The American Spectator

Siegfried X| 7.9.09 @ 1:14PM

"In other cases, like Illinois and Delaware, the moderates are pretty clearly the best -- only? -- chance the Republicans have. "

Why can't a conservative win in Illinois? If the argument is demographics, I won't buy it because I saw President Reagan win across all demographic groups.

Reagan won by having an overall conservative philosophy, which could be explained to all kinds of people. They saw how it would help them.

Today's Democrats too, have a governing philosophy. Everyone knew if elected exactly what they were going to try and pass, and they are doing exactly that.

Today's Republicans however stand for nothing. (And Bush and the Republican majority congress did not to nothing when they were in power.) Instead the Republican party has a totally bottoms-up approach, to fight each race on local issue and attacks ads. Then if we end up with a majority or enough to filibuster, we'll figure out then what to do; it will be whatever those who got elected feel like doing.

L. Ross| 7.9.09 @ 1:22PM

James:

I couldn't agree more. Having lived for years under the rule of Schwarzenager here in Cali, I gotta agree. Just because they have an R after their name doesn't mean squat. They have to govern like they have an R after their name. Having smushy, liberal Republicans out there weakens the brand name. Like in "American Gangster", when Denzel Washington threatened a friend who was watering down his heroin because it weakend the brand name of "Blue Magic" heroin, we need to defend the brand name of Republican, and ensure only people worthy of the name get elected.

Bert| 7.9.09 @ 1:31PM

No, no, no and no again. You have to think long term. The reason we have so many of these "moderate" Republicans (liberals) to deal with is because of this kind of thinking. If you keep rewarding RINO's with your votes, you will get more RINO's.

You have to be willing to lose an election or two, even if means the Dems will stay above 60 seats, in order to build a bench of conservative candidates. The RINO's have to be purged first, not second. If you put them in office, not only will they stay there, others like them will run.

Sacrifice of principle for pragmatism never works in the long run. It's how we got GWB. Imagine if Gore had won in 2000. Yes, the Sup. Ct. would have been negatively impacted, but the then-GOP Congress would have given him nothing. We wouldn't have had the Medicare drug benefit, the steel tariffs, etc. Gore's legislative proposals would have been dead on arrival, and he would likely have been a one-termer, a la Carter.

Then, in 2004, imagine the conservatives who might have been in line to lead: Kasich, Pence, just pick your favorite; none of them cowed by the "conventional wisdom" that only Republicans who run to the mythical middle can get a nomination.

Whatever you reward you get more of. Most conservatives instinctively understand this, but seem to abandon it when it comes to RINO's and "team building."

No, no, no, no, no.

Siegfried X| 7.9.09 @ 1:34PM

We have become just the "Party of (R) ". Elect a bunch of people who believe in anything they want, having nothing in common besides agreeing to put (R) in their titles. Some of them might vote with the Democrats and some might not. (Just like a dozen or two Republicans will probably vote for Sotomayor).

Yet Republican media endlessly tell us how terrible the Democrats are. At election time we are told to vote for the Party of (R) as a "check" on the Democrats, to block liberal judges from getting on the Supreme Court, etc., even though lots of Republicans will likely not do that.

Republican Party participation has already dropped to 21% of the population, the lowest in over 25 years. How long is the party leadership going to keep trying the "Party of (R) " approach?

Sean| 7.9.09 @ 1:40PM

It is time to back only real conservatives. Getting these RINO elected only damages the Republican party in the long run. The Republicans start having a policy of "we are for everything that the Democrats are, but not as much." We see things like the prescription drug hand out, giant deficits and run away spending. Then wonder why people don't want to associate themselves with the Republican party.

Hermit| 7.9.09 @ 1:43PM

Let’s look back over the past several years where we had a 'majority'
The Rinos voted often with the Dems on key issues most of the time...
So what did we really get from that? We set some of the agenda but mostly we got the blame for the countries continued slide into big government.
We need to identify candidates that are focused on limited government and the founding principles and maybe forgo the states where only a moderate can win. By which I mean seek similar candidates and recognize we may not win that seat. How much of a warm feeling did we get from having Lincoln Chaffee on our team…
Seek greater dominance where we can win. Focus our resources. I would rather have 42-45 solid reliable seats than the majority we had with the Rinos. We can build coalitions with Moderate Dems on key issues. A committed 41 to 45 can stop this train dead in its tracks. Then we look to the 2012 cycle and repeat the process. Pick up seats where we can get committed small government candidates and build.
Committed reliable teams that get things done are far superior in the long and short term to a majority that includes our half of the gang of 14…
What difference does it make if we are enslaved by a D socialist or an R socialist at the end of the day the chains are just as heavy?

Bob| 7.9.09 @ 2:02PM

James -- I always cringe when the word "moderates" is used. There are a very large number of "moderate" Republicans who are very conservative when it comes to fiscal issues, but libertarian when it comes to social issues. The problem with the party is that with social conservatives at the helm of the party, fiscal conservatism get buried. Most people see Republicans as the party of the religious right and they don't want to see religion mixed with politics. When you dig down in the polls, you'll see that most people think of themselves as conservative primarily on fiscal issues -- not as religious extremists. The party will not win again until social issues become unimportant especially since young voters are more socially libertarian than at any time in history. It is not that difficult to convince people that government should be limited and should not rule their lives. It is difficult to make that case when social conservatives want to invade our individual liberties and bedrooms.

I know you don't want to address this issue because TAS is a bastion of social conservative dribble. But that is the reality.

Indiana Alex| 7.9.09 @ 2:18PM

Kirk voted for Cap and Tax as well. His Senate chances should be doomed.

W. James Antle III| 7.9.09 @ 2:44PM

Bob: of all the people I listed, only Crist comes close to being an economic conservative (and even he's raised taxes). All the others are to the party's left on economics as well. Kirk and Castle both voted for cap and trade. Whatever you want to say about social issues, these guys and gals are moderates. Generally to the right of liberals, to the left of conservatives.

Siegfried X: A conservative held this particular Senate seat in the not too distant past -- Peter Fitzgerald, who unseated Carol Mosley Braun in the tough 1998 cycle. The state GOP hounded him out of office and then had to import an out-of-state candidate to run instead. The result was Barack Obama.

To my mind, the key issue is whether they'll vote against Obamacare. That will Europeanize the economy and be difficult to impossible to repeal.

Siegfried X| 7.9.09 @ 3:04PM

"The state GOP hounded him out of office "

Fitzgerald made lots of enemies, and not just at the state level.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111159,00.html

In any case, the past is over. I know there are experienced conservatives in Illinois. It would be truly sad if the Illinois Republican party dug itself in a little deeper by discouraging conservative candidates from running in the primary.

Bob| 7.9.09 @ 3:30PM

James, you've actually supported my point. My guess is that almost all of these guys are SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES. Economic considerations are second to being approved by the religious right. I'd be willing to bet that a pro-choice, fiscal conservative could win in these areas. However, they would never get past the primary. Thus, if you want fiscal conservatism as I do, it must be the PRIMARY consideration of conservatives, not the secondary one.

Regarding Obamacare, as you, I don't believe it will work as proposed. I do support, however, a radical revision of health care in this county with a tiered system and a public option that is the option of last resort, i.e., you must be refused by private companies first or must pay a much higher rate. Furthermore, it should be a program with more rationing and thus not be appealing as the program of first choice.

Until the party addresses the issues of the social conservative litmus test, our hopes for fiscal conservatism in this country are either slim or none. The litmus test should be fiscal conservatism AND NOTHING ELSE. Then you will have a party of fiscal conservatives.

Red Phillips| 7.9.09 @ 4:54PM

Siegfried, I'm not arguing for a nominate a moderate strategy, but Reagan did not win "across all demographic groups." He won the base and then a healthy portion of those groups that are usually in play - women, Catholics, white ethnics, etc. - the so-called Reagan Democrats, but almost all of those Reagan Democrats were white.

Demographics do potentially doom the GOP and conservatism. This is a fact that must be faced, and a reason why curtailing immigration, both illegal and legal, is such an important issue if conservatism as we know it has any hope of surviving. If current trends continue there will in the not too distant future be nothing but pockets of red in some suburbs and rural areas surrounded by an ocean of blue.

At this point in time, match-ups have to be based on name recognition and not broad understanding of who is a moderate and who is a conservative. Heck, most voters barely know that on election day. The GOP Establishment types are going to do what GOP Establishment types do, but there is no reason conservatives should get behind these people early.

The base is becoming increasingly radicalized by Obama and being out of power. They are furious at the Cap and Trade Eight. The distance between the base and the Establishment is bigger these days, so it is not a foregone conclusion that the conservatives are going to placidly take what they are given nor should they.

These nose counting calculations to hedge your bets to get to 40 assume a static electorate. Conservatives instead need to make efforts to sell their philosophy and convert people. If they don't, they are doomed.

Bob| 7.9.09 @ 5:01PM

Red -- demographics do not doom conservatism! Having a social conservative litmus test does doom conservatism. The litmus test for conservatives should be fiscal conservatism and individual achievement -- and that's all. None of the populist antii-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigrant social nonsense. We should embrace education and knowledge so that the arguments on issues are based on reason, and not just belief.

Red Phillips| 7.9.09 @ 5:05PM

"Until the party addresses the issues of the social conservative litmus test, our hopes for fiscal conservatism in this country are either slim or none. The litmus test should be fiscal conservatism AND NOTHING ELSE. Then you will have a party of fiscal conservatives."

So then we will be prosperous beyond our wildest dreams with streets paved with gold, but will still have a million + dead babies a year. Won't that just be grand. What is that verse about gaining the whole world but losing your soul?

And your assumptions are WAY off anyway. The social conservative veto works at the national level in the presidential primary. Northern more liberal states have long been nominating pro-choice, social moderates much to their discredit. Social moderates are almost always across the board moderates. Social conservatives who are economic moderates are almost non-existent. I can only think of one off the top of my head, Chris Smith. Feel free to name me some others at the national level.

Bob| 7.9.09 @ 5:13PM

Red, you've got to be kidding. You don't believe that those of us who are pro-choice are moral? That's your problem. Besides, can you name me 10 local ELECTED Republicans at the Congressional level that are pro-choice?

And I don't know where you get your information regarding social moderates. The correct statistic to use are social moderates who are also fiscal conservatives. Right now, the only place these people can go is to become blue dog Dems. That's a shame.

Red Phillips| 7.9.09 @ 5:20PM

Bob, it is a matter of simple mathematics. What percentage of Blacks vote Democrat reliably? What percentage of NEW immigrants vote Democrat reliably? The numbers are bad for almost all immigrant groups even if you look at one or two generations back, but the numbers for NEW immigrants are horrible. As whites become less and less of a majority, the percentage of whites voting Republican would have to increase dramatically to offset the block voting of minorities. It is a numbers game. You cannot make that math work out for you. Demography is destiny whether you or Carl Rove want to admit it. Grand delusions of attracting recent immigrants and Blacks to the GOP are a fantasy. The sad thing is, the other side gets this, but we refuse to. How many of these threads have included liberals dancing on the graves of soon to be minority whites informing us that we are going the way of the Dodo Bird in Obama's new multicultural America?

Bob| 7.9.09 @ 5:50PM

Red, we agree that demography is destiny -- but that only occurs mathematically if the target is static. The non-white population is not as homeostatic as you portray. Besides, it is my belief that Republicans can attract the younger voter of all colors by representing them in terms of fiscal discipline, i.e., that through good fiscal management, their lives will be better in the future. The problem is that the young are overwhelmingly socially moderate -- and that will not change.

Red Phillips| 7.9.09 @ 6:25PM

"Besides, can you name me 10 local ELECTED Republicans at the Congressional level that are pro-choice?"

Let's see Bob - Isakson, Hutchinson, Snowe, Collins, Bono, Kirk (above), Biggert, Moore-Capito, Castle (above), Dent, Ramstad, Walden, that's all I have time for.

It is true that the number of pro-choice national Republicans is decreasing, but it is certainly not because pro-lifers have purged them with a litmus test. I wish. How many were beaten in GOP primaries? There are less because most were from the North East, North, and West/West Coast and those areas have been trending Democrat so they lost their seats. Christopher Shays would be a good example.

Now name me these social conservative economic moderates you have in mind.

As far as are those who are pro-choice immoral I would say it is immoral to kill your baby. In fact, there is almost no act that is more immoral. Killing a whole bunch of your babies I guess. There should be a law against killing your baby. Those who think killing your baby should be legal have their moral priorities grossly out of line. Elevating the "choice" of the mother over protecting the life of her innocent baby.

Siegfried X| 7.9.09 @ 6:27PM

It is impossible for the Republican Party to be neutral on social issues. Not to speak up means allowing the Democrats to decide by default.

I can understand that someone who supports the Democrats on social issues but is conservative on financial issues would want a Republican party which focuses on nothing but money. That won't work for anyone who opposes the Dems on social issues.

Red Phillips| 7.9.09 @ 7:09PM

"The correct statistic to use are social moderates who are also fiscal conservatives."

OK. I see what you're saying. That species, while still rare, is more common than the social conservative economic moderate. Most elected officials at the national level are moderates across the board or conservatives across the board (conceding today's spectrum. Today's conservatives are in reality yesterday's far leftists). What you implied in your first post was that social conservative who are economic moderates were dooming the party.

We are both arguing similar things, considering part of the electorate static and part open to our message. I say we need to pitch conservatism, including social conservatism, to the middle that is up for grabs. But this essentially means, whether we like it or not, White people. In essence, Republicans need Whites to vote more in a block like other ethnic groups do.

You consider the social moderates static, but the ethnic blocks open to a fiscal conservative message.

The honest truth is that we are both almost certainly wrong, and we are pretty much screwed. Social conservatism is unlikely to sell well among the young because the culture is overwhelmingly trending left and the young are abandoning religion. Rather than pandering to their social liberalism, I see this trend away from Christianity as incredibly sad, dooming this country while at the same time dooming their souls.

But immigrants, history shows, are unlikely to be drawn to a message of fiscal conservatism because they see themselves as disenfranchised. This is why they flock to the Democrat Party and view Republicans suspiciously as the party of entrenched privilege and wealth.

While I am not at all hopeful, I just refuse to go down without a fight. In fact, believing that all is almost certainly lost frees you up to joust at windmills with long shot candidates.

Ran| 7.9.09 @ 7:10PM

"It is impossible for the Republican Party to be neutral on social issues. Not to speak up means allowing the Democrats to decide by default."

Siegfried, interesting point: Add to that the phenomenon of a 40% plurality of self-identified 'conservatives' doubling self-identified 'liberals', and one wonders why it isn't political suicide to the Democrats to have so very clearly chosen sides?

There's the assumption that the bloc of "middlers" are, too, reliably liberal on social issues. These people are individuals that will vote with you on many social issues if they are presented with data. Not the majority, but you don't need the majority of them to win over-all.

I am intolerant of liberal-statist stalking-horse "fiscal conservatives" who passionately reject the idea that the Republicans might capitalize on a natural advantage. Their agenda is diversion.

Bob| 7.9.09 @ 8:33PM

Red, our difference lies in the fact that I see inconsistency between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. Fiscal conservatism argues for the government to stay out of our lives and social conservatism argues for government intervention into our personal lives. You will never capture the young, as you've said, with social conservatism. I think it's far more important to leave religion to the churches and fiscal issues to secular government. As long as you and other bind fiscal and social conservatism, the Republican party is a losing cause.

As I've said before, I am clearly pro-choice and the young voter will move towards fiscal conservatism in their own self interest if it is divorced from social conservatism.

I don't know where you get your information regarding the abortion issues, but Isakson, for example is anti-abortion:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Johnny_Isakson_Abortion.htm

Hutchinson was rated at 7% by NARAL. Bono was rated 20% by NARAL. Biggert was 30%. Moore-Capito was 30%. I won't go through the rest.

Thus, you still haven't come up with ten pro-choice congressional Republicans, i.e., they have NARAL ratings above 50%. Nice try, though.

Siegfried X| 7.9.09 @ 9:09PM

"social conservatism argues for government intervention into our personal lives"

That's just meaningless spin, like saying that my laws give freedom, while your laws are tyranny. Outlawing what I call murder is justice, while outlawing murder as you define it is "invention into our personal lives".

Religion is a red herring. There are atheists opposed to abortion.

Red Phillips| 7.9.09 @ 9:30PM

Bob, you know what they say about a foolish consistency?

Conservatism is not about programmatic formulas like government “staying out of our lives.” Conservatism is about conserving things. Go figure. If America used to be much more overtly Christian, if Christian norms and mores used to be taken for granted, if much larger portions of the population used to identify as Christian, attend church regularly, etc. then it is clearly conservative to try and resist trends away from that. Social conservatism has never been primarily about “interfering in people’s personal lives.” It has been a reaction and response to galloping hostile post-Christian secularism that was challenging the settled tradition. It is resisting the secularist anti-Christian trend. In this way it is the MOST fundamentally conservative aspect of the conservative movement.

Take gay “marriage.” 30 years ago if you suggested gay marriage you would have been laughed at out loud. 50 years ago you might have been punched in the mouth. Gay “marriage” is an incredibly novel and revolutionary idea, never before known in the history of mankind. There is no way a laissez-faire attitude toward gay “marriage” can be defended as conservative in the name of consistent non-interference.

Isakson is philosophically pro-choice. I know this because he is my senator. Hutchinson is also. I know this because she used to be my senator. Their ratings reflect multiple votes that are of interest to both sides. Funding. Abortion in military hospitals. The Mexico City policy. Partial birth abortion. Etc. Pro-choice Republicans routinely play both sides of the fence, throwing pro-lifers a bone to keep them off their back. But Isakson supports “a woman’s right to chose” I can assure you, hence he is pro-choice.

Red Phillips| 7.9.09 @ 9:55PM

BTW, Johnny Isakson is a weasel, and I pray someone runs against him in the primary. The statement from his website is pure weasel. He has a "deep respect for life." He is "personally opposed." He supports a "culture of life." He apparently supports overturning Roe, which is something. But he does not support outlawing baby killing. If he now does this is a change, because him being pro-choice was an issue in the primary when he first won the seat. From Wikipedia:

"Isakson immediately entered the race. He quickly picked up the endorsements of much of the Republican establishment in Georgia, as well as that of President George W. Bush. He also picked up support of social conservatives including the Georgia Christian Coalition, in part due to his rightward turn on social issues since 1990 (see below). Miller also endorsed Isakson and campaigned for him. He faced 8th District Congressman Mac Collins and businessman Herman Cain in the primary.

It was initially thought Isakson would face a difficult primary since many socially conservative Republicans still felt chagrin at Isakson's declared support for abortion rights in 1990. However, he easily won the nomination in the first round of voting, with 53 percent of the vote, with Cain a distant second and Collins third."

Siegfried X| 7.10.09 @ 5:53AM

Mark Kirk is very, very liberal on social issues. He is pro-"choice" in every way.

Eric Wallace is the pro-life alternative candidate.

Bob| 7.10.09 @ 7:49AM

Red/Siegfried -- Consistency is only foolish if you don't agree -- it's called rationalization. And do you really disagree that the prime force behind anti-abortion policies is the religious right? Please, give me a break! Your arguments regarding individual liberties are weak -- but that is why you are not libertarians.

And by the way, conservatism is NOT about conserving things -- it is about maintaining the principles of the past. In other words, it is looking back, rather than looking forward. If you were a true conservative, you'd have the same policy regarding abortion as existed 100 years ago -- right? This is the major problem of the party -- it is a backwards looking rather than forward looking entity.

Red Phillips| 7.10.09 @ 9:44AM

Conservatism is not about conserving things? Well that's news to me. Conservatism is not primarily about "principles" although it is not opposed to them. It is about people, place, tradition, heritage, etc. Perhaps you should read a little Kirk. Russell Kirk. Not Mark Kirk. And of course conservatism is backwards looking. That is what conservatism does. That is why conservatives are always talking about the Founders, original intent, etc. Forward looking conservatism is an oxymoron. Progressives are forward looking. (Of course that is a bit simplistic, but you get the point.)

But I agree with you about one thing, while there may be pro-life atheists, it is not a coincidence that the vast majority of pro-life activists are deeply religious Christians. It has always been misguided to philosophize opposition to abortion, because philosophy has long been the means by which liberals attempt to overturn traditional ways i.e. blather about a right to chose. Abortion should be opposed because it is gross, despicable, unconscionable moral wrong for a mother to kill her own baby. And a society that allows it is morally sick.

Bob| 7.10.09 @ 11:29AM

Red, looking backwards for solutions, i.e., being reactionary, is not effective when facts change. In government, the mechanism for dealing with this is legislation. For example, we have learned that tax cuts are not stimulative when adjusted for inflation. Conservatives generally believe otherwise even though we've gained knowledge over time. I would like to see a conservatism that respects the PRINCIPLE, not the METHOD. My brand of conservatism would include limited government, paying for what you want, and individual responsibility. METHODS change with underlying fact. However, PRINCIPLE can be applied to the facts on the ground. Original intent is usually applied to judicial concerns, and there, I agree decisions should not be based on progressive principles. But legislation, by its very nature, is progressive because it changes intent.

I do not happen to agree with you on abortion. Yes, I believe there is a time during gestation when the fetus becomes viable -- but it is not at the point of conception -- that is wholly a religious concept. And I do believe that when a fetus becomes viable, it is morally wrong to kill it. Therefore, I believe our current laws are reasonable. You should also be against IVF, right?

Red Phillips| 7.10.09 @ 2:26PM

Some tax cuts are more stimulative than others, but I agree that it has been wrong for conservatives to tout tax cuts on the basis of some proposed economic benefit. Essentially cut taxes so the government can raise more revenue. Taxes should be cut because taxes are too high and are paying for things the government is not constitutionally authorized to do. But of course with that, the only responsible thing to do is also cut spending. To cut taxes and not cut spending is grossly irresponsible.

That life becomes morally worthy at conception (there is no question that life begins at conception) is not an entirely religious concept, but it is again no coincidence that most of the people who believe that are committed Christians. Christianity teaches respect for life and respect for life flows from it. (I wish some of the Christian war hawks would figure that out.) I use the terminology of killing a baby for effect, but it is not really even necessary that abortion be entirely morally equivalent to murder to justify its legal proscription. The law proscribes many things that are less morally objectionable than murder, from bank robbery to jay walking. People want abortion to remain legal because they want to be able to have consequence free recreational sex with a legal out just in case there is an “oops.” What does it say about the moral state of our society that a pregnancy is considered inconvenient, a drag on our lifestyle, that it is not the right time, that you can’t afford it right now, that it interferes with your career plans, etc.? Instead of joyously welcomed by the mother, the father, and the extended family. It is impossible to have a conservative society, one that values and fosters family, extended family, community, place, the permanent things, when you elevate the desire for free love and the individual “right” to chose and where children are considered an option, an accessory you can take or leave, over the family relationship, the enduring, quintessential, irreducible element of every civilized society ever. It is NOT possible. It is moral anarchy, atomistic, hedonistic individualism run amok.

History shows us that there have been several family styles that have arisen based on circumstances. Monogyny (considered the Christian ideal), polygamy, more or less extended family, matrilineal, patrilineal, etc. But what is common in every known society, it is a universal human norm, is the mother child dyadic bond. Abortion, which places mother against child, and our modern view of children as burdens that can be opted out of or into on whim strikes at the very heart of the most fundamental organizing element of society. And then people wonder why our society is going to Hell? Well duh! To talk of pro-choice conservatism is patently absurd. It betrays a formulaic, simplistic, and reductionistic understanding. Pro-choice conservatism can ultimately conserve nothing because it undermines the primary thing that conserves. It is again moral anarchy of the worst sort.

Bob| 7.10.09 @ 4:39PM

Actually, Red, we are not as far apart as might seem on first glance. If I could find evidence that tax cuts are stimulative, I might support them, but none of the data supports that proposition. Therefore, I hold to the principle of cutting spending first -- that is the only responsible way of accomplishing the goal. We will not agree on the abortion issue nor probably on the gay marriage issue. Two gays getting married threatens neither my marriage or my children's viewpoint.

Your view of "pro-choice conservatism" as simplistic, makes no sense to me. Your view of "pro-life conservatism" is totally inconsistent to my logic as it forces government intervention into my life in order to be implemented. I want the government out of my life as much as possible in every venue -- including abortion. To me, that is real consistency and reinforces the notion of limited government and individual liberty.

Red Phillips| 7.10.09 @ 5:46PM

Bob, the hallmark of civilized society through the ages is proscription of anti-social behaviors, whether through laws, widely accepted norms, shunning, ostracism, ex-communication, vendetta, etc. Legal proscription by the modern state of the type we know today is actually a rather recent development historically speaking because the modern state is a rather recent development. But civil societies ancient, pre-modern and modern have always had some way to reign in and proscribe destructive behaviors. Every legal proscription, whether against murder, rape, robbery, fraud or speeding, is an "intervention into your life" by definition. That is its expressed intent. A society where some authority isn't "intervening" in your life would be anarchy. And even if you managed to create such an anarchic society, a spontaneous intrinsic order would quickly develop and you would no longer have anarchy. It has to. Order, whether more or less just, always arises. History teaches us this. Show me a counter example.

So to say simply you don't want "government intervening in your life" is totally meaningless, and in the context of abortion it is a liberal formulation. You clearly support some taxation. Is this not an intervention in your life? I am certain you support laws against bank robbery and fraud. These are interventions. Let's not kid ourselves. What you are saying is not that you don't think government should intervene across the board, you specifically don't want the government to intervene with a legal proscription against a mother aborting her kid. Why specifically in this case? And as I have shown a generalized “I'm against government intervention” will not do unless you are willing to declare yourself an anarchist. An if you protest that you are simply in favor of as little intervention as possible, a sentiment many of us would likely endorse, why does the interventions that you do endorse not include legally proscribing a mother aborting her kid?

As I said above, abortion is about being able to have consequence free sex and take care of any "oops" that happen to occur so as not to infringe on our lifestyle. This is modernistic, liberal, atomistic individualism run amok. It has no relationship whatsoever to conservatism. None! Nada! Zilch! Abortion and the attitude and presumptions that countenance it undermine at the most basic level the most fundamental conservative factor in society, the family. Again, pro-choice conservatism is nonsensical. I think if you look deeply enough you will understand that what you are primarily interested in is not conserving something.

Bob| 7.10.09 @ 7:47PM

Red, I just don't see it your way. We can go back and forth ad infinitum and not change each other's minds. I believe you are inconsistent and you believe I am.

In terms of government intervention, this is not an all or none proposition, is it? As far as "consequence free sex", I see you haven't had anyone close to you who was raped and impregnated, have you?

Again, I see anti-abortion conservatism and totally inconsistent and thus, as you, nonsensical. I see your position based on belief and mine on reason. Your "justification" seems to me nothing but a rationalization of your religious position. It is not consistent by any measure.

I think we've gone back and forth enough. Each of our positions are intractable. However, I'll pray for you.... (insert chuckle here)

Red Phillips| 7.10.09 @ 8:15PM

"I see your position based on belief and mine on reason."

A ha! Reliance on rationalism alone is a hallmark of liberalism. Conservatives have always believed that man's fallible reason must be tempered by tradition, history, Revelation, etc. Wasn't it a very prominent conservative who suggested that there is "A Better Guide Than Reason?"

http://www.amazon.com/Better-Guide-Than-Reason-Anti-Federalists/dp/1560001313/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247271149&sr=1-1

Perhaps you should read it.

Tootsie| 7.10.09 @ 10:48PM

Red, Bob's a troll. Watch it when a devil worshiper says he'll pray for you. I think he's Siegfried, too--both are insane Palin haters pretending to be Republicans.

Crappy-a$$ed trolls.

Bob| 7.11.09 @ 12:12PM

Yes, Tootsie, it is difficult to believe that more than one person can consider Palin unqualified. Please note that I don't HATE Palin, I just think she is unqualified for the position of President. It is YOUR problem than you cannot distinguish between the two. By the way, great language to show the kids.