Re: Time For A Chat

1

I think that's right, Ogged; and, if I may say so, it's one reason that blogs with a diverse membership and distinct diversities of opinion are a positive good.


Posted by: Ralph Luker | Link to this comment | 03-29-05 3:47 AM
horizontal rule
2

I'm definitely glad they're starting to talk the talk. And I'll rein in my innate skepticism for now about whether this will lead to any actual walking the walk.


Posted by: Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03-29-05 5:19 AM
horizontal rule
3

Spare me. Now that the Vichy Republicans finally understand that they are, once again, going to be judged on the wrong side of history ("Oh, I was against segregation, but 'states rights,' ya' know"), they're building themselves a reputation shelter. The moment to reconsider was prior to the "accountability moment" that every Democrat they knew (and the rest of the world) begged them to treat as such. It's not like, Graham aside, "Southern" + "Republican" = "the gaping maw of evil" was some unknown quantity, waiting to be discovered. This is just the early construction of some rhetorical dodge to be deployed down the line, when they feel obliged to explain to their children why they voted for a man who claimed the right to throw citizens in jail without a hearing or counsel. Or a Trojan horse to introduce some fresh assault on what used to be the standard idea of America.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-29-05 6:31 AM
horizontal rule
4

I'd like to take some hopeful note from this, but I'm pretty skeptical. For most of these guys, their primary allegiance isn't to any particular set of ideals; they've shown they'll abandon conservative principles in a skinny minute if those principles conflict with political advantage. It's the polling that has them spooked on this one, not the nature of their religious wacko allies.

Most of the right-wing blog authors just don't like "leftist hippies" or some such imaginary characterization of the Democratic Party. Their justification for this antipathy is usually as deeply considered as "Dook sucks!" Nothing but tribalism. Throw up another Ward Churchill-flavored strawman and they'll all lock arms and sing Kumba Yah again.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-29-05 7:19 AM
horizontal rule
5

Heaven knows I simply love to mock the Libertarians, but I do share some common ground with them. We both do NOT want the government pounding on the door when we or family are dieing.

So my little effort to expand the wedge is to ask the Libertarians if they like what the government just did.


Posted by: Tripp | Link to this comment | 03-29-05 7:44 AM
horizontal rule
6

Um, first link mentions Bill Quick, but the link is to an Instapundit entry that never mention Quick. The second says it's about Quick, but goes to Insta, which only mentions Quick in passing. This is slightly odd.

"...and, if I may say so, it's one reason that blogs with a diverse membership and distinct diversities of opinion are a positive good."

And thus I try to post with all the voices inside my head.

Okay, not all, but diverse ones.


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 03-29-05 7:47 AM
horizontal rule
7

I hear you on the skepticism, but like Rabin said (uh, before they shot him), you make peace with your enemies, not with your friends. I don't think we should all forgive and forget; but if people are willing to hear things they weren't able to hear before, then it's worth a shot.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 03-29-05 7:54 AM
horizontal rule
8

I'd like to take some hopeful note from this, but I'm pretty skeptical. For most of these guys, their primary allegiance isn't to any particular set of ideals; they've shown they'll abandon conservative principles in a skinny minute if those principles conflict with political advantage. It's the polling that has them spooked on this one, not the nature of their religious wacko allies.

This. Or, as I can see how the above might be taken as an insulting accusation of being unprincipled (well, it is such an accusation) which I don't want to fully endorse, let me rework it. When talking to libertarian-style Republicans, the kind we're talking about here with sensible positions on a reasonable number of issues, I have a tendency to be unable to figure out why they aren't Democrats -- the positions actually advocated by the Democratic party seem much closer to the positions l-s Reps say they hold than the positions of the actual Republican party. Their distaste for/opposition to the the Democratic party, puzzling though I find it, is generally strong enough to overcome a lot of substantive disagreement with the Republicans. So, while I welcome any l-s Republicans who want to come over to our side, I don't think that another event in which they disagree strongly with the Rep. Party is really likely to bring them over. I'd love to be wrong about this.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-29-05 8:11 AM
horizontal rule
9

One issue that might shed light on the genuine-ness of the return to small government conservatism is the upcoming battle to allow some Patriot Act provisions to sunset. A coalition of right-wingers and the ACLU called Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances looks to be a formidable obstacle to the 'just say yes to what Bush wants' crowd.


Posted by: Nell Lancaster | Link to this comment | 03-29-05 9:11 AM
horizontal rule
10

"...but like Rabin said (uh, before they shot him)"

He was much more articulate in those days.


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 03-29-05 11:41 AM
horizontal rule