Redstate

...merely an all-or-nothing approach to politics. Integrity and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive. While I agree with principled debate, even at the expense of a loss, in most situations, my point is simply that the country has moved too far to the Left for conservatism to triumph in one fell swoop. Politics is cyclical, but the center remains ever where it has been, simply trying to be left alone and go about the business of daily life and being a good citizen. We need to move them to the Right, and consolidate the masses and political class around one idea that everyone can actually agree on.

The center is what binds us all, and they are not some mythical creature to be conquered in the interest of partisan politics. I do not advocate the McCain strategy of bi-partisanship, whereby he simply thumbs his ostensible party in the eye to score points with lefty independents and Democrats.

I'm advocating a more beneficial method of governance, which is what America was founded on - a simple document, bequeathing all the freedoms in the world to its future generations. I also have my own principles, one of which is recognizing that while I may disagree with someone, it is possible to actually work together to find a mutually beneficial arrangement. That is true bi-partisanship, and it is why Americans of every race, culture and creed typically desire to be left alone to live their lives.

Only socialists and cowardly, small-minded people honestly seek to have Big Brother determine their lives. Those are weak, petty, inconsequential people, and they violate the spirit of this country's being.

In 'highway-speak' the center is where the roadkill exists. I prefer people who believe in something and stand on principle be it one I agree with or not. I see sides where there is a winner and a loser, and bi-partisanship looks to me like a way to avoid assigning a victor by leaving the combat zone for now and let future combatants fight it out.


Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

The more rare you like your steak, the more important it is that it is a good cut of meat.

Huh?

Society is a political construct. It must, by definition, be the result of compromises. If two sides of a position hold to their principles and those principles are exclusive, then there is no chance for compromise. The result is two sides trying to cut off chunks of the center for themselves. Eventually, there is not much center unaccounted for and no common ground to meet on.

My issue with McCain is not that he is unprincipled, just that he starts from the position of compromise, then moves towards the opposing side. I would, most of us would, appreciate if he STARTED at his principles and then worked out come political compromise. The result is more likely to be in the common ground of the center, which for most of us, is ok. We just hate seeing the store given away at the beginning.

I like a nice rare steak, but always order medium rare - good cuts are hard to find and I would rather be content with a good meal, than to be disappointed trying for a great one.

Member, American Conservative Party

I have nothing specifically to add except to note this:

You and I disagree 100% on homosexual marriage, but we agree 100% on both our view of McCain's compromising and good steak.

Even between us there is good common ground!
heh

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

were still allowed in more restaurants. Lately I've had to either choose "medium" or give a kind of oral waiver, and the last time I did that, the dude cooked me something much closer to "rare," which I didn't want at all.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Places I go to can give me medium rare, but I've learned which ones to order medium, so that I GET medium rare.

In Oklahoma City there is a place famous for its steaks, and they are VERY expensive. (So expensive that it makes the steak lost some wonderfulness because you think about the money you're spending.) They, unfortunately for poor fellows like me, have the most excellent steaks that I've not cooked myself.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

do you know if the all-night place in Henryetta is still in business? I was there once in '94.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

The center: leave me alone unless I have suffered for more than 5 seconds

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

It was quite a difficult step for me to take when I voted for Bush the second time around; it was a surreal moment in the voting booth having previously joked of him being the antichrist. I was such a sheep following whatever the democrats told me to think, not really understanding any of the issues or that policy maybe should have something to do with where I cast my vote. I actually thought their party was the open-minded accepting one until a series of heated debates with my (now) husband lead me to realize I actually adhered to republican ideals. I really had NO idea about politics and yet I thought I was so savvy! My point in saying all this is finally I have stripped away the heavy wool over my eyes and am actually proud to say I'm a Republican; and the party that I am newly so in love with, the party that actually represents me, is going to the CENTER?!!

"We need to move them to the Right, and consolidate the masses and political class around one idea that everyone can actually agree on. The center is what binds us all, and they are not some mythical creature to be conquered in the interest of partisan politics."

First of all that is a complete contradiction. You can't say you want to move everyone to the Right and then claim that those in the center are not to be conquered for partisan politics. Second, and you must trust me on this one having been there, "the masses and political class" are not going to all gather around one idea and agree. There are some issues that just don't have a center. Like it or not you are either for abortion or against it. There is no "mutually beneficial arrangement" when it comes to unborn children.

I must agree with the post above yours in saying that it is okay to lose if you are maintaining your principles. I know what my issues are and I am not budging so we can win some here and there. I have been most disappointed in Bush's response to illegal immigration for a most important reason that isn't being discussed. He is confusing the public, left and center (and in some cases right) on where our party stands. Then when things take a downturn the public thinks that is what Republicans wanted to do. I'm coming around to the idea that I have to support McCain because he is our official candidate and I do want to stand with my party; but I have to say I am sad because some of his policies will surely cause further confusion about what it is to be a Republican. Some will call me far-Right and that's okay with me because I know where I stand and it sure isn't in the "can't we all just get along" middle.

after tony parker schools lakers

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Tony Parker schools who? I hope Ginobli can score before the third quarter on Thursday....
Yes gentlemen, BR is back, all sporting arguments and other arguments will be met with a swift uppercut and a kick to the face. Pistons-Lakers finals. Batman for VP. That is all, until my diary is finished.

The trouble with our friend John McCain isn't that he's ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn't so.

Charles Barkley is right that the Lakers have put together a lot of young pups to go along with Bryant & Fisher. Mitch Kupchak made some good moves post-Shaq.


Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

is laid out in Chapter Two: "The Leave Us Alone Coalition". He utilizes anecdotal evidence, observations of political and social culture and simple common sense to make the point. The rest of the book also supports and elevates the point, but it is not a political theory paper with a million citations. The best I can say is to find the book, and explore it with an open mind. It jibes with my pre-existent thinking, but I'm always willing to listen to other viewpoints with an open mind. I simply measure it against my own values, and I encourage you to do the same.

For example, he uses a simple Venn diagram showing the overlapping interests of the guns, taxes and homeschooling contingents. While the area covering all three base issues is quite small, and the area adjoining two bases slightly larger, one can see that the common theme of leaving each base to its own devices politically covers the whole area.

One of the best strategies to illuminate my point is that employed by the Russians in various wars. Historians often point to the "scorched earth" stratagem as a last-ditch effort to save their forces, dent the enemy spoils and launch a desperate counter-offensive. I see it as a brilliant understanding of Russian resources, strengths and knowledge of the enemy's weaknesses. They simply drew the enemy in, bit by bit, giving a little here and there, and they ultimately won their wars.

Am I advocating a total revocation of all conservative principles? Absolutely not. Conservative principles are proper, just and reflect the world as it is, and as it should be. However, I am advocating seeing the forest for the trees. That is to say, I'm willing to make room at the table for someone who disagrees with me on certain issues, provided it serves to further my view of the national well-being. That is the beauty of federalism - if the people in some states choose to be pro-choice (for example), I will refuse to support that state government with my patronage and taxes. But, I will not exclude them from the pool of potential allies, if they can also see the larger picture.

democrats:

old folks scared that repubs will take their checks

and

the pro-abortion lobby

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Pro-life

every other issue is secondary, and I'm am Republican

and no the Federalist argument for states to decide on abortion doesn't work for me.

Murder is a crime in all 50 States. It's not up to the states to allow murder or not, but to decide how to punish it.

murder, esp as regards the insanity defense.

You favor a const amendment banning abortion, right? Or do you think that the Sup Ct should rule abortion is illegal via the 14th amendment?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Amend and rule illegal, leave no loophole. People who go elsewhere to get one must become expatriots etc...

or life in prison?

Just curious about the strength of your convictions.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

if all murder was punishable by life in prison or death I'd agree to that. But it isn't. So your analogy is just a fairly shallow attempt to make an argument. Nice job soaking that strawman in diesel and setting it ablaze, though.

I'd certainly support a very, very, very long prison term for anyone who either performs and abortion or procures an abortion for a third party. I've got no problem with treating having an abortion with the same severity that we treat vehicular homicide.

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

different murder and manslaughter crimes.

Abortion proponents must live on farms---so many straw men around.

He is not calling it manslaughter - he is calling it murder.

And to me, if the woman goes to the abortionist, it must be premeditated.

Why is this a strawman?

It is only if in your fantasy world, does passing a law makes the crime go away. What's wrong with actually talking about what would happen if you got the law you wanted?

So, if you can answer a straight question - what is the suggested penalty for the mother?

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

if you are willing to say manslaughter is not a degree of murder that is fine in your world.

Your strawman is the requirement for life in prison or death. Murder does not necessarily, or even most commonly, carry either of those punishments.

No, I don't believe passing a law makes a crime go away, but I'm glad to see you can recognize abortion is a crime. I do believe that criminals should be punished. Just as I don't advocate allowing armed robbery because the laws we have against it don't prevent it, neither do I believe we should tolerate infanticide, in or ex utero, just because it is convenient and/or profitable.

And to me, if the woman goes to the abortionist, it must be premeditated.

Interesting to you, I'm sure, to others not so much.

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

Still can't answer the question?

What would you recommend be the penalty for a woman who has an abortion? Would it be different than if she drown her kids in the bathtub?

(I really don't expect you to answer)

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

None--no penalties for the mother. While there are outliers on this position, most pro-lifers I hear from want to focus on the doctors---i.e. the people who actually perform the abortion.

Yes, it would be different that if she drown her kids in the bathtub, as the mother is not actually the person performing the abortion while in the bathtub scenario, the mother is the sole actor.

I know you don't actually want to listen to what the pro-life community thinks, but the vast majority would NOT pursue criminal sanctions against the mother.

There would be sanctions against the doctor. It would be a felony, with a punishment consistent with a manslaughter conviction.

You would know these answers if you ever cared to really find them out, but . . . .

Know what most pro-life people thought.

Interesting that mother goes free - she is the one instigating and paying to have the 'murder' committed.

It makes me feel like you aren't as sure it's murder as you would be if a mother paid to have her kids killed.

Why the difference? Is it only political and what you think can be done at a first pass?

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

As bathtub drowning due to PPD (post partum depression) or severe financial stress. The murder by the mother would be punished, but likely not by life in prison or death. Especailly in the PPD case it's likely the mom would get therapy and go to a corectional/psych facility for 5-7 years, then be let out on probation (and ideally Norplant)

For Mother

First time offence--Mandatory Norplant for the next five years, removal of all state assistance and scholarships (medical, school, and welfare), community service, and parenting classes.

Second offence--equal to local penalty for premeditated murder plus forced sterilization.

For Doctors
1st offence=loss of medical license, community service, $100,000 fine
2nd offence=local penalty for contracting for murder

Of course there would need to be a timely review and appeals process for medically indicated abortions (for pre-eclamptic mothers etc.)

Second, the criminal act would be committed by the Doctor. I don't know any pro-lifers who want to place criminal sanctions of the mother.

Third, the penalty should be some type of manslaughter.

Straight answer. No penalty for the mother.

So the penalty would be nothing if she risked her life to do it herself and if a doctor made sure the mother didn't die, he would go to jail?

How about if she took an abortion pill?

Under you rules, how can the mother get off completely free? Wouldn't she be an accomplice to murder? I'm no lawyer, but it would sure seem that way.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

There are all sorts of specialized criminal laws that target what you would call murder.

For example, if you drive over 45 MPH in a work zone and cause the death of a worker in Michigan, you are subject to a specific criminal charge that is neither murder nor manslaughter (although the penalty is commensurate with manslaughter).

That is my position on abortion.

In terms of the pill, same principle--the manufacturers and distributors of the pill would be the focus of the criminal charges.

Again, the charge of "murder" would not be applied to anyone involved, neither the doctor nor the mother. Keep using the word, but understand that nobody is talking about applying this penalty in the context of abortion.

If the doctor is not charged with murder, then the mother will not be charged as an accomplice to murder.

I know you are hung up on the word "murder" but you should understand that there are many different penalties and charges under criminal law that result in the illegal causing of death that are not murder.

I suspect you will keep asking questions about murder and being an accomplice to murder, despite the fact that the crime of murder is but one crime of many that deal with an illegal action causing a death.

In terms of the pill, same principle--the manufacturers and distributors of the pill would be the focus of the criminal charges.

I'm not going to get involved in this debate other than to throw some facts out.

Mifepristone has other medical uses and trials are currently ongoing for many more. It's used as a contraceptive and to stop obstetrical hemorrhages which often lead to miscarriage. In many cases it's the only thing which allows a mother to carry a fetus to term.

Quoting wikipedia:

Other medical applications of mifepristone that have been studied in Phase II clinical trials include regular long-term use as an oral contraceptive, and treatment of: uterine fibroids, endometriosis, major depression with psychotic features, glaucoma, meningiomas, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, and some types of Cushing's syndrome.

In weighing this issue it's important to consider if the good you hope to achieve by banning the substance is worth the potential harm caused by it becoming unavailable for the use in the treatment of other medical conditions.

"In weighing this issue it's important to consider if the good you hope to achieve by banning the substance is worth the potential harm caused by it becoming unavailable for the use in the treatment of other medical conditions."

See: Marijuana, Medicinal

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Are you aware that the abortion pill is made EXCLUSIVELY in China?

If we would ban trade with China, as I've argued before we need VERY badly to do, that would not be a problem. We'd get rid of a lot of other dangerous garbage too.

the vast majority of good stuff that we get from China too!

nt

That is total bull.

Besides. If you cut off trade relations to China, why should they ever listen to us? Trade, and the economic integration that follows, leads to greater stability because no one wants to attack someone who is an integral part of their economy. It would be suicide. Even the Chinese understand that.

"Listen to us?" Listen to what? Do you actually think they'll change their government?

I don't give a flip what the economic consequences are any more than I would have with slavery. US companies are de facto exporting slavery to another country when you look at how the government treats its people. And that is partially why we get disproportionately inferior and dangerous products in return. All the while, it eliminates jobs that Americans could be doing. In any event, I don't care what it does to any economy; it's more than worth it!

People and companies here need to get on the ball of doing things themselves if they want them done.

I will not back down from this position! Any perceived good about trade with China is a facade. Companies that trade with China ought to be put out of business.

So I guess since we opened trade with China years ago there had been zero progress on the people of China wanting more freedom?

Seriously, you care zero for the hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who would be affected by a full cessation of trade with China? It would be a disaster. There would be massive job losses (not just here, but in China also) leading to levels of poverty unseen since the Great Depression. Your conscience would allow this to happen.

We are in agreement. Conditions in China suck, but cutting off trade will make them worse, not better.

No. If anything, China is worse! I certainly don't believe the US would suffer a net loss of jobs. Of course neither I nor anyone else knows for sure what WOULD happen, but even if you were correct, my conscience would still DEMAND trade stop.

Most Chinese people are essentially working as slaves. The government is getting most of the economic rewards and tortures and kills its people. We must not comply with that. Economic prosperity must NEVER trump human rights!

China's economy is the least of my concerns. They ay as well be North Korea.

This is probably why the "Abortion Is Murder" claim does not ring perfectly true among those on the fence.

Those on the fence suspect that there is a difference between Abortion and, say, stuff that gets termed "murder" by any given prosecutor. A difference in degree that is large enough to result in a difference of kind... and even the vast majority of those who are Pro-Life see that difference in degree.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

There are many examples of words being used in a generalized sense that are not accurate in the context of a more specific analysis.

It would be interesting to look at the pre-Roe statutes and find out what the criminal penalties were.

You actually raise a point that the court addressed at length in the Doe and Roe opinions in one of their failed attempts to rationalize their nonsensical argument. They noted that abortion had never before been classified or prosecuted the same as murder of the born.

However, I guess we don't know if it is true given that the opinion already contained so many other lies.

I believe the motivation for the laws in the first place was to keep the medical profession on par with its purpose and to ensure they followed ethical, professional, and safe practices and standards. Abortion, unless done to save a life, was not a legitimate medical procedure, and it shouldn't be regarded as one now. Doctors are supposed to save lives, not kill them. State legislatures had and still have every right to regulate doctors as they see fit.

The laws came into place shortly after the discovery of when human life began, and that may have played a role too, despite Margaret Sanger's attempts to portray the evolution of species within the womb (which probably still passes the liberals' definition of "science").

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/LIFBFROE.TXT

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

First time offence--Mandatory Norplant for the next five years, removal of all state assistance and scholarships (medical, school, and welfare), community service, and parenting classes.

Second offence--equal to local penalty for premeditated murder plus forced sterilization.

For Doctors
1st offence=loss of medical license, community service, $100,000 fine
2nd offence=local penalty for contracting for murder

Of course there would need to be a timely review and appeals process for medically indicated abortions (for pre-eclamptic mothers etc.)

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Abortion is murder: it's a mothers body/choice.

There is no middle ground here. No room for compromise. Two sides that have come to blows and no political solution. Even if the liberal side walked up to the absolute center, there could be no compromise.

The abortion is murder crowd has ceded the battleground, millions of babies will die because their principled stance allows for no compromise.

Member, American Conservative Party

I agree, its their choice. No Christian makes women kill their babies. Liberal judges gave them the license.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

because of pressuring men. I've even known a few who thought of it as their women's duty to them.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

That does not absolve the women of their failure to fulfill their civilizing role.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

men or women, I wish more Americans really understood and appreciated their empowerment as free American citizens.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

1 - Do you think that your response might contain an element of parochialism or, dare I say, sexism?

Women are free agents. Of course, if a person is forcably coerced, then they are absolved. But if not, then the fact that they rationalize their sin by blaming a man, does not absolve them.

2 - Will Americans and Europeans be seen as barbarians for not going to war to stop this holocaust?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

or (virtually or really) battered women, so many people need to realize they are free agents and others in the world should be, too.

I know you don't think I advocated those men I mentioned. I only offered that arrival at choice as a fraction of those who choose to terminate their own flesh and blood, human beings just as good as their parents, with their developmental processes obviously in progress.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

reference!

smile

well played

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

We'll find out how compromise works in South Dakota this election. They got the signatures for a new ban with exceptions for rape, incest, and physical injury. Some have voiced opposition that the measure does not protect all life.

I would argue against them since they have one abortion center that has to fly in an abortionist from Minnesota once a week. They'll be out of business.

When it comes to abortion, there is a world of difference between the letter of the law and how it is actually followed and enforced (or disobeyed and not enforced).

For Mother
First time offence--Mandatory Norplant for the next five years, removal of all state assistance and scholarships (medical, school, and welfare), community service, and parenting classes.

Second offence--equal to local penalty for premeditated murder (varies state to state) plus forced sterilization.

For Doctors
1st offence=loss of medical license, community service, $100,000 fine
2nd offence=local penalty for contracting for murder (most likely lifein prision or in some states death)

Of course there would need to be a timely review and appeals process for medically indicated abortions (for pre-eclamptic mothers etc.)

abortion issue. Would it work for the state to become the arbiter for the termination of an unborn child except in cases of medical emergency which should require the medical staff and immediate family to make the decision? My thinking lies in my belief that only the state should have the power to take the life of a person, and my limited understanding of the judiciary that it requires a jury of 12 to sentence a person to death. Could we not require that a woman seeking the termination of her unborn child come before a jury of her peers? She of coarse would be responsible for all court cost, lawyer fees, and medical cost.

more later

ps This could also apply in shiavo cases.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

good idea for legal process for terminating babies with chromosome problems, or babies of rape victims or incest. I'm not sure it wouldn't be used to push through voluntary non-indicated abortions in more liberal states though. Could be used to review medically emergent abortions though!

I like

The legal process is far too slow and inefficient for that. Pregnancy only lasts nine months, and late term abortions are far worse for the baby. If we did that, we'd have to go Dutch and allow infant euthanasia (though they are trying to raise the age limit there).

you are a conservative in the Goldwater mold. Goldwater today would be called a libertarian-conservative only because there is a group now of big government conservatives that have gained power with GWB and Bill Frist.

Remember, Goldwater was called "Mr. Conservative". We "libertarian conservatives" will not cede the name conservative to those who claim the mantle but do not walk the walk.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

I have excised 'big-government conservative' from my vocabulary. I don't think we should give those people - who I call squishes but others might call moderate - the benefit of using OUR name for THEIR non-conservative doctrine.

You're absolutely right. The GOP is not in the hands of conservatives right now. We're working to change that.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

_I used big government conservative as a euphemism for a much more controversial term. I do agree they should no longer be called conservatives.

__________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

I couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't try. Here's to all three legs of conservatism& kicking the legs out from under the Dems. Happy landings libbies!

I'm not kicking the legs out from under social cons. Having been reared as one myself, and remaining proudly so today, I see no point in setting social cons adrift. What I am advocating with this post is not some vague "third way" attempt at triangulation. It is an understanding that in a country of 300 million people, each with their own self-identified issues and needs, no one single group can claim a solid majority. Purist politics in such a diverse nation will render both sides a minority.

The model is like this: the three conservative legs (fiscal cons, social cons, hawks) are the anchors of an outreach into the center. Understand that the reason most people are in the center politically, is because they have deliberately not chosen a side, generally because they don't care about politics. I care, and that is why I'm self-identified as a righty. The Kos Kids care, and they have chosen to be lefty. The center doesn't care about politics, except that they wish to be left alone by the government. If conservatives can understand that the way to win, and swing the pendulum back to the Right, is to reach out to the center with the limited government platform (and not demand they also adopt pro-life, pro-gun, pro-this and that), that will produce a 60-70% national majority, EVERY TIME.

Per one commenter above, I'm not trying to hijack the center for conservative purposes. I am trying to propose a way for the conservative anchor to add more weight by attaching the Leave Us Aloners to the group, and thus drag the general sway of politics back to the Right.

gains.

Democrats have learned this, and now run pro-life candidates like Casey to victory.

As this years primaries show (Huckabee had a lot of supporters), there are a lot of social conservatives who will stay in the conservative tent who otherwise are not particularly conservative on economic or foreign policy issues.

Redefining conservatism as conservatism minus the pro-life requirement for national candidates is not a recipe for victory.

It is a recipe for defeat.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Unfortunatly it would also negate most of the reasons I vote Republican. I care about more than just limited government. Honestly if it protected parental rights, the unborn, sanctity of marriage, and religious freedoms-I'd be willing to vote for a more intrusive, even borderline totalitarian government.

Freedom is nothing with out the freedom to live a moral life and raise your kids in the moral system you believe in. I'd rather protect life, family, and religious freedoms than social and financial freedoms if it came down to it.
Of course, traditional conservatism champions both, so we don't have to choose

How can behavior that is coerced be moral behavior?

If someone holds a gun to my head to force me to be good, I'm not really being good---I'm just being a puppet.

The thing the social cons and fiscal cons need to understand at some point is that both are linked by freedom.

America is prosperous and religious because it is free. Remove freedom, and we lose the rest.

Put another way, a government that tells you where to live, what your job is, etc. is a government that is going to tell you what to believe and what books you can read.

Puppetry preferable to losing a generation to abortion, or seeing our countries morals and values fade away. But, as I said Conservatism champions both.

Those polygamists down in Texas feel the exact same way.

If it was that simple, Reagan would have figured it out . . .

What position do fiscal conservatives hold, that you believe is rigid and unyielding, that should be compromised in fairness to the center?

What position do national security conservatives hold, that you believe is rigid and unyielding, that should be compromised in fairness to the center?

Member, American Conservative Party

Life, liberty, & property.

Life trumps liberty--which is why suicide is illegal.

Liberty trumps property--which is why slavery is illegal.

In most circumstances however, life, liberty, and property can ALL be protected. These different tradeoffs and boundaries provide a guide for conservative governance as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

--------------------

Small is beautiful.

J-ski, your heirarchy is adequate for prioritizing those planks, but the priority wasn't the point. The point was that we shouldn't be requiring all-out adherence to each plank in the party platform from party members or from the party's candidates. Even if you strongly disagree with McCain, as I do, on certain things, you can still support him overall.

A potential Republican needs to know that he DOESN'T HAVE TO BE a supporter of any particular plank to be in the party. He only needs to support most of them and understand how they fit together. And we need to be able to explain why the specific planks are there so he'll want to join, even if he disagrees with some.

And here your heirarchy can be again helpful.

But Property trumps Liberty sometimes--which is why you can't sleep in my guest room unless I agree.

And Liberty trumps Life sometimes--which is why it's OK to use deadly force to avoid being kidnapped.

Sometimes Property even trumps Life--see Texas laws on theft from a home.

All very confusing.

Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.

"Life trumps liberty--which is why suicide is illegal."

and why abortion should be

Great constructionist argument for pro-life

The whole point of this post was to drive home the necessity of welcoming those into the tent who desire smaller, more limited government. That is the essence of the whole "leave us alone" platform. Less taxes, more freedoms, less oversight, etc.

is already a conservative hallmark. So what's new here?

I believe what's new, not to be a broken record, is your "code words" of "more freedoms, less oversight". You already mentioned "pro choice" in your original diary. You also said "wide social and political liberties" and "ideas and morality are great but..."

So sorry, not to be a broken record, but my "bs detector" (convenient, eh?) says that you're primarily advocating liberalizing the social issue portions of the platform. The GOP has never stood for "big government" although the spending patterns have trended that way, so I don't know what you accomplish by saying "Hey, GOP, let's support what you already support"

I think your BS detector is functioning at the optimum level.

In recent years the GOP has tried to stand for so much it now stands for practically nothing. We used to win when we had three legs on our stool.

When we kicked out the fiscal conservative leg we started to lose. Now it seems some want to kick out the social conservative leg too.

Even a pup tent looks big when it is empty.

and I won't bend on abortion. I suspect there are others that won't bend on other things. Pretty soon we're right back where we started.

I believe the "EXCEPT" items are just the ones that others refer to as the "single issue" problem.

If there is a small government conservative who favors abortion rights, but rightly thinks it should be left to the states to decide. Then his stance on what the courts should do is not any different from your stand.

Where as, if someone believes the federal government should take care of all education, medical insurance, and mortgage finance, such a person will work toward goals which are incompatible with either you, me, or the pro abortion conservative.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

You're saying your ideology trumps everyone else's. This is precisely the problem that those who preach centrist/moderate philosophy take issue with. "OK, we can compromise, as long as the compromise isn't on MY position". A true centrist says that there is room for someone who supports increased government intervention in certain areas, such as medical care, mortgage bailouts, etc. What you describe has nothing to do with moving center. It's strict, by-the-book federalism. Not that there's anything wrong with that...but it ain't moderate/centrist.

is by definition a government issue, as it ties directly to the spending and taxation habits of our elected leaders. Abortion is a morally-loaded issue, as I explain below in my reply to "breeanneh". kyle8 is right to view fiscal issues as a primary hallmark of good governance, but you are not wrong to view abortion as your single issue. If you truly desire a free nation, then you cannot abide the government legislating morality; even Jesus. Either you hold the line at the consitutionally-enumerated freedoms (and only those), or you begin the slippery descent into our political leadership acting as self-appointed moral guardians of whatever issue they deem appropriate. If you believe morality to always supersede law, then what is the difference between a defined Christian code of governance, and those of the radical clerics calling for the destruction of the West? In both cases, it's a clarion call for the spiritual to rule over the temporal in a legal sense, and that is poor governance. I mean not to conflate the murderous pathologies of radical Islam with the generally peaceful nature of Christianity - rather, it's a larger point that if we accept one group's morality as the standard of law over an entire nation, then we are headed for that which we fear: the destruction of human freedoms in America.

I think your viewpoint is worth considering, as the conservative movements looks to spend even more time in the future out in the wildnerness and out of power.

However, when you talk about legislating morality as something we clearly shouldn't do, you are setting up a strawman.

Laws against murder, slavery, theft, fraud, rape, etc. have moral and ethical (for those who chose to define morality in strictly religious of metaphysical ways) components.

Nobody presumes that all rules of morality/ethics have to be legally mandatory. It is moral to help those in need, but few want to pass laws requiring individuals to give to charity.

Thus everybody agrees that some moral rules are legally optional (giving to charity) while others are legally compulsory (refrain from committing murder).

The trick is in distinguishing between, and the basis one uses to distinguish between the two.

You comments fail to set forth a basis for distinguishing between legally mandated morality and legally optional moral behavior which is not a surprise since this is a complex analytical issue.

However, your failure to even acknowledge the challenge (i.e. your dismissing the legislation of morality in total) is intellectually dishonest.

Morality is not defined exclusively by an religious code,and it moral rules are embodied in our laws.

You are employing the language of the left (don't legislate morality) to attack the right.

This makes me highly suspicious of your point of view.

be careful. I think logically and I don't think anyone has ever met this challenge.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

but I can think of a few laws that have very little moral basis.

Trademark
Anti-trust
Tax laws

Basically, any law that attempts to "level the playing field" economically. We don't feel morally obligated to help out small business, we recognize that it is necessary for a thriving economy.

Yes, any of the big "Golden Rule" laws are obviously based on morality. However, I would say that there is no morally objective reason for Mickey Mouse to pass into the public domain in 10 years or 100.

"Thou shalt not steal" is basis here. You seem to be extrapolating one small portion of trademark law (and erroneously to boot, "Mickey Mouse" is a copyright not a trademark issue) to the rationale for its existence.

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

I was saying that trademark and copyright both fall under the umbrella of "laws to level the playing field".

I understand that the Old Testament says "Thou shalt not steal", but we don't tell corporations not to steal from other corporations out of some sense of morality. We make those laws so that our economy can thrive.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:

"...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Note the "to promote the Progress of Science..." part. This is similar to the "...a well regulated militia..." part of the second amendment in that the framers gave an explanation of the purpose behind the law.

Actually, I haven't thought that deeply about it. I'm sure you will be able to poke all kinds of holes in my theory.

that really isn't true. You didn't mention copyright. You did refer to Micky Mouse as an example. I was just being charitable in assuming you had mistaken copyright for trademark. From this post I can see that you could have meant most anything.

I notice you choose to ignore the "useful Arts" section. Guess it doesn't fit in that well. And we were discussing trademarks.

Corporations have historically, and are still, treated as "persons" under the law. Trademarks are the equivalent of an individual's signature. Unlike patents and copyrights, trademarks don't expire.

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

.

Thou shalt not steal => Trademark laws
Designed specifcally to give someone ownership of their intellectual property. Just because the details of a law are not specifically morally based does not make the law any less about morality.

Anti-trust? Those laws are to deter unfair business practices. Try to define unfair without an appeal to a moral code.

Tax laws? Certainly U.S. tax code is dripping with morality...misguided though it may be, progressive tax code is all about being "fair". Even the strictly administrative tax laws have a moral basis, since it is "just" for everyone to pay into the system that they use.

Anti-trust would be: it is wrong to allow companies to monopolize industries because of how monopolies can and do leverage their economic strength to eliminate other companies.

Tax laws would be: government work costs money, and workers deserve their compensation, so it's wrong to deprive them of it.

--------------------

Small is beautiful.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

SB 219.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Although I'm fairly certain a law with the word integrity in the name can't possibly fail to have a moral basis.

That law is specifically a legislation of morality. The problem comes when someone tries to define "legislating morality" as ionly laws that fit a particular moral code. This law, as disgusting as it is, was made specifically based on morality as seen by the people who created it.
The challenege is to name a law not based on morality, not to find a law based on a morality we find repugnant.

How's about a law that says that a person cannot open a bar that allows smoking indoors? It's based on morality. Smoking is wrong, second-hand smoke is wrong, it's wrong to create an environment where workers could get cancer. Also, The Children.

Or a law that says that a person can open a bar that allows smoking indoors? Private Property is private property, after all. No one is forcing you to drink at Smokey's instead of Nonsmokey's.

Two very different laws with two very different ideas of morality.

And while I wouldn't necessarily call one of these two moralities "repugnant"... I do find it exceptionally uninteresting that they're both based on "morality".

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

value-neutral to be very interesting

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

It's just more that when people say "you can't legislate morality", they're not saying "you can't make grand theft auto illegal" but "Prohibition failed".

Reacting to "you can't legislate morality" as if the person is arguing "rape should be legal" is... well... it doesn't give the opposition a whole lot of credit.

Certainly not if your starting point is that every single law out there is based on morality... even the ones about the sale of raw milk or the ones barring inter-racial marriage.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I scoff at the idea that Prohibition was not a failure nonetheless.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

"legislating morality" is an empty suit--it doesn't provide any meaningful guidance as to whether a law is good idea or not, or whether a law is justifiable under conservative principles or not.

For, you know, people who don't have, like, big honkin' vocabularies?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

fact that the laws they want also legislate their warped values.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Are kinda uninteresting, then...

I mean, if it's possible to pass a law making it illegal for Whites to marry Non-Whites and they have a moral basis, if the laws making it illegal to drink wine had a moral basis, if the laws making it illegal to sell raw milk have a moral basis... why is it so interesting that laws have a moral basis?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

"legislating morality" is an empty suit argument to attack laws you don't like.

I agree that the phrase is useless, and thus the intentions or moral basis of a law is less important than what it does and what it accomplishes.

"Legislating Matters of Taste as if they were Matters of Morality will result in Injustice."

Is that a coherent argument?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

maybe

I'll bet there are laws based on taste, e.g. prescribing the color of prison walls, BUT, then again, the value/moral may be that of thrift..

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

That the inter-racial marriage ban was not legislation of a matter of morality but legislation of a matter of taste as if it were a matter of morality.

Of course, one could point out that one man's morality is another man's immorality but I'm not one of those moral relativists like you can find out there sometimes.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

The Founding Fathers believed as I do, that moral truths are discoverable through reason. Flawed reasoning will lead to false conclusions about what is true. the inter-racial marriage ban is an example of such a result.

No doubt the mistake was a good faith mistake by some and a purposeful non-truth by others.

And a correctly decided view of morality?

Objectively, I mean.

90% consensus?
95%?
98%?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

As few as 50% +1 of the elected legislative representatives +1 chief executive.

A veto of the chief executive changes the numbers, as would an infringment over a constitutional right (which would require amendment or a majority of judges to overrride).

Objectively, truth is not defined by popularity so no percentage would be sufficient. For the purposes of making laws, the percentages are far lower than the choices you offer.

of whether something should be a law or not.

Is passing legislation X legislating morality?

Is passing legislation X legislating matters of taste as if they were matters of morality>

is passing legislation X a good idea?

Seems to me the three formulations above are empty suits.

Maybe the following is better?

Is passing legislation X a proper recognition of the boundaries and tradeoffs between protecting the rights/freedom of individuals while preventing the exercise of those rights/freedoms from unduly infringing upon the rights of others?

The word "unduly" has a bit more meat in it then your formulation or the "legislating morality" formulation, but we are still talking very conclusory tests--not very satisfying.

kind of like the test for pornography---knowing it when you see it . . .

The problem with that it is leads to such things as "nothing matters except the war on terror" or "nothing matters except the environment" or similar.

Hey, you know what? If we're all dead, this notion of "libertarianism" you have is going to be worth diddly squat.

I care about the lives of my children and my children's children and I want them to have a world worth living in, thank you very much.

This is why it's very important that we pass legislation mandating toothpaste be thrown into 55-gallon drums at airports/carbon-neutral hamburgers.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

your formulation didn't even have any element of restraint.

Kinda tough to legislate, however.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

analysis in what we could loosely refer to as a freedom metric (libertarians are not anarchists). The purpose is to maximize freedom. Passage of some laws/restraints will actually expand freedom.

The trick is in actually drawing the line, and I have never come up with a concise test for doing so.

of whether something should be a law or not.

Is passing legislation X legislating morality?

Is passing legislation X legislating matters of taste as if they were matters of morality>

is passing legislation X a good idea?

Seems to me the three formulations above are empty suits.

Maybe the following is better?

Is passing legislation X a proper recognition of the boundaries and tradeoffs between protecting the rights/freedom of individuals while preventing the exercise of those rights/freedoms from unduly infringing upon the rights of others?

The word "unduly" has a bit more meat in it then your formulation or the "legislating morality" formulation, but we are still talking very conclusory tests--not very satisfying.

kind of like the test for pornography---knowing it when you see it . . .

of whether something should be a law or not.

Is passing legislation X legislating morality?

Is passing legislation X legislating matters of taste as if they were matters of morality>

is passing legislation X a good idea?

Seems to me the three formulations above are empty suits.

Maybe the following is better?

Is passing legislation X a proper recognition of the boundaries and tradeoffs between protecting the rights/freedom of individuals while preventing the exercise of those rights/freedoms from unduly infringing upon the rights of others?

The word "unduly" has a bit more meat in it then your formulation or the "legislating morality" formulation, but we are still talking very conclusory tests--not very satisfying.

kind of like the test for pornography---knowing it when you see it . . .

How about "Who's the victim?"

• Tattoos
• Interracial Marriage
• Smoking marijuana
• Drinking alcohol
• Women wearing pants
• Prostitution
• Gay unions

At one time or another in history, society has determined that these are all morally objectionable things and have made them either illegal or grounds for ejection from that society. Except for the roundabout explanation of "bad for society", who is the victim of these "crimes"?

And, of course, The Childrens' Children.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

(wait for it)

The victim is...

(wait for it)

Society!

And that means everyone in that society is victimized, it may be less direct and less of an impact than say the victim of a murder, but it is no less real.

That is not to say that all of your list are actually bad for society, or bad for society outside of a particular historical framework.

tattoos--kids, and other people not competent to make their own decisions

interracial marriage - kids of the couple (not saying I agree, just stating what the justification was at the time)

marijuana - drug use harms the user. When they try to drive a motorized vehicle, the victim is whomever they hit.

alcohol- see above

women wearing pants--- probably justified on some type of mental health/gender confusion basis (again, not saying this makes any sense--sounds like Sharia law to me)

prostitution -- hurts the prostitute big time

gay unions--this is not a crime. It is a lack of legal status.

but you're falling into the trap. Nobody is saying that these things cannot be legislated to protect children (see current tobacco and alcohol laws) or to protect innocents (see current drunk driving laws). Opponents of "legislating morality" have a problem with the overall view that someone else knows what is best for them personally.

As for prostitution, we don't stop people from being employed in other dangerous (see "Deadliest Catch" crab fishermen) or emotionally crippling (undercover narcotics officers) professions.

I won't argue the interracial marriage, since, I guess if you think having parents of different races is harmful to the child (as these people did back then), they had a point, as this is the justification behind not allowing siblings to marry.

And no, comparing prostitution with professional crab catchers was not meant to be a bon mot...but it was funny after the fact.

What state do you live in?

At most, there may be some laws about licensing requirements, but I tend to doubt that.

I am not saying I agree with all laws. I most certainly do not agree with all stupid laws.

My point is that laws almost always have some "moral" intention behind them, although those intentions can be mistaken or fraudulent.

As bad as Congress is, they don't purposely make laws without purpose.

You saying the penny is copper and me arguing that no it's not, it's round.

Maybe someone else can sum this up better than I can, but here goes. (I use "you" generally to mean "the majority", not specifically)

Me: Quit trying to pass laws that are based on your sense of morality and not mine.

You: But all laws are based on my sense of morality.

Me: Ok, fine, but just stick to the ones that actually protect other people.

You: But everything you do affects society, therefore I am protecting other people.

Me: *pulls hair out*

You: Sorry, you cannot pull out your hair in clumps. It violates my sense of morality and is detrimental to society and the emotional well-being of the children.

Me: ...

My overarching point is and always has been that the following phrase is absolutely without value:

You are trying to legislate morality.

All good laws do this, as do all bad laws. Thus, the question of whether something is an attempt to "legislate morality" does not provide any guidance whatsoever regarding whether passing the law is a good idea.

I gave specific examples (not merely society at large) of the alleged victims. You discount those examples, and I'm sure there are laws you support that people would similarly discount.

I do not agree with most of the laws being discussed. I am simply point out that those laws were passed in an effort to satisfy a purpose. That purpose almost certainly had a moral component to it. Congress does not pass laws without purpose, although their efforts are often misguided.

I agree with you overarching point, then. That is a pointless collection of words to describe a political position.

I still stand by the premise that the attitude behind the phrase is valid, though. Some laws that the far right wants passed are believed by the center to bee too encroaching upon their personal liberty.

want to limit behaviors in way that you find unacceptable?

I presume abortion is on this list, but I should say that opposition to abortion is based on a supervening concern--the life of the unborn versus the liberty of the mother. There are many instances where the law places the life of one person above the liberty of another.

For example, a surgeon is not free to do anything to me as I lay in the operating room. His or her liberty is limited by my right to life.

Some dispute that an unborn child is entitled to the rights of a "person" but nobody disagrees with the contention that the unborn are alive.

So abortion is not an example of "legislating morality."

How about gay marriage? Well, that issue relats to a legal status, not a behavior. Nobody is trying to outlaw homosexual cohabitation, relationships, sex, etc. Many wish to preserve the traditional definition of marriage which precludes polygamy, incest, and homosexual marriage.

So can you name some other examples?

Gambling, Medical Marijuana, Recreational Marijuana.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I thought we were talking about the Far Right, not the Center-Left, Center-Right, Far Right continuum.

The majority of democrats in DC voted to restrict gambling and marijuana use.

So, how about some examples from the Far Right?

I was thinking that it was notable that the Right wrote and sponsored the bills (and the Statist Democrats took the opportunity to act in a "bipartisan" fashion).

Are you looking for bills that got submitted but didn't have Statist Democrats vote for them too?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

the support is almost exclusively limited to the "Far Right".

I can point to examples of nanny-state behavior that is exclusive to the "left".

Gambling, drug use, etc. are clearly bi-partisan efforts.

I keep hearing about this Far Right but I don't seem to be seeing it.

Would Ron Paul's?

Are there any Bircher types left in the Congress?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

This just makes my point.

The much attacked "Far Right" is either not really that "far" out (includes Reagan conservatives) or is actually pretty insignificant and is not having an impact on policy.

There are plenty of examples of center-right politicians selling out by reaching across the isle and doing things I don't like, but the answer to that behavior is not to attack the "Far Right"

internet gambling, Blue laws. Not a day goes by I don't hear about some politician, Many Republican, who wants to control what I buy, what I drink, what kind of video games I can buy, or if I can go to a nudy bar or not.

The thing is, You might view all these as immoral, but there is no profit in the government telling it's citizens how to live their life.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I believe the majority of democrats voted for those bills.

I don't agree with many of those laws either, but they are hardly exclusive to the right.

No one who calls themselves a conservative should be happy with that sort of government intrusion in peoples lives.

The problem is that in the minds of many people the Republican party and conservatism is synonymous with trying to control your private life.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

attempts to build a center-right coalition will NOT succeed if you bismirch the right using the language of the left.

"Far Right" doing X
"Far Right" doing Y

The way to actually unify the center-right is
"Far Left" doing X
"Far Left" doing Y

I don't doubt the intentions of those pushing a center-right coalition. I just think they have adopted the language of the MSM, which is why their success will be limited at best.

but the "Far Right" is hardly the only part of the body politic pushing these things.

My question was in response to the assertion that the "Far Right" was pushing this agenda. I pre-emptively addressed abortion and gay marriage.

What issues are the "Far Right" pushing that nanny-state democrats are not pushing?

The ones that I have experience with are old. Like... old old. Like, not decades but centuries.

They're an argument for sunset provisions, not an argument for the duplicity of modern politicians.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

to see that, yes, you can legislate morality. All legislation in the Islamic Republic is based on morals, as they see them.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

still based on morals

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

What the heck.

Limited parking laws are not based on morality. They're based on physics.

Only one automobile can be parked in a spot at one time. This limits the number of customers that can walk into the shop near that spot. To increase business flow, parking is restricted to two hours or so at a time. That's the way the businesses want it. No morality is involved.

Don't say it's a question of sharing and fairness to the person who is trying to find a parking spot. There's nothing fair about taking it away from the person who got there first to give to the latecomer.

More generally, I'd say that although laws may have strong moral components, they are legitimate only when they promote behavior that's good for society. Thus, legally forcing attendance at a church on a certain day may have a moral component (in some eyes), yet it promotes anti-social behavior (forcing attendance upon non-believers).

That's why most laws (I think) are of the type that prevent bad behavior. It's to the benefit of all that murderers, rapists, swindlers and the like are dealt with by the state, because otherwise they'd be dealt with by individuals and only the strongest would survive, not necessarily those best able to advance society. Or, they'd have to hope for a benevolent dictator.

Way, WAY back, before there were laws, one has to presume that the strongest men and families ran communities. Eventually, the caveman clans got together, overthrew the tyrants, and asked, "What do we do NOW?" Laws were the result. Or, maybe the tyrants set up the laws in order to keep themselves in power in an orderly way, but that came later I imagine. In either event, the laws that survived were created to maintain a semblance of order and protect society from itself.

I could be wrong, but I watched The Westerner last week, and like all the old range war westerns that was basically the plot.

Anyway, you tell me. Did morals come first, followed by laws to enforce them; or did people recognize that certain human behaviors were either good or bad for the community in general, write laws to promote or inhibit those behaviors, and then call the results "morality"?

Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.

rights or adverse possession!

smile

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

would be double parking by definition.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

steel body :-) Love those boats...miss the steel!

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

really wasn't that bad. You had as much interior space as any SUV and twice the protection.

I miss steel cars and V-8 engines.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

the 4-door model.

About 10 years ago, someone I knew had a '78 model with only 15,000 miles on it and perfectly working AC. He wanted $4000 for it. Looking back, knowing what I know now, that wasn't a bad deal.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

that my kids got to drive when they were in high school. For a mid-size, as it was called back then, it had room for the whole gang.

The steel on that baby kept me from seizing up with worry when I gave them the keys!

My carbon footprint:

1) 63 Ford Fairlane (V-6) bought from my Dad.
2) 69 Chevelle SS396, 3 speed, ready for 'strip, a real sleeper
3) 76 Malibu (V-8)
4) 91 Nissan Sentra 4 cylinder**

** I took the Sentra back to the service dept at the dealer right after I bought it 'cause the motor sounded so tinny I thought there was something wrong with it.

I've traded my taste for loud exhaust systems, for the pleasures of DSL. Not quite the same.

My 1999 Expedition gets better mileage than my 1973 Cougar did--twice as good. 'Course, that Cougar badly needed a tune-up when I sold it. And it probably weighed almost as much as the Expedition does. (^.^)

Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.

http://www.mercurycougar.net/

I always wanted its Ford counterpart, the Mustang Mach I, with the scoop hood. It's the only classic car I'd really be interested in having if I had much disposable income.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

LOL - Hillarious - I'm a cougar hunter myself n/t

Repairman: I can't go against my religion.
Archie Bunker: Hey, turning down business. THAT'S against your religion.
Repairman: Mr. Bunker, I can only answer that insult with an old Jewish expression
[speaks Yiddish]
Archie Bunker: What the hell does that mean?
Repairman: You'll never know, but believe me, I got even.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066626/quotes

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

See King George. Too often, 5 lawyers have usurped the revolution and imposed their liberal "values" on all of us. See Warren-Burger-Brennan-Souter/Kennedy Courts.

The federalist vision embodied in the constitution was for states and localities to govern themselves. For maximum happiness pursuits, the like-minded would gather together in communities.

Majority rule on most issues within localities, subject to minority rights first passed by super majorities in constitutions.

So, when we vote for reps, we all, religious and secular, get to use free speech to persuade a majority.

All laws reflect someone's morals and values or a compromise. On some matters we don't legislate. On others we do.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

If the Judeo-Christian ethic is the basis of our legal system, there is nothing to stop it's replacement (by a majority) with an Islamic ethic at some point in the future.

Member, American Conservative Party

religion of 5 judges.

But your point is what? Please elaborate, because i respect your intellect and logical reasoning, so don't deprive us!

seriously

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

why do I feel like I am walking into a lion's den...

Here and elsewhere, the discussion turned on the idea that our laws are based on morality. Let me tell you I have been depressed all day.

My belief was that all our laws are based on rights. Now, that might be so, but apparently our rights, are based on morals - or so I have been told.

I kept coming back to this "we are endowed with certain inalienable rights" and this:

* 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Conceptually, every law is an infringement on my inalienable rights. But, if morality were the basis of law, then to change a law - in the abstract - you need to change the morality supporting it. In a country founded on Judeo-Christian ethics, such a change is going to be almost impossible.

Women have the right to vote. Not always. But the right was always there, society did not recognize the right and restricted it (what moral basis they used for this is beyond my historical knowledge - or if a moral basis, beyond my understanding). At some point, women were given the right to vote - thanks guys, preciate it...what took so long... - and and in doing so, based that law - the right to vote, or the removal of the restriction on the right (if it in fact was inherent).

But, if Moslems became a voting majority here, and their moral code does not include the right to vote for women (or to drive, or to be unaccompanied), then the moral code HAS changed, and laws would be changed to reflect that moral code.

However, if the right to vote is not based on a moral code - it is an inherent right - then it matters not what the moral code is, the right is the basis of any laws.

Member, American Conservative Party

...and what "could be" is a dominant majority made up of diverse viewpoints, all gathered under one concept of less government intervention in our lives. More than one commenter has spoken about how this runs counter to social conservative values, and yes, it probably does. That is because the root of social conservatism as a political movement (particularly the Falwells, Dobsons and Huckabees) is to legislate morality. That is not the role of the government, nor political parties. The Republican party's role should not be to determine the legality of gay marriage, for example. The job of any elected leader is to uphold the constitutional structure by which their body politic was founded.

I do not want my political representatives thundering from the floor of the Senate that abortion is immoral and therefore should be made illegal. The debate over whether abortion is "murder" inevitably boils down to this single intangible notion: at what point does a soul enter the flesh, and thus the extinction of that life becomes the death of a human being? Do I know the answer to that? Absolutely not, and neither do our politicians. The Constitution is set up to preserve the fundamental freedoms of the collective citizenry - rights for free speech, owning and carrying firearms, due process, etc. Nowhere in the Constitution, nor the attendant Amendments, is government granted the right to legislate morality. [The only exception to that rule being Amendment 18 (no booze), which was subsequently repealed by Amendment 21 - "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" in Amendment 8 does not apply in my mind, being too vague to define as purely moral.]

I do not want to throw social cons off the bus. I do, however, want the moral crusaders to understand that they are just as wrong (in a strict originalist sense) to seek moral authority from the government, as the enviro-wackos are to try to limit what we eat and how we conduct our lives. Both are attempts to squelch enumerated freedoms due to a moralistic construct that may not be shared by a fellow citizen. Maybe it is a personal failing of mine, but I am equally suspicious of either a righty or lefty who tries to impose a moral agenda on me.

First you again make the fallacial and ridiculous argument that government does not legislate morality. Of course it does. ANY law is by definition a legislation of morality - a modification to behavior.

Second, you cite an unprovable concept -- "soul" to support an argument for creating arbitrary definitions of human life.

Thus you are willing to "guess" at when life begins. To potentially deprive someone of the benefits of said constitution because you have arbitratly determined they are not a "someone"

Too bad if we happen to be wrong. Ooops. But then on the other hand maybe this "soul" really only enters the body at age one. Perhaps we should get rid of any kids we don't like before their first birthday...

The funny thing is, you aren't someone who dislikes the imposition of a moral agenda, you are someone who just has a different moral agenda in mind.

Peace

First of all, personal attacks aren't becoming.

Second, you've not only missed the boat, you've missed the water. The point that Flyover Country has been trying to make, and that you seem to have studiously avoided, is that there are a lot of leftist/liberal policies currently in place that multiple years of Republican rule haven't been able to touch. Why haven't we been able to put reasonable restrictions on abortion? We haven't gotten people in the center to agree with us that reasonable restrictions on abortion are a Good Thing, because people like you come in all fire and brimstone and turn off people that could be your allies; or to put it another way, you're making the perfect the enemy of the good. A center-right consensus on abortion (say, "this shouldn't be a federal issue, it should be for the states to decide") could get enough momentum to change the status quo on abortion, but no, you want everything now. And what have we had as a result? Three Republican presidents since Roe v Wade was decided, and still no movement on abortion.

Good job, there.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Not personal just a statement. Look, you fundamentally misunderstand the reason there is little movement on abortion but I will try and assist.

First there is a cultural struggle currently being conducted in this country between two basic sets of cultural values. If you are unaware of this I won't bore you with the realities of life. Except to say that those for the cultural status quo have been and remain on the defensive.

Second the primary reason we have not made progress is because a great number of people in our country are complicit on the issue and a further large number are complacent on the issue. This results from a lot of things, among them guilt, pride, poor parenting, busy lifestyles, liberalism, selfishness, etc. Additionally you seem to argue that not getting anywhere is suddenly a reason to just give up and join the bad guys. I reject that notion.

Finally, I didn’t' go all fire and brimstone. I merely refuse to equivocate on the facts. If you call that fire and brimstone then you too ascribe to the idea that "guessing" at when life begins is somehow ok.

Thanks

You're ascribing ideas and positions to me that I've never taken. That's exactly what you also do to those in the center, and that's why they don't support you, even though they don't like the current state of affairs either.

The moment you start talking about 'refus[ing] to equivocate on the facts', you lose the center. Then it just turns into two groups of hard-core partisans sniping at each other, and the center runs away screaming. This ends up being a win for the Left, because their position is already entrenched.

So by all means, if you don't want to actually change the state of abortion law in the US, continue on your current path. Demanding that it turn entirely your way overnight will never happen, and it'll continue to never happen for another 35 years the way you're going.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

ideas or positions to you, nor have I to those in the center. Please point out where I did so... - In fact I merely said in so many words "if the shoe fits wear it"

If you call that fire and brimstone then you too ascribe to the idea that "guessing" at when life begins is somehow ok.

Additionally you seem to argue that not getting anywhere is suddenly a reason to just give up and join the bad guys.

Let's see, you've said I'm ok at guessing at when life begins, and you've called the folks in the middle 'the bad guys'.

Ever heard the expression that you can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar?

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

fire and brimstone comment. If you stick by it then I stick by mine.

Secondly I didn't call the guys in the center the bad guys. They're just misguided. The bad guys I was refering to are mostly on the far left although "bad guys" can also be found all across the political spectrum.

I'm familiar with the expression but there are times to use "honey" and times to say it like it is.

/Users/Breeanne/Desktop/250px-PBAsigning.jpg

Actually under our current president who is decidedly Republican there has been great improvement on the issue of abortion. Partial-birth abortions have been outlawed and stem-cell research has been kept at bay; and I am going to assume you understand how stem-cell research relates to abortion. The fact is we are tackling the issues without compromising our positions, we just aren't doing it in the way many (worn down by Democrat thinking) would prefer.

You've managed to restrict abortion from all 9 months of pregnancy to 9 months minus what, 5 minutes at most when the infant is at least partly out but not at least halfway out?

At that rate abortion will be illegal in all 9 months around Y200K or so. I'm not saying that outlawing partial birth abortion isn't a good thing, but to trumpet it as movement on abortion makes glaciers look like Indy cars.

Stem cell research is still 100 percent legal, all we've done is keep the federal government from funding it, and then only for new stem cell lines. Granted, every little bit is good, but don't break your arm patting yourself on the back over it.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

pro-life is becoming more popular and more accepted.

Democrats were not looking to run pro-life candidates to Congress in the 1980s and 1990s.

A lot of change is happening beneatht he surface, and is waiting to manifest itself.

Roe v Wade was a 6-3 decision. There were times in the 70s where the court would have been 7-2 in favor.

Now it would be 5-4, and support for Roe could easily become 4-5 with the next new Justice.

The US was essentially losing the cold war from the Vietnman era throught 1981. By 1985, we had the upper hand. When a million people protest in Germany against Reagan's installing of the Pershing II missiles, it was hard to say that the tide had turned.

But it had.

I know that you THINK having an absolute position equates to fire and brimstone, but you're going to have to accept that you yourself are guilty of this. The mere fact that you demand compromise is in itself an absolute position, so you can can the above the fray rhetoric. We all have opinions and positions that are immovable.

Perhaps being immovable on abortion DOES alienate those in the center. Well frankly, that's ok with me. I'm not interested in moving closer to their position, i'm interested in changing their mind. This means dropping this nonsense of "choice" vs "life" and get people like you to stop thinking that being pro-life is some ancient religious "tradition" that we bible thumpers are clinging to. We need to have the REAL debate.

WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?

We answer that question (or in my case, prove what I already know) and the debate will end. I believe it's at conception, and if I can prove that then clearly human beings are being denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Please in all of your glacier-sized wisdom, explain to me where the middle ground is on that?

First, quit with the name calling. If you're going to resort to ad hominem attacks, go play in the mud with the Kossacks. If you feel me to a be "moron", try to use a more intelligent phrase, such as "your argument lacks rational thought" or something similar. The measure of one's intellect can be taken by the amount of base insults they utilize when making a point.

ANY law is by definition a legislation of morality - a modification to behavior."

This is untrue. Morality (as I use it here) is a separate set of spiritual guidelines as determined by a specific group or individual, generally with a strong religious bent. "Do not rape, kill or steal" - these are all fundamentally provable acts of social disorder and disruption. Gay marriage, not so much - it might upset you in a religious sense, but we get into a gray area when we start to just push into law anything that we feel is wrong. It is the job of the church to take a stand against those kinds of issues, and hopefully persuade the individual practitioners against immoral behavior.

Second, you cite an unprovable concept -- 'soul' to support an argument for creating arbitrary definitions of human life."

You are correct on this one. The concept of a soul is unprovable. I'll grant that. So then the question is, does life begin at the first heartbeat? Was Terri Schiavo alive then, and her husband committed murder by removing her feeding tube? She had a heartbeat, and even was breathing with the assistance of machines. Which is more immoral - keeping a woman alive who provably had no brain activity (but had a heartbeat), and therefore no true life in her body, or granting her the release of death? Or does life begin upon drawing the first breath outside of the womb? If that is the case, then I'll agree with notion that a deliberate killing of the child is indeed murder.

But then on the other hand maybe this 'soul' really only enters the body at age one. Perhaps we should get rid of any kids we don't like before their first birthday...

This is not a rational statement, and you give away the game here by using risible emotional content to prove a point. You are drawing illogical points into my larger argument, which unfortunately happens a lot in comment threads. Arguing for a Leave Us Alone Coalition is wholly separate from the question of "when does life begin?" Please, argue the larger point.

I do not advocate for any moral agenda. I do not know beyond all rational doubt that my Christian faith and morals is more informed and correct than a Jew's, or a Muslim's, or even and atheist. I choose to be a Christian, as well as recognize that other faiths and beliefs are welcome at the table. The only agenda I have is to find a way to pull the direction of America to the Right. We can disagree on one, or many issues, but if we agree on limited government as the bedrock animating principle of American governance, then we can be allies (even if just allies of convenience). If you are unmoved because you are avowedly anti-abortion, and see no political movement to your liking that isn't purely moralistic in form, then perhaps you may find Mike Huckabee to your liking, who because of his "moral principles", pardons extraordinarily violent criminals merely on the basis of their sworn word that they have "repented" and given their lives to Jesus.

Nobody denues that Schiavo could have left written instructions to have her life terminated given her medical condition.

The Schiavo dispute related to evidence of her intent.

Her husband, a man whose live had significantly moved on, was the sole source of evidence that Schiavo would have preferred death.

We require written documentation for land contracts, marriage licenses, and to board airplanes.

The Florida courts required far less evidence to support the judicial action of taking Schiavo's life.

On to the more impotant issue, which your definition of legislatable morality. Despite your protestations to the contrary, the definition of morality is not limited to spiritural or religious sources (although modern concepts of morality in the West surely reside on Judeo-Christian teachings. Furthermore, your test of legislatable morality leaves a lot to be desired.

"fundamentally provable acts of social disorder and disruption". Social disorder and disruption sounds alot like what the Soviets said in imposing communism on the eastern block.

Your "test" is not real test. Virtually anything causes disorder and disruption. People could use your test to proclaim video games illegal.

A better test would be that people are free to do what they want so long as their freedom does not unreasonably infringe on the rights of others to enjoy their freedom.

Of course, all of these tests come down to what unreasonably infringes another's freedom.

men.

The "leave us alone" slogan is good politics, but it is hardly the basis of a coherent political philosophy.

Ultimately, laws are justified to protect the rights of individuals from the behaviors of other individuals and/or governments.

Each time a law is passed, lawmakers are implicitly addressing a trade off between the loss of freedom that results from the enactment of law with a presumed benefit of freedom that results from prohibiting a certain behavior (such as murder or theft).

Line drawing is not precise. Each law passed by Congress could be attacked on the basis of "legislating morality." Each failure by Congress to act could be attacked as Congress "failing to attack the most vulnerable among us" as many do not require legal protections to protect their rights, goals, and wants.

Thus, saying that government should not "legislate morality" is about as useful a phrase as saying "government should only act when it makes sense" or "buy low and sell high"---it doesn't actually help make the decision.

I intended to be inflammatory. Still I prefaced my comment with the word respectfully so you would know my statement was without malice. It was also why I said you sounded like one rather than were one. The distinction was important from my perspective...

Now on the specifics:

You may define morality how you wish. You may have been better served by using a different word:

From Webster’s:

Morality: a doctrine or system of moral conduct: particular moral principles or rules of conduct.

Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior: ethical <moral judgments> b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment.

I repeat, under any accepted definition all laws are a legislation of morality.

You have stated I am correct on the soul but objected to the particular spurious example of which I made use. That's fair enough. I was not responding to your larger small government argument but rather to this statement:

"I do not want my political representatives thundering from the floor of the Senate that abortion is immoral and therefore should be made illegal. The debate over whether abortion is "murder" inevitably boils down to this single intangible notion: at what point does a soul enter the flesh, and thus the extinction of that life becomes the death of a human being?"

On the last paragraphs of this latest post I agree fully that small government principles are both a place of agreement for conservatives and a starting point for Republican policy ideas. I do not agree however that small government may be used as a logical argument for pro-gay or pro-abortion positions.

You claim you do not advocate for any moral agenda and yet by stating "I do not want my political representatives thundering from the floor of the Senate that abortion is immoral and therefore should be made illegal" you are essentially advocating for the inverse. That the accepted political position should be "abortion is moral and should not be made illegal" or at best" we don't know if abortion is moral or not and we don't care" - a position that I reject.

I have already shown that you incorrectly use the word "moral" so let's turn to your statement:

"Do not rape, kill or steal" - these are all fundamentally provable acts of social disorder and disruption" -

Do you really, honestly try and claim that either gay marriage and or abortion have created no social disorder and disruption? -- If they didn't we wouldn't be having this conversation. Social disorder and disruption is an illogical argument for choosing certain morals to espouse and others to ignore.

It is not my intention to drive anyone from the tent but rather to change - through logic and rhetoric the senseless and unfounded thinking that is seeping into our party.

Note to self - start previewing again.

absentee
RedState Graphic Design Contests

nt

You try to say that morality is "spiritual," i.e. religious, so that you can attempt to make laws based on "reason" or "empirical evidence" or something.

But that is impossible and leads to absurd notions like "murder laws" aren't based on morality.

The "empirical" versus "spiritual" dualism doesn't work when discusses the grounds of law, because at the root of every legal question is some moral statement about value or purpose, which is impossible to determine by statistical studies or scientific lab work, but must resort to philosophies of morality grounded in either supernatural religion or natural religion, e.g. humanism.

--------------------

Small is beautiful.

the Gideons left for you in the nightstand and check back with us post-knowledge, wisdom, and logic retrieval.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I am endowed with certain inalienable rights - every law enacted by man is an infringement on those inalienable rights. EVERY LAW.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution uses the term "natural born", not natural conceived.

Thus you are willing to "guess" at when life begins. To potentially deprive someone of the benefits of said constitution because you have arbitratly determined they are not a "someone"

Individuals have rights, the individual is sovereign. The mother is an individual, until such time as the child is born, s/he is NOT an individual.

The funny thing is, you aren't someone who dislikes the imposition of a moral agenda, you are someone who just has a different moral agenda in mind.

Which is why this country was founded on the principle of rights, not morals. "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable RIGHTS".

Member, American Conservative Party

use the word "every" in such a childish way. I stopped reading a few words after every.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

All laws are based on morality, I believe was the phrase used.

Every law is an infringement on a right/liberty.

Sorry to have distracted you from possibly addressing the comment.

Member, American Conservative Party

"legislate morality...legislate morality...legislate morality...too vague to define as purely moral...moral crusaders...moralistic construct...impose a moral agenda..."

What are you driving at? Could you elaborate?

"ma deuce says no morals"

to get government out of our lives, e.g. fed cts denying our religious free speech rights, controlling local school curricula, etc.

Do you imagine that one can have a value-less local school curricula? You can't. When you equate the utterance of the name of God with profanity, banning both, one teaches a value.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

The debate over whether abortion is "murder" inevitably boils down to this single intangible notion: at what point does a soul enter the flesh, and thus the extinction of that life becomes the death of a human being?

No it does not. On this you are gravely mistaken. It is a biological and scientific fact when a living human being comes into existence. Similarly, there is no way to honestly argue that ANY aborion even might not be "the death of a human being." It is an objective fact by definition that it is the death of a human being. About that there can be no debate or disagreement. Moreover, it is totally improper and wrong (if not unconstitutional) to allow the concept of a "soul" to have any bearing on the legal protection of life. That is ridiculous, and such reasoning has no place in a civilized society.

No, what the debate boils down to is what can justify intentionally taking a human life by any means desired. That's the undeniable and absolute truth, whether one wants to admit it or not.

It is an objective fact by definition that it is the death of a human being. About that there can be no debate or disagreement.

The mere fact that this conversation exists, testifies that it is not an objective fact, that there is debate and disagreement.

The death of an individual at the hands of another is, maybe, murder. Until, and if, the child becomes an individual - and that is certainly debatable - his/her death, is the end of a potential life.

What would you rule a spontaneous abortion, involuntary manslaughter (if the mother drank, smoked, ran a marathon...ate McDonald's, didn't take her insulin, did illegal drugs, was fat, was old(er), was too young, was vegetarian, fell while standing on the top step of a ladder...)?

Member, American Conservative Party

You are substituting your own words. The terms I used were "human" and "life" and "death." Those are scientifically and biologically defined terms with precise definitions. "Individual" depends on the context. Would I be an individual if I were, by no choice of my own, in someone else's body? Is a Siamese twin an "individual?"

Life is no longer "potential" at the point of fertilization. It is actual. THAT is where there is no debate, only blatant and outright lies that some people opt to believe. Abortion was, at least in part, prohibited in the first place because of this scientific discovery in the 1800's.

Some law enforcement officials actually have considered punishment for babies born with drugs in their system. That goes too far. You do have to strike a balance between the right to life and personal liberty whether one is born or not. You do not do that by denying the fact that one is alive or by devaluing his or her life. You consider the appropriate balance in light of the equal valuation of all human life. Finding that balance will obviously result in some disagreement, as it does now even with the born.

Our Constitution does not guarantee human rights, it guarantees individual rights. It doesn't use the word conceive or conception, it uses born.

And for many years the number of pregnancies estimated to spontaneously abort was over 60%, the percentage is still approximated at 25% - though it is admitted that spontaneous abortions in the first month are not always recognized as such. So, the life that has the potential to become an individual has a 1 in 4 chance of NEVER being born regardless of the mother.

You do have to strike a balance between the right to life and personal liberty whether one is born or not.

The child, prior to birth, has no rights. None. Prior to birth, the child is not an individual. I, me personally, am willing to discuss a compromise position - but I have found precious few holding your position willing to do so. So be it. Because of your principled stance, the status quo will remain and millions of babies will be aborted. If you were willing to compromise, that number might be able to be cut by half or more by a significant majority of Americans, today.

But stick to your principles, stick to your definitions.

Member, American Conservative Party

Whether the Constitution protects the unborn is irrelevant to this argument. Most people would not attempt to argue that it does.

So the child has a greater chance of natural death? That doesn't matter. A lot of people with certin illnesses have similar chances of death.

There is a serious issue being sidestepped of the devaluation of human life. Some people perceive the unborn as somehow less than fully human (despite the bilogical facts to the contrary). It's not any different from how blacks were once perceived. Trying to bring in the current US Constitutional law into it sidesteps the issue, much as it would have before slaves and blacks had equal rights.

Again, your use of the word "individual" depends on the context. The unborn are individuals in some contexts. Biologically, they are unique and whole living human organisms. Do you consider a Siamese twin an "individual?" Legally, the unborn are protected as "individuals" when the woman is harmed by non-doctors in many states and in federal crimes. In that sense you are also wrong about "no rights." If you speaking only in terms of the US Constitution, then you need to qualify your statement.

Some state constitutions do grant a right to life to the unborn. The states just do not enforce it. In those states, they do have rights that are simply not being enforced.

Regarding compromise, I don't know what you are talking about! Read the statistics. About 3/5 to 2/3 of the nation wants a compromise of some sort. Only about a third fall into the categories you describe. However, almost every lawmaker and every judge falls into that third.

Two points:

1.) Compromise is not possible within the confines of the Casey, Roe, and Doe court rulings (among many other judical orders). The other two branches are not willing to defy the judiciary (as they should), so no one bothers to take the time to find a compromise. You can bet that without those two loads of you-know-what (and the massive delusionsal influence they have had for so many), people would find compromise.

2.) In practice, most compromises would be virtually impossible to implement.

If you do prohibit the majority of abortions, then the abortionists go out of business and the exceptions are in writing only. In most states, those willing to do abortions are few and far between; and they are segregated from regular doctors.

Even if you prohibit only a minority of abortions, it would be virtually impossible to implement any reasonable oversight or enforcement mechanism. So the cases prohibited are prohibited in writing only.

The debate over whether abortion is "murder" inevitably boils down to this single intangible notion: at what point does a soul enter the flesh, and thus the extinction of that life becomes the death of a human being?

Even if I were a Democrat and didn't believe in the concept of a soul this would be a false statement.

The issue is at what point the baby a life separate from the life of the mother. Not viable, but a life. If we want to argue viability I'm willing to do that so long as we include ICU patients in the discussion along with the unborn.

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

No, as I said in my previous post, that is NOT the issue because there is a clear biological (scientific) definition for when a distinct human life begins. As a whole living organism of the human species with his or her own DNA and body, the baby does not have the woman's DNA and is not a "part" of her or anyone else's body.

The issue is of course what justifies taking the life.

reaches inside herself during week 6, and removes the 'entire, distinct human' and puts the child on the table (no doctors, hospitals or any other human within 100 miles.

And that separate, distinct life.....ends right then, right there.

Member, American Conservative Party

What is your point?

Sometimes, "mommy" "chooses" to give birth in the toilet. Either way, she would have just intentionally killed her child.

Granted such action would be next to impossible to catch, much less prove guilty of intent, at six weeks and in the home.

I must be a pure naif to not have seen this coming. I appreciate all of the debate on this matter, as it provides a lot of good thinking material.

The whole intent of this was to try to float the idea of developing a strategy for reaching out to the center. Like many have pointed out, the center vacillates, bobs, weaves and generally is a moving target from election to election. It is the defining trait of the middle to not have firm partisan values. But, like in any initiative, it helps to wargame scenarios in which neutral parties can be brought into the fold, even if temporarily.

I understand the suspicion of the Right to me, and anyone who dares to open the party to the center. I look at the Governator's recent statements along these same lines, and the visceral response he received from the Right. Perfect is the enemy of good, and this diary was born from the notion that we are staring down the barrel of 4-8 years of the most hardcore socialist policies this country has ever seen, including the FDR and LBJ administrations.

So, to see the outright scorn this has provoked provides me little relief or hope that the Right knows how to win anymore. For God's sakes, Reagan's coalition wasn't just the three traditional legs of conservatism - he won by landslide margins, and am I really to believe that he won 90% of the electoral vote purely on the backs of self-identified conservatives?! No! He won such huge margins because many people who were quite probably political heretics on many cherished issues also saw something in his election for themselves.

As long as we continue on the Right to drink the Kool-Aid of ideological perfection, we will continue to see a leftward lurch in this country, because no candidate is perfect. The reality is, the political center will never be ideological perfect, nor even similar in most respects. However, if conservatives have candidates that can articulate a clear vision of limited government, with lower taxes and wide freedoms for personal expression and self-determination, then conservatism can win right now!

Continue debating the semantics of "legislating morality", etc. Just understand that political theory exists in a vacuum. I'm trying to promote ideas that can carry the day, and allow us to remain a country with freedom enough for the Left and Right to continue to duke it out. I can guarantee you, a Barack Obama presidency will go a long way towards marginalizing conservatism for the next generation.

but words and phrases have meaning.

You want to approach the center. What does center mean? I presume that you don't define center to mean the far left of the far right. To be meaningful, words have to at least have some generalized boundaries.

99.99% of the time, the phrase "legislating morality" is used by the left to attack the right.

CAN YOU POINT TO EVEN SINGLE EXAMPLE WHERE SOMEONE ON THE RIGHT USED THE PHRASE "LEGISLATING MORALITY" TO ATTACK AN IDEA ON THE LEFT?

As you say, politics does not occur in a vacuum. Your phrase is loaded, like say "living and breathing Constitution" or "Big Oil" or "tax cuts for the rich." On its face, I wouldn't get all uptight about it. However, that phrase has been used to justify big government and government intrusions into all sorts of things. It is used to expand judicial power at the expense of the other two branches.

As I said previously, I liked your diary and think it is worth reading. However, you continued insistence on defending your usage of the phrase "legislating morality" does make me more skeptical of your point of view.

Deciding what types of ethical rules should be embeded in law and what types of ethical rules should be optional is an important question---maybe the most important question when it comes to what government should do or not do. To dismiss the difficulties of the tradeoffs and boundaries involved with a mere "legislating morality" line is to give the appearance that you do not perceive these tradeoffs and thus are missing a big part of the big picture.

I would suggest keep plugging away at your theme minus the leftist language of legislating morality. Your pitch will be more effective that way.

I have to say, I did not realize that "legislating morality" was considered such a loaded statement on the Right. In my mind, the phrase was an attempt to define as out-of-bounds the idea of the state determining the level of morality of say, gay marriage vis-a-vis heterosexual marriage. I view that the same way as I view the green's radical agenda to de-industrialize our economy because of the eeeeeevil carbon.

In my mind, we cannot claim the majoritarian high road, if we only push to enact new laws that have a strong flavor of the Religious Right/Moral Majority on them. While I typically agree personally with social con planks, that does not necessarily make them good for the whole of America, or even for furthering our own objectives on the Right.

I'm really sorry to have used that phrase, as it certainly wasn't intended be a lefty attack on conservatism. Guess I'm still a noob at this kind of thing. As I'm fond of saying myself, politics ain't beanbag.

(Update to my own comment, pre-post) - I re-read this just now, prior to posting, and I sound like Obama, backtracking like a fool because I said something loaded. I hate myself now.

It appears obvious that your goal is to "move center" by cutting out the social conservative. You may say you're not, but your use of social liberal code words speaks volumes. "Religious Right/Moral Majority," "While I typically agree...does not necessarily make them good...," and the aforementioned "legislate morality.

Yep, you sounded like Obama all right. And you still do. As soon as you start talking about how you're interested in supporting those who wish to immediately leave Iraq or institute nationalized health care, I'll believe that you're interested in "moving center."

Your definition of "Right" is not right.

"Religious Right" is a term used primarily by the Left and Libertine Libertarian types, sure...

But "Moral Majority" has a fairly interesting etymology. I've not been paying attention. Is it only used by one side of the aisle anymore? When did that happen?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

It was a direct quote of FC's posting. He (?) used it, not me. I'm not sure what etymology you're referring to, but "Moral Majority" is an official name of an organization, and I guarantee you that's the context in which it was used. Whenever the Left wants to denigrate Christian conservatives, they brand them the "Religious Right" and link them with people and/or organizations that have promoted controversial positions. Check the archives of DailyKos around the time that Jerry Falwell passed away for proof points.

I'm not some lefty troll with a hidden agenda. If you wish to read malice into my statements, by all means do so. I don't invest much faith in "code words". I use the term "Religious Right" because so many of them proudly identify themselves as such. Having spent my formative youth in a big-city Assembly of God church that was proudly political and socially conservative, I can assure you that Religious Right (at least my understanding of it) is not intended as slander.

Please, do not read intentions and thoughts into my statements. I know that you don't know me, but I'm an open guy. I will not hide behind "code words".

as "Religious Right." It's used almost exclusively as a derogatory description of those of us who are Christians with social conservative philosophy.

You're not hiding behind them. You're using them quite plainly to describe your position, which is clearly to support a move away from social conservative positions. Again, you've said nothing to indicate any willingness to compromise in fiscal or defense conservative positions. Just social.

But you had to admit, that using phrases that are almost exclusively used by the left in order to facilitate a new center-right political coalition is not a good idea.

Of the three legs of conservatism, social conservatism is the one that I have at times been in the closet on. You are clearly arguing for a position that many on the pro-life side will be disappointed in. That is fine. It may even been a good idea from a political standpoint (I don't agree that it is, I am simply acknowledging that it can be a good faith viewpoint).

In trying to move the party to the center (or maybe more accurately focus on emphasizing policies that would be easier to sell to the center), you used the same phrase that the ACLU, the DNC, left wing college professors, etc. would use.

I believe you would agree that the following phrases are quite suspicious:

for the children -- used to justify virtually any policy
tax cuts for the rich -- used to attack capitalism
living breathing constitution -- used to justify judicial tyranny

selfish corporation -- used to attack capitalism

I am not accusing you of bad faith. I am saying that if you actually want to persuade people, don't attack the right using the language of the left.

You can criticize the right using the language of the center, but if you phrases like "legislating morality" are used virtually exclusively by people who will NEVER join your center-right coalition.

Allow me then, if you will, to rephrase my objectionable language. It seems that the most objections are coming from those who view my diary as an attempt to redefine conservatism to exclude social cons. That said, there are many who have read this not as a statement of exclusion of social cons, but rather an effort (however apparently stupidly worded) to simply bring some perspective to what is probably the Right's best chance to win a permanent leadership position NOW.

In reading the sum of the entry, does it seem like I'm trying to make a specious attempt to undermine conservative principles? If it seems so, then I am either the poorest writer alive (certainly possible), or people find themselves tilting at windmills to ignore the larger point. If someone feels offended by my usage of "loaded" terms, then I apologize. I grant the point that yes, I did use language utilized heavily by the Left. Did I intend for that? Not at all.

We're down to three choices:

1. Grant that my larger point is valid, if semantically unacceptable on certain things.

2. Deny that my larger point has validity, and that pure conservatism is always more appropriate as a vehicle of political change.

3. Deny that I have any validity to make these points at RedState, as I'm clearly a lefty troll speaking in code words, who's spent a lot of time writing this post, and defending myself in the comments.

worth reading.

I am trying to help you and help others to see how they are perceived by others in the three-legged conservative stool. It is not about being offended, it is about persuasion. If the right wants to persuade the center, the right needs to choose its words carefully and precisely. Conversely, if the center wants to persuade the right, the right needs to chose its words carefully and precisely.

I want conservatism to be re-exaplained and freshly enunciated to better address the concerns of current voters. Thus, I am interested in diaries such as yours. However, if you actually want to create a center-right coalition (instead of merely talking about it), you do need to make at least some appeal to the right.

1. If you are saying we need to support limited government, I agree.

2. Many attempts to deviate from "pure conservatism" are simply attempts to be democrat-lites. If you are articulating a democrat-lite position, I disagree. If you are saying that we need to re-tool the application and marketing of conservative principles (principles that don't change but resulting policies are obviously products of the time) I agree with you.

3. If I thought you were a troll, I never would have argued with you. I spent a lot of my day today discussing aspects of your diary and trying to persuade you to change your approach so that it would be more effective.

I want the same things you do, a restrained federal government, low taxes, and a successful GOP that has some backbone and some principles.

You can think that I was being nit-picky to spend time arguing about the meaning of words, but I will point out that you spent a lot of time defending your use of those specific words instead of merely saying, what I really should have said was X, or Y, or Z.

Conservative principles need to be explained better so that they appeal to the "vast middle" of the electorate. I perceive much of your diary to be in support of that proposition, and as such, I find your diary valuable.

As you might see from my blog content, I haven't posted a whole lot, or been a member for a long time. However, I do advocate a strong conservatism, with the principles simply articulated to suit a wider audience. The whole point of a "Leave Us Alone" group is that is casts a wider net into willing waters, while still remaining true to bedrock principles (federalism, limited government, low taxation, strong defense, etc.). It simply promotes a more palatable message to potential political allies in the center.

I'm certainly not advocating Dem-lite, and as for defending my word usage...hell, sometimes it's hard to admit to an error. Consider this a full admission of misspeaking. Thanks for your patience. It's this kind of learning experience that I need to keep growing as a person. Thanks again 'ski, and to all the others who clearly believe in the same things I do, even if I'm too stubborn to admit I'm wrong about how I sometimes say it.

Thats why I got married. LOL

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I'm a bisexual atheist who voted for Harry Browne over Bill Clinton in '96. There is presently no way I can support most republicans without feeling like I'm voting against my own self-interest.

They way I look at it, big church is no different from big government. I want both of them to leave me alone.

It's a statistical fact that America is becoming more and more secular. As that happens, the number of people who are severely turned off by the Pat Robertson wing of the Republican party is growing. It can't end well.

Well, whatever. Yes, that big, fearsome entity that has succeeded in......forcing an unwilling public to endure shcool prayer, Christmas displays RIGHT OUT THERE IN THE OPEN (oh my), and taken away the right of women to abort their babies.....

Or not. Well, if America is becoming more secular, and leftist courts have managed to take away the right of Christians to do much of anything in public, what exactly do you have to fear from the 'Pat Robertson wing of the Republican Party'?

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

thoughtfulness. Please forgive my smarta** comment.

you cool man

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Fly-over is talking about politics. All politics involves compromise. When people refuse to compromise, there can be no political solution.

I agree completely with Flyover....

Member, American Conservative Party

statesmen exhibit 5 key commitments

1. a commitment to principles above politics
2. an ability to compromise without abandoning principles
3. a commitment to truth over spin
4. a commitment to courage over cowardice
5. a commitment or a willingness to give up power

Statesmen are a dying breed in our nation's Capitol.


Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

In the absence of that, I almost wish Bill Clinton wasn't term-limited this year. At least he was someone who could be pushed into compromise, and it wasn't a big price to pay to let him take credit for those accomplishments borne of grassroots pressures from the right.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

a whole lot better

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

of the middle...thank you!

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

lesterblog.blogspot.com

argument perhaps a we are the world video is more in keeping the the "harmony" of the post!

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

if "We Are the World" were adopted as a theme.

They say extremists are the people making noise and calling attention to themselves, and moderates are people who have things to do. The cynicism expressed upthread was well-earned over a long time.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Reagan was considered to be from the "far right" yet he did great appealing to middle of the road independent voters.

Dole, Ford, and Bush I were considered to be from the "center-right" and got squashed.

Its how you make the appeal that matters.

Do you sell conservatism, or just sell out?

THAT is the thing. We appeal to the middle by showing why OUR ideology / principles present the right vision, the right answers. We don't pander, or negotiate away what is dear to us.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

That in all but a few regions of the nation, when conservative (especially fiscal conservative) values are articulated by a candidate who has credibility (because he didn't just vote for a bunch of earmarks). That candidate wins more times than not.

It is a matter of:
(1) having values
(2) communicating them
(3) not being a spineless, turncoat, wide stance, pandering, weasel worm.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

to get candidates like this, when the people are (and have been) so eager for such?

That is the great mystery I don't get. This is played out in literally hundreds of congressional districts.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

we need a farm system or something. We also have to be willing to JUST SAY NO to squishes.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

at the local level. We are more dependent on the traditional MSM for information at the state and local levels, and candidates at that level are more dependent on the MSM to get their message out.

That's in part why anyone who is not purposefully conservative will inevitably become liberal. The forces pushing in that direction will move anyone who is not resolute on being conservative.

Being and staying conservative requires a constant act of will. In contrast, becoming liberal is easy.

A Conservative strives for personal responsibility, Independence, Freedom, Accountability and small government.

A Liberal wants the government to take that responsibility on 'behalf' of the citizen, dependent citizens and a large government (to justify larger paychecks).

Anyone who becomes addicted to power will desire a larger government to hide within (to continue to feed on the government tit) and will, by nature, give in to liberal ideas, for they will enable his negative behavior.

People can say what they will about Fred Thompson. One thing with him that scored MAJOR points with me was that he believed in term limits and, even though he was more or less laughed at by BOTH sides of the aisle in Washington, when his term was up, he did not run for reelection (Even though he was more or less a guarenteed win).

At the end of the day, when the sun has set and darkness spreads over the land, a Conservative has internal principle to which to cling; a liberal has nothing but sinking sand.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I believe it is because politicians willing to walk away from power are the ones with the character and responsibility it takes to be put in positions of power.

However, the ones that are in it for the lifetime of power and royal treatment are the ones with the shady connections and dominate.

Both people and roaches can function in a dark kitchen, but only one scatters when we turn on the lights. The media, hopelessly left-leaning, would love nothing more than for us to remove the lightbulb and trust them when they say what they see.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

At least there are four of us who recognize the effectiveness of this strategy.

Even if a voter disagrees with some of our platform planks (basic party principles), he can still respect our positions and join us if we articulate the reasons behind them. This is also they way we reconcile planks which are essentially at odds with each other.

Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

I'll grant you that effective candidates can move the electorate to the right or left on the strength of their appeals, but the party that the median voter sides with will generally (2000 notwithstanding) win.

Having said that, if its "how you make the appeal that matters" your party will be dependent on the personalities of its candidates rather than the strength of its issues. If your waiting for a once in a generation "great communicator" a la Reagan you are going to have a lot of dissappointing cycles.

Coalitions are a far more enduring way of building and maintaining electoral success.

As for whether I "sell conservatism, or just sell out?", I don't do either.

Its about taking the time to effectively explain conservatism.

There are essentially two ways to persuade the centrist/middle voter.

1. Explain conservative policies so that those in the middle buy into them (Reagan model)

2. Purposely triangulate to differentiate yourself from both
"extremes" so that people think you must be right.

I am not waiting for a Great Communicator. I am waiting for the party as a whole to decide to the hard work of party building rather than always taking the short term route of giving up on issues or policies because "they are too complicated to explain" or "don't enjoy current support."

Welfare reform was un-PC and unpopular until conservatices explained why it was a good idea

Supply side tax cuts were thought of as vodoo economics until conservatives explained why they were a good idea

Being tough on the USSR was considered unnecessarily provocative until it was explained that such a policy wouold bring peace

and so on and so forth.

Many policies today are considered centrist that were considered far right not too long ago.

I want to add policies to that list. That is a lasting non-personality basis for organizing a party.

Anything else is just a short term cutting of corners that will lead to nothing good in the long term.

Of course JSobeiski is the real genius here. BTW, I know who you are. We both are in the company of greatness.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

some others were also and answered the question about the same time as asked.
How sharp the RStaters are to provide answers before the question is asked.....

Regards

You should take us to Vegas sometime, stash us in your pocket while you play Blackjack.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

.

Very good stuff, by the way.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO