The American Spectator

Tim| 11.24.09 @ 2:43PM

I agree, men and women of principle are easy to spot. Checklists are not necessary, but they can help weasels to scam us.

Ron Baker| 11.24.09 @ 4:54PM

You're right Philip, this is a very dumb idea. Unfortunately, there are a good many very dumb conservatives. Hopefully, thoughtful GOPers will resist this. Might be well meaning, but really is just a desperate attempt to look like a populist.

darcy| 11.24.09 @ 5:05PM

The part I like is this: "[The ability] to persuade undecided voters that conservative ideas are superior."

That says a lot to me -- I trust that you and I have a shared understanding of what conservative ideas are; though, of course, until you actually enunciate them and state what implications they have for policy decisions, I don't really know, do I?

For all I know, your "brand" of conservative ideas might parallel those of a David Brooks or David Frum vs a John Fund or Paul Rahe.

What would you do, or say, to lead the way in persuading voters of the superiority of conservative ideas? After all, not so very many voters are, shall we say, practiced in civic virtue sufficient to discern a charlatan from the real deal, especially given the lies and distortions emanating from our Pravdian media. Voters must be CONVINCED that the LEFT is evil and intends destruction of our freedom and the further erosion of our constitutional protections.

When was the last time ANYONE actually heard a candidate speak this TRUTH?? I want to know.

darcy| 11.24.09 @ 6:54PM

The American Thinker's article by Robin of Berkeley entitled The Wilding of Sarah Palin is actually quite relevant to my assertion about the EVIL of the LEFT -- I recommend you read it.

Tom| 11.24.09 @ 7:10PM

I've just read that exact article. Robin has an amazing insight into the finer points of psychology that usually get steamrolled over in blogs/debates.

Yosemeti Sam| 11.25.09 @ 1:15AM

Ultimate test - an MRI to establish that a
self-pronounced conservative candidate indeed has a right hemisphere in his skull.

Something decidedly lacking in liberals
and RINOs.

LOL.

Bob| 11.25.09 @ 9:20AM

True conservatives believe that illegals should be sent back to their own countries. There goes the Hispanic vote (20% of voters).

True conservatives believe that affirmative action should be stopped completely. There goes the black vote (14% of voters).

True conservatives believe that Medicare is un-Constitutional. There goes the senior vote (40% of voters).

So the question is how you can ever win as a TRUE Conservative????

By the way, I like this statement of yours:

"What conservatism needs is more thoughtful candidates who have a grounding in policy"

I guess that means you would not support Palin....

The irony here is that people like me who want to limit government by decreasing Medicare, see little need for race based affirmative action, and want more immigration decisions based on the rule of law are considered "RINO's" because we believe in social libertarianism (i.e., pro-choice, gay marriage, etc.). When we look for the truth rather than the lies about the opposition, we are seen as "RINO's" rather than competent truth seekers.

The real story here is that the litmus test of current "conservatives" is not based upon policy, but extremist religious beliefs. Fiscal conservatives who are not religious fanatics need not apply to the Republican party.

db| 11.25.09 @ 1:32PM

After having read the complete resolution, it seems to me that somebody is attempting to establish a national platform for the 2010 races. That "sausage making" exercise is always contentious.

In a way, it almost seems as though Mr. Bopp and his allies are trying to create a 2010 "Contract With America" (CWA) -- seeking to identify issues that the American public would like to see Congress clearly address. CWA worked because it identified issues that Republican congressional candidates would agree to VOTE on. The issues could be broadly stated because the candidates were only agreeing to bring legislation to the floor for a vote. Their personal vote was not guaranteed on any issue, unless they publicly committed on a position, as many did with term limits.

Bob has a point that you cannot simply, bullishly, reverse course on a popular position (such as Medicare). Without first educating people about the better approach and creating a transition path to achieve the final outcome, people will think you are stealing or being mean spirited. It is this very fight that might sink ObamaCare. Hard-core dedicated liberals want to get to universal single-payer health care in one quick, giant step, probably losing the support of the nation, not mention splitting their caucus, because they are trying to swallow the elephant, er, large animal (they always choke on elephant...) whole.

Bob| 11.25.09 @ 2:13PM

db -- you are on target! The problem is not really an ideological one, but a fiscal one. Any time you change a system, the transition will cost more money than you would have spend otherwise.

I believe in individual responsibility. Many people here will also say that, but do they really believe it? Individual responsibility has its downsides. If individuals can't pay for a procedure, and their insurance won't cover it (because they have a cheap plan) they will probably die. You won't be able to keep "Grandma" alive because if she is individually responsible, and cannot pay, she dies. The rich will get better health care than the poor. If you cannot live with those outcomes, then you really believe health care is a right, not a choice. Furthermore, it is immoral to hold doctors and hospitals accountable to treat anyone that comes through the door without paying them to do so. If a society legislates this requirement, they should levy the taxes to pay for it. If you don't agree, you are not a true Conservative.

We can lower the cost of health care (which is the real economic problem), by having the federal government only cover that which it requires of doctors and hospitals (emergency and catastrophic care), and leave the rest to individual responsibility. If someone wants to buy a cheap health plan, then they may not be covered if they get cancer. So be it. That's what individual responsibility is all about. Again, if you disagree, then you are saying that health care is a right. If it is a right, it should be covered by our government and distributed equally among the populous.

If we cannot agree on individual responsibility on health care, we might as well go to single payer as the expense of health care will continue to rise and bankrupt the country. Universal health care would actually be less expensive than the current system because then you'd enable rationing which would lower the cost. If we don't lower the cost, then we will never rebuild our manufacturing sector and our country is lost.

darcy| 11.25.09 @ 5:50PM

To Bob, who concludes that some Republicans " . . . are considered "RINO's" because we believe in social libertarianism (i.e., pro-choice, gay marriage . . . ") I would like to say this:

The Left intends the destruction of this nation, to remake it, to transform it, into some socialist/marxist utopia. A chief building block of their scheme is to destroy the family wherein resides the last bastion of cultural training and transmission of a non-secularized, non-statist worldview. Once the family is destroyed and made irrelevant through the humanist/atheist attacks on life (pro-abortion) and marriage itself (homosexual marriage) there remains NO effective bulwark against statism. The schools won't teach right vs wrong, the media won't promote right vs wrong, the government nor the courts will promote received and traditional moral norms -- yet some people are naive enough to imagine somehow that respect for property, fiscal sanity, and the Founding documents will escape the purge?

Social libertarians are closet marxists or they are useful idiots used by marxists, walking together with them, if you will, to achieve their ultimate aims.

Don't let your disdain and contempt for CHRISTIANS and Christianity cloud your otherwise astute political observations.

Bob| 11.25.09 @ 6:17PM

Darcy, you make the assumption that the only thing that binds a family is Christianity and that right/wrong relates only to issues of sexuality and marriage. In both cases, your assumption is wrong. We non-Christians, by and large, are a moral lot while there are many "Christians", who have morality problems like some Catholic priests, Sanford, Vitter, Swaggert, etc., etc., etc.

You surface your non-Christian bigotry by calling people on the left immoral marxists/socialists. I know very few people on the left who I would call immoral names like that. So, since you have contempt for otherwise good people because they disagree with you, I guess that makes you a fascist -- right?

I believe strongly in the rights of the individual to believe what they want and to make it in this world on their own. A respect for the belief of others is important. But when they are bigots like you who condemn those who believe differently, I have nothing but disdain. That's why I rail against the Christian right -- not because they are mostly good people, but because they are trying to force their beliefs on me. Neither the left or right can claim the high ground here. The divorce rate among evangelicals is the same as the general population.

As to useful idiots, I find no more useful idiots to the Republican party than "Christians". I became a Republican because I believe that fiscal responsibility is the only way to make our country great. As an American, my friends on both the left and right believe in the rule of law. My children always make sure to rub in how I cannot stand for illegality. I joined the Army to fight in Vietnam because I believed it was my responsibility to fight for my country when most of my college friends were looking for deferments or easy assignments like Bush and Cheney. Tell me, how have you served this country -- officially????

So please don't lecture me on right and wrong. Christians are the last group I'd look to for lessons on morality.

usadapter| 11.25.09 @ 8:23PM

You surface your non-Christian bigotry by calling people on the left immoral marxists/socialists. I know very few people on the left who I would call immoral names like that. Toshiba ADP-75SB AB Adapter(Input: AC100-240V (worldwide use)
Output: DC19V 3.42A )
Acer Aspire 5520 AC Adapter(Output: 19V 4.74A
Power: 90W )

darcy| 11.25.09 @ 8:52PM

I will lecture you, Bob, any day I please, if I CHOOSE to do so -- after all, isn't that the god you worship? the god Freedom of CHOICE, whose followers do exactly as they please?

Your problem isn't with me, though my style may irk you -- as long as you reject the truth you will continue in your blindness. You positively IGNORED my point about the marxist/statist goal to destroy the family. If you won't take seriously that this is TRUE, a fact, then all the words in the world won't convince you.

Oh, and BTW, I really appreciate your labeling me a BIGOT -- THAT DOES A LOT TO MOVE THE CONVERSATION FORWARD, DOESN'T IT?

You can respond if you like, for others to read. I can assure you I WON'T BE READING IT.

Bob| 11.26.09 @ 7:19AM

Darcy, to call all of the people on the left Marxists/socialists and to say they are trying to destroy the family is prima facia evidence of bigotry. If you cannot recognize the truth of that statement, then it is you that is blind.

I have many Christian friends who have open minds and do not call people names, as you do. I was just responding in kind. How does it feel????