conservatism
17 December 2007 - 11:37pm
Dodd is not my dude, but today he's The Dude
Via O'Reilly Radar:
"After nearly a full day spent on the Senate floor, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) defeated an attempt to pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reform legislation that would grant immunity to telecommunications companies who cooperated with the Bush administration’s secret wiretapping program. Dodd objected to the motion to proceed to the bill early this morning and remained on the floor for almost ten hours, taking a stand for the rule of law and the Constitution with his statements throughout the day. At approximately 7:30 P.M. Majority Leader Reid announced the FISA reform bill would be pulled from the Senate calendar and reconsidered in January."Coverage: Wired News, The EFF, AP, New York Times.
Compare that with Republicans like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, who seem to want to make America in the image of Stalinist Russia.
No wonder Ron Paul is turning heads in wingnut-oz. And elsewheres. (Analysis.)
23 October 2007 - 9:10pm
Ron Paul not red enough for Red State, but the Captain urges humoring "libertarian-leaning Republicans"
The party of Barry Goldwater is dead.
Via Captain's Quarters:
It's their community, of course, and they set the rules. However, this doesn't hurt Paul's credibility as much as it does Redstate's. While Paul's supporters tend towards the annoying and repetitive, they have less impact because we can easily engage them and counter their arguments. Banning them simply for their support for a candidate seems more like an admission that Redstate lacks that ability.
I'm no Paul supporter by any means. However, Paul's statements can be addressed and rebutted fairly easily, at least those with which I strongly disagree. I don't fear the commenters nor the debate, even if it does grow tiresome at times. It certainly can't be any more tiresome than the S-CHIP debate, or the Iraq War debate, or the FISA debate -- and I'd have less sympathy for opponents on those issues than the people who support Ron Paul.
Having been to the CLC, I disagree with Leon's assumption that these Paul supporters are all or mostly cryptoliberals. Plenty of libertarian-leaning Republicans exist in the party, along with the former Buchananites and isolationists of the GOP. Instead of cutting these people off, it might be better for Redstate to keep engaging them.
Yes, the small-government advocates should be tolerated in the party of neo-fascism. Dismiss their arguments for fiscal responsibility.
Even though Ron Paul is a social conservative, as ready to invite Big Brother into the livingrooms and bedrooms of Americans as any gold-star Republican, his name is mud in mainstream Republican circles.
Why?
Maybe follow the money. This is the new face of conservatism.
(P.S. - I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, either. Far be it! But compared to all the other Republican candidates, he's a fucking saint!)
15 October 2007 - 10:41am
New giant dinosaur discovered in Argentina
Brazilian and Argentine paleontologists have discovered the largely complete fossil of a new species of giant dinosaur which roamed what is now northern Patagonia about 80 million years ago.
This is bad news for Republicans, because, as we all know, dinosaurs are godless liberals for having existed outside of the Dominionist-approved interpretations of the scriptures.
Too bad this comes too late for Tim Russert find another opportunity to assert his pointlessness and ask the Democratic presidential candidates what their favorite dinosaur is?
12 October 2007 - 7:39am
If it weren't Al Gore pushing awareness of global warming
...do you think the nutroots would stop plugging their ears and shouting "nah nah nah nah nah nah nah"?
Oh, probably not. It's that godless science that's the problem, right?
16 August 2007 - 6:28pm
Qua? Conservative support of civil liberties?
Credit where credit is due: Captain's Quarters rightly (heh) comes out against yet more government power eroding Constitutional rights:
While some conservatives undoubtedly would argue that they see nothing wrong with giving law-enforcement agencies access to existing technology, others will rightly object on two grounds. First, the obvious application for the sneak-peek technology would be to avoid search warrants. If probable cause existed for a warrant, law enforcement wouldn't need the satellite technology; they'd simply enter. That's the way it's supposed to work, and has worked well for over 200 years. Civil liberty is based in part on judicial oversight of law enforcement encroachment on private property, which the sneak-peek technology would obliterate.
Second and perhaps more importantly, American legal tradition has separated military and foreign-intel collection from domestic law enforcement, and for good reasons. The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the military (except the Coast Guard, for certain purposes) from acting in a law-enforcement role, except under emergencies specifically requiring martial law. This law keeps the federal government from usurping power from local and state authorities. Since these satellites were launched with strictly military and foreign-intel missions in mind, using them as tools for law enforcement may not entirely cross the PCA, but it gets too close for comfort.
Unless the use of the satellites is strictly limited to national-security applications, such as a counterterrorist operation or immigration enforcement (both of which are legitimate national-security concerns under federal jurisdiction), satellites should not be used as law-enforcement tools. We did not put those military assets in orbit to be deployed against the people of the United States.
If real conservatism -- not the faux conservatism practiced by neocons and holy rollers -- makes a return, there might be hope for our political system. So far, Democrats seem to be rather unwilling to challenge the neo-fascistic growth of executive power and corporate collaboration defiantly embraced by the Bush Administration.
I ask conservatives: Do you relish the thought of a President Hillary Clinton or President Barack Obama or President John Edwards having the same kind of extra-Constitutional powers Bush is exercising?
Really, folks.
(Personally I am much less worried about the Democrats with that kind of power, but this is still power that is unprecedented and not sanctioned by the Constitution that has helped America flourish for over 200 years. Where's the "strict constructionism" when it comes to presidential authority?)
More on this theme soon.
store
Buy stuff here.













