Home › Blogs › Jeff Becker's blog ›

So far, so good at The Next Right

Submitted by Jeff Becker on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 15:20
in

I’ve been reading some of the posts over at TheNextRight.com. It covers the spectrum of Republican opinion with a majority of the posts being relatively conservative.

There’s a pretty good article about the Ron Paul campaign. It puts it into context fairly well. I’m not a Paul fan so I’m guessing that some of his die-hard supporters would differ with the opinion presented in that post.

The left-leaning side of the site is a mixed-bag on some of the ‘moderate’ (which I consider to be ‘liberal Republican’) posts. One such post, which I won’t link to, was a typical McCain supporter bashing principled conservatives with the usual tripe. I don’t bother pointing out the error when someone posts garbage like that because I’ve found that it isn’t worth the effort.

What McCain supporters are trying to do is to paint conservatives who continue to oppose him as though they are just being petty and emotional about the issue. I do understand some of where they’re coming from, and it doesn’t paint a very good picture of them.

For the most part conservative writers and politicians stick to the issues rather than make ad hominem attacks with no basis. That type of pointless trashing generally comes from the left. Since McCain is so liberal, as Republicans go, it’s no surprise that some of his followers would be liberal. So when they post on a blog site, they post like a liberal would.

It’s fairly typical for people who have no solid arguments in a debate to turn and attack their opponents with baseless arguments. For the last eight years we’ve seen plenty in what’s known as the Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). There’s no need to point any of it out since it’s in every liberal newspaper almost every day. The proof that it’s baseless is that they’ve been pushing for Bush’s impeachment for the entire eight years and haven’t come up with a single charge against him that held up to even the slightest scrutiny. In many cases amateur bloggers were able to provide sufficient proof that the attacks were without merit.

Such is the case when liberal Republicans attack principled conservatives. Their main points in any discussion quickly fall apart and they’re left without any defense of their position. So they do what any liberal would do, they attack the messenger. It’s relatively easy to spot, particularly in the later stages of exasperation. That’s when the Hitler comparisons come out. So far it hasn’t gotten that bad, but give it time. These are liberals we’re talking about.

[Cross-posted at 5views.com]

4.333335
Your rating: None Average: 4.3 (3 votes)

Comments

Principled Conservatives - a Vastly Overrated Term

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 16:41.

When I hear Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham use the term "principled conservative" nowadays, my cognitive filter translates it into "right wing idealogue" and moves on.  There is a "my way or the highway" feel to their rhetoric that seems destined to propagate an "us" versus "them" mentality within the GOP. 

I am absolutely certain that right wing talk show rhetoric is not what William F. Buckley had in mind when he sounded the clarion call to the Conservative Movement heralded by Russel Kirk in the early 1950's.  I noticed on your blog that you define a conservative as "someone who holds to conservative principles".  These are Kirk's 6 canons of conservatism in his landmark book "The Conservative Mind":

  • A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society;
  • Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity;
  • Civilized society requires orders and classes;
  • Property and freedom are inseparably connected;
  • Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason; and
  • Society must alter slowly.  

John McCain supports all of these canons insofar as I can tell.  One difference between McCain and the far Right is a tendency to embrace colleagues of both parties as allies in order to achieve common goals.  I would be less than optimistic that a candidate who characterizes liberals as you do both here and in your blog would be able to achieve solid results with a Democratic majority legislature.  I repeatedly see the term "liberal" being used in a derogatory way, basically as an epithet. 

Since McCain is so liberal, as Republicans go, it’s no surprise that some of his followers would be liberal. So when they post on a blog site, they post like a liberal would.

Many libertarian conservatives consider themselves "classic liberals".  I've been a registered Republican since 1971, and I happen to like liberals.  I work with them every day, we accomplish a great deal together, and I expect my candidates in Washington to do the same.  In my experience they are kind, caring, optimistic, warm people who genuinely want the world to be a better place.  Sometimes the liberal world view seems a little naive compared to mine, but it's always refreshing to me to know that such people exist.  I do not consider Marxist, far Left radicals to be "liberals" when in fact they are narrow and totalitarian. 

I feel a bond with conservative Democrats, Independents, and all Republicans because we are all guided by certain common principles.  I'm very apprehensive about the divisiveness of the far Right toward Democrat and Independent allies because it threatens the unity of a coalition that can provide a bulwark against the idealogues of the far Left. 

Unite or Die - to me, it's more than just a catch phrase.  It's our very roots.  If you can't support McCain in this election, that is your choice as a free citizen.  It's also your right to critique those who can and do support him, but I won't hesitate to respond that in the 2008 Presidential election, at least, I think you're dead wrong.

McCain is not a "principled" conservative

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 22:44.

McCain don't need no stinking principles, excepting his own.

McCain-Feingold and his Immigration police are perfect examples of just where McCain is capable of taking himself if left to his own principles.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Ok, David

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 22:06.

You win.  McCain's a complete waste of your time, and thanks for sharing because I wasn't exactly sure how you felt about that topic.  Heh. 

Now instead of providing us with more information on the problem, let me challenge you to provide some fresh ideas on the solution.  What do you recommend we do about it between now and November, 2008?

dum vita est, spes est

"right wing idealogue"?

Submitted by Jeff Becker on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 22:30.

GOP_Rebel, thanks for that example.  It's exactly what I was describing.

 

Well, we, as conservatives...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 23:09.

...should, of course, never give up our principles.

Secondly, try to explain to as many fellow conservatives as you can that the political elite presently mounting and largely funding McCain's campaign will try and entice you to jump on his bandwagon...Hell's bells, man; we know you all are going to vote for him. Who else you poor, dumb hey-pickers going to vote for?  If you don't vote for our boy McCain, the country will go to hell in a hand-basket, sure as shooting,  and we won't be in a position to  cash in on our lobbyist money we been throwing down McCain's sinkhole. The other lobbyists on the other side will do all the cashing is. Now, you wouldn't want to see that, now would you?. It all just politics as usual.  Don't fall for it. Stick to your principles and support you local, state and congressional conservative candidates.

The truth is, both political parties have long been sold out to the moneyed interests and have little interest in deconstructing their power back to where every true conservative knows it rightfully belongs, to the people.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Those "moneyed interests". . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 23:16.

. . .is there a particular characteristic which they broadly share, aside from having money and wanting to influence policy?

And, how does one square an opposition to the influence of "moneyed interests" with the basis of opposition to McCain-Feingold, i.e. that money is speech?

Moneyed interests

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 23:33.

is any one who contributes to a political candidate in hopes of a financial return.

The hypocrisy I see with McCain and McCain-Feingold is his unwillingness to follow his own law. Apparently, McCain's laws are written for everybody else to follow except McCain. You got to admit, that takes a certain amount of chutzpa, or is that arrogance, or both.

But more to your point, it's true, money is free speech. Conservatives really have no problem with people contributing to political candidates in any amounts (free speech), as long as the public has assess, as a matter of record, who is giving to whom and how much. The rest as they say, is politics.

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

Seems to me. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 23:46.

. . .that whenever you don't like something McCain does, it's deception, arrogance, hypocrisy, or outright lawbreaking.  But, whenever it cuts against McCain in some way, well -- it's just politics.

Nice principles.

Oh, please.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 00:01.

John McCain supports all of these canons insofar as I can tell. 

 

McCain is as close to being a Kirkian conservative as Obama is. Why does an self described non-conservative, or as you put it, non member of the "far right", feel this need to lecture conservatives on their beliefs?

 

I am absolutely certain that right wing talk show rhetoric is not what William F. Buckley had in mind when he sounded the clarion call to the Conservative Movement heralded by Russel Kirk in the early 1950's. 

I am absolutely certain that you are absolutely wrong and that you are completely unfamiliar with National Review, Buckely's flagship and mouthpiece. In the mid 90's I recall an edition with a picture of Limbaugh on the cover done up as George Washington. The magazine has taken a sharp left turn the last several years, but it used to express exactly the same thoughts as Ingraham and Limbaugh and the rest. Where do you think they learned those thoughts?

 

 

 

Great repartay, Jon

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 00:15.

The one I split a gut over laughing was this little jem, "Many libertarian conservatives consider themselves "classic liberals".  God help us.

McCain deserves these guys in a twisted sort of way.

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

Definition of Classic Liberalism

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 12:00.

davidfarrar, you wrote:

The one I split a gut over laughing was this little jem, "Many libertarian conservatives consider themselves "classic liberals".  God help us.

Heh - well on the bright side, at least we're all having fun... 

The thing I love about you guys is that you challenge me to actually make sure I know what the hell I'm talking about as opposed to randomly babbling.  Since I'm no political science expert,  I consider this a good thing.  Maybe we can all learn something together if we can trust (but verify) the content providers of Wikipedia, where the facts behind my gut-splitting gem are well-documented:

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism and laissez-faire liberalism, or, in much of the world, simply called liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Montesquieu, Voltaire,Thomas Paine and others. As such, it is seen as the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.

The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods.

The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from evolutions in liberal thought during the 19th and early 20th centuries, especially the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse,and Franklin D. Roosevelt, which grants the state a more interventionist role in the economy, including a welfare state. Classical liberalism is not to be confused with the ideology that is commonly called "liberalism" today in the United States, as "classical liberalism" is closer to what today is a claimed current of "conservatism" in the U.S. 

As for Kirk, he did write a polemic essay calling libertarians "chirping sectaries" having nothing in common with conservatives.  He said that a line of division exists between believers in "some sort of transcendant moral order" and "utlitarians admitting no transcendent sanctions for conduct" because he believed that when religious faith decays, culture must decline.  I completely agree with him that society must operate from a spiritually sound moral center, although I disagree with Kirk that society must strictly adhere to a Christian form of spirituality. 

Kirk was not enchanted with Jewish neoconservatives, former liberals who rejected the Left and moved to the Right.  His quip about Neocons mistaking Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States was considered absolutely outrageous by many.  But  Kirk's view of "classical liberals" is positive; he agrees with them on "ordered liberty" as they make "common cause with regular conservatives against the menace of democratic despotism and economic collectivism."

In the spirit of Kirk's "common cause" I would like to find out what I do have in common with "regular conservatives".  Together we can be part of the solution to the long dark night of the Republican Party, or we can just continue to be part of the circular firing squad.   

The reason why I would rather unite rather than continue splitting into smaller and smaller conservative sects is because I believe we share the common enemy of totalitarianism.  To get a clear idea of what this common enemy looks, feels and acts like we can always read George Orwell, but there's no better recent example than The Lives of Others, directed by Gen X'er Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck.  Check it out some time and tell me what you think of it and whether you think it's worth teaming up to avoid at all costs.

luceat lux vestra

That's nice.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 12:49.

In the spirit of Kirk's "common cause" I would like to find out what I do have in common with "regular conservatives". 

 

One way you might begin would be by refraining from calling them "far right extremists" who will have the blood of innocents on their hands if Obama is elected. You attachment to liberals seems to extend to arguing like them. 

 

But  Kirk's view of "classical liberals" is positive;

The quote from Wikipedia is actually in reference to libertarians. Libertarians are not in fact "classical liberals". Libertarianism is a brand new ideology.

 

I disagree with Kirk that society must strictly adhere to a Christian form of spirituality. 

 

You'll be happy to hear that he never said that. He did say that conservatives cannot be hostile to religion, which in the West means Christianity. But adherence to Christianity is not required.

 

 

Kirkian Fact Check

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 14:14.

I checked your facts, I did, I did.  If you're going to quote an online source, it would be great if you could provide a link. 

Here's what the  Wiki on Kirk says verbatim:

In a polemic essay, Kirk (quoting T. S. Eliot) called libertarians "chirping sectaries," adding that they and conservatives have nothing in common. He called the libertarian movement "an ideological clique forever splitting into sects still smaller and odder, but rarely conjugating." He said a line of division exists between believers in "some sort of transcendent moral order" and "utilitarians admitting no transcendent sanctions for conduct." He included libertarians in the latter category. Kirk, therefore, questioned the "fusionism" between libertarians and traditional conservatives that marked much of post World War II conservatism in the United States.

I challenge your veracity on Kirk equating libertarians with classic liberals from the same source referenced above:

 Kirk's view of "classical liberals" is positive though; he agrees with them on "ordered liberty" as they make "common cause with regular conservatives against the menace of democratic despotism and economic collectivism.

I challenge your veracity again on  Libertarianism as a brand new ideology:

The first known use of a term that has been translated as "libertarian" in a political sense was by anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque, who used the French term libertaire in a letter to Proudhon in 1857.

Without source citations, I fear the cost of my research renders the debate too expensive for me to continue at this time but this exercise has been very educational and enlightening up to now.

As far as me referring to "regular conservatives" as far right extremists, you're absolutely right - I was wrong.  It's neither helpful nor productive in influencing anyone's vote in November.  I do apologize to you, Jeff Becker, and any other "regular conservatives" who may have been offended.  I am duly chastened and will strive toward a more unifying message in the future.

Die dulci fruimini

Eh.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 17:46.

 If you're going to quote an online source, it would be great if you could provide a link. 

 

I'd be impressed if your knowledge of of the various strands of conservative thought was not derived from some googling you've just done five minutes ago.  For your edification, here is Kirk on libertarianism, it's different types and it's pros and cons.

 

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL158.cfm

 

The full quote, which Wiki excerpted;

 

"For if a man believes in an enduring moral order, the Constitution of the United States, established American way of life, and a free economy - why, actually he is a conservative, even if he labors under an imperfect understanding of the general terms of politics. Such Americans are to the conservative movement in the United States much as the Liberal Unionists have been to the Conservative Party in Britain - that is, close practical allies, almost indistinguishable nowadays. Libertarians of this description usually are intellectual descendants of the old "classical liberals"; they make common cause with regular conservatives against the menace of democratic despotism and economic collectivism."

I challenge your veracity again on  Libertarianism as a brand new ideology 

Citing somebody to the effect that the word is old does not challenge my claim that what is now called libertarianism is a new ideology. As you may have noticed, most libertarians today would not describe themselves as anarcho-communists. Apart from Chomsky, I suppose.

 

 

I apologize, if I misunderstood your statement.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 19:54.

I thought you said, "classic liberals", not "classical liberals".

If you move the goal post back far enough democracy, the Republic, a written  Constitution would all have been considered radical liberalism in good, old King George's time.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Walt,

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 00:02.

To tell you the truth, I really don't understand your point. Other than mounting a blind attack on me, what was the point you were trying to express?

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

Missing the spirit of the whole enterprise.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 00:04.

 I repeatedly see the term "liberal" being used in a derogatory way, basically as an epithet. 

 

If you think that liberal and liberalism are good things, then you are probably not exactly on board with the entire conservative enterprise, at least as it has existed since Reagan. Perhaps you're an Eisenhower Republican?

 

 

Not an Eisenhower Republican

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 12:37.

I'm a South Park Republican. My heroes are Matt Stone, Trey Parker, Dennis Miller, P.J. O'Rourke, Penn Jillette and of course...that great comedian Jon Henke. 

O'Rourke

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 13:01.

If you think that O'Rourke says nice and respectful things about liberals and liberalism then you must have a different PJ in mind. He makes the talk show hosts you are complaining about sound like John McCain blathering on about his good friends across the aisle.

 

 

What P.J. O'Rourke Says About John McCain

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 13:41.

Jon, my evil genius friend, you obviously feel the need to conflate anyone who disagrees with your particular brand of orthodoxy with "liberals" and "liberalism", which misses the entire point of any debate I've had with anyone on this site so far.  Now I know you're a smart guy, so perhaps you're just playing the Devil's Advocate (no pun intended of course). 

In this election, my point is that instead of teaching the Republicans a lesson they'll never forget by staying home to register my discontent, I'm going to vote in November.  And when I vote in November, I'll supporting John McCain.  And so will P.J. O'Rourke, and the smart money says so will other Neo-Libertarians.  Here's an excerpt from P.J. O'Rourke's article in the Weekly Standard (4/28/08) about his visit to the USS Roosevelt, H/T The Stupid Shall Be Punished : 

Some say John McCain's character was formed in a North Vietnamese prison. I say those people should take a gander at what John chose to do--voluntarily. Being a carrier pilot requires aptitude, intelligence, skill, knowledge, discernment, and courage of a kind rarely found anywhere but in a poem of Homer's or a half gallon of Dewar's. I look from John McCain to what the opposition has to offer. There's Ms. Smarty-Pantsuit, the Bosnia-Under-Sniper-Fire poster gal, former prominent Washington hostess, and now the JV senator from the state that brought you Eliot Spitzer and Bear Stearns. And there's the happy-talk boy wonder, the plaster Balthazar in the Cook County political crèche, whose policy pronouncements sound like a walk through Greenwich Village in 1968: "Change, man? Got any spare change? Change?"

Some people say John McCain isn't conservative enough. But there's more to conservatism than low taxes, Jesus, and waterboarding at Gitmo. Conservatism is also a matter of honor, duty, valor, patriotism, self-discipline, responsibility, good order, respect for our national institutions, reverence for the traditions of civilization, and adherence to the political honesty upon which all principles of democracy are based. Given what screw-ups we humans are in these respects, conservatism is also a matter of sense of humor. Heard any good quips lately from Hillary or Barack?

A one-day visit to an aircraft carrier is a lifelong lesson in conservatism. The ship is immense, going seven decks down from the flight deck and ten levels up in the tower. But it's full, with some 5,500 people aboard. Living space is as cramped as steerage on the way to Ellis Island. Even the pilots live in three-bunk cabins as small and windowless as hall closets. A warship is a sort of giant Sherman tank upon the water. Once below deck you're sealed inside. There are no cheery portholes to wave from.

McCain could hardly escape understanding the limits of something huge but hermetic, like a government is, and packed with a madding crowd. It requires organization, needs hierarchies, demands meritocracy, insists upon delegation of authority. An intricate, time-tested system replete with checks and balances is not a plaything to be moved around in a doll house of ideology. It is not a toy bunny serving imaginary sweets at a make-believe political tea party. The captain commands, but his whims do not. He answers to the nation.

As Laura Ingraham would say:  Period.  Dot.  Bingo!  Do whatever your conscience dictates, Counselor, this U.S. Navy vet rests her case. 

shifting goal posts

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 14:04.

You began by implying that PJ was not a critic of liberals and liberalsim, like those nasty "right wing extremists" who have you so bothered. When I point out that he's actually the poster child for that section of the right, you don't reply, you simply shift your argument to something else.

 

I get that you're a die-hard McCain guy, you don't need to remind me over and over.

 

Conservatism is also a matter of honor, duty, valor, patriotism, self-discipline, responsibility, good order, respect for our national institutions, reverence for the traditions of civilization, and adherence to the political honesty upon which all principles of democracy are based.

 

And McCain is deficient in the majority of these things.  George McGovern was a bomber pilot in WWII. That did not make him a conservative, even by the expansive interpetation you want to give the word. I'm not voting for Coriolanus.

I don't believe I implied

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 14:28.

that P.J. was not a critic of liberals and liberalism.  I believe that was your assertion.

I 've already apologized to you in a separate post for casting right wing extremist aspersions, and I mis-typed classical liberal when I was joking with you. 

Obviously you are not in the mood for playful debate, but you are in the mood to be vexatious.  I shall leave you to enforce your high standards throughout the site as you see fit, I'm off to a meeting.

Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert

Read your own comments.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 14:59.

The thread began with you objecting to people who used "liberal" as an epithet.

 

I repeatedly see the term "liberal" being used in a derogatory way, basically as an epithet. 

 

You have to admit, that's an odd thing for a fan of PJ to say. He's made a good living out of doing just that.

 

"so will other Neo-Libertarians"

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 14:08.

Laurence Olivier played fewer roles than you do. If the hosts here were paleo-libertarians, that's what you'd be also.

 

 

Kirk

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 00:09.

The idea that Kirk would be supporting McCain is the silliest thing I've seen written in the last week or so. Considering what the blogosphere is like, that makes it pretty darn silly.

 

The idea...

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 12:00.

...that you wished to suppress the expression of free speech on this website in an earlier post goes way past silly - I believe it goes all the way to unconstitutional.  That may cost you a little credibility on the subject of conservatism, regardless of your close personal association  with Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley. 

Kirk was unavailable at the time. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 15:31.

. . .but William F. Buckley actually donated money to McCain's campaign before he had locked up the nomination.  And, McCain was the only presidential candidate he donated to.

Scamper on over to opensecrets.org and run a donor lookup search for Buckley, William from the state of Connecticut for the 2008 election cycle and see for yourself.

The WFB/McCain Connection

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 16:45.

Ooh!  Scamper I did, and I also found this article in the Washington Post which contained the transcript of an online chat between John Miller of National Review responding to various questions about the life of William F. Buckley, like this one from New York:

New York, N.Y.: William Buckley came to oppose the war in Iraq, but his successor at National Review, William Kristol, is a hearty supporter, reflected in the magazine's editorial policy. Was that a source of distress or consternation for Buckley? Thanks for the chat.

John Miller: I believe it's fair to say that WFB supported the invasion of Iraq and began to have misgivings about the result that led him to reconsider the whole enterprise -- but that he also supported the troops surge. Last year, he made a personal contribution to the presidential campaign of John McCain.

(Also, the editor of National Review is Richard Lowry; William Kristol is the editor of the Weekly Standard.)

BTW, the Kristol gaffe is the chat transcript's, not mine.  It seems that one must anticipate Sandor's excruciatingly granular critique a la the classical vs. classic liberal gotcha.  If I were a professional political scientist, I'd be knowledgeable enough to have my own website.  Apparently for Sandor, the price of obtaining viable information via Google as opposed to Law School is scorn, contempt, condescension and superior self-congratulation. 

Certainly when it comes to being an incredibly smart, nice guy, there couldn't be a better example than William F.  Buckley.  Much appreciate your kindness and the tip, Walt. 

 Absum!

By all means. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 17:34.

. . .I aim to help.  Believe it or not, I'm not always as churlish as I appear in writing. 

What a long-winded bore.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 17:44.

What does any of this have to do with anything being discussed here? I never said Buckley would not support McCain. The only person your "gotcha" got was yourself.

 

 

classic liberal gotcha

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 17:51.

It's not a "gotcha". I expect self described classical liberals to at least be famiiar with the term "classical liberal". The fact that you don't even know the name of the thing you are claiming to be makes it clear that you are not really that thing, just another internet game player.

It hardly requires the expertise of a professional political scientist to know this stuff. I'm not one, and neither is anyone else here.

 

 

unconstitutional

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 12:34.

The idea that you have a constitutional right to express your views on a private web site is nearly as silly as your idea that Kirk would have supported McCain. Well, I guess we have ruled out your being a lawyer.

 

 

Jon has a point. Anyone

Submitted by Lisa on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 12:47.

Jon has a point. Anyone that's moderated a site knows that forums are little more than benevolent dictatorships. It can be a difficult task trying to foster open discussion while still keeping the discourse civil enough that an exchange of ideas can take place.

Incidentally, Rebel, I can't find the user code of conduct agreement that we all "signed," but it almost certainly reserves the right of the owners to boot anyone off at any time for any reason. That's just the way of the web.

 

Busted!

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 12:41.

Busted!  Nope - not a lawyer.  I still think you're an evil totalitarian represser.  So sue me. 

That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, didn't you?

- Monty Python and the Holy Grail

 

oops. sorry about that.

Submitted by Lisa on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 12:49.

oops. sorry about that. didn't see you had already come to the totalitarian monarchy conclusion.

bloody peasants!

 

evil totalitarian represser

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 12:52.

I still think you're an evil totalitarian represser. 

 

Sure, but how could you be a liberal and think anything else? "Help, my rights are being violated" is the first, last, and only thought ever to go through the liberal mind.

Jon, do you guys have the

Submitted by Lisa on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 13:11.

Jon, do you guys have the user agreement linked? That might not be a bad idea.

Impressive...

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 13:20.

...that you hang out with legal geeks who actually know Eugene Volokh.  The price of reading your condescending comments drops with my familiarity with your overall intelligent contribution to the blogosphere.  As for you being an evil totalitarian repressor, I take it back.  What I now think is that you're a humorless evil genius. 

Oh, but don't call ever call me a liberal again unless you call me a classic liberal. 

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.

classic liberal

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 14:11.

You are not a classic liberal [sic]. You don't even know the name of the thing you are calling yourself. It's "classical liberal". At least learn that much before you try to pass yourself off as one.

 

 

What conservatism needs. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 18:40.

. . .is more dyspeptic blowhards.