The American Spectator

Magic Eight Ball| 1.5.10 @ 10:31PM

Mr. McCain, God help you when the Tide beat Texas and the Tide fans chant Rammer Jammer. I mean what could show more of a Red State proto-fascist love of violence than glorying in your team beating the hell out of "the other"?

Sullivan really needs to move back to England. He doesn't know much about the US.

Roll Tide

Angel| 1.5.10 @ 10:36PM

Warm enough during the day here, McCain?

Sorry, nothing against your fine team but we're rooting for Colt and the Longhorns!

Hook 'em, Horns!!

Jon Floyd| 1.6.10 @ 12:16AM

I watched my Buckeyes beat the Ducks at the Rose Bowl, but will be pulling for Colt and Mack Brown in the BCS. I really liked the Texas fans last year in Phoenix for the Fiesta Bowl.

Sorry R.S. McCain! Go gonzo out there in Cali, but hook 'em Horns!

Angel| 1.6.10 @ 12:45AM

Jon, I'm a loyal Pac 10 fan, but I have to say--your kids played great in the Rose Bowl, and you deserved that win. You should be proud.

All bets are off for next year, though!

Jon Floyd| 1.6.10 @ 9:56AM

I think you're right. Oregon is good and young, and SC is SC ...

SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 11:08PM

Why don't we just declare Sullivan an enemy combatant and waterboard him?! Again.

Pablo| 1.6.10 @ 7:35AM

Because he doesn't have anything useful to tell us. Ever.

SoCon| 1.6.10 @ 2:01PM

I like Baker's answer: Just for the fun of it!

Richard Baker| 1.6.10 @ 7:46AM

Yeah, but let's waterboard him just for the fun of it. Had this technique done to me in the Army in a survival school. Absolutely harmless except to your fear. If doing this sort of thing makes these Moslem killers give it up then onward!

martin j smith| 1.6.10 @ 7:58AM

The New York Times loved Stalin and the USSR,they underreported the Holocaust in WWII, they love Islamic terrorists, so bigt surprise of fellow travelers.
I think that the 2010 election should be made into a referendum along these lines: Vote Yes or NO on socialism and appeasement versus freedom and national defence.
Lets cut to the chase, lets get the fog out of the way, lets really go for the jugular and find out what the American Pople really want.

JP| 1.6.10 @ 8:16AM

Charles Johnson is a strange bird. Granted, when he launched his Little Green Football website he never claimed to be a conservative. I always considered him a libertairian. What is strange is his anti-Chirstian fetishness. He will go for days ripping Intelligent Design proponents. He fancies himself a some kind of defender of science, but comes off boorishly. What is more, he is obviously a control freak with bit of paranoia mixed in for good measure. For the last 2 years he essientially trashed about every conservative out there. And, of course he jumped on the Global Climate Change bandwagon (albeit a bit late). He now runs his blog like some kind of Field Marshall sending any dissenters to cyber purgatory for the slightest offence. What was once a fairly fun blog to visit is now a boring site filled with sychophants.

Of course, conservatives stopped going to LGF many months or years ago. His site stats have plummeted, and one wonders when Johnson will finally go the last yard and team up with Koz. Many years ago he made it a point to highlight the perils of the "Religion of Peace". Now one wonders if he will eventually join them.

Steve| 1.6.10 @ 9:34AM

Dear Mr. McCain

Just a reminder that it's your turn to bring donuts for the next meeting of the 'Proto-Fascists For Killing Cute Fuzzy Bunnies of America.

PS Andrew Sullivan:
Thank you so much for your comment. Rest assured I will give them all the consideration they so richly deserve.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.6.10 @ 9:53AM

Mr. McCain,
I went to Baylor...We don't have a "basket weaving" major for football players. Heh. Makes it difficult to compete in the Big 12....but worth it.

..."That's why they play the games." Heh the ultimate true reality shows.

Last night, Iowa did the unthinkable. They shut down Georgia Tech's machine. Great coaching, great execution both ways, and an absolutely splendid effort by "underdogs"...

I look forward to the Texas-Alabama game...a lot.
Two fine ball teams, great programs, a level field.

Who could ask for more? I just hope both teams do their teams proud.

Get out the popcorn!

Bob| 1.6.10 @ 10:08AM

Well, RSM, by calling Obama a socialist, you have opened the door to being called a fascist by your own (non-)standards. Extremism in either direction harms our country.... Is Obama a socialist? No. Are you a fascist? No. But what difference does the truth mean when you are trying to get readership???

martin j smith| 1.6.10 @ 11:01AM

I think that Obama's style is a mixture of fascism and communism. The state is in ownership of large corporations while while some act pseudo independently . At the same time, he and party leaders act as if there is one party representing the nation. And, there is ample evidence to show that Obama uses threats,bribes and other methods of intimidation . In addition, he is clearly no fan of free speech. Yea... He is a fascist hybrid. Does that make you happy ?

Bob| 1.6.10 @ 11:53AM

What you think and reality have no connection, Martin. Do you even understand the definitions? Let me provide them for you:

fascism - a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Communism - a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed.

Socialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Nation and race above the individual? Sounds like the Republican party and the Tea Baggers...

Elimination of private property? Do you really think Obama want his book profits to go to you???

Government ownership of ALL goods and services? Do you know how many Democrats (and Obama donors) have small businesses?

The real problem, Martin, is that you and others don't understand political and economic theories. Does Obama believe that government should be larger than most of us who are fiscal conservatives? Absolutely, but that does not make him a fascist or a communist. In point of fact, most Washington Democrats and Republicans are not far apart on these issues. None of them would get rid of Medicare and Social Security. None of them would get rid of the military? All Republican Presidents, including Reagan, have grown the size of government no matter what they actually said. There is really very little difference except with those people who are uneducated or religious fundamentalists.

SoCon| 1.6.10 @ 2:04PM

Bob, you're always the perfect turd in the punch bowl. Now, if we could just waterboard you!

Bob| 1.6.10 @ 2:07PM

Waterboarding, albeit ineffective, is designed to get information from a detainee. You actually want less information from me, right? You don't even understand interrogation procedures, do you????

SoCon| 1.6.10 @ 4:17PM

Fool. It would be fun to waterboard you, just for the hell of it.

Obviously, you're the one with the comprehension problem.

Red Phillips| 1.6.10 @ 4:07PM

Actually, Bob is correct. Precision of language is important. Obama is not technically a Socialist since he doesn't advocate collective ownership of all the means of production. (Although by the technical standard, there are actually very few Socialists anywhere, even among self-identified Socialist parties.) What Obama is very precisely is a Social Democrat. He supports government control of some industries, heavy regulation of others, and a generous social safety net. The problem is that by that definition John McCain is also a Social Democrat, just less of one. In America we have Social Democrat Party A and slightly less Social Democrat Party B.

Bob| 1.6.10 @ 4:17PM

Red, well put... I agree 100%...

Rob Crawford| 1.7.10 @ 9:18AM

Obama fails the definition of "fascist" only by not being a nationalist. He is a new breed -- the trans-national fascist.

Red Phillips| 1.6.10 @ 3:57PM

"Extremism in either direction harms our country"

Bob, today's center is yesterday's extreme left. Wanting to restore the Republic left us by the Founders (which is what every true conservative should want) is considered dangerous extremism by many, even by many who consider themselves conservatives. (They clearly want to conserve something other than the original Republic.) So extremism is actually necessary to restore the Republic because we have drifted so far from it. But Patrick Henry, James Madison, et al wouldn't have considered it extremism. They would have considered it mainstream.

Bob| 1.6.10 @ 4:28PM

Red, the argument made by most politico's today, is that the country is center right, not extreme left. In fact, the country was totally on the left during FDR. It did move right with Reagan and Clinton effectively was a centrist.

I see the growth of social programs as an outgrowth of moving from an agrarian society where most of your needs were met locally, to a service oriented society concentrated in large cities where needs are met by large companies and distribution capabilities. Urban environments have always needed more social programs even in ancient times. Therefore, I don't see this as a left/right issue, but more a part of an anthropological trend.

I would prefer a more individualistic, libertarian solution and less centralized government, but again, this is neither left nor right. Today's definition of "right" has changed from a secular right to a religious/moral right. The definition of left has not changed, however. These definitional changes has caused the largest segment to be moderates/independents. The hard right is a smaller group than ever in our history because of the social attachments. Too bad, because those of us who are more libertarian and fiscal conservatives no longer fit in either party.

Red Phillips| 1.6.10 @ 4:57PM

I agree that left/right gets confusing, but if you go back to the primordial meanings which are related to the French Revolution then things become clearer. The Right defended what was, Church and Crown. The Left sought to overthrow what was in pursuit of what ought to be, which were philosophical abstractions.

There really can be no "secular right," because historically speaking secularism is of the left. The right is inherently deferential to and defensive of religion.

There is some truth to the idea that the country was mostly "left" during FDR and "moved right" with Reagan, but this is based on the popular perception of what the center was at the time, a moving goal post. By any fixed standard the country has been steadily moving left for a long time and there is no better evidence of this than the increasing militancy of secularism and hostility towards Christianity. (The country has not always been divided on clearly left right political lines. Historically it has more often been divided among a collection of competing factions. A North vs. South divide or a Court vs. Country divide.)

Do you want to “conserve” the country left to us by our forefathers? Then you can not do so without “conserving” Christianity. In fact, the “religious right” is the most inherently conservative faction in practice, (it is primarily reactionary against secular and anti-Christian drift) even if their rhetoric is often marred by leftist influenced abstractions.

Bob| 1.6.10 @ 5:14PM

You do realize the establishment of this country was a left wing activity. In France, the state was the church which is directly opposed to the establishment of our country. If right wingers were in charge, we would still be part of Great Britain.

So you are right, if you want a church run state, you are truly right wing. And if you want a communist or socialist state, then you are truly left wing. But when our country was established, while individuals remained religious ON BOTH SIDES of the political spectrum, the government was no longer attached to the church and we had the freedom to choose our poison. Therefore, going back to the definition formed during the French Revolution is inherently anti-American.

The argument would then be made that conserving our principles is a left leaning activity. If we follow your logic, anyone who is not "Christian" is a lesser American. The thing we "conserve" is the freedom to join the religion of your choice. Yes, religious Christian fundamentalism only exists on the right because those are the people that would like to remain in a church run state.

But I don't even though I am a fiscal conservative. I like individual liberty where the government doesn't decide my morals or my position on religious issue.

I will never convince you because fundamentalism, by its very nature, is not subject to argument and logic.

Red Phillips| 1.6.10 @ 6:07PM

"You do realize the establishment of this country was a left wing activity."

The degree to which the "founding" of this country was inherently tainted by left-wing Enlightenment ideas is an interesting and often rehashed argument in paleo circles. I do not concede your point that the establishment of this country was left-wing (it was anti-Crown [but not anti-hierarchy] but was not anti-Christian), but I do think the language and rhetoric was more so than the reality on the ground.

Conservatism is always going to be particular to the country you are trying to conserve. A conservative commentator once observed that American conservatism is always going to be a "liberal conservatism" by historical standards, and I agree.

I am an orthodox (small o) Christian, but it is interesting you assumed so because I deliberately didn't make arguments that were pro-Christian per se. Just that conservatism can not be separated from the things you are trying to conserve, one part of which is Christianity.

America has never been a Christian nation in the same way that Iran is an Islamic Republic, for example, but for my point it is not necessary that it be. That is an argument for another day. What is an undeniable fact is that America is a particularistically Christian country. The country of which we were a former colony was Christian. Our country at the beginning was inhabited almost exclusively by Christians (excluding the Indians whose land we were expropriating). Christian presuppositions were taken for granted.

I have not said anything about a particular polity. Established Church, etc. My point is that a conservative in a country that is particularistically Christian is going to want to conserve that particularity and will not be OK with that particularity fading away. He will certainly not be hostile to that particularity. So for example he would oppose instinctively the massive immigration of people of an alien religion, Islam for example, even if that is contrary to some ideological abstraction like the "free movement of peoples."

It is not historically true that religion has gradually and recently inserted itself into a formerly pristinely secular political process. The opposite is true. There was historically a broad Christian consensus that people did not feel was threatened. It was not until a new breed of secularist that were openly hostile to the traditional religion of the country started to insert themselves into the process demanding ever greater secularism that Christians reacted by fighting what they rightly saw as a secularist drift. This is why I say that social conservatism is the most genuinely conservative element of the right (in practice if not always in rhetoric) whether they realize it or not. They are fighting to conserve what was against encroachment by the new.

Red Phillips| 1.6.10 @ 5:01PM

BTW, I agree that generous social safety programs are a result of industrialization and urbanization. This is exactly what the Southern Agrarians warned us about. But that doesn't make them either constitutional (on the Federal level) or desirable.

Steve| 1.6.10 @ 10:19AM

Why is it when I see the name Robert Spencer the first word that comes to mind is simplistic?

Jihad Watch...home page for the Nuke Mecca crowd.

racking| 1.6.10 @ 11:02AM

http://www.racking-shelving.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com

Richard Baker| 1.6.10 @ 1:25PM

Bob:
Remember what Barry Goldwater said in 1964 at the Republican Convention. "Extremism in the pursuit of Liberty is no Vice." A noble sentiment, that. Yes, and he also said "Moderation in the pursuit of Justice is no virtue." Still a noble sentiment.

Bob| 1.6.10 @ 2:05PM

Richard, Goldwater is a hero of mine -- far more than Reagan. And his quote was this:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

But he was against calling others names like socialist/fascist/communist etc. He also decried the role of religion in politics -- very different than today's extremist right.

Today's right wing is not pursuing liberty -- it is pursuing religious dogma and populism. Goldwater was not a populist. If the right were really pursuing liberty, they would not restrict gay marriage or abortion as a major part of their platform since liberty requires those decisions be left to the individual.

My beliefs are very close to Goldwater's. When I was young I actually joined the Army (when most kids were drafted) and fought in Vietnam because I believed that communism was a threat to our liberty. You can't be more extreme that to fight a war....

Red Phillips| 1.6.10 @ 4:17PM

Bob, gay marriage was not on the radar screen in '64. It was an unheard of idea. Goldwater likely would have been repulsed by the idea because those were the days before PC had a stranglehold on people's minds. That such an absurd notion as gay "marriage" is currently on the radar screen is proof positive of my assertion above that today's center is yesterday's far left. Conservatism is not about liberty in the abstract. It is about conserving things. Go figure. It is impossible to imagine a more revolutionary and less conservative concept than gay marriage (not to mention the unrestricted right to kill your own offspring).

Bob| 1.6.10 @ 4:33PM

Again, Red, liberty demands that people choose their own paths. I think being gay would have been fine with Goldwater today given his belief that religion had no place in politics. This is NOT an example of left/right thinking. It is the slow creep of social politics entering the political landscape.

Red Phillips| 1.6.10 @ 4:22PM

That having babies to whom you pass along your values and genes and leave your civilization is a conservative act and killing your babies is an anti-conservative act is so obvious and self-explanatory that it needs no further elaboration. Conservatives for killing off their posterity. Yeah right.

Bob| 1.6.10 @ 4:35PM

Actually, Red, having babies and passing your values is neither conservative or liberal -- it is human. Being pro-choice has nothing to do with conservatism -- it is a religious belief and one that supports the concept of individual liberty.

Red Phillips| 1.6.10 @ 5:12PM

"Actually, Red, having babies and passing your values is neither conservative nor liberal -- it is human."

"Passing your values" is exactly conservative. I can't imagine anything that would be more conservative. Passing someone else's values would not be. But you make my point anyway. Having babies and passing your values is human. Killing your babies in the name of consequence free sex, or the timing isn't right, or you can't afford it, or whatever, is inhuman. It is anti-human. This is really elementary. Not sure why you are struggling with it.

If your primary concern is "the concept of individual liberty" then say so. But your primary concern can not be to "conserve" if you think it is OK to for people to kill their own progeny.

Bob| 1.6.10 @ 5:45PM

Red, I am not a "conservative" by your definition because I cannot force my religious beliefs on others in good conscience. And everyone passes on their values to their progeny -- conservative/liberal/etc. If you don't believe that, then you don't believe that school programs are important. Your argument makes little sense on that front.

I don't believe that expelling a few cells is killing a baby. To believe that a fetus is human at the point of conception is certainly not scientific. It may have the potential to be human, but is not yet a human. In the same vein, sperm and eggs have human potential. Therefore you should never have sex unless you want to conceive. Right????

And yes, individual liberty is one of my prime movers as is getting any specific religion out of government. I still believe it is anti-American to claim this is a Christian country...

On the other hand, our federal government is too large, our social programs are too invasive, and we don't require individual responsibility. I guess the thing about health care that bugs me is that "conservatives" are against the socialization of health care, but they still want to require doctors and hospitals to take care of people whether they can pay for it or not. How is that "conservative"? If you really believe that health care is a privilege and not a right, then you should be willing to let people who cannot afford to pay die. If you aren't willing to do that, then, at some level you believe all people have a right to health care and should support universal coverage because that is what you are getting anyway.

SoCon| 1.6.10 @ 7:25PM

Bob, you're not a Conservative by anyone's measure; you're just a crazy old fool. Even Red sees it.

Red Phillips| 1.6.10 @ 6:25PM

I believe a fetus is a human at the point of conception, and that abortion is equivalent to murder, but it is not necessary to believe that to understand the fundamental wrongness of abortion. The reason that has become the crux of the debate is because both sides have made the debate about rights. The pro-choicers the right to chose and pro-lifers the right to life. The pro-lifers want to make it a person so they can invest it with a right that can't be taken away. The pro-choicers want to dehumanize it so they can elevate the absolute right of the mother. But the issue is not most fundamentally about rights. It is about right and wrong. Not liberty but duty and obligation. The question is what kind of mother wants to kill her own kid. That is just sick. What kind of father wants the mother of his child to kill his kid because it will impose an unwanted burden on him? That is just sick. A healthy society celebrates life and birth. It is a truly sick and degenerate society that views kids as optional accessories that you can take or leave on whim. To think that any such society is somehow conservative is absurd.

Bob| 1.6.10 @ 6:42PM

Well, Red, with that point of view, how can you be against universal health care? It must be a truly sick and degenerate society that will let someone die because they don't have health care. If you force doctors and hospitals to serve everyone, then, de facto, you do support universal health care albeit in an inefficient way.

SoCon| 1.7.10 @ 12:21AM

Bob, give it up--go back to HuffPo where you belong! At least there you wouldn't have to argue with everyone all of the time. You'd fit right in.

You're just not one of us---in any way, shape or form. Only a narcissistic megalomaniac wouldn't see this.