Redstate

I guess Yoda is Al Gore.

It gets stranger much stranger
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

and he does it without personal animus.

Romney made that same distinction only for McCain to go nuts, "Stop Attacking Me!!1one1!" McCain's friendship with Thompson is manifest in how he reacts to him. Once this is all over I would like to ask McCain what his beef was with Romney. Was it personal or just political acting and exaggeration?

polls. Who knows how McCain would react to persistent "attacks" from Fred over the course of weeks.

At this point, McCain is smart to ignore Fred. What happens if he is forced to change tactics?

McCain's best retort is "you supported me in 2000, so I can't be that bad."

Fred can obviously respond with "my issues with you are things you've done since 2000"

What happens next? Maybe this situation will play out.

The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary a pillory was a device, somewhat like a stock, in which people were placed in order to be publicly ridiculed. The figurative use of the word, pillory, is to "expose to public ridicule or contempt".

So "pillory" is an accurate description, in my opinion, but I probably would have used "defamation" instead.

It reminds me of the scene in A Knights Tale where the lead character is placed in the pillory to be mocked, scorned and hit with rotten vegetables. Is that Kumquat in your eye Mr B. O.?

If you're serious and have got your act together, look into ISI. They like to throw books and money at conservative student organizations.

Conservative

I can't imagine myself voting Republican any time soon, but I have a Redstate login and not at Kos (or any other lefty site). I also spend a lot more time over here than over there, precisely because of the type of civility this post demonstrates.
Kudos to Redstate, once again.

I voted Reagan '80. I too gravitate to Redstate because of the civil discourse. In this age of shock punditry, it's hard to find a site that tries to play like grown-ups.

I enjoy the intellectual argument here and I applaud the Directors for shepherding everyone toward the high ground, something that is rare on Kos.

Soon you will be a friend!

I've been a daily reader since the beginning, and my epiphany hasn't hit yet, unless you count my genuine, deep respect for Moe's ability to twist the appropriate knives.

Your friends would raise them. Just a thought & maybe ironic.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

but indicative of why I think I'll never become a Republican. As a 20-something, single lawyer in NY, I pay a ton in taxes and benefit very little from government services (heck, I'm resigned to the real possibility I won't receive social security benefits when I retire), but I still support the progressive tax system and think the rates I pay, although incredibly high, are warranted.

from Conservatives is that you think it is the government's job to take care of the less fortunate, and we think that should be left to individual citizens.

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

In a McCain-Hillary general election, I'd probably go McCain, but I can't think of any other GOP candidate I'd select over any Democrat - even Hillary.

That is what you are talking about.
You are saying that the fate of your fellow man is not your personal responsibility and you have been taxed high so you are absolved.

Being liberal on social issues, is little different than saying they just don't matter so do what feels good. Living in the technological cocoon that is NYC its not a surprising set of choices. The city does very well at insulating its residents from everything. Since the Reforms Rudy put in the issues of human predation are now severely limited.

Ah well some people were cut out for hive life.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

in a local community, I live in a national community, and my fiscal responsibilities are to my fellow Americans - not my fellow Midtown'ers. A strong federal government ensures some base living standard (or would, ideally).

With respect to social liberalism, I genuinely believe it's not the end of the world if gays want to get married, so if you want to do it, go for it. Frankly, for those claiming it will irrevocably break the sacred institution of marriage - guess what, with adultery and divorce rates at all-time highs, most married couples don't seem to consider it a sacred institution

"A strong federal government ensures some base living standard"

Nearly everything the government does (except for its minimal roles) decreases your standard of living. Just wait until government starts passing global warming laws and cost of energy and everything else starts going up.

Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.

and yours as well, and probably the standard of living of 99% of the posters on this board. But it increases the standard of living for the 10% (or whatever the number is) of people living below the poverty line. Yes, I know I probably sound like John Edwards to you. And I'm okay with that.

Seeing to it that they can't get a job and have to depend on government checks is just fine.

Just a note I have long supported drug legalization with one caveat, if you wanted them you would have to get them at the DMV.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

delivering pizza, and the rest of my family is in that 10%.

Are talking about same John Edwards who built this $6 million house?

Perhaps you should read this diary about the cost of congress and then maybe think about who actually pays for taxes on businesses (hint: taxes are just a cost of doing business, just as labor and raw materials are) and just who foots the bill in the end when businesses have to pay more to comply with government regulations.

Here is what silver spoon fed rich kids like you don't understand: the people on the bottom that good folks like Edwards pretend to care about so much have to put the vast majority of our income into the basics, food, clothes, a running car, and place to live. When the business that that we buy them from have higher operating costs, thanks to well intentioned liberals, we have to devote a much higher percentage of our income than you do to covering the basics.

When energy costs go up, my parents will simply not be able to use AC in the summer, but I'm sure you will be fine.

When food costs rise (as they have already gone up 6%, with more to follow) because of insane ethanol subsidies, what will you do to help? Send more money to same government that is inflating their cost of living?

When the city of Minneapolis spends millions on city wide WiFi, they can't pay for police and get aid money from the state. That money comes out of the checks of my dad and brothers working in a packing plant in outstate MN, who will never use the WiFi, and in the case of my dad, will probably never even have a computer. Add to that new tax payer funded stadium for the Twins they will never go to, and the $10 billion light rail line they never ride, but will pay for anyway (out of money that is supposed to be used for roads and bridges, like one that collapsed).

All of these things force those of us on the bottom to spend an even larger percentage of our income just to stay alive. This means less money to save for a house (which force many to rent, preventing them from gaining equity in a home), college, start a business, save for retirement, try a different career, or just plain enjoy a higher standard of living.

Of course, you solution would be make government even bigger and put more taxes on business and the people that run them, isn't it?

I won't even get into the loss of self ownership that taxes and government brings.
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.

I think you're discounting the benefits the government provides. Education is a huge one. And many of the particular gripes you've made are local-specific - and it seems like conservatives want more state/local power over what is spent.

I agree, state-subsidized sports arenas are almost never economical pluses.

Finally, I oppose subsidies like ethanol subsidies. But I think its incredibly unfair to paint subsidies as a liberal or Democratic led problem. I think its a problem endemic to both parties, which leaders need to take a stand against.

How is it that the massive amounts of money that are spent on education have led to little or no improvement in our standings in the world?

We have to understand that throwing $$$ at a problem does not fix it. Nor does having the federal government supercede states authority (granted by the Constitution) in matters that are really local issues.

Ask any teacher (I know lots of them) and they all say the NCLB is a disaster. It has done very little to actually improve education. What it has done is cause more teachers to teach even more towards a particular test and to pass kids on to the next grade even if they don't have the required material learned.

are starting to see government funding of "education" as an impediment to critical thinking and personal advancement.

Ethanol is a government problem, not a left v right problem, which is my whole point.

Education is a joke. I went through the public system learning more outside to school than in it. Unfortunately, the machine that is the teachers union will never allow real reforms like vouchers - and why would they when they hold the power that they do now?

At the college level, funding higher education through a progressive tax system is absurd. Its the gift that keeps on taking. Unlike student loans, where the amount borrowed is an actual debt that we can pay off and be done with, my wife and I will be paying extra taxes for the rest of our lives, whether we want to or not. There is no need for federal student aid. None. If students coming from poor families that can't contribute to their children's education want to go to college, they can get loans (like we did). They will be paying for it, one way or another. All student aid does defer payment, but in a non-voluntary manner that will likely cost them far more in the long run then loans ever will.

Of course, if you are concerned about education, you could donate some of your own money, voluntarily, to schools or scholarship foundations, instead merely feeling good about the fact that everyone else is forced to pay higher taxes.

Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.

Something tells me you won't be in the 10% much longer.

that the government should pass 'global warming laws' to force companies to internalize the externalities resulting from the effects of their products on the environment. (Unless you don't believe in the theory of global warming, in which case governmental involvement would obviously be burdensome and inappropriate).

I am a strict conservative and I do believe in Global Warming, but I don't believe we need the bureaucracy of the federal government driving up the cost of everything. Why can't a city or a county decide whats best for that city or county. I would hate to live in a country where I have to pay for the federal government to make all my local decisions. For one it takes them years to actually fix anything, and two it costs the American people way more than it needs to because each congress person has to get extra money worked in for their constituents. Give me a tiny government that only keeps me safe and local governments to keep the peace.

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."
-General George S. Patton

If you believe in global warming, not increasing the costs to the car companies, etc... is the same as subsidizing those companies (because their monetary costs aren't equal to the true costs of their products). I would think any strict conservative would oppose that.

I would be ok with local communities making their own decisions, if those decisions were self-funded. It seems like your ideal would be to reduce the federal tax burden and increase the local tax burden. I would be fine with that, but again, given the fact that certain regions of the US are poor and others are rich, I don't think it would work to have a local system of taxes and benefits.

Could you at least be precise in your use of language ?

Global warming= the earth changing its temperature

Anthropogenic global warming or Man Made global warming = The earth warming due to the actions of mankind.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I wouldn't increase any taxes I would cut some programs that the federal government has no business sticking their nose in. Once you cut these programs that the constitution doesn't mention, all of a sudden there would be a lot of extra money to help out the worth while projects, like securing our borders and developing technologies for energy independence.

To address the issue of poor regions and rich regions. Why should the areas of the country who have responsible individuals who don't depend on the government to do everything for them be punished by paying for the areas of the country where people don't get a job because it is easier to stay on unemployment and just pretend to look for a job? Yeah the poor regions would have slightly less than than the rich regions but in say a large city all the people would pay equally for things like police protection and libraries and schools, but why should the people with jobs have to pay for those who don't? Unemployment is low enough in this country almost everyone can find work. Maybe not great work but who cares get a job at Wal-Mart, its something isn't it?

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."
-General George S. Patton

because despite the fact that you can buy them in any local supermarket, nobody knows how to make a pencil and since nobody knows how to make a pencil, nobody can calculate it's true cost.

Now, like most people, you're probably thinking to yourself, 'Gadfly, you are mental deficient! Of COURSE somebody knows how to make a pencil. While I might not be able to give you a production line process, I certainly seems obvious that to make a pencil you get some wood, cut it to the right shape, make some graphite rods, glue the whole thing together, and paint the outside yellow. Sheesh!' Well, on one level that is true. But how do you make the graphite rod? How do you get the graphite out of the ground? How do you make the machines that get the graphite out of the ground? How do you make the yellow paint? How do you get the chemicals for the yellow paint? How do you make the machines that process the chemicals? How do you make the machines, that make the machines that process the chemicals? And so on and so on and so on.

You may be able to calculate the cost of the processes you perform to make the pencil, and you may be able to calculate what price you need to charge for your business to continue, but you can't never calculate the true cost of a pencil.

warming, I would not agree with taxing consumer products and energy for two simple reasons:

1) Corporations do not pay taxes, we the people do.
2) The taxes and programs currently proposed will do nothing to solve AGW (even if it did exist(.Look at the Kyoto treaty. If every country in the world adhered to the treaty (which they haven't even approached) the projection is that a whopping 0.14 degrees of warming would be avoided after only $500 billion expended. Lots of capital that could have been spent adapting to climate change, providing economic development in Third world countries, etc wasted on "fixes" that fix nothing.

The last thing we the people need is a lousy middleman trying to solve our problems, creating bigger problems than they solve (see ethanol subsidies increasing food prices; increase in illegitimacy rates among welfare clients, etc) and generally impoverishing all of us.

You only think your taxes are a good thing because you haven't studied history, or grown up yet. Let's see if you have the same opinion in twenty years, after you've been married and had kids.

that many of us are skeptical of the contribution that we are actually having on the environment and if we could change the course.

You live in a local community. By asserting you live in a national community you are just diffusing and weakening the concept of community. You have substituted an entity where you can make a positive difference with one where you can't.

Second you have made the false equivalence that social conservatives hate gays. Gee thanks.

Lets take Midtown Manhattan. Seeing as I lived there longer than you have been alive. This is the prime example of where conservative values rebuilt a community and liberal values nearly destroyed it. Liberal values with regard to law enforcement had encouraged the growth of crime to the point where the city was imploding. What you discount is responsible for affording you the quality life you enjoy.

While you may not see the harm, others do and others have seen the results.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

hate the idea of gay marriage (certainly most of them do, anyway). And frankly, a large chunk of them hate gays.

There's no need for me to make a difference in my local community - everyone's pretty well off. The 'help your community' standard just wouldn't work in today's America.

And fine, I'm not liberal on crime. But I don't think today's Democratic party is either. I think both the GOP/Democrats take a hard line of crime, because its a politically popular stand (and yes, because many believe its the right stand to take).

As a parting shot, I will note that you are not even aware of how the community you live in works. Seeing as without the people who you say couldn't make a difference there wouldn't be a city for you to be stupid in.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

that 80% of Republican oppose gay marriage. I will try not to perpetuate the stereotype that Republicans oppose gay marriage in the future.

does not equate with hating gays. That is quite a leap of logic. I oppose gay marriage. I would support civil unions because I do believe that if there is real commitment from a couple then they should be entitled to the same legal rights that a heterosexual couple is given.

Ok but why make the distinction between marriage and civil unions? What are the operational differences?

factcheck.org

that was very helpful. it seems then that civil unions offer significantly less rights than marriages. that is far from treating same sex couples equally under the law.

it will allow religious leaders (pastors and the like) to not administer these "civil unions" if it's against their religious preferences to do so without fear of a lawsuit, and allows homosexuals who want to express their devotion to one another do so. Besides that, the reasons for said union are different, as the reason to do so in a heterosexual couple is to have children, and that's just not possible (biologically speaking) for homosexual couples.

Because opposing gay marriage = hating gays. With logic like that I can see why you are on the Al Gore bandwagon.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

You accused social conservatives of "hating" gay marriage; and then you accused a large percentage of them as hating gays as well.

Speaking as a site moderator - and one who has been public in his support for permitting same-sex marriage, by the way - the first was merely impolite; the second requires your apology. Next post, please.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

The phrasing of my previous comments were impolitic at best, and inappropriate. What I should have said is that I believe that a large percentage of social conservatives oppose the legalization of homosexual sodomy.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

that's an interesting framing of core differences, that is, how we as a civilized nation should take care of the less fortunate or those that need a hand.

groups or teams are often much stronger than their individual components, a construction crew can build a skyscraper while a single construction worker might be able to build just a little house. collectively we wield more power and resources than individually. when the government is used as this collective than you also gain the ability for oversight, which sometimes can become cumbersome, but often provides a very valuable check against abuse of those collective resources.

Cut out the middle man.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

If they actually wanted that money to go to the poor, they would support conservative philosophies. Today's Marxist liberalism is about control, not helping others.

A good example of this thinking came back in the early 90s when representative David Skaggs D-CO voted for the congressional raise. He said , to paraphrase, that he would vote for the raise, but would give the extra money he receives to charity. What he was really saying was that he didn't need the extra money, but that he knew how to spend your money better than you.

If you are doing a job and not getting paid for it you are going to get po'd. If he felt the job was entitled to the raise, it was a legitimate vote. What he does with his money is his business and if he gives to charity, I can only say more power to him.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Which do you think will do more good: $1,000 to the feds, or $1,000 to the United Way?

Also, I'm curious to know why you think that just because YOU are willing to pay 40% of your income to the government you think that EVERYONE else should be forced to pay as well.

If given the choice, I would rather giver %50 of my income to the food shelf than give %30 of it to government (of course, your liberal friends will ensure that I never have that choice).

Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.

just like the federal government. Maybe slightly less inefficient - but not by much.

I'm ok with a high tax rate because I know that my taxes, when combined with everyone else's, have a very real effect alleviating poverty and other societal ills. But, if my contributions were voluntary, I would not contribute 44% of my paycheck (NYC tax rate at work) because my personal impact on society is limited. If this was the 18th century, it might make sense to help out my neighbors when they struggled, and vice-versa. But all my neighbors are lawyers, bankers or rich college students - so the "help your neighbor" ideal doesn't work.

HTML Help for Red Staters

My god but you are stupid.

So, you believe we've won the War on Poverty?

I would note how the policies of the federal government as relates to poverty have made conditions much worse but somehow I doubt you'd be able to understand.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

In a city with a modern transit system, he can't find any neighbors who aren't filthy rich lawyers, accountants, or bankers. There are no soup kitchens, Goodwill or Salvation Army centers, no teen pregnancy centers he might personally visit to determine whether or not they might make better use of his money than the government can.

The two things are fundamentally different, just like having a taxpayer-funded police force is different from having everyone hire their own private security guards and do neighborhood watches.

Both private charity and public assistance are useful, and they're quite different. Neither replaces the other.

I say this knowing that it's the features that make public assistance different are the things that make it fundamentally wrong to the conservative mindset. It's a philosophical difference that we won't work out in a blog comment thread, I fear - I'm used to agreeing to disagree at Redstate.

So... seeing as how you're a 20-something single lawyer in NY (whose first year starting salary is around $150,000), I wanted to ask...

How much should you be paying in taxes at maximum?

Put another way, you believe the current rates are warranted. Okay. What rate would be unwarranted?

-TS

"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt

HTML Help for Red Staters

he is obviously confused being a Huckabee and McCain. The comment directly reflects what we are trying to move away from as stated in the OP.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

He's commented on this matter before, expressing his discomfort with the joke. Don't use it again here please. He's a moderator, and what he says tends to go.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I've never used the joke, as you call it; hence, I'm confused at your request that I not do it again. Or, can we not even discuss the relevance of a person's name in a thread that deals with the use of that name?

I still believe the personal, anonymous attacks, e.g., silly and ridiculous and low-rent, are worse than anything I've ever said here.

Steve Willis
Professor of Law
University of Florida College of Law

HTML Help for Red Staters

HTML Help for Red Staters

Engaging in a little hyperbole, Neil?

www.republicansenate.org

You're suggesting that the Republican party should follow the example of the Ku Klux Klan's long past political success, by tapping into the hate of the haters.

The fact is, if you weren't a long-established member I'd have banned you on the spot.

HTML Help for Red Staters

and had a name that resembled a hated white person, I'd say the same thing. Heck, if he were white and had the name Hussein, I'd say the same thing.

www.republicansenate.org

HTML Help for Red Staters

I haven't used that here (at least I'm almost positive I haven't), nor did I have any intention of doing so. There's nothing really to suck up. I'm not advocating the use of it on the site or arguing with the idea that people shouldn't use it here. At this point, I think you and I have already given it more time and space than it warrants.

www.republicansenate.org

Frankly, I don't want Obama to be able to choose three Supreme Court Justices, raise taxes, and withdraw troops from Iraq at a dangerous pace just because we didn't take the low road.

To paraphrase Mike Krempasky: If this isn't advocacy, then I'm a donut.

HTML Help for Red Staters

By "we" I was not referring to the RedState community but Republicans and conservatives writ large, and as I indicated, I have no qualms with the use of his middle name being banned from the site.

Happy, Berliner?
www.republicansenate.org

So let me get this straight: You envision the Republican Party as the party of race and religion-baiting, but just not Red State?

HTML Help for Red Staters

The real difference here has nothing to do with race. The real difference is what we'd do to win an election. Personally, I'd exploit a candidate's unpopular name regardless of his race. You can call that cheap and dirty, and it is. Calling it racist, though, is an entirely different matter. Should I not employ a tactic that I might, again might, use against a white candidate against Obama just because he's black?

www.republicansenate.org

or any of the other variants.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"I do not think the Republican party is the party of race and religion baiting."

Just say that and all will be well.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Of course I don't think the Republican Party is the party of race and religion baiting. I also don't think that that the use of his middle name is race baiting.

www.republicansenate.org

Do you, or do you not favor Republicans and conservatives doing race and/or religion baiting by the use of his middle name?

HTML Help for Red Staters

Well, for starters, I think you're defining the statement of his middle name as both race and religion baiting. I don't buy that. The types of people who would be dumb enough to base their votes on something like that probably don't even know that he's black.

Now, there could be race or religion-baiting done with his middle name depending on the context in which it is used. Of course the religion baiting issue is an incredibly tough sell considering that Obama attends Trinity United Church of Christ. The race issue doesn't work much better with Obama's family being from Kenya and Saddam being from Iraq.

If anything, the simple use of his middle name isn't really different from people referring to Hillary as "Hitlery". Frankly, both are stupid, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are not effective. As low-brow as it may be, I think it'd be tough to call the Hitlery stuff racist, and that is really my point. It's fair enough to call it stupid and unbecoming of Redstate. I'm not arguing that anyone should be able to use either on this site. I'm just saying that I don't think either is racist.

www.republicansenate.org

Oh come on. This is such typical republican. There is a huge difference between calling someone a mean name ei “hitlarry,” and highlighting a personal feature to stir longstanding xenophobia. Even you said that exploiting prejudice against Obama’s Middle Eastern sounding name may help win votes from fearful voters. Yes, you can argue that in some utopian world, using his middle name in this way should not be construed not be related to race or religion or xenophobia, but we don’t live in that world.

The real issue here is that by using these types techniques we create republican party that is strikingly unwelcoming to minorities. These are individuals who share our republican social conservative values and should be encouraged to join the party.

Feel free to use the contact form and ask for reinstatement by telling the Directors why you should be let back on the site after telling us that "stirring longstanding xenophobia" is a "typically Republican" thing to do.

HTML Help for Red Staters

While it's not racist, calling me a "Ronulan" actually falls into the category of condemning a whole group of people for the actions of a few (albeit an overrepresented few when it comes to spamming RedState). It's pretty much the same principle.

www.republicansenate.org

I just don't see how you can compare a snarky nickname for a candidate's supporters to trying to stir up xenophobia.

I'm glad this thread was made. I've seen people use his middle name in arguments on the site before and it's always bothered me. I think it's classless and low brow. This site, this party, and this country should be above that.

That were the haters. (Then again they were last time as well, and the time before that and the one before that, nice to have a perfect record).

As to following the tactics of the Klan, I think you misstate them. Violence and terrorism is hardly implied. Its more exploiting the ignorance of the typical democrat voter. Claude Pepper once won election where he pointed out his opponent was a homo sapien (I kid you not).
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I'd hate to see us adopt their electoral tactics.

HTML Help for Red Staters

That not only make him an anathema to our side but to significant portions of his. Most of these are tied up with race and group identity. Should we refrain from bringing up policy issues about minorities, because he is nominally a member of one ?

If you caught the Fox analysis of the NV democratic party debate, you saw the democratic party splitting along its fault lines in real time.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

His name has nothing to do with his policies though, unless you can show that his policies influenced his name.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Plus it would not be his policies influencing his name but how his name is influencing policies.

We know he has a conciliatory to Iran and the anti western elements there. Just who is to say that doesn't originate from his name.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

although experience has taught me that homo sapiens seldom win elections.

www.republicansenate.org

My mother is solid Democrat (not liberal in any sense, mind you, but a Democrat nonetheless). She also has a tendency to not quite get a story right; she's what an information scientist would term a "lossy channel".

She once told me that she'd heard that President Reagan's son Ron was (and I swear she lowered her voice to say it)...a heterosexual!

My response: "Yeah, I hear the State Department's full of them!"
_________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

I called a particular rhetorical gambit "kind of low-rent;" if this still disturbs anyone, you can replace it with "slightly uncouth" without having any real semantic change involved. :)

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I understand it is often hard to divine a users intent. But you may have mastered that skill by now.

Generally speaking, such "rhetorical gambits" couched in punctilios are more like declarative fiats when posted by ranks such as yourself:-)

Some folks like to walk the razors edge. That's not my style and you can always count on me being able to back up comments with facts.

-Chris

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

and a strict read of Moe's blog would say it's not allowed.

Shouldn't our candidate be so good that we wouldn't have to denigrate another this way?

What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====

Calling Romney "Willard" doesn't have the effect of activating racial/ethnic biases.

To take another example: when you call Harry Reid "Dingy Harry," it's not out of bounds, because what you're trying to do is signal that you think Harry Reid is a jerk.

Using "Hussein" is an attempt to make Obama seem suspect because his name is foreign and Muslim-y. Using that is unfairly taking advantage of bigotry.

I think Moe's new rule is admirable.

using "Willard" may conjure visions of a certain individual who was fond of mammals with long tails...that could certainly turn off a percentage of the populace...

How much do you listen to Rush? I find it hard to believe that a regular or long time listener who really knows Rush would hold these views... in particular the one about his "relentless self-aggrandizement".

If you know Rush, as I believe I do, this sort of behavior is expressly for the purpose of pushing peoples' buttons. And usually it is liberals who have those buttons. While he does it, he gives a wink and a nudge to those of us who know him.

Actually, Rush is on during working hours in my home market, which means that unless I'm going out for lunch (not often) or running an erand, I don't hear him at all. I'm rarely in a position to catch much more than 20 minutes of him at a stretch, but at that, it takes a lot of willpower to keep my hand off the knob.

Today was an exception, I got to listen to him for about an hour, during which time he must have dropped the word "Maxi" into the middle of Mark Shield's name about 40 times. Very "low rent". Certainly not what I'd call "elevating the discourse".

As for the "gosh I'm wonderful" schtick, I suspect that most of it *isn't* schtick. He's such a pompous jerk that I sometimes feel like I'm listening to a conservative Garrison Keilor. He makes me long for the days of Bill Buckley - an equally annoying delivery but a deep thinker who never descended to Jr. High rhetorical tactics.
_____________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

I can't even listen to his show anymore (which sucks because that is when I am at work). Hearing Hillary "Rottan" Clinton and "Her Thighness" in EVERY SENTANCE drive me up the wall. Its a shame, because he is a good orator other wise.

Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.

Levine is entertaining just for the sheer, seething vitriol; I lke hearing someone get angry about the stupidity of the Liberal position.

The problem with listening to him is that I'm always waiting for someone to come in and give him a sedative. The man is an aneurism waiting to happen.

_________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

This is about a particular KIND of name calling that, according to SIConservative elsewhere in this thread, is designed to appeal to hateful prejudice.

HTML Help for Red Staters

nt

I can see why Romney is trying to forget his first name is Willard :) I guess I would have suspected he'd just shorten his name and go by Will instead of his middle name though.

HTML Help for Red Staters

We are all smart enough to understand the implied connotations of the identifiers we use. Thank you RedState for remaining a place of respectful and reasoned political debate.

And we can still call the pack of 15-year-old girls who go positively N'Sync on BHO Obamamaniacs, but I prefer Obamabombasts.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

I'm a bit lazy, and I would not want to start calling him B.O. for all the obvious reasons. When I type BHO, it actually makes me think of BTO - Bachman-Turner Overdrive - to date myself.

John S. McCain III.

Even the Obamabombasts can't get too worked up over that one. How about BOba or Bar Bar Obam? Or how about The Rock Obama?

_____________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

In both examples, you are drawing attention to a characteristic the person has no control over to stir some type of chauvinistic reaction. If you have a problem with Obama’s ideas and priorities, why not just talk about them without exploiting people’s underlying bias toward Middle Eastern names. Frankly, its embarrassing for the Republican Party. Also, this type of thing makes it extremely difficult for minorities, many of whom share republican values, to feel welcomed in our party. That is a shame.

That's not what I am saying - people who called Bush Sr. 'George Herbert Hoover Bush' were using his name to make the point that he was making a mess of the economy. It stuck because people believe that he was. They would say 'J. Danforth Quayle' to make the point that he was very much a country-club type. George Bush Sr. himself went after my candidate in 1988 calling him 'Pierre' rather then his chosen name 'Pete' to score points. If Obama were strong on the GWOT his middle name would be meaningless - imagine if Ronald Reagan's middle name had been 'Boris' - that would have also been meaningless.

I don't even know what HRC's middle name is, but obviously it doesn't tie into any theme or else people would use it.

John S. McCain III.

You're joking, yes? How about commenting specifically about what it means to be "something of an Arabist" ant what Obama has said or done that concerns you. If you have a valid point to make, make it. If you have a problem with comments he has made, state your case. Your "shorthand" is far from useful.

An Arabist is a term for someone who tends to come down on the Arab side in the Israel/Arab conflict. The State Dept. tends to have a fair amount of Arabists in it. James A. Baker is a good example - in fact I refused to vote for Bush Jr. because I had assumed he was going to be even more Arabist that his father. (I was totally wrong, which is why he got my vote the next time). Obama, with his 'lets get all nice and talk with Syria and Iran' just sends cold chills down my spine. Jimmy Carter has turned into a complete Arabist and I think that Obama would be just as bad or worse. An Arabist is the last person we need in the White House during the GWOT.

John S. McCain III.

Your last two comments have talked about how you don't think there's any race baiting here, but you've carefully avoided the issue of religion baiting.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I don't think this is religion-baiting either. If I did, I would have a problem with it. It's making fun of somebody's middle name. Nothing more. Nothing less.

www.republicansenate.org

HTML Help for Red Staters

As I said above, people have dumb reasons for voting as they do, and that's the case for far more people than you realize. You give the American people far too much credit. After I heard a life-long New Yorker explain to me that he voted for the former First Lady because she came to his town, I lost whatever remaining respect I had for the average voter. If people vote against Obama for his middle name, it will have nothing to do with his ethnicity or his religion. It will have to do with the fact that he happens to share the name with a single murderous dictator, and I have yet to see anyone in any way suggest that he has any ties, including family ties, to the former dictator. He shares the name, nothing more and nothing less, and if that's enough for some (stupid) people to vote Republican, so be it. There are New Yorkers who would vote against anyone named Larry because of a certain Atlanta third baseman. This is no different. Using his middle name is silly, gimmicky, and childish, and therefore unbecoming of RedState, but it's not about religion or race.

Religion-baiting is FoxNews running a "story" that he attended a radical Islamic Madrassa, a reckless and false story that the Obama campaign has since torn to pieces.

www.republicansenate.org

I like to think Dems vote identity, and conservatives vote ideas.

There's a bit of Archie Bunker in all of us, though, so I try to recognize the dumb things that creep into my head and return to principles.

You should read a post carefully before you attack the writer for being "silly" or "ridiculous." My points are neither.

A person's past tells us much about them. This is true of you and of me and of Clinton and of Obama and of all candidates. Sometimes, we learn a great deal from this and sometimes we learn only a little. Sometimes, we do not understand the connection until later, using hindsight.

I am not certain what to conclude from Obama's youth, but I do not consider it irrelevant. His name is his name. I see nothing wrong with using that. Calling people "silly" and "ridiculous" and "low rent" strikes me as much worse.

BTW, other than in this thread - which concerns the middle name - I've never used it.

Steve Willis
Professor of Law
University of Florida College of Law