It’s Obama. And McCain.

Barack Obama now has enough delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination. I salute him for beating Hillary Clinton. I do predict Obama will choose her as his vice-presidential running-mate. She has said that she’s interested in the post, which surprised me, and now that she has gone public with her willingness it would be a slap in the face not to offer it to her. Despite the hostilities of the primary season, the Democrats will now unify.

I’m not sure if Obama is going to be easy for John McCain to beat, or impossible for him to beat. My thoughts go back and forth on this.

Whatever happens, we will have either a centrist president or a liberal president. The era of conservative domination appears to be over, at least for now. We will have change, for better or for worse (or for both).

What do you think the future holds for America with either of these two as president?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://www.hempelstudios.com Sarah in Maryland

    I think that the pendulum is always swinging. With either of these two as president, I think that we are going to see a rise of both the radial left and the “Crunchy Con” type conservatives amongst the populace.

  • http://www.hempelstudios.com Sarah in Maryland

    I think that the pendulum is always swinging. With either of these two as president, I think that we are going to see a rise of both the radial left and the “Crunchy Con” type conservatives amongst the populace.

  • Bob Hunter

    McCain – more wars: Obama – more abortions. Either way, more deaths.

  • Bob Hunter

    McCain – more wars: Obama – more abortions. Either way, more deaths.

  • Carl Vehse

    This t-shirt seems appropriate.

  • Carl Vehse

    This t-shirt seems appropriate.

  • Trey

    I think with Obama as President the U.S. will become more isolationist in foreign affairs. I am afraid he is in the mold of Jimmy Carter who was scared to use American might. Increased taxes is a forgone conclusion with Obama which will hurt the economy.

    McCain as President means a continue of the War on Terror , but I think he will reach out to Democrats on common issues like the environment and oil.

    In the end, I predict McCain will win, because he is in the center and he will reveal Obama’s literal history and beliefs. Obama states that he is for post-partisan politics, but he doesn’t say what he will do nor does he show how he may accomplish it. He is a sophist.

  • Trey

    I think with Obama as President the U.S. will become more isolationist in foreign affairs. I am afraid he is in the mold of Jimmy Carter who was scared to use American might. Increased taxes is a forgone conclusion with Obama which will hurt the economy.

    McCain as President means a continue of the War on Terror , but I think he will reach out to Democrats on common issues like the environment and oil.

    In the end, I predict McCain will win, because he is in the center and he will reveal Obama’s literal history and beliefs. Obama states that he is for post-partisan politics, but he doesn’t say what he will do nor does he show how he may accomplish it. He is a sophist.

  • Rich Shipe

    I wouldn’t call Bush a conservative. He’s certainly great on abortion and judge nominations but beyond that not too conservative. Bush is a centrist who everyone calls a conservative. On some issues McCain is pretty conservative. McCain might be a conservative that everyone calls a conservative. But who knows.

    Hillary has enough delegates to force Obama to pick her as VP if she wants it. Technically she can run for VP and win that nomination despite his will on the matter. She doesn’t need to convince very many Super Ds to have a majority that will pick her as VP. Remember that many of those Supers had to “betray” Clinton in picking Obama so this is an easy way for them to have both candidates.

    I’m sure he doesn’t want her because of how she (and her husband) will dominate him. The media will call it a dream ticket but Obama knows she’ll be a drag on him and doesn’t solve a lot of his weaknesses.

  • Rich Shipe

    I wouldn’t call Bush a conservative. He’s certainly great on abortion and judge nominations but beyond that not too conservative. Bush is a centrist who everyone calls a conservative. On some issues McCain is pretty conservative. McCain might be a conservative that everyone calls a conservative. But who knows.

    Hillary has enough delegates to force Obama to pick her as VP if she wants it. Technically she can run for VP and win that nomination despite his will on the matter. She doesn’t need to convince very many Super Ds to have a majority that will pick her as VP. Remember that many of those Supers had to “betray” Clinton in picking Obama so this is an easy way for them to have both candidates.

    I’m sure he doesn’t want her because of how she (and her husband) will dominate him. The media will call it a dream ticket but Obama knows she’ll be a drag on him and doesn’t solve a lot of his weaknesses.

  • CRB

    No matter who becomes President, I think that the U.S.
    best days are behind her and that the church will also suffer in many ways. Perhaps we shall be getting the president we really deserve!

  • CRB

    No matter who becomes President, I think that the U.S.
    best days are behind her and that the church will also suffer in many ways. Perhaps we shall be getting the president we really deserve!

  • richard

    Obama will win–and if Hillary is on the ticket, it will be a big win. He is the classic postmodern candidate, and looks great in the medium of television. Think of Clinton vs. Dole. Go back and re-read “Amusing Ourselves to Death.”

  • richard

    Obama will win–and if Hillary is on the ticket, it will be a big win. He is the classic postmodern candidate, and looks great in the medium of television. Think of Clinton vs. Dole. Go back and re-read “Amusing Ourselves to Death.”

  • Bart

    Wow, CRB, you’re starting to sound like Jimmy Carter in his “Malaise Speech!” I don’t know what will happen. If McCain wins and is moderate, he might “steal the thunder” of the more radical liberals in the same manner as Franklin Roosevelt with Communists, radical socialists, and fascists of the Depression era. On the other hand, McCain might be just another neocon, which makes my skin crawl (at which point I will exclaim, “It’s not my fault–I voted for Ron Paul!”). I refuse to say our better days are behind us. It still may be possible for us to preserve a hopeful future for the upcoming generations. All the Christians can do is do the right thing (a.k.a. “Do Hard Things”). That’s what our Prince Caspian studies at PHC were about, weren’t they, Dr. Veith?

  • Bart

    Wow, CRB, you’re starting to sound like Jimmy Carter in his “Malaise Speech!” I don’t know what will happen. If McCain wins and is moderate, he might “steal the thunder” of the more radical liberals in the same manner as Franklin Roosevelt with Communists, radical socialists, and fascists of the Depression era. On the other hand, McCain might be just another neocon, which makes my skin crawl (at which point I will exclaim, “It’s not my fault–I voted for Ron Paul!”). I refuse to say our better days are behind us. It still may be possible for us to preserve a hopeful future for the upcoming generations. All the Christians can do is do the right thing (a.k.a. “Do Hard Things”). That’s what our Prince Caspian studies at PHC were about, weren’t they, Dr. Veith?

  • Chris

    Yeah, it seems as the left gets more liberal the right gets more liberal so that a centrist president like Bush is thought of as a conservative.

    I would hesitate to call McCain a centrist, he’d probably govern as a less-extreme liberal. Political conservativism died with Regan.

  • Chris

    Yeah, it seems as the left gets more liberal the right gets more liberal so that a centrist president like Bush is thought of as a conservative.

    I would hesitate to call McCain a centrist, he’d probably govern as a less-extreme liberal. Political conservativism died with Regan.

  • Chris

    Good grief, Bart, FDR was a socialist/facist.

  • Chris

    Good grief, Bart, FDR was a socialist/facist.

  • Bart

    Yes, FDR did a lot of harm–one of my least favorite Presidents, quite frankly. However, he had no consistent political philosophy–it was whatever would work and would make people happy. One time, two of his advisors came to him with two completely opposite proposals. He told them to combine them and he would sign it! It could have been much worse than FDR with American Nazis and Communists prowling about.

  • Bart

    Yes, FDR did a lot of harm–one of my least favorite Presidents, quite frankly. However, he had no consistent political philosophy–it was whatever would work and would make people happy. One time, two of his advisors came to him with two completely opposite proposals. He told them to combine them and he would sign it! It could have been much worse than FDR with American Nazis and Communists prowling about.

  • Bart

    Also, I think it would be well for conservatives to avoid the Progressive notion of, well, inevitable progress that has plagued America since the 1890s. With regard to the future, I plead ignorance rather than optimism.

  • Bart

    Also, I think it would be well for conservatives to avoid the Progressive notion of, well, inevitable progress that has plagued America since the 1890s. With regard to the future, I plead ignorance rather than optimism.

  • Jonathan

    I look forward to a McCain presidency. He’s a proven tax and government cutter, he’s stubbornly pro-life, he will appoint strict constructionist justices, he won’t tolerate threats to our country or our allies from demented third world tyrants, and he also has the most valuable trait a president can have: he fights for what he believes is best for the country no matter what the consequences will be for his career and legacy. He charged forward authoring and supporting two unpopular proposals WHILE RUNNING FOR THE NOMINATION: a troop surge in Iraq and comprehensive immigration reform. That’s political suicide. With all of the talk radio demagoguery, it’s no wonder many people will be holding their nose and voting for McCain. I on the other hand, will proudly pull the lever for the senator, confident that he is EXACTLY the man we need for our time.

  • Jonathan

    I look forward to a McCain presidency. He’s a proven tax and government cutter, he’s stubbornly pro-life, he will appoint strict constructionist justices, he won’t tolerate threats to our country or our allies from demented third world tyrants, and he also has the most valuable trait a president can have: he fights for what he believes is best for the country no matter what the consequences will be for his career and legacy. He charged forward authoring and supporting two unpopular proposals WHILE RUNNING FOR THE NOMINATION: a troop surge in Iraq and comprehensive immigration reform. That’s political suicide. With all of the talk radio demagoguery, it’s no wonder many people will be holding their nose and voting for McCain. I on the other hand, will proudly pull the lever for the senator, confident that he is EXACTLY the man we need for our time.

  • utahrainbow

    I thank God that our hope does not lie in earthly princes (or in this case, presidents).

    And I agree with Bart @ #12

  • utahrainbow

    I thank God that our hope does not lie in earthly princes (or in this case, presidents).

    And I agree with Bart @ #12

  • Chris

    Jonathan,

    You’re right, McCain is a government cutter. Why, McCain-Feingold was such a conservative move. And his alliance with the “gang of 14″, why another conservative move.

  • Chris

    Jonathan,

    You’re right, McCain is a government cutter. Why, McCain-Feingold was such a conservative move. And his alliance with the “gang of 14″, why another conservative move.

  • Another Kerner

    It looks like Carl Vehse at #3 and I will be shopping for bumper stickers and tee-shirts at the same place.

    It’s back up to the attic for me with my new tee-shirt, the Glock, the Bible and my Book of Concord.

  • Another Kerner

    It looks like Carl Vehse at #3 and I will be shopping for bumper stickers and tee-shirts at the same place.

    It’s back up to the attic for me with my new tee-shirt, the Glock, the Bible and my Book of Concord.

  • kerner

    1) Utahrainbow is spot on. We don’t put our confidence in earthly princes. Maybe that seems like an excuse for low expectations, but it’s the truth, and there it is.

    2) Jonithan is right, too. McCain could do a lot of good for this country, even if he will doubtless do some damage as well. A lot of how he turns out will depend on how he is treated by “conservatives”.

    As for the term “conservative”, I question whether that term has an agreed upon meaning anymore. It used to involve the unification of small government politics, free market economics, strong national defense, and “family” values. But these are sometimes disparate interests, and their proponents have fallen to fighting each other, rather than trying to balance them.

    Even Reagan sometimes wasn’t as perfectly conservative as we like to remember him. But, I DO think Reagan was the only presidential candidate who was closer to a pure “conservative” than McCain.

    For a good analysis of McCain from conservative punditry, try reading this:

    http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13294

  • kerner

    1) Utahrainbow is spot on. We don’t put our confidence in earthly princes. Maybe that seems like an excuse for low expectations, but it’s the truth, and there it is.

    2) Jonithan is right, too. McCain could do a lot of good for this country, even if he will doubtless do some damage as well. A lot of how he turns out will depend on how he is treated by “conservatives”.

    As for the term “conservative”, I question whether that term has an agreed upon meaning anymore. It used to involve the unification of small government politics, free market economics, strong national defense, and “family” values. But these are sometimes disparate interests, and their proponents have fallen to fighting each other, rather than trying to balance them.

    Even Reagan sometimes wasn’t as perfectly conservative as we like to remember him. But, I DO think Reagan was the only presidential candidate who was closer to a pure “conservative” than McCain.

    For a good analysis of McCain from conservative punditry, try reading this:

    http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13294

  • Texan

    I like McCain and hope he wins. Be thankful for the “Gang of 14.” If the Republicans would have changed the rules in the Senate to remove the option of a fillibuster (sp?) for judicial nominees, the so-called “nuclear option,” we would have a democrat congress with a possibly democrat president and no way for Repblicans to stop the loony judges surely to be nominated by Obama if he wins. I think it was a wise decision. Now, if the democrats try it, lets see if the media calls it the “nuclear option” or even notices.

  • Texan

    I like McCain and hope he wins. Be thankful for the “Gang of 14.” If the Republicans would have changed the rules in the Senate to remove the option of a fillibuster (sp?) for judicial nominees, the so-called “nuclear option,” we would have a democrat congress with a possibly democrat president and no way for Repblicans to stop the loony judges surely to be nominated by Obama if he wins. I think it was a wise decision. Now, if the democrats try it, lets see if the media calls it the “nuclear option” or even notices.

  • Don S

    Texan, I hope you’re right. Unfortunately, the media would howl if the Republicans ever tried to filibuster a democrat-nominated judge, and the Republicans would probably cave to the pressure, like they always do.

  • Don S

    Texan, I hope you’re right. Unfortunately, the media would howl if the Republicans ever tried to filibuster a democrat-nominated judge, and the Republicans would probably cave to the pressure, like they always do.

  • Jonathan

    Chris,

    McCain/Feingold is indeed stupid legislation. But seriously, how has it really affected political free speech or increased the size of government? If it were a real issue, McCain’s former opponents would have beat him into the dirt about it and we would be talking about Romney vs Obama instead.

    Senator McCain wants a one-year “pause” on discretionary spending growth on programs unrelated to military/veterans to re-evaluate their effectiveness. Broken programs will be eliminated. He’s not exactly a small government guy, but give him credit for cutting wasteful spending.

  • Jonathan

    Chris,

    McCain/Feingold is indeed stupid legislation. But seriously, how has it really affected political free speech or increased the size of government? If it were a real issue, McCain’s former opponents would have beat him into the dirt about it and we would be talking about Romney vs Obama instead.

    Senator McCain wants a one-year “pause” on discretionary spending growth on programs unrelated to military/veterans to re-evaluate their effectiveness. Broken programs will be eliminated. He’s not exactly a small government guy, but give him credit for cutting wasteful spending.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    I am becoming more and more weary of all talk of presidential everything. The president is just a one man governmental check on the judiciary and legislative branches of our government. He’s supposed to be the wisest we can find in our society, no? Too bad we only have one person who’s not a poser running in this election – and he is not very consistent on principle and reason either. I wonder when the voters and parties will find merit in a politician who says anything beyond empty sound-byte promises. Just weary of all trumpeting. Really.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    I am becoming more and more weary of all talk of presidential everything. The president is just a one man governmental check on the judiciary and legislative branches of our government. He’s supposed to be the wisest we can find in our society, no? Too bad we only have one person who’s not a poser running in this election – and he is not very consistent on principle and reason either. I wonder when the voters and parties will find merit in a politician who says anything beyond empty sound-byte promises. Just weary of all trumpeting. Really.

  • http://gpiper.org/katiesbeer TK

    I expect McCain to win because I do not believe that non-liberal Democrats (there are many) will vote for Obama. I do believe they will vote for McCain. My husband comes from a long line of conservative Democrats (the DFL party in Minnesota) and they won’t vote for Obama. They would have voted for Clinton.

  • http://gpiper.org/katiesbeer TK

    I expect McCain to win because I do not believe that non-liberal Democrats (there are many) will vote for Obama. I do believe they will vote for McCain. My husband comes from a long line of conservative Democrats (the DFL party in Minnesota) and they won’t vote for Obama. They would have voted for Clinton.

  • http://www.christianimagination.com Seth

    Actually, this will be the end of NEO-conservatism for the immediate future. Cheney was very much a neo-con, and Bush enacted a lot of their policies. I really hate the whole liberal/conservative dichotomy. I care about truth, and neither ‘side’ has it all. Obama is likable enough to smooth over a lot of the anti-Bush sentiment worldwide and has the potential to be a good leader, even without a strong foundation. McCain is more of a wildcard, always has been. He doesn’t care so much what people think of him, not sure if that’s a good or bad thing yet.

  • http://www.christianimagination.com Seth

    Actually, this will be the end of NEO-conservatism for the immediate future. Cheney was very much a neo-con, and Bush enacted a lot of their policies. I really hate the whole liberal/conservative dichotomy. I care about truth, and neither ‘side’ has it all. Obama is likable enough to smooth over a lot of the anti-Bush sentiment worldwide and has the potential to be a good leader, even without a strong foundation. McCain is more of a wildcard, always has been. He doesn’t care so much what people think of him, not sure if that’s a good or bad thing yet.

  • http://www.homesteadblogger.com/gonorthyoungpack Jenn W

    Sometimes I think it’s better not to get an opinion too early (for me) – I was leaning toward Fred Thompson early on and was disappointed that he never seemed to get going. Obama scares me. His associations scare me. I’ve always believed very strongly in the adage that “you can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps.” Of course, the Clintons are just as scary. I think that ultimately it is unavoidable, we will go socialist (we practically are now anyway). My Dh is in the military and I have to say that the military has been a socialist institution for quite some time some day I’m going to blog about what it is like to live on a military base as a civilian). We’re in the end times, of course, we’ve been in them for a long time and could be for a long time yet, but that means that practically speaking things don’t get better over the long term. I think McCain is going to win and I pray that he uses wisdom in his decisions. But eventually, we will get a president like Obama in there. Someone who will make FDR look like a true conservative. It’s coming, probably not this year, but it’s coming.
    So, I’m going back to my real vocations b/c in this one as thinker on politics I get depressed!
    In Christ
    Jenn in Vegas

  • http://www.homesteadblogger.com/gonorthyoungpack Jenn W

    Sometimes I think it’s better not to get an opinion too early (for me) – I was leaning toward Fred Thompson early on and was disappointed that he never seemed to get going. Obama scares me. His associations scare me. I’ve always believed very strongly in the adage that “you can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps.” Of course, the Clintons are just as scary. I think that ultimately it is unavoidable, we will go socialist (we practically are now anyway). My Dh is in the military and I have to say that the military has been a socialist institution for quite some time some day I’m going to blog about what it is like to live on a military base as a civilian). We’re in the end times, of course, we’ve been in them for a long time and could be for a long time yet, but that means that practically speaking things don’t get better over the long term. I think McCain is going to win and I pray that he uses wisdom in his decisions. But eventually, we will get a president like Obama in there. Someone who will make FDR look like a true conservative. It’s coming, probably not this year, but it’s coming.
    So, I’m going back to my real vocations b/c in this one as thinker on politics I get depressed!
    In Christ
    Jenn in Vegas

  • http://gpiper.org/katiesbeer TK

    Re: liberal/conservative dichotomy. I care about truth.

    Labels are conveniences, but they are often based on truth. The liberal/conservative set of labels is a time-tested one, though I hate what the term “conservative” has come to mean since the Reagan years. Still, most people (at least over a certain age) will definitely know what I mean when I use the terms.

  • http://gpiper.org/katiesbeer TK

    Re: liberal/conservative dichotomy. I care about truth.

    Labels are conveniences, but they are often based on truth. The liberal/conservative set of labels is a time-tested one, though I hate what the term “conservative” has come to mean since the Reagan years. Still, most people (at least over a certain age) will definitely know what I mean when I use the terms.

  • Kimett N Geist

    Wow! do you think we Christians may actually have to start acting like subjects of the right hand kingdom? Could it be possible that America is just another pagan nation that hates Christ? What if the Lord really does want us to pick up our cross and follow Him without the comforts of a “Christian Nation.” Is it remotely possible that we will have to suffer persecution for the name of Christ and enter heaven bloodied, instead of on flowery beds of ease? You be the judge.

  • Kimett N Geist

    Wow! do you think we Christians may actually have to start acting like subjects of the right hand kingdom? Could it be possible that America is just another pagan nation that hates Christ? What if the Lord really does want us to pick up our cross and follow Him without the comforts of a “Christian Nation.” Is it remotely possible that we will have to suffer persecution for the name of Christ and enter heaven bloodied, instead of on flowery beds of ease? You be the judge.

  • Don S

    Seth, Dick Cheney is very much NOT a neo-conservative. He is a lifelong conservative Republican. I don’t think you understand the definition of the term.

  • Don S

    Seth, Dick Cheney is very much NOT a neo-conservative. He is a lifelong conservative Republican. I don’t think you understand the definition of the term.

  • Joe

    I guess I have a new T-Shirt to order.

  • Joe

    I guess I have a new T-Shirt to order.

  • http://www.ligonier.org/blog Chris Larson

    For voracious readers of Dr. Veith, he comments on our national pluralistic identity here:

    http://www.ligonier.org/tabletalk/2008/6/1073_A_Good_Kind_of_Pluralism

  • http://www.ligonier.org/blog Chris Larson

    For voracious readers of Dr. Veith, he comments on our national pluralistic identity here:

    http://www.ligonier.org/tabletalk/2008/6/1073_A_Good_Kind_of_Pluralism

  • kerner

    Don S:

    This is what I’m talking about when I say we can’t even agree on what “a” conservative is. I am beginning to think that, among politicians at least, there is no such thing as “a” conservative. There ARE politicians with conservative principles, and there ARE politicians who SAY they have conservative principles (when they really have no principles of any kind).

    Look at the disagreements within “conservative” circles today. Many conservatives say, rightly, that it is not conservative to get involved in foreign entanglements, so we shouldn’t be involved in nation building. Others argue: It is conservative to be for a strong national defense. And it is in the interest of a strong national defense to go fight the enemy where he may be found and to destroy and rebuild the places that nurture the enemy in such a way that the enemy can no longer prosper there. So a good per centage of my children have gone (or will go in the future) to Iraq to do just that. I can see reasons why conservatives (real conservatives) would take either position.

    You get the same kind of divide over gay marriage. Many cultural conservatives want a national Constitutional Amendment banning it. Other conservatives, who are more interested in Federalism as a guiding Constitutional principle, would rather have the states make these decisions, even though some have (and more may in the future) make the wrong decision. Again, I can see why conservatives would favor either position.

    And this is why it iritates me when some conservatives start calling each other liberals. It even irritates me when conservatives attack McCain and call him a liberal, when he has stood up for a great many conservative causes through the years. This is not to say McCain hasn’t disappointed me (McCain’s environmentalist side leaps to mind). But McCain is WAY more conservative than George Bush ever was on small government and cutting spending. McCain’s market based health care plan is WAY WAY WAY more conservative than the dissaster Mitt Romney signed into law in November of 2006 (not only was it socialized medicine that would have made Hillary proud, it pays for abortions). “Conservatives” don’t give McCain the credit he deserves, and their pique will hand this country over to Obama if they don’t get over it.

  • kerner

    Don S:

    This is what I’m talking about when I say we can’t even agree on what “a” conservative is. I am beginning to think that, among politicians at least, there is no such thing as “a” conservative. There ARE politicians with conservative principles, and there ARE politicians who SAY they have conservative principles (when they really have no principles of any kind).

    Look at the disagreements within “conservative” circles today. Many conservatives say, rightly, that it is not conservative to get involved in foreign entanglements, so we shouldn’t be involved in nation building. Others argue: It is conservative to be for a strong national defense. And it is in the interest of a strong national defense to go fight the enemy where he may be found and to destroy and rebuild the places that nurture the enemy in such a way that the enemy can no longer prosper there. So a good per centage of my children have gone (or will go in the future) to Iraq to do just that. I can see reasons why conservatives (real conservatives) would take either position.

    You get the same kind of divide over gay marriage. Many cultural conservatives want a national Constitutional Amendment banning it. Other conservatives, who are more interested in Federalism as a guiding Constitutional principle, would rather have the states make these decisions, even though some have (and more may in the future) make the wrong decision. Again, I can see why conservatives would favor either position.

    And this is why it iritates me when some conservatives start calling each other liberals. It even irritates me when conservatives attack McCain and call him a liberal, when he has stood up for a great many conservative causes through the years. This is not to say McCain hasn’t disappointed me (McCain’s environmentalist side leaps to mind). But McCain is WAY more conservative than George Bush ever was on small government and cutting spending. McCain’s market based health care plan is WAY WAY WAY more conservative than the dissaster Mitt Romney signed into law in November of 2006 (not only was it socialized medicine that would have made Hillary proud, it pays for abortions). “Conservatives” don’t give McCain the credit he deserves, and their pique will hand this country over to Obama if they don’t get over it.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Don S (@27), the label “neocon” has broadened a bit in recent years (decades, even). It no longer refers to recent liberal converts to conservatism, but rather the ideas held by those once in that camp. As such, the label can appear somewhat ironic in the literal sense, as in the case of life-long Republicans like Cheney. But Cheney’s foreign policy ideas are very much in the neoconservative vein.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Don S (@27), the label “neocon” has broadened a bit in recent years (decades, even). It no longer refers to recent liberal converts to conservatism, but rather the ideas held by those once in that camp. As such, the label can appear somewhat ironic in the literal sense, as in the case of life-long Republicans like Cheney. But Cheney’s foreign policy ideas are very much in the neoconservative vein.

  • Jonathan

    It’s hard to fathom how the end of the Bush presidency can be termed the end of “conservative domination.” What was so conservative about Bush? His deceiving us into a pointless war with Saddam Hussein? As Christians, we need to stop our knee jerk support of anyone Republican. An Obama presidency will be refreshing and welcome change.

  • Jonathan

    It’s hard to fathom how the end of the Bush presidency can be termed the end of “conservative domination.” What was so conservative about Bush? His deceiving us into a pointless war with Saddam Hussein? As Christians, we need to stop our knee jerk support of anyone Republican. An Obama presidency will be refreshing and welcome change.

  • Don S

    Kerner,

    I think the diversity in the Conservative movement is because it is the movement of free thinkers and idealists. That’s why it bothers me when I hear the term “neocon” carelessly and pejoratively thrown around not only by liberals but by conservatives as well, when they really have no idea about the roots of conservatism and the various journeys people have taken to their conservative views. There is a history of the great conservative enlightenment which has been completely lost.

    Unfortunately, the richness and individualism of the Conservative movement is also its undoing politically. We conservatives are diverse, and we do not cotton to compromise. We prize idealism more than winning. On the other side, it’s about interest groups and bigger government. Since there is no idealism (or, really, ideas), they are willing to be incremental — to take what they can get now, and get more later. As a result, we Conservatives are losing the war by a thousand tiny cuts. Our victories are merely delaying actions, and the media makes it appear as if we are the radicals merely for defending traditional societal norms and morality, and the concept of freedom from an oppressively large and coercive centralized government.

    McCain is conservative in many ways. He prizes America as the greatest and most free country ever to exist, and as the great light of our age. He is an American hero. He hates earmarks, deficit spending, and other indicators of government greed and corruption. However, the primary thrust of his governance has not been conservative. McCain-Feingold turns the concept of Constitutional free speech on its ear, and is a regulatory nightmare. Cap and trade environmentalism is a horribly oppressive and stupid environmental tax, which is designed to be deceptive and inevitably leads to incredible corruption and injustice. McCain’s continual public rebuttal of conservative figures and ideals has damaged the movement, and over the years played into the opposition’s hands. However, I will still vote for him, for the alternatives are far, far worse.

  • Don S

    Kerner,

    I think the diversity in the Conservative movement is because it is the movement of free thinkers and idealists. That’s why it bothers me when I hear the term “neocon” carelessly and pejoratively thrown around not only by liberals but by conservatives as well, when they really have no idea about the roots of conservatism and the various journeys people have taken to their conservative views. There is a history of the great conservative enlightenment which has been completely lost.

    Unfortunately, the richness and individualism of the Conservative movement is also its undoing politically. We conservatives are diverse, and we do not cotton to compromise. We prize idealism more than winning. On the other side, it’s about interest groups and bigger government. Since there is no idealism (or, really, ideas), they are willing to be incremental — to take what they can get now, and get more later. As a result, we Conservatives are losing the war by a thousand tiny cuts. Our victories are merely delaying actions, and the media makes it appear as if we are the radicals merely for defending traditional societal norms and morality, and the concept of freedom from an oppressively large and coercive centralized government.

    McCain is conservative in many ways. He prizes America as the greatest and most free country ever to exist, and as the great light of our age. He is an American hero. He hates earmarks, deficit spending, and other indicators of government greed and corruption. However, the primary thrust of his governance has not been conservative. McCain-Feingold turns the concept of Constitutional free speech on its ear, and is a regulatory nightmare. Cap and trade environmentalism is a horribly oppressive and stupid environmental tax, which is designed to be deceptive and inevitably leads to incredible corruption and injustice. McCain’s continual public rebuttal of conservative figures and ideals has damaged the movement, and over the years played into the opposition’s hands. However, I will still vote for him, for the alternatives are far, far worse.

  • Don S

    tODD, just because people have carelessly misused the term “neocon” doesn’t make it correct. Neo-conservatives such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz were social and economic liberals who came to believe that a strong anti-communist national defense was vital to American interests, thus they came to be known as “new” conservatives. Their’s was a unique journey to a form of conservatism quite different than that of Dick Cheney who was (and is) a traditional “old” (perhaps “paleo”) conservative who always held traditional socially conservative views, but also believed in a strong national defense. He merely believes that it is in America’s best interests to fight the terrorists who so horribly attacked this country, on its native soil, on 9/11. Cheney’s ideas intersect with neo-con ideas in some areas, perhaps, but that hardly makes him the same as a “neo con”, except in the mind of a media which is quite ignorant to the nuances of conservative thought.

  • Don S

    tODD, just because people have carelessly misused the term “neocon” doesn’t make it correct. Neo-conservatives such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz were social and economic liberals who came to believe that a strong anti-communist national defense was vital to American interests, thus they came to be known as “new” conservatives. Their’s was a unique journey to a form of conservatism quite different than that of Dick Cheney who was (and is) a traditional “old” (perhaps “paleo”) conservative who always held traditional socially conservative views, but also believed in a strong national defense. He merely believes that it is in America’s best interests to fight the terrorists who so horribly attacked this country, on its native soil, on 9/11. Cheney’s ideas intersect with neo-con ideas in some areas, perhaps, but that hardly makes him the same as a “neo con”, except in the mind of a media which is quite ignorant to the nuances of conservative thought.

  • Don S

    Jonathan,

    I agree with you that those labeling Bush as conservative were wrong on most counts. I suspect, however, that you stopped your “kneejerk” support of Republicans a very long time ago. And yes, of course, it will be refreshing and welcome to listen to those marvelous “Christian” advisers of Saint Barack, Brothers Jeremiah and Michael, as they so lovingly speak the word of the Lord in that colorblind way they have.

  • Don S

    Jonathan,

    I agree with you that those labeling Bush as conservative were wrong on most counts. I suspect, however, that you stopped your “kneejerk” support of Republicans a very long time ago. And yes, of course, it will be refreshing and welcome to listen to those marvelous “Christian” advisers of Saint Barack, Brothers Jeremiah and Michael, as they so lovingly speak the word of the Lord in that colorblind way they have.

  • kerner

    “McCain’s continual rebuttal of conservative figures and ideals has damaged the movement” Don S @ 33

    I suggest that the reaction of conservatives to McCain has had a lot more to do with the McCains rebuttal of conservative figures than it has to do with a rebuttal of conservative ideals. And those conservative figures have taken it personally. This has a lot to do with the way conservative politics has been practiced in the last couple of decades.

    The recent strategy for conservatives has not been to convert the unconverted, but rather to “energize the base”. What that has meant in practice is for conservative politicians and media outlets to try to get us conservative listeners all excited and emotional about supposed conservative hot button issues. This strategy has been has been successful for the last two presidential elections, but failed in the last congressional election. Why?

    I believe it failed for a number of reasons, but the foremost reason was that a lot of “conservative” politicians were corrupt under their lip service to conservative rhetoric. In the last couple of years we have been treated to a series of sexual scandals and corruption indictments in which “conservative” politicians have been discovered to be anything but conservative in reality. And even many of those so called conservative politicians who have done nothing illegal nor perverted (that we know of) have been perfectly willing to become so corrupted by their power and money that they vote in droves for bloated government programs like the farm bill.

    Another reason is that some of these so called “conservative” hot button issues that are supposed to energize the base are not really conservative, or they are not fundamental to conservatism. A good example of this is the prison at Guantanamo Bay and “aggressive interrogation techniques”. I, frankly, do not see anything conservative in encouraging the federal government to torture prisoners, and I don’t think our national security depends on having an off shore prison where the government can do anything it wants without worrying about the Constitution. Yet there are many in talk radio who sound like they believe that the republic will fall tomorrow if we don’t continue doing exactly what we are doing (whatever that is) in Guantanamo and places like it.

    What has irritated conservatives about McCain, is he has interfered with the strategy. He publicly points out that “conservatives” have been corrupted by money and that some of the “energizing” issues are a lot of bunk; the equivalent of setting off a stink bomb at a pep ralley. And he has made the pep committee really angry.

    The thing is, conservatism HAS been corrupted, and some of the issues that the conservative movement has chosen to energize the base ARE bunk (and not really conservative). Conservatives NEEDED some rebuttal. I grant you that some of McCain’s rebuttals have been every bit as bad as the problems he was fighting (eg. McCain-Finefold as a means of fighting corruption), but that does not change the fact that there were, and still are, problems in the conservative movement that McCain has been right about.

  • kerner

    “McCain’s continual rebuttal of conservative figures and ideals has damaged the movement” Don S @ 33

    I suggest that the reaction of conservatives to McCain has had a lot more to do with the McCains rebuttal of conservative figures than it has to do with a rebuttal of conservative ideals. And those conservative figures have taken it personally. This has a lot to do with the way conservative politics has been practiced in the last couple of decades.

    The recent strategy for conservatives has not been to convert the unconverted, but rather to “energize the base”. What that has meant in practice is for conservative politicians and media outlets to try to get us conservative listeners all excited and emotional about supposed conservative hot button issues. This strategy has been has been successful for the last two presidential elections, but failed in the last congressional election. Why?

    I believe it failed for a number of reasons, but the foremost reason was that a lot of “conservative” politicians were corrupt under their lip service to conservative rhetoric. In the last couple of years we have been treated to a series of sexual scandals and corruption indictments in which “conservative” politicians have been discovered to be anything but conservative in reality. And even many of those so called conservative politicians who have done nothing illegal nor perverted (that we know of) have been perfectly willing to become so corrupted by their power and money that they vote in droves for bloated government programs like the farm bill.

    Another reason is that some of these so called “conservative” hot button issues that are supposed to energize the base are not really conservative, or they are not fundamental to conservatism. A good example of this is the prison at Guantanamo Bay and “aggressive interrogation techniques”. I, frankly, do not see anything conservative in encouraging the federal government to torture prisoners, and I don’t think our national security depends on having an off shore prison where the government can do anything it wants without worrying about the Constitution. Yet there are many in talk radio who sound like they believe that the republic will fall tomorrow if we don’t continue doing exactly what we are doing (whatever that is) in Guantanamo and places like it.

    What has irritated conservatives about McCain, is he has interfered with the strategy. He publicly points out that “conservatives” have been corrupted by money and that some of the “energizing” issues are a lot of bunk; the equivalent of setting off a stink bomb at a pep ralley. And he has made the pep committee really angry.

    The thing is, conservatism HAS been corrupted, and some of the issues that the conservative movement has chosen to energize the base ARE bunk (and not really conservative). Conservatives NEEDED some rebuttal. I grant you that some of McCain’s rebuttals have been every bit as bad as the problems he was fighting (eg. McCain-Finefold as a means of fighting corruption), but that does not change the fact that there were, and still are, problems in the conservative movement that McCain has been right about.

  • Jonathan

    Don S -
    Don’t be too quick to assume. Since ’76 I have voted GOP except in ’92, when I gagged at the choices of Bush 1 and Clinton and voted for Perot. All I’m saying is let’s stop acting as if a vote for someone other than the Republican candidate is grounds for expulsion from the church. Let’s remember that Bush’s war has destroyed the ancient Christian community in Iraq, with nary of peep of protest from American believers. Obama’s pastors are atrocious, to be sure, but what about the racial policies of Bob Jones University and the carnival of religious charlatans on the right?

  • Jonathan

    Don S -
    Don’t be too quick to assume. Since ’76 I have voted GOP except in ’92, when I gagged at the choices of Bush 1 and Clinton and voted for Perot. All I’m saying is let’s stop acting as if a vote for someone other than the Republican candidate is grounds for expulsion from the church. Let’s remember that Bush’s war has destroyed the ancient Christian community in Iraq, with nary of peep of protest from American believers. Obama’s pastors are atrocious, to be sure, but what about the racial policies of Bob Jones University and the carnival of religious charlatans on the right?

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Don S, Pfleger was a pastor or “adviser” of Obama’s (@35)?

    Cheney believes the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were in Iraq (@34)?

    Finally, you seem to think that the only legitimate use of prefixes “neo-” and “paleo-” with regard to the root “conservative” is in describing the length of time one has been a conservative. Frankly, I don’t see many people agreeing with you on that. Most of these words have picked up ideological connotations.

    Besides, though it may be charmingly consistent for you as a conservative to deny it, language changes, and with it the meanings of various words. Look up the first definition of the adjective “moot” in most dictionaries, and I think you’ll find a definition that almost nobody means when they use the word (e.g. a “moot point” — at least in the U.S.). If you choose to debate the point, please reply in Anglo-Saxon.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Don S, Pfleger was a pastor or “adviser” of Obama’s (@35)?

    Cheney believes the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were in Iraq (@34)?

    Finally, you seem to think that the only legitimate use of prefixes “neo-” and “paleo-” with regard to the root “conservative” is in describing the length of time one has been a conservative. Frankly, I don’t see many people agreeing with you on that. Most of these words have picked up ideological connotations.

    Besides, though it may be charmingly consistent for you as a conservative to deny it, language changes, and with it the meanings of various words. Look up the first definition of the adjective “moot” in most dictionaries, and I think you’ll find a definition that almost nobody means when they use the word (e.g. a “moot point” — at least in the U.S.). If you choose to debate the point, please reply in Anglo-Saxon.

  • Don S

    Kerner,

    I appreciate your very thoughtful response. I think you have great insight on the issue of rebuttal of “figures”, rather than “ideals”. There is much truth to that, and much of the rebuttal is deserved. You are correct that the focus of the Republican party has been to “energize the base” by hitting on so-called “hot button” issues at election time, and then, rather than converting folks to the superiority of conservatism, instead try to placate or scare enough independent moderates into voting Republican to carry the election. I would distinguish the Republican party from conservatives on this, however. The conservative movement remains vibrant and intellectually engaged in trying to convert people to conservatism outside of the Republican party (think groups like the Heritage Foundation, National Review, and the great many conservative commentators on the Internet are more vibrant than ever, in my opinion). The difference is that the Republican party has lost its moorings, and has become Democrats Lite.

    Still, however, I cited two specific, significant instances in my last post regarding McCain’s non-conservative instincts in certain areas. Specifically, campaign finance reform, where he has taken an extremely anti-1st Amendment position, and the current global warming craziness, where he has bought into the idea of command and control of the economy using top-down government regulation and the installation of a cap and trade scheme which is sure to increase corruption and “politics as usual” 100-fold. I would be much more amenable to the idea of a straight carbon tax, offset by reductions in other taxes, than I am to this “hide the tax” approach which is an attempt to buy the cooperation of corporate players who stand to get rich trading credits. It makes me sick. And he still has been far too much of a media suck-up to suit me. He has thrown many a conservative idea under the bus to gain media attention, and has, in that respect, helped to hasten the waning of some of the conservative fire on the Hill over the years.

    I respectfully disagree with you regarding Guantanimo. There are some bad guys locked up in that place whom I don’t want on continental U.S. soil. The rules are different in times of war, and the taking of prisoners of war for the duration is a long-accepted practice. These POW’s are not entitled to our Constitutional rights, though the courts have granted the Guantanimo prisoners plenty of their own.

  • Don S

    Kerner,

    I appreciate your very thoughtful response. I think you have great insight on the issue of rebuttal of “figures”, rather than “ideals”. There is much truth to that, and much of the rebuttal is deserved. You are correct that the focus of the Republican party has been to “energize the base” by hitting on so-called “hot button” issues at election time, and then, rather than converting folks to the superiority of conservatism, instead try to placate or scare enough independent moderates into voting Republican to carry the election. I would distinguish the Republican party from conservatives on this, however. The conservative movement remains vibrant and intellectually engaged in trying to convert people to conservatism outside of the Republican party (think groups like the Heritage Foundation, National Review, and the great many conservative commentators on the Internet are more vibrant than ever, in my opinion). The difference is that the Republican party has lost its moorings, and has become Democrats Lite.

    Still, however, I cited two specific, significant instances in my last post regarding McCain’s non-conservative instincts in certain areas. Specifically, campaign finance reform, where he has taken an extremely anti-1st Amendment position, and the current global warming craziness, where he has bought into the idea of command and control of the economy using top-down government regulation and the installation of a cap and trade scheme which is sure to increase corruption and “politics as usual” 100-fold. I would be much more amenable to the idea of a straight carbon tax, offset by reductions in other taxes, than I am to this “hide the tax” approach which is an attempt to buy the cooperation of corporate players who stand to get rich trading credits. It makes me sick. And he still has been far too much of a media suck-up to suit me. He has thrown many a conservative idea under the bus to gain media attention, and has, in that respect, helped to hasten the waning of some of the conservative fire on the Hill over the years.

    I respectfully disagree with you regarding Guantanimo. There are some bad guys locked up in that place whom I don’t want on continental U.S. soil. The rules are different in times of war, and the taking of prisoners of war for the duration is a long-accepted practice. These POW’s are not entitled to our Constitutional rights, though the courts have granted the Guantanimo prisoners plenty of their own.

  • Don S

    Jonathan @ #37 — so how did that Perot vote work out for you? Got us 8 years of the Clintons and another 2 year circus which still isn’t over, not to mention 8 years and counting of Hillary in the Senate. Thanks a lot.

    Seriously, no one on this site that I know of has suggested that voting non-Republican is reason for expulsion from the church. But, in general, you will have to agree that conservatives are much more amenable to Christians freely practicing their faith than liberals are. Thanks to liberals, Christians find it very hard to pray in public, tell others about Christ, keep their children from being exposed to blasphemous and immoral ideas in our public schools and universities, and operate their business in accordance with their Christian convictions (Catholic hospitals have to perform abortions, Christian pharmacists have to prescribe RU-486, Christian landlords have to rent to unmarried and gay couples, etc.).

    How has “Bush’s War” destroyed the ancient Iraqi Christian community? Are you saying it was vibrant under Saddam Hussein’s regime? What does BJU and that “carnival of Christian characters on the right” have to do with anything? First of all, your information on BJU is about a half-century out of date. Secondly, none of those “characters” are pastors or spiritual advisors to a Presidential candidate. There are plenty of “characters” on both sides of the Christian faith (how about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?) — so what?

  • Don S

    Jonathan @ #37 — so how did that Perot vote work out for you? Got us 8 years of the Clintons and another 2 year circus which still isn’t over, not to mention 8 years and counting of Hillary in the Senate. Thanks a lot.

    Seriously, no one on this site that I know of has suggested that voting non-Republican is reason for expulsion from the church. But, in general, you will have to agree that conservatives are much more amenable to Christians freely practicing their faith than liberals are. Thanks to liberals, Christians find it very hard to pray in public, tell others about Christ, keep their children from being exposed to blasphemous and immoral ideas in our public schools and universities, and operate their business in accordance with their Christian convictions (Catholic hospitals have to perform abortions, Christian pharmacists have to prescribe RU-486, Christian landlords have to rent to unmarried and gay couples, etc.).

    How has “Bush’s War” destroyed the ancient Iraqi Christian community? Are you saying it was vibrant under Saddam Hussein’s regime? What does BJU and that “carnival of Christian characters on the right” have to do with anything? First of all, your information on BJU is about a half-century out of date. Secondly, none of those “characters” are pastors or spiritual advisors to a Presidential candidate. There are plenty of “characters” on both sides of the Christian faith (how about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?) — so what?

  • Don S

    tODD:

    1. Yes. Google it. Obama proudly proclaimed Pfleger to be a close friend and spiritual advisor.

    1. They are. The concern at the time, which 85% of the public and virtually all of Congress agreed with, was that Saddam had WMD and was enabling or would enable terrorists. For the purposes of this response, it is not important whether that perception was right or wrong. It was clearly the motivation to go into Iraq.

    3. Language and meanings may change. However, in this case I am going to fight it because it is stupid and it reflects a lack of understanding of the history of those terms. Attaching “neocon” to Dick Cheney makes no sense, and is something done by liberals and the media as a shorthand pejorative label. I don’t have to accept that butchery of the language. The problem with this country is that no one cares about history anymore, which is why we keep repeating the same mistakes.

  • Don S

    tODD:

    1. Yes. Google it. Obama proudly proclaimed Pfleger to be a close friend and spiritual advisor.

    1. They are. The concern at the time, which 85% of the public and virtually all of Congress agreed with, was that Saddam had WMD and was enabling or would enable terrorists. For the purposes of this response, it is not important whether that perception was right or wrong. It was clearly the motivation to go into Iraq.

    3. Language and meanings may change. However, in this case I am going to fight it because it is stupid and it reflects a lack of understanding of the history of those terms. Attaching “neocon” to Dick Cheney makes no sense, and is something done by liberals and the media as a shorthand pejorative label. I don’t have to accept that butchery of the language. The problem with this country is that no one cares about history anymore, which is why we keep repeating the same mistakes.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don S (@39), I never would have thought I’d see the day when a self-described conservative railed against a market-based approach to a problem and favored a tax. Go figure.

    As for your other post (@41), (1) I have googled it. I found exactly one source: an April 5, 2004 Chicago Sun-Times article by Cathleen Falsani titled “Obama: I have a deep faith”. It hardly bears up your claim that “Obama proudly proclaimed Pfleger to be a close friend and spiritual advisor.”

    Here’s the relevant quote:

    [Obama said,] “The biggest challenge, I think, is always maintaining your moral compass.”

    Friends and advisers, such as the Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church in the Auburn-Gresham community on the South Side, who has known Obama for the better part of 20 years, help him keep that compass set, he says.

    You’ll notice that there’s no actual quote from Obama about Pfleger, much less a proud proclamation. Did the journalist get it right? Well, now’s no time to doubt the media’s accuracy, right? :)

    (2) You’re dancing around the issue here. You said (@34), that Cheney “merely believes that it is in America’s best interests to fight the terrorists who so horribly attacked this country, on its native soil, on 9/11.” But, frankly, our government has not done such a good job of doing that. Instead, they spent most of their efforts in Iraq. Bin Laden is, you know, not much of a priority anymore. And conflating “Al Qaeda in Iraq” (AQI) with Al Qaeda is rather simplistic. They are not the same, and the Iraq group had nothing to do with 9/11. And, of course, the reason AQI is in Iraq is because of the war. WMDs or what 85% of the public or Congress thought is completely orthogonal to a discussion of Cheney and the terrorists behind 9/11.

    (3) Feel free to be attached to your rigidly prescribed definitions of words, but I suspect this will mainly lead to your frustration, and not actually affect the usage of such words. And this has nothing to do with caring about history (arguably, the person who argues that words’ meanings shouldn’t change is the one who has ignored history, though I wouldn’t press the point).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don S (@39), I never would have thought I’d see the day when a self-described conservative railed against a market-based approach to a problem and favored a tax. Go figure.

    As for your other post (@41), (1) I have googled it. I found exactly one source: an April 5, 2004 Chicago Sun-Times article by Cathleen Falsani titled “Obama: I have a deep faith”. It hardly bears up your claim that “Obama proudly proclaimed Pfleger to be a close friend and spiritual advisor.”

    Here’s the relevant quote:

    [Obama said,] “The biggest challenge, I think, is always maintaining your moral compass.”

    Friends and advisers, such as the Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church in the Auburn-Gresham community on the South Side, who has known Obama for the better part of 20 years, help him keep that compass set, he says.

    You’ll notice that there’s no actual quote from Obama about Pfleger, much less a proud proclamation. Did the journalist get it right? Well, now’s no time to doubt the media’s accuracy, right? :)

    (2) You’re dancing around the issue here. You said (@34), that Cheney “merely believes that it is in America’s best interests to fight the terrorists who so horribly attacked this country, on its native soil, on 9/11.” But, frankly, our government has not done such a good job of doing that. Instead, they spent most of their efforts in Iraq. Bin Laden is, you know, not much of a priority anymore. And conflating “Al Qaeda in Iraq” (AQI) with Al Qaeda is rather simplistic. They are not the same, and the Iraq group had nothing to do with 9/11. And, of course, the reason AQI is in Iraq is because of the war. WMDs or what 85% of the public or Congress thought is completely orthogonal to a discussion of Cheney and the terrorists behind 9/11.

    (3) Feel free to be attached to your rigidly prescribed definitions of words, but I suspect this will mainly lead to your frustration, and not actually affect the usage of such words. And this has nothing to do with caring about history (arguably, the person who argues that words’ meanings shouldn’t change is the one who has ignored history, though I wouldn’t press the point).

  • Don S

    tODD,

    I didn’t argue that words’ meanings should never change. I argued that the term “neocons” has been perverted by those with less than honorable intent, for pejorative and confusing purposes. You have not disputed my contention on its face, or argued that Cheney is properly labeled a neocon. Rather, you are merely arguing that because many people have misused the term, it’s OK. Many people also argue that we are descended from primordial ooze. I respectfully disagree with that revisionist history as well.

    Cap & trade is not a market-based approach. It is the government creating an artificial shortage of something, distributing or selling ration cards for that something to favored parties, then permitting those parties to sell excess ration cards to other parties. It is rife with the opportunity for cronyism and corruption, and functions as a hidden tax on the unwitting public, because the costs of the increasingly limited ration cards will be passed through to the public in the prices of countless goods and services. It is a sham, and Europe is proving that right now. All I am saying is that, if you are going to impose a tax, be forthright and proud about it. Impose it right up front and tell the people why their $6.50 per gallon gas will be so much better for them than their $4.50 per gallon gas. The carbon tax will also more immediately deter carbon-producing behavior because people will more readily link their behavior with increased cost. Of course, unless the real purpose of environmentalism is to increase revenues to government, the carbon tax should be fully offset by cuts to other taxes. Wouldn’t you agree?

    By the way, I also support everyone paying their taxes quarterly, rather than through withholding. People should have to write that big check to Uncle Sam and realize how much they are paying to their benefactor for the privilege of living in this country. Full disclosure is my motto.

  • Don S

    tODD,

    I didn’t argue that words’ meanings should never change. I argued that the term “neocons” has been perverted by those with less than honorable intent, for pejorative and confusing purposes. You have not disputed my contention on its face, or argued that Cheney is properly labeled a neocon. Rather, you are merely arguing that because many people have misused the term, it’s OK. Many people also argue that we are descended from primordial ooze. I respectfully disagree with that revisionist history as well.

    Cap & trade is not a market-based approach. It is the government creating an artificial shortage of something, distributing or selling ration cards for that something to favored parties, then permitting those parties to sell excess ration cards to other parties. It is rife with the opportunity for cronyism and corruption, and functions as a hidden tax on the unwitting public, because the costs of the increasingly limited ration cards will be passed through to the public in the prices of countless goods and services. It is a sham, and Europe is proving that right now. All I am saying is that, if you are going to impose a tax, be forthright and proud about it. Impose it right up front and tell the people why their $6.50 per gallon gas will be so much better for them than their $4.50 per gallon gas. The carbon tax will also more immediately deter carbon-producing behavior because people will more readily link their behavior with increased cost. Of course, unless the real purpose of environmentalism is to increase revenues to government, the carbon tax should be fully offset by cuts to other taxes. Wouldn’t you agree?

    By the way, I also support everyone paying their taxes quarterly, rather than through withholding. People should have to write that big check to Uncle Sam and realize how much they are paying to their benefactor for the privilege of living in this country. Full disclosure is my motto.

  • http://reformationfaithtoday.com/ Les Prouty

    I think McCain will win. But either way there will be much gridlock. The Dems are poised to gain in the House and Senate, so if McCain wins he will have a very difficult four years. If Obama wins he will too, as the Congress will not go along with all his extreme liberal ideas. They will already looking to move center. Also, if Obama wins look for setbacks in the judicial system re life rights.

  • http://reformationfaithtoday.com/ Les Prouty

    I think McCain will win. But either way there will be much gridlock. The Dems are poised to gain in the House and Senate, so if McCain wins he will have a very difficult four years. If Obama wins he will too, as the Congress will not go along with all his extreme liberal ideas. They will already looking to move center. Also, if Obama wins look for setbacks in the judicial system re life rights.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X