power in primaries. They would never choose a pro-choice candidate like Tom Ridge for national office and do not value higher education at Ivy League schools. They support poor academic performers like Bush, McCain and Palin and thus do, in fact, have a significant impact on limiting the candidate pool and losing elections.

As to the "party of Bob", yes, I'd like the Republican party to pare down the importance of social conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage and concentrate on true conservative positions like limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual responsibility with intelligence, analysis, and competency. I would like to see more pragmatism and less ideology. That would be the "party of Bob".

Ruth, I hope you remain speechless.... You make more sense that way...

ruth| 1.24.09 @ 8:04PM

Bob's a funny boy today. Good luck with your advice, and you know where you can put it.

WendyG| 1.24.09 @ 8:32PM

The pendulum always swings back, eventually. I predict Obama's polls will be under 50% a year from now. The GOP will win again.

JP| 1.24.09 @ 9:20PM

The importance of the Northeast is somewhat overstated. The importance of the New England counts only in the Senate, as demographically New England is losing population and is aging faster than the national average. The GOP at times has been able to field successfull candidates from New England, but this has had its costs -especially in the Senate (ie both Chaffees, Jeffords, Snarlin' Arlene). It got so bad with one particular GOP Senator (Lowell Weicker), that William Buckley backed an unknown Democrat (Liebermann) instead of continuing to pretend that Weicker was even modestly GOP material. When Tom Ridge (former Homeland Security chief and Pennsylvanis Rep) was in the House he was more known for his opposition to Reagan and his own church (The Roman Catholic Church) than anything else. It got so bad that then Bishop O'Conner ordered Ridge not campagin in Catholic parishes and facilities.

The problem lies in the Senate. The Northeast is now too liberal to ever hope of capturing any states via the Electoral College or the House. This is not your grandfather's New England anymore. It is far more liberal than what it was in 1980. But New England represents Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, Conneticut, Rhode Island, New York, Mass, Vermount, Maine, New Hampshire, and Maine. Or about 22 Senate seats. If you count the Rust Belt (Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnisota), that is an additional 12 Senate seats, for a grand total of 34 seats. Together these states represent a huge advantage to the Democrats (esp in the Senate). There is almost a permanent Democratic Majority in New England. Even when the GOP can capture 4-6 Northeast Senate seats, the Senators in these seats pull more influence than what they should, as they can always threaten to cross party lines and vote with the Dems. Lincoln Chafee and Jim Jeffords did just this. In 2001, Jeffords jumped ship permanently. So, even when the GOP has a majority, its influence and ability to effect conservative policies is seriously compromised. Yet, to ignore the Northeast completley essientially forces the RNC to run the table in the Rust Belt (highly unlikely, esp in Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin. ), the Deep South, Plain States, and Far West (unlikely again as the demographics in the previously rock solid libertarian states such as Arizonia, Montana, and Colorado are in flux).

The choice for the GOP in the past has been simple: be happy with one can get out of the Northeast and then deal with the troublesome lawmakers with pork. This means a continuance of defeats for conservatives in social as well as economic issues. I might add that gaining even more Senate and House in New Englandseats in New England will only move the GOP Senate Caucus farther to the Left (Can one imagine the influence a dozen Specters, Chafees, and Wieckers would wield?). It is interesting to see how little influence the so-called Blue Dog Democrats block (Conservative Democrats serving in Red Districts) has in Pelosi and Reid's Congress? Very few Democrats actually jump ship, and normally toe the line when their legislative leaders crack the whip. No such luck in the GOP Caucus.

These are depressing realities for the GOP. It would take some kind of traumatic economic event like 1929-1932 to change the hearts and minds of the liberal electorate on the scale that is needed to effect some long term change. That, of course is unthinkable. Besides, from what I've read most in the GOP are having no problem finding common ground with our new President.

JP| 1.24.09 @ 9:42PM

Bob,
You fail to understand the ideas of Federalism. Restrictive laws enacted at the lower levels of goverment (township, city, county and state) were orginally not considered abbhorent by the Founders. A local ban on public smoking in bars is one thing; a federal ban is something altogether different. Likewise, the Founders gave the states a very wide door in which to enact laws the reflect the morality and manners of the local population. As long as those laws did not impede on THE ENUMERATED LAWS of the Constitution and its Amendments all is well. If a citizen does not like the laws of a city or state, he could always "vote with his feet". Remember Abortion didn't become a national issue until the SCOTUS took away that issue from electorate. When the electorate no long has recourse to the law problems soon follow. It is interesting that Abortion has in no way gone away, and along with Gay Rights will remain a salient issue as long as the SCOTUS removes them from the electorate's reach.

The Democrats have enjoyed thier victories " on the cheap -namely through judicial fiat. As long as the Supreme Court continue to find new rights "hidden" in the Constitution (and thus removing them from the voting booth), they will continue to be seen as a politcal and not legislative branch.

My biggest worry, is to paraphrase Judge Bork, is that a heresy -a permanent heresey- into our jurisprudence. The Democrats currently like this form of judicial activism, as it is liberal activism. But nothing lasts forever. One day a conservative activist court may go too far. But liberals will have little to complain about. They've drunk too deeply from from the well of judicual activism to complain at a later date.

ruth| 1.24.09 @ 9:45PM

I don't know why you think 1929-1932 is unthinkable. Aren't you aware of the latest trillion dollar disaster the idiot libtards are proposing? You're a fool if you think these ridiculous economic policies are going to work. Liberals haven't learned a thing and they are over-reaching as usual. They'll screw things up--they always do; or they'll fail to protect the country, another terroist attack will sink the demos.

W. James Antle III| 1.25.09 @ 12:44AM

Bob, the last Republican president was a graduate of Yale and Harvard Business School. He was far from a genius but he certainly had an Ivy League education (which might tell us something about the value of the latter, especially for legacy admissions).

Some of the demographic factors you cite cut in opposite directions. Yes, the Republicans have lost influence in the Northeast. But they were able to win with social liberals in the 1990s even as the national party was socially conservative. What election result that I cite do you dispute?

What evidence is there that the increase in racial diversity is best countered with social liberalism, when the Republican Party's social conservatism is the only part of the platform blacks and Hispanics agree with?

Finally, while the party can't afford to be Southern only it was clearly the case that when it had more Republican congressmen in New England in the 1960s it had fewer congressmen nationwide. The Party of Bob might be a minority party.

Bob| 1.25.09 @ 9:35AM

Antle and JP -- you both make great points and I am not far from you on some of those.

First, let me comment on Bush and his Ivy League education. I differentiated on the basis of how well someone did in school rather than legacy admissions. I attended one of those schools just before Bush and can tell you from my contacts that he did not do well. Furthermore, I commented on how both Bush and McCain bragged about doing poorly in school. I believe the President should be a role model to young people. If they believe partying, drinking and not doing well in school leads to great accomplishments we've got a problem. Education is a problem in this country and this does not help.

Your point on racial diversity is excellent and until I was able to do some research, I cannot answer that question effectively. However, having grown up in a black neighborhood and married into an Hispanic family, their view of religion tends to be private rather than public. Of course, this thesis would have to be tested. In general, they are very uncomfortable becoming politically active evangelicals which is why the evangelical Republican groups are almost all white. It is a matter of culture and comfort. The secular conservative principles of limited government and individual responsibility should appeal to these groups, but culture in minority groups plays a much greater role than in the white population which is based more heavily on ideology. Again, this is a thesis I've observed but not proved.

Regarding the trade-off's between becoming more socially liberal in New England and gaining a more socially conservative South, I do have an answer. Leave those issues out of the party platform. Only put in those items that appeal to both groups -- again, in terms of fiscal conservatism and individual responsibility. And after a career studying consumer behavior in the development of new businesses, I do believe the party could again appeal to the young and minorities and grow significantly.

JP, the only place we disagree is the application of your facts. 50 years ago, we did not know the effect and cost of second hand smoke, now we do. When we understand the science, it moves from the purview of the individual to the purview of government. The reason these things move to the federal level is that the act, in itself, violates another individual's health or fiscal state directly.

Regarding judicial activism, I believe there is activism on both sides of this divide. By being an originalist, you don't recognize changes in our population, science, or geography. You wouldn't recognize slavery, a woman's right to vote, counting blacks as 3/5th of a white person, etc. The purpose of the judiciary is to protect the minority from the majority. The legislature will always favor the majority in a democracy. Without this balance, you cannot have a free country. As we learn more over time, our decisions move as they have with slavery and women's suffrage. Under your definition, the courts would not have made these decisions.

JP| 1.25.09 @ 10:19AM

Bob,
THE important event in civil rights (voteing rights, hiring rights, houseing rights education, etc...) came about in through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and not the courts. Sufferage came about through an Amendment. The legislature -through the will of the voters- and not the courts changed the status of minorities. Everything the courts have done since then have been through judicial fiat (minority set-asides, quotas, etc..).

As far as the future of the GOP goes, we need the Northeast whether we like it or not. The GOP, otherwise will be confined to the South and some states out West. I did go over the problems (esp in the Senate) with past GOP politicians out east, but this is something the GOP must contend with. There are no easy answers.

Eric Dondero| 1.25.09 @ 12:16PM

Bob, you want your Gay buddies to have the right to be married. Fine. Tell them to get a couple lawyers, draw up some contracts, and Valah! I think even the Conservatives here wouldn't be opposed to that.

You still want some sort of government sanction? Okay, how's this for a compromise.

Direct all local Parks & Rec boards to allow Gays and Lesbians the right to have public ceremonies in public parks.

Fine. Case closed.

Just don't force me to accept Gay on Gay as "marriage" sanctioned by the government. That is essentially what you are doing when you call for the government to get involved.

And another thing: Why don't we ever hear libs like you standing up for the rights of Swingers and Polygamists? Be consistent Bobby. You allow Gays to get married you ought to also be calling for the rights of Hetero men to have two wives.

Eric Dondero| 1.25.09 @ 12:20PM

Antle:

What evidence is there that the increase in racial diversity is best countered with social liberalism, when the Republican Party's social conservatism is the only part of the platform blacks and Hispanics agree with?

Eric:

Absolutely BRILLANT point by James. He's 100% correct. Much to the great dissapointment of libertarians and fiscal conservatives, Blacks and Hispanics are opposed to free enterprise and limited government in huge numbers. The only thing they agree with Republicans on is social conservatism, especially opposition to Gay Marriage and support for Pro-Life.

Which makes for a very complex environment for the future of the GOP.

My suggestion, as a libertarian, give us liberts the lead out West and in rural America ourside of the South. Let the social cons have the South, except libertarian-leaning Texas. And promote a hardcore Pro-Life/Anti-Gay marriage agenda in the Northeast and Rustebelt to attract Black voters.

Eric Dondero| 1.25.09 @ 12:28PM

Bob:

Eric, you make some good points, but there is a difference. Smoking affects my health and costs our health care system billions each year.

Eric:

Really Bob? How's that??

I don't want socialized health care. And if I get injured in an accident while not wearing my seat belt and a government-subsidized ambulance comes to pick me up, I'll humbly decline the service.

As for smoking, you are COMPLETELY off. (BTW, I don't smoke and can't stand it personally.) If a small business owner wants to have a smoking bar, who is he hurting, except for the individuals that willingly patronize his bar?

Okay, you want compromise? Fine. I'm okay with some sort of local regulation requiring that bar owner to post a sign on his building out front, that this is a "Smoking Establishment." But beyond that, what in the 'F' right do you or anyone else have to tell that bar owner how to run his business?

To tell him he cannot offer his services to smoking customers, is nothing short of complete and utter Fascism.

And Bob, do us all a favor and stop pretending to have some sort of "libertarian streak." I'm a 26 year hardcore veteran of the libertarian political movement, and I don't detect the slightest bit of libertarianism in you. You are a complete Nanny State big government Liberal.

John Link| 1.25.09 @ 1:29PM

It's interesting to have Bob tell us that smoking imposes financial burdens on society, but that abortion affects only those who practice it.

Leaving aside the health effects on the aborted babies, the abortion of millions obviously has profound demographic impact by reducing the pool of new entries to labor markets, along with the creativity a new generation brings.

Just ask the Japanese how "family planning" has been working out for them. For that matter, ask the Europeans. Neither is achieving "replacement" levels of fertility; the Europeans are letting themselves be swamped by Muslims hostile to Western values.

No impact, Bob???

ConservativeWanderer| 1.25.09 @ 1:29PM

I have one more question for The Great Bob.

What specific policy positions of the Democratic Party do you disagree with? I'm not talking about differences in scale, such as only wanting half a trillion in "stimulus" instead of only a trillion, I wanna know specifically what the Democrats have said they want to do that you disagree with.

Are you willing to lay your cards on the table, Bob?

Bob| 1.25.09 @ 2:32PM

JP

So civil rights legislation was the first action to establish civil equality? Ten years earlier, in 1954 we had Brown v. Board of Education. Hmmmm.. Not started by the courts? Right.....

Eric, contracts do not equal marriage in the eyes of the law. Contracts limit scope to the items addressed therein. Marriage infers broad rights not necessarily defined in a contract. Civil unions, in my mind, are exactly the same as marriage in secular life. So if you want same sex couples to have all of the same rights as married couples, it is the same even though you might feel better about the words. I would prefer all civil marriages to be called civil unions whether they are among gay or straight couples. Leave the word "marriage" for religious unions. Remember that pluralistic marriages between a man and several women used to be legal and traces back to biblical times. Just as we've restricted that to a couple, we can do the same with same sex unions. As long as we have a consistent policy, I'm fine with it.

John, just what we need, a larger labor pool when unemployment is rising. That makes no sense. If you really think that Christianity is better than Islam, you shouldn't have to worry about Muslim birth rates to defend it.

Conservative, I've said many times here where I disagree with Democrats. I don't think the bailouts made sense whether to the banks or auto companies. I think the federal government needs to be smaller in many areas including education and social programs. I think we need to reform social security and medicare with rising ages and means testing. And I want to see a flat tax that's fair to everyone and doesn't discriminate on the basis of how much you make. I don't agree with Republicans on tax cuts because they didn't work with Reagan and only have increased the debt. In terms of stimulus, I believe in pragmatism and not ideology. Tax cuts to the working poor will work because they will spend the money. $200 million to family planning should not be part of the bill. I could go on, but I've said these things before. However, in your social conservative mantra, if you believe in pro-choice on abortion, you must be a lib. It's a little more complex than that, my friend.

Jeremiah| 1.25.09 @ 3:07PM

It is bald sophistry to credit W with the fact that no terrorist attacks took place before 9.11.

For no terrorist attack remotely like 9.11 took place before 9.11 -- making Garfield, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton as adept at preventing terrorism, as George W. Bush.

More to the point, we KNOW certain things about Al Quaeda. (For those of you who get your news here or at Fox, Al Quaeda is the terrorist organization that attacked this country on 9.11.)

We know, for example, that they prefer to escalate attacks, and are happy to wait for greater opportunities for more spectacular acts of terror. We're still -- from any historical perspective -- in the aftermath of 9.11, which absorbed their resources and planning capabilities.

Al Quaeda turned to targets in other parts of the world as a deliberate attempt to draw more countries into the absurd conflicts they were able to draw the U.S. into. Terrorists SUCCEED when they provoke assymetrical military responses, which in the modern world are expensive, frustrating, intractable, and exceedingly difficult to resolve.

With adults just now returning to government, we may expect soon to have a more realistic and successful policy on terrorism.

Jeremiah| 1.25.09 @ 3:09PM

Correction: It is bald sophistry to credit W with the fact that no terrorist attacks took place AFTER 9.11.

ruth| 1.25.09 @ 3:34PM

Jeremiah's post is an example of this week's democrat talking points trolls are using on AmSpec. I've noticed Jeremiah's fellow trolls using the same argument on other threads. I wonder who gives them their marching orders and who pays their salary?

ConservativeWanderer| 1.25.09 @ 5:19PM

Ruth, Jeremiah is also quite wrong when he says, "For no terrorist attack remotely like 9.11 took place before 9.11."

For those of us whose memories go back further than 20 January 2001, we remember the first time Al Qaeda tried to take down the Twin Towers. Sure, the methods were slightly different, and they didn't succeed, but the fact that they got a team inside the USA, succeeded in assembling the needed equipment, and actually detonated the device is very similar to the way they planned and executed 9/11.

Also, there are connections in the personnel... Ramzi Yousef, the planner of the 1993 attack, is a nephew of the man who planned 9/11... and said uncle even wired Ramzi some money to help with the 1993 attack.

The 1993 attack didn't result in any strengthening of law enforcement or intelligence, which is likely a large part of why 9/11 was pulled off successfully.

Oh, who was President in 1993? I remember, does anyone else?

Bob| 1.25.09 @ 5:29PM

Actually, Conservative, that is revisionist history. The fact is that neither Democrats OR Republicans -- Clinton or Bush -- ever thought that 9/11 would occur. They BOTH gave it a lower priority. Bush did have more information than Clinton and in fact had a specific briefing outlining a potential attack by Bin Laden and Condi Rice admitted such to Congress. Furthermore, Bush had intelligence about terrorists considering using planes for their attack that Clinton did not have. This latter intelligence, however, probably never reached the White House because the intelligence community, which did not change, thought it was far fetched.

20/20 hindsight is a great thing, but it is after the fact. I don't care who was President at the time, it was going to happen because the people providing the intelligence were the same people. I don't fault Clinton more than Bush or vice versa. They were both wrong.

John Link| 1.25.09 @ 5:40PM

Per Bob: "John, just what we need, a larger labor pool when unemployment is rising. That makes no sense. "

Me: whaaaaa.....? Why not just address what I said to counter your ridiculous argument that abortion affects only those who engage in it?

And fertility at replacement levels doesn't create a larger labor pool, it simply sustains the size of the pool. Japan has a declining population, Bob, and it is hurting as a result.

Per Bob: "If you really think that Christianity is better than Islam, you shouldn't have to worry about Muslim birth rates to defend it. "

Me: whaaaaaa...? Where did I bring up Christianity? Where did I say it was "better than" Islam? What I said was that Europeans are being swamped by Muslims hostile to Western values. If you disagree with that, spite of what's been happening in Holland, for example, or in the banlieus of Paris, and the huge differential between Muslim and non-Muslim fertility in most of Europe, please defend your position.

Otherwise you're just being a intellectual poseur.

JP| 1.25.09 @ 5:53PM

Bob,
Brown v the Kansas Board of Education reversed the earlier Plessy v Ferguson decision of "seperate but equal" idea. What the Courts give they can also take away. All it takes is 5 justices. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was a landmark law in that it applied to several facests of life , several facets of the electorate, and I might add relied upon the minority party (the GOP) to make it a reality. It pulls much more influence than a court ruling, which was seen an imposition by many in our nation. The electorate had a real say in the civil rights legislation than they did with Brown. Brown could theoretically be overtuned, while the same could not easily be said for the civil rights laws. I'm beginning to think that you favor judiciary "legislating from the bench" -as long as you favor the outcome.

In any event, how this has anything to do with the subject at hand is beyond me. The GOP has only 3 Senate seats in the Northeast (1 in New Hampshire and 2 in Maine) out of a potential of 22 seats. This is a problem, which the author of this threat wished to highlight.

Bob| 1.25.09 @ 6:45PM

John, it is YOUR argument that makes no sense. If someone else engages in abortion, it does not affect YOU. Period. Bringing up the red herring of Muslim population growth is specious. The birth rates of Hispanics and blacks is higher than the white population in the U.S. Do you also consider that a problem? I thought so.

In addition, your argument about growing Muslim populations in Holland and relate that to abortion, you've got a lot to prove. Please show me the study that abortion, and not contraception, is the reason birth rates for Christians are lower. Otherwise, it is you that is the poseur.

JP -- you made the argument that civil rights was not first addressed by the courts. I simply showed that you were wrong. Any by the way, the civil rights act could be overturned as well by another act.

Regarding what you call judicial activism, I do believe that values change over time in ways our founders did not propound. It was acceptable to our founders to enslave blacks -- it is not acceptable now. Is that judicial activism? There are many 5-4 decisions by the court. We could talk about activism on both the conservative and liberal sides of the issue. Most of the time, judicial activism is a code word for overturning Roe and not much else.

The basic question is how to grow the party. And the issue is whether it is better to stick with the secular conservative principles of fiscal restraint, limited government, strong military, and individual responsibility which most can agree with, or limit the party with social conservative views that have only served to make the party smaller. I believe that secular conservatives can win in the Northeast but that social conservative views make that less of a possibility. The fact that the party is getting smaller and social conservatives have a veto power over candidates makes it much more difficult to win in the NE, or nationally for that matter.

Doug N| 1.26.09 @ 9:52PM

Bob- Umm, no, the abolition of slavery was NOT the result of judicial activism. It was the result of legislative activism, i.e., the process of amending the Constitution to prohibit slavery.

sidnee| 12.12.09 @ 12:03PM

jack wills
ugg new arrivals