A suggested direction for the conservative movement

Why don't you provide alternative suggestions or re-word some to make them less moderate

Now there is a small treasure for us cultivated despisers!  'Tis not often one finds a militant extremist Republican comin' out fair and square for "less moderate," except perhaps in the immediate vicinity of the Witch Doctor of Democracy, 1200-1500 EST Monday to Friday.

As for the Ten Neocommandments themselves, from outside the monkey house they look like a mixture of (tacit) immoderation and (patent) insincerity.

Maybe it is not right to impugn the Big Management Party neocomrades' sincerity, however?   True, if they had total control of all three branches and Bernanke von Ludendorff on a leash as well, they would never actually do anythin' the least bit like what I and II and III call for, still, they really and truly think they would do it -- and the thought always counts for at least a few points with us empathy fans, don't you know?

Neocomrade S. Gordon has specified how he wishes to be responded to, even if the specification is a bit mystifyin' -- he clearly says that he does not agree with the approach that he himself has taken.   I can't actually rhyme that together, but I can see a sort of family resemblance between it and his hypin’ the Concord Coalition view of militant extremist GOP fiscal policy since 2001.  "I know from bitter experience what I am gonna to do and I sure hope somebody stops me before I do it"

That sentiment would do splendidly in a tract from a wannabe-reformed drunken sailor, but as part of a political manifesto, well, I wonder.   Who is to do the stoppin’?   How many divisions do the genuine Concordites dispose of?   Certainly America's Otherparty should not expect much help from liberals and democrats and Democrats if they ever get back in and then start tryin' to comply with Neocommandments I and II and III as above vouchsafed.

Could Neocomrade S. Gordon be countin' on the heathen Chinee to give up buying Fedguv Treasury notes, or the like?  I.e., on some human or economic event that would not qualify as strictly Homeland-political?

Or does him not agreein' with his own approach decode into these bein' no august Neocommandments at all, but only a cynical ‘platform’ -- mere talkin' points aimed at Televisionland and the electorate that of course no competent insider actually believes in?  Though I grant the subjective sincerity of the preponderant mass of GOP geniuses and Party base-'n'-vile, yet there may be rare individual exceptions, and, for all I know to the contrary, S. Gordon may be one such exception.  (Hopefully nobody will take too much offense if I point out that thenextright is the sort of e-neighborhood where the cynical 0.000463% of Elephant People might be antecedently expected to hang out.  Assuming it exists at all, of course.)

That's enough of I-III.   Of the rest, IV stands out.  If Neocomrade S. Gordon was composin’ a multiple-choice test instead of a model for self-disagreement, it would be an excellent bet that IV is the answer he wants.  In its real context, I suppose the obvious question is whether the lad is takin' money under the table from his Uncle Harry and his Aunt Louise.  On this point it would be absurd to question his subjective sincerity.  What he really ought to do is find some way to conceal or camouflage or tone down that flagrant sincerity of his a little so as not to put off some of the brighter marks and dupes.

Being an empathy fan in politics, I shall just say nothing when nothing nice to say occurs to me.

But a little neutral literary criticism may be admitted. The conceit about not encouragin' the sick to avoid havin' to subsidise ever more and more of ’em is a good deal older than the invaluable contributions of Neocomrade Prof. Dr. Ch. Murray, co-inventor or -discoverer of the far-famed Herrnstein-Murray Curve™   It is at least as old as 1872 and Mr. Samuel Butler:

“Prisoner at the bar, you have been accused of the great crime of labouring under pulmonary consumption, and after an impartial trial before a jury of your countrymen, you have been found guilty. Against the justice of the verdict I can say nothing: the evidence against you was conclusive, and it only remains for me to pass such a sentence upon you, as shall satisfy the ends of the law. That sentence must be a very severe one. It pains me much to see one who is yet so young, and whose prospects in life were otherwise so excellent, brought to this distressing condition by a constitution which I can only regard as radically vicious; but yours is no case for compassion: this is not your first offence: you have led a career of crime, and have only profited by the leniency shown you upon past occasions, to offend yet more seriously against the laws and institutions of your country. You were convicted of aggravated bronchitis last year: and I find that though you are now only twenty-three years old, you have been imprisoned on no less than fourteen occasions for illnesses of a more or less hateful character; in fact, it is not too much to say that you have spent the greater part of your life in a jail."  (( &c. &c. ))

Happy days.

"comprehensive insurance", and then learn that they'd rather you go to the hospital EVERY day, rather than pay $170 x4 per year, in order to keep you from descending repeatedly into mild to moderate shock (with concommittant inability to work, inability to drive or drink from anything that isn't plastic -- due to the risk of loss of physical coordination).

They won't even prescribe allergy medicine!

If we're talking insurance companies, no, they do not DENY health care, they merely refuse to cover it. That's fine. But hidden policies that you are never told about, such as "Any procedure above a certain dollar value will not be covered"... that's irresponsible and unethical.

http://consumerist.com/consumer/complaints/blue-cross-blue-shield-calls-...

When you put profit above the needs of consumers, in the health care industry, people go bankrupt. People die. And that's what's been going on, repeatedly, over the last few years. Wall Street treated health care as a growth industry, and thus everyone got pressured to make more money.

Well, I'm here to tell you that I got ears. And they ain't exactly happy hearing about someone being denied coverage for a miscarriage because it was an "elective abortion."

75% of the people going bankrupt each year for health reasons (50% of the total), are insured. Their insurance didn't do diddly to make sure that they didn't go bankrupt -- and these are middle class families!

I'm not opposed to any solution, bar none, at this point. but I am hoping you can start to see the scale of the problem.

yes, young people see obama accomplishing a lot, and he is trying so he will get credit for that. but don't think young people aren't concerned about the deficit...i know i am never going to get social security so i would like to see that issue resolved sooner rather than later. and once the economic crisis is over, people are going to want spending under control. it is common sense....if you dont pay for it now, you will pay for it later.

"Spending was out of control under Bush but very little of it went for anything that would improve the lives of average people." Exactly. but no one, left or right, has announced major spending reduction plans so there really isn't a serious option elsewhere.

I don't see a way to cut spending enough, from the Republican demographics. The Democrats might just could pull it off... by slashing Social Security and Medicare. But the Republican demographics would revolt before letting that happen. And slashing Defense (really the only other option) is also a no go for the GOP. Which is sad, as it would be plenty productive.

You're right the gas tax won't raise too much money, and it won't fill any big holes. but it's a step in the right direction. And I expect public transportation to come out of the gas tax. It's the efficiency argument that will win us money (and consumer spending in general. or productivity. you think someone in Cali who suddenly doesn't take an hour to get to work, and another to get home, isn't going to do something economically productive with the time?).