Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojkt
I’ve noted elsewhere that lots of people don’t think Newt Gingrich has a prayer of becoming president, not even the Republican nominee.
Lee Stranahan thinks Newt Gingrich is inevitably our next president. Well, that makes two people (Newt, and now Lee). I still remain very dubious.
From back when the Gingrich campaign was imploding, The 11 Craziest Things Newt Gingrich has Ever Said.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
I think NLG will likely be the nominee and could [maybe] win the presidency. I'd bet on BHO, even money. I would not give odds.I think NLG would be better/less clueless on FP than the others, except for Huntsman.Here I will add that every POTUS has a FP learning curve his first year in office. Not nearly as steep for Bush 41 after CIA and the Vice Presidency as it was for WJC after being Gov. of AR or Bush 43 after being Gov. of TX.Maybe the Rs could run Robert Gates as the surprise nominee after the brokered convention in which case I would vote R.I think NLG is mercurial, which is also to say that I think he wouldn't get much done as POTUS. I would worry about the neocons around him forcing us into bad situations with Iran, bad enough to lead them to close the Straits. And, yes, I give him demerits for his marital infidelities.
LikeLike
Unflappability in one interview does not a president make.
LikeLike
All I can say is I'm not looking forward to another Presidential campaign. I'm always voting for the lesser of two evils, although I admit 2008 was the first election I didn't feel that way. I'm waiting to see which local elections will be interesting. I wish Feinstein would retire.
LikeLike
I am reminded that Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House for four years before the Republicans decided they'd had enough of him. Why would R's back someone they've booted out before?
LikeLike
The possibility of Newt Gingrich being the Republican nominee is one of the most bizarre political events in my lifetime………..almost literally.
LikeLike
I'm always voting for the lesser of two evils, although I admit 2008 was the first election I didn't feel that way.BUt it turned out that's what you were doing again! Yeah, I agree, I've always felt I was voting for the candidate that sucked less. From my first vote for George H. W. Bush in 1992 to my last, for Palin/McCain in 2008. However I vote in 2012, I'm definitely going to feel the same way. Alas. Love it to be different, but I don't suspect it will be that way anytime soon. Even candidates I think I'd be stoked about at the outset, by the time the vetting and the media anal probe is done, I'm no longer excited to vote for whoever it was I was excited about voting for. Why would R's back someone they've booted out before?Lots of establishment Republicans aren't big fans. And they aren't likely to back him unless they have no choice. Mitt Romney is much more likely to get the support of the establishment, if the choice is between Newt and Mittens.
LikeLike
You should consider writing in NoVAHockey.
LikeLike
I was thinking more along the lines of MarkinAustin, but I'll consider it. If only you weren't so negative about SS it would be easier. I've actually written in "none of the above" before.
LikeLike
*newsflash*In latest ATiM poll, "none of the above" is the clear front runner, ahead of MarkinAustin. No other serious candidates cracked the top tier.
LikeLike
I pick McWing, and I think I can lobby to get him one other vote, which should put him square in the lead.
LikeLike
Don't look now but Rep Paul is in a statistical tie for first with The Newt in Iowa. http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/ron-paul-ties-newt-gingrich-in-latest-iowa-ppp-poll/
LikeLike
Re: Paul's polling. Check out HotAir — they're messing themselves over that fact. I seriously don't get the opposition from the right. Is it that important to have soldiers in every freaking country around the world?
LikeLike
they're messing themselves over that fact. I seriously don't get the opposition from the right.I dunno. Irritates me. Even if you think he's wrong on FP, he certainly seems to be going in the right direction on shrinking government. I'd vote for Ron Paul.
LikeLike
Bill Clinton had some good observations on a recent PBS NewsHour Interview:"JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, you worked with opposite sides of the political aisle, but worked with Newt Gingrich. He's actually been saying nice things about how willing you were to work with Republicans when you were president. You've said some nice things about him, a man of ideas; what sort of president do you think he would be?BILL CLINTON: It depends upon the turn his life has taken since he left public life. That is, I always liked working with him. And he had a real good feel for foreign policy when I was president. And he generally wanted to do what was best for America and what would advance the cause of freedom and shared prosperity in the world, even though I thought a lot of his domestic ideas were wrong and bad for the country.That's why I vetoed those budgets, and that's what led to the government shutdown. But the thing that bothered — I saw where Mr. (inaudible) jumped on him today — the former congressman from Staten Island. What made people nervous the first time was the same thing that made them nervous about Mr. DeLay. They said — they thought they'd go overboard in the use of their authority. And a big part of being a good president is not just what you do, but what you won't do.So, on the other hand, when Hillary was a senator from New York and on the Armed Services Committee, she and Newt worked together on the military modernization committee the Pentagon set up. And they enjoyed working together — she enjoyed it.JUDY WOODRUFF: So you –BILL CLINTON: So we — he — the pressure of the campaign has a wonderful way of revealing your strengths and weaknesses. And we just need to let the Republicans have their race and see how it rolls out. I have no idea what's going to happen."If Newt has gained enough self discipline to survive the primary campaign without blowing up (again), he will be formidable in the general election.
LikeLike
Worth remembering that Gingrich won't be on the ballot in Missouri and that he's currently working to get on the ballot in Virginia. I imagine Virginia will tell us a great deal. The deadline is 22 December and getting on the ballot isn't that easy. So that will, arguably, be a test of Gingrich's organization.
LikeLike
jnc4p: If Newt has gained enough self discipline to survive the primary campaign without blowing up (again), he will be formidable in the general election.Unless he blows up then.
LikeLike
Welcome back, Nathaniel.Good points.
LikeLike
"If Newt has gained enough self discipline to survive the primary campaign without blowing up (again), he will be formidable in the general election."Discipline aside, I wouldn't discount organization. Should be interesting to see who will actually turn out to caucus on a cold Iowa evening and who will have the vans to take people.
LikeLike
Good to be back. I've been lurking and working.
LikeLike
Will thinks Rom Paul may run a 3d party campaign.http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ron-paul-spoiler/2011/12/08/gIQAVceCjO_story.html
LikeLike
On the Clinton quotes from above. Clinton truly knows how to twist the knife. "I always liked working with him. And he had a real good feel for foreign policy when I was president."Ruthless. Genuinely ruthless.
LikeLike
Mark,Paul does seem to be positioned for the independent run. I think there's a very good chance. I imagine this has to be his last bite at the apple.
LikeLike
As far as Gingrich and discipline are concerned, he has just recently proposed having the federal government become involved in hiring decisions having to do with the janitorial staff in public schools and chastised an opponent for firing people. The proposal would seem to indicate that there is no problem for which there is not a government solution. The criticism would seem to suggest that he and the Democratic party are in agreement on the failings of thatparticular political opponent.The proposal and the criticism, taken together, or separately, would seem to suggest that one should not be too quick to attach the adjective "disciplined" to the former speaker.
LikeLike
Paul has stated definitively that he won't run a 3rd party campaign. Which is of course what you say when you're still in the race for a major party nomination.
LikeLike
Re: Will's column — Don't like the spoiler label. If Mitt or Newt wants those votes he has to earn them. he's not entitled to them. if this means a D victory, that's on them, not people who voted for 3rd party and/or stayed home. see you all later.
LikeLike
that's on them, not people who voted for 3rd party and/or stayed home.Please don't anyone spread this rumor at the Plumline……..lol.Have a good night NoVA.
LikeLike
"Re: Paul's polling. Check out HotAir — they're messing themselves over that fact. I seriously don't get the opposition from the right. Is it that important to have soldiers in every freaking country around the world?"?Look, there is a cost to isolationism as well as hegemony and we shouldn't pretend there is not. But can we please, for the love of God, quit acting like Marine Embassy Guards are the equivalant to the Marine base in Okinawa Japan X 196 countries?
LikeLike
Tomorrow, the Texas redistricting chaos may begin to clear.A federal panel will meet today in San Antonio to help clear up the uncertainty left when the U.S. Supreme Court threw Texas' 2012 elections into disarray over the weekend.The high court on Friday froze the state's congressional and legislative elections, blocking temporary maps the San Antonio panel had drawn while the state's original, Republican-backed plans awaited approval in Washington, D.C. (A federal panel there announced Monday it will hold hearings on the maps from Jan. 17 to Jan. 26.)Lawyers will argue before the Supreme Court court on Jan. 9.The problem that we will resolve today and know about tomorrow is when TX primaries and filing deadlines will be rescheduled, as nobody knows what they are running for today.You may recall that TX got 4 new Congressional seats based on mainly [legal] chicano population explosion, but the Lege carved new seats that are all mainly Anglo.Potential VRA no-no. TX took the offensive and asked the DC Fed Ct. to bless the Lege's plan, but they took one look at it and asked a TX based Fed judicial panel to draw an interim redistricting for 2012 only. The interim plan drawn by the TX fed judges made 3 minority/majority CDs, and TX appealed to the Supremes, who stayed the interim plan. Got it?
LikeLike
"… there is a cost to isolationism as well as hegemony…"Agreed.
LikeLike
"If Mitt or Newt wants those votes he has to earn them."Yup. Same as for gore/Kerry vs Nader.
LikeLike
Solid, concise post, Troll. For those who have an iPad or iPhone, I recently downloaded the Politico Playbook app which is a decent little blog/app.
LikeLike
Ruthless. Genuinely ruthless. I agree totally. That is an amazingly vicious passive-aggressive way to torpedo Newt.I'm shocked there are only 11 crazy things Newt has said. He has a long and storied career of being a loose cannon. He reminds me of Michael Keaton's character in Night Shift. He's an Idea Man.
LikeLike
San Antonio Court extended filing deadline until Monday. Folks do not know what they are filing FOR, so Court said after the final ruling on districts they could all play musical chairs. Left primary date at 3-6. Pretty tight timeline if you want to run for office in The Lone Star State.
LikeLike
Ruthless. Genuinely ruthless.Could someone explain this to me, I truly do not understand this characterization. Is it because Clinton paid him a compliment and that's a no no for Republicans?
LikeLike
An endorsement by Bill Clinton would be the kiss of death to a Republican, particularly in this primary season. You could make the argument that Clinton knows as much and said it on purpose as revenge for all the trouble Newt has given him in the past.
LikeLike
Exactly. Clinton didn't excoriate the man who lead the effort to impeach him. He characterized Gingrich as someone who was willing to work with him, a Democratic president.Just vicious.
LikeLike
It's the kill him with kindness strategy.
LikeLike
yello:An endorsement by Bill Clinton would be the kiss of death to a Republican…Not after 4 years of Obama.nathaniel:Just vicious. And perhaps too clever by half. If/when Gingrich gets the nomination and then needs to start appealing to the independent voters – precisely the ones most likely to prefer a Clinton over Obama – those words may come back to haunt him. Unless perhaps he is equally interested in being viscious to Obama, which is entirely possible.
LikeLike
What Scott said. (Big surprise there, I know.)Why would R's back someone they've booted out before?Interesting question. I think the simple answer is that the House R caucus isn't the R primary voting base, and it isn't 1998.
LikeLike
I don't understand the conservative enthusiasm for Gingrich. I mean the man evidently wants the federal government to take a hand in personnel decisions in the janitorial departments of public schools. I would be hard pressed to think of a position less conservative.
LikeLike
WJC has been saying nice things about Newt for a while. Here's another quote.
LikeLike
nathaniel:I mean the man evidently wants the federal government to take a hand in personnel decisions in the janitorial departments of public schools.I'm not at all sure what makes that "evident" to you. Saying that public schools should do something is a far cry from saying that the federal government should mandate that that something be done.
LikeLike
I think I could be forgiven for considering the proposals made by a candidate for president to concern the activities of the federal government. The candidate in question is running to be head of the executive branch of the federal government after all.So how am I to understand this? Exactly who is supposed to implement this policy?
LikeLike
State government? City government? That's no better. Have we come to the point that we look to candidates for political office to determine how to instill a work ethic in children?
LikeLike
nathaniel:My understanding is that he made the comments at some Harvard speaking gig he had. I don't know what prompted the comments, whether a question from the audience (likely, I suspect) or part of his prepared comments, but it is not obvious to me that the needed context necessarily or even likely would show that he is demanding the federal government mandate such action.Indeed, what little context I can find suggests that he remarked at the same time about child labor laws. If he was arguing that child labor laws should be relaxed to allow (note – allow, not force) schools to employ students in such a capacity, that would certainly require federal action, but hardly the type that should make us think less of him as a conservative.Have we come to the point that we look to candidates for political office to determine how to instill a work ethic in children?Regrettably the influence of liberalism in our society has indeed led us to the point where many people look to candidates for political office for virtually everything.
LikeLike
"hardly the type that should make us think less of him as a conservative."I generally expect humility and skepticism from conservatives, not confident assertions that problems can be readily solved.
LikeLike
"Regrettably the influence of liberalism in our society has indeed led us to the point where many people look to candidates for political office for virtually everything. "hear, hear
LikeLike
"Regrettably the influence of liberalism in our society has indeed led us to the point where many people look to candidates for political office for virtually everything. "Not seeing an argument for this. Not saying that it's wrong, but I don't see an argument for the claim. Is it more than an assertion?
LikeLike
"Regrettably the influence of liberalism in our society has indeed led us to the point where many people look to candidates for political office for virtually everything. "I also have to point out that the claim is very ambitious. "…many people look to candidates for political office for virtually everything. " What does many mean? What kind of numbers are we talking about? What does "everything" mean here? Are there really enough people who are interested enough in politics to justify the claim that many people look to candidates for something or other?
LikeLike
nathaniel:Sorry….I was under the impression from your original that the the absence of conservatism derived from the specific notion that the federal government might interfere with local employment decisions, not the more general notion that some problems might be solvable.In any event, I think you misunderstand conservatism, which doesn't hold a generic skepticism that any given problem might be readily solvable, but rather holds a skepticism that particular problems can be readily solved via government dictates.
LikeLike
"In any event, I think you misunderstand conservatism, which doesn't hold a generic skepticism that any given problem might be readily solvable, but rather holds a skepticism that particular problems can be readily solved via government dictates."Look, the term is defined any number of ways. I'm not interested in debating that. Define it any way you like. As far as I can see, the real value of conservatism lies, in large part, in its humility and skepticism. Admirable qualities. David Hume would be a prime example.Given that the former speaker of the house is apparently incapable of refraining from offering ready solutions with an astounding amount of confidence, those admirable qualities just do not seem to be in evidence.
LikeLike
"Sorry….I was under the impression from your original that the the absence of conservatism derived from the specific notion that the federal government might interfere with local employment decisions, not the more general notion that some problems might be solvable."Again, if Gingrich isn't proposing that government, federal, local, city, state, whatever, take a hand in hiring the janitorial staff of public schools, then I have no idea what he's proposing. Given that he's a candidate for office, I generally assume he's speaking about government policy.
LikeLike
nathaniel:What does many mean?It means some indeterminate number, left deliberately vague so as to be unfalsifiable. 😉What does "everything" mean here?It means lots and lots of things that, in a less liberal time and place, would never be considered a problem that politicians should be involved in "solving".Are there really enough people who are interested enough in politics to justify the claim that many people look to candidates for something or other? Sure. One doesn't have to be that interested in politics to look to the government to be a great problem solver.
LikeLike
I was under the impression that the number of people who actively follow politics is low relative to the general population. Given that, it's hard to see that "many" people look to political candidates for something or other because most people just don't seem to be paying much attention. If most people aren't looking, then it's hard to believe that many people are looking to candidates for something. If the claim is that many of the people who follow politics look to candidates for something or other, are there polls indicating that?
LikeLike
And if there are polls indicating that many of the people who follow politics look to candidates for solutions, what's the evidence to establish that this is the result of liberalism whatever "liberalism" means here?
LikeLike
nathaniel:Again, if Gingrich isn't proposing that government, federal, local, city, state, whatever, take a hand in hiring the janitorial staff of public schoolsCertainly Gingrich is not proposing that local/city governments "take a hand" in hiring janitorial staff at public schools, because that is already the case, and has been since long before anyone had heard of Newt Gingrich. And there is nothing particularly unconservative about it. If he was proposing that the federal government insert itself into that process, then I would agree that such a proposal would be unconservative. But it is not at all clear to me that such was his proposal, and it seems distinctly unlikely. More likley he was presenting an idea, not a federal policy proposal, for how local school districts might both better manage their budgets and teach kids lessons in responsibility at the same time. Whether such an idea is a good one or not is certainly debateable, but there is nothing about it that strikes me as particularly un-conservative.
LikeLike
So the ambition is not to privatize schools? Not to remove the government and its pernicious influence and allow schools to compete with one another and thrive?The goal is to have rightly directed government officials directing public schools?
LikeLike
nathaniel:Given that, it's hard to see that "many" people look to political candidates for something or other because most people just don't seem to be paying much attention.I don't understand why this is so hard to see. A single mother of 5 on welfare may have little interest in politics but still expect the government to supply her with food stamds and a welfare check each month. A guy who has been unemployed for 6 months may be uninterested in politics but still expect to receive his unemployment check each month while wondering why the government doesn't "fix" the economy. A scientist/professor at a university may have few interests beyond the minutia of his particular aread of exerptise, and yet still fill out the forms requesting government grants so he can fund his interests.Again, one doesn't need to be interested in politics to look to the government to be a great problem solver.
LikeLike
nathaniel:So the ambition is not to privatize schools? Not to remove the government and its pernicious influence and allow schools to compete with one another and thrive? The goal is to have rightly directed government officials directing public schools?Sorry…who's ambition/goal?
LikeLike
I'm not seeing how anecdotes, fictional anecdotes at that, justify claiming that "many" people look to political candidates for something.If you were to say "many" people like football, for example, then you'd offer television ratings and attendance records. If you're going to claim that many people, significant numbers, look to candidates for solutions, then, at the very least, you need to offer some indication that many people are paying attention and then offer some reason to believe that a significant number of those people look to candidates for solutions.
LikeLike
"So the ambition is not to privatize schools? Not to remove the government and its pernicious influence and allow schools to compete with one another and thrive? The goal is to have rightly directed government officials directing public schools?Sorry…who's ambition/goal?"I thought advocates of small government generally advocated removing government from education and leave it to parents and private schools.
LikeLike
nathaniel:I'm not seeing how anecdotes, fictional anecdotes at that, justify claiming that "many" people look to political candidates for something.I wasn't justifying the claim. I was countering your notion that "interest" in politics is an indicator of whether not someone looks to government to solve their problems. I don't think it is, and the examples I provide, fictional or not, show why I think so. I thought advocates of small government generally advocated removing government from education and leave it to parents and private schools.That is a libertarian position, not a conservative one. And I agree that Newt is definitely not a libertarian.
LikeLike
If you claim is that many people look to candidates for solutions, then that claim needs some support, some evidence for it.What's the evidence for that claim?What's the evidence that "liberalism", whatever that means, is the cause?
LikeLike
"I thought advocates of small government generally advocated removing government from education and leave it to parents and private schools.That is a libertarian position, not a conservative one. And I agree that Newt is definitely not a libertarian."So the conservative wants public schools, just rightly guided public schools? So the fight is just a fight over who gets to direct public education? Conservative elected officials have the knowledge and expertise needed to direct public schools in such a way as to achieve admirable results?Is that the claim?
LikeLike
nathaniel:What's the evidence for that claim?The fact that politicians who seek to use (or in fact have already used) government to "solve" an increasing array of problems continue to get elected seems to me to be strong evidence.What's the evidence that "liberalism", whatever that means, is the cause?I confess that your professed unfamiliarity with what "lliberalism" might mean is not all that believable, especially in light of the fact that you began this thread based on the presumption that you do know what its political opposite, conservatism, is.But, be that as it may, the evidence is that it is politicians/people generally known as "liberals" who routinely promote government as a benign, pro-active solver of problems. I think the trajectory of our government, particularly at the federal level, over the last, say, 75-100 years shows that they have been largely successful in inculcating that sense of government across the wider society.Is that the claim?Is that who's claim?Certainly I don't think conservatives are opposed to public schools as a matter of principle, as would be a libertarian. What conservative principles would suggest, I think, is that the power to manage public schools should be as local as possible, rather than pushed up to higher and higher levels of government.BTW…I will be away from the blog for a bit, so if I do not respond further for a while, it isn't because I have given up on the conversation.
LikeLike
That people expect government to provide various services seems clear. They, we actually, expect social security checks, roads, bridges, food stamps, farm subsidies, and the like. The way people act would suggest that they have such expectations. For example, the actions of many of the elderly would seem to suggest that they expect social security checks to arrive regularly.I think we can agree about that. There practices are in place. We've grown used to them and expect them. The claim that people expect some things from government is relatively uncontroversial and unremarkable.The claim that many people increasingly look to elected officials for solutions because some people promote government as a means of solving problems seems, to me at least, to be a different claim.I'm not saying that the claim is wrong or that I doubt it. I'm just saying that I don't yet see the evidence for it.Frankly, I suspect the matter is extremely complicated for any number of reasons.Let's try this. Elderly people and their children arguably look to government to help, or at least assist them, in solving a certain problem, caring for the elderly. That seems reasonable. Many of the elderly expect the checks to arrive and their children expect the checks to arrive. The would, presumably, behave otherwise if they didn't expect that. So these people expect government to assist in, if not altogether solve, a certain problem.That seems clear.It also seems clear that people promoting the idea that government should oversee social security encourage people to depend on the government. Claims by younger people that they do not expect social security to be there for them when they are elderly, or that they do not expect to receive as much as their parents, seems to complicate matters. On the one hand, these people (I have no idea how many there may be or may not be) expect government to solve or at least address a problem, and, on the other, expect that it will not be able to do, or will not be able to do so as effectively, in the future.Do they expect government to do something? Absolutely. Do they expect that government will continue to do this in the future? That is, perhaps, just not clear.In short, I feel relatively certain that people generally expect, for the time being, that government will provide social security checks. I'm less certain that they will increasingly expect that. I just don't know, but it doesn't seem clear that they will increasingly expect that government will send out social security checks.
LikeLike
As for the claim that liberalism has caused individuals to expect elected officials to provide solutions, I'm not sure. I think you'd have to show that the people you consider liberals have effectively communicated their message to, and won over, significant parts of the population.An enormous spike in subscriptions to Mother Jones would, for example, probably be a rather good indicator. I just don't see evidence that people promoting government as a problem solver have really succeeded in getting that message across or in getting people to embrace it. Not saying that's wrong, but I don't see evidence for it.
LikeLike
"Certainly I don't think conservatives are opposed to public schools as a matter of principle, as would be a libertarian. What conservative principles would suggest, I think, is that the power to manage public schools should be as local as possible, rather than pushed up to higher and higher levels of government."I find myself in sympathy with the idea and altogether unable to believe that elected federal officials, Democratic or Republican, could ever resist the temptation to take a very strong hand in the activity of the schools.
LikeLike
Mark: Will thinks Rom Paul may run a 3d party campaign.No 3rd party campaign from Paul. He loses too many folks who would have voted for him. He's just not going to do it. Regrettably the influence of liberalism in our society has indeed led us to the point where many people look to candidates for political office for virtually everything.A: How many people look to candidates for political office for virtually everything? Election returns suggest that the majority of the population barely pays attention to them. Comment boards on political boards are probably not an accurate indicator, nor are OWS folks or liberal pundits on talk shows or Paul Krugman. But, even if true, I don't think that's necessarily an effect of liberalism. Conservative activists spend a great deal of time advocating for candidates and acting as if getting them elected is an existential matter.
LikeLike
altogether unable to believe that elected federal officials, Democratic or Republican, could ever resist the temptation to take a very strong hand in the activity of the schools.I give you No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top.
LikeLike
Scott: Again, one doesn't need to be interested in politics to look to the government to be a great problem solver.This seems like a different argument to me. The example you cite are mostly of being going where they have access to money. In those cases, it happens to be the government, but it seems to be Willie Sutton's answer to the question of why he robbed banks: "Because that's where the money is."
LikeLike
" I give you No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top."Doesn't NCLB dictate process while RTTT focuses more on outcomes?
LikeLike
nathaniel:I think you'd have to show that the people you consider liberals have effectively communicated their message to, and won over, significant parts of the population.Well, it seems almost self-evident to me. Given that things like social security, medicare, and other types of government wealth-transfer programs and regulation that were once highly controversial are now not only accepted but widely expected ("the third rail"), it would seem difficult to dispute that our culture has become increasingly liberal. Although certainly not liberal enough for many liberals. (You're not going to ask me to define what "many" means again, are you? 😉 ).I find myself in sympathy with the idea…Maybe deep down you really are a conservative.…and altogether unable to believe that elected federal officials, Democratic or Republican, could ever resist the temptation to take a very strong hand in the activity of the schools.Regrettably, I think you are right. Hence the lamentation of conservatives at the dearth of truly conservative Republicans.
LikeLike
kevin:Election returns suggest that the majority of the population barely pays attention to them.??But, even if true, I don't think that's necessarily an effect of liberalism. I don't think it is necessarily the effect of liberalism. But I do think it is the effect of liberalism.Conservative activists spend a great deal of time advocating for candidates and acting as if getting them elected is an existential matter. Yes. And they have, to a great extent, failed.
LikeLike
kevin:The example you cite are mostly of being going where they have access to money. In those cases, it happens to be the government, but it seems to be Willie Sutton's answer to the question of why he robbed banks: "Because that's where the money is." I suppose it is possible that, should the government cease those wealth transfer activities, the recipients would shrug their shoulders and mutter "Well, it was good while it lasted." Possible, but not particularly likely, because I think a sense of entitlement has become a part of the culture.
LikeLike
WJC – He is the most brilliant political mind in my lifetime…anything, and i repeat, anything he says, writes, postulates, thinks, wishes, poops has to be taken in a political context. I would agree with viscious.Newt – has always been better at having ideas than working to implement them. I consider personal failings but ever since WJC, my standards have been substantially lowered. I would vote for Newt in an instant over BHO. *Disclaimer – after the healthcare vote, I vowed to never vote for a candidate with a -D next to their name at any level of government. So my vote for Newt would not be difficult, despite my view he is a heavily flawed candidate.NS – "In short, I feel relatively certain that people generally expect, for the time being, that government will provide social security checks.Only because the government started providing it as one of a number of possible solutions for people to be secure in their old age. In 1930, this was not true. People had other expectations and the government was not part of the solution set. If people are in a "program", there is an expectation of the rules of the program, be it SS or a pension or a 401K…Over last 100 years, as the role of government has expanded (it has become part of the solution set for a lot more problems), people naturally 'expect' that government will be a player in these solutions. They expect it because the gov has forced them to expect by forcing themselves into the solution set. It is my belief that people would not expect them to do it if they could get the service/need fulfilled elsewhere.
LikeLike
I can't help but wonder if the banking industry feels that same sense of entitlement to liberal policies of bailouts.
LikeLike
I think Kevin's right that the numbers just aren't there. Given the general lack of interest in politics, it's awfully hard to argue that people look to elected officials for something because they just don't seem to be looking.Acceptance of government programs, of the status quo, of social security, of welfare, of farm subsidies, doesn't indicate acceptance of liberalism or anything else any more than using dollars indicates acceptance of a current monetary policy. That's just not a tenable view.
LikeLike
lms:I can't help but wonder if the banking industry feels that same sense of entitlement to liberal policies of bailouts.Certainly not in my experience. And it is not hard to imagine why, given the utter vilification under which the banking industry has fallen as a result of those "bailouts". I imgaine that if welfare, SS, medicare, etc recipients were treated with even half the contempt which you direct at the banking industry, there would be a significantly less sense of entitlement in society at large.
LikeLike
I suppose it is possible that, should the government cease those wealth transfer activities, the recipients would shrug their shoulders and mutter "Well, it was good while it lasted." More likely that they would follow Sutton's example, and move on to robbing banks. 😉
LikeLike