For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point:
- McCain takes Florida
- Rudy to call it quits and endorse McCain
- Schwarzenegger to endorse McCain.
These events seem guaranteed to push the mainstream media into Manic McCain Mode doing everything within their power to advance the least conservative Republican presidential candidate with every opportunity.
Is McCain becoming inevitable, or is there still a lot left to this horse race? Do you believe Rush is right about conservatives sitting out the election if McCain is the candidate thereby destroying the Republican Party. Or, will the right recognize that the growing socialist tide sweeping the Democrat Party and their presidential candidates needs to be stopped by someone, and that despite some of McCain's positions, he is far better than Hillary or Obama?














Comments Policy
McCain is far better than Obama or Hillary
January 30, 2008 - 11:02 ET by Dee BunkEspecially Obama. If Hillary were to win there would at least be some type of backlash, but Obama will continue to be a media darling and have a Dem Congress for 8 years.
Conservatives who would allow that to happen are not reasonable.
Also - A vote for anyone but Romny = a vote for McCain now
January 30, 2008 - 11:12 ET by Dee BunkAlso - A vote for anyone but Romny = a vote for McCain now. Don't waste your vote on Huckabee or Paul unless you want to see Hillary and Obama pass national Health care, the fairness Doctrine, unfettered abortion, and more government control of everything you say, think or do. Not to mention weak national defense and a military that will only be filled with a draft.
Considering that democratic
January 30, 2008 - 11:15 ET by JasonCConsidering that democratic national health care plans are among the biggest anathematic issues to conservatives, I have to wonder why Romney is the favorite now. He masterminded the health care reform in Massachusetts that requires all citizens to have state-subsisidzed insurance if they don't get it through an employer. I have an extra 5 pages of paperwork on my MA state tax return this year, just to document that I did, in fact, have coverage. What makes you think he won't try to make it nationwide?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Perhaps because MA is a
January 30, 2008 - 11:33 ET by HermanoPerhaps because MA is a state and not a country. Romney's position is that the economy is the critical component in this election. National security will be of paramount concern to maintaining a healthy economy. National healthcare will not be. You can bet he will not simply give in to the Dems for the sake of making nice. A successful businessman knows how to handle fiscal issues and make contingency plans if things go awry. Having a president who does not, by his own admission, understand the economy is extremely dangerous.
Fine, although how you can
January 30, 2008 - 11:36 ET by JasonCFine, although how you can argue that healthcare issues are economically-irrelevant, I certainly don't know. My only point is that romney spearheaded a universal healthcare program at the state level which involves punitive taxation for those who do not participate. A casual dismissal along the lines of 'well that's a state program, not federal', seems to miss the point. Isn't a nominee's previous political work some kind of indicator of his plans for the country? I'm not saying he would definitely do this, just surprised it's not more of a concern.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
There is plenty more concern
January 30, 2008 - 11:44 ET by HermanoThere is plenty more concern about McCain. His finance reform did not do a very good job at reform, he tried to quietly run an amnesty bill through congress and has committed to hog-tying our economy with a global warming treaty that will only have the impact of straining our economy further. I'll take the slim risk of having a healthcare plan forced down our throats by a fiscal conservative.
Fair enough. I'm an
January 30, 2008 - 12:01 ET by JasonCFair enough. I'm an unaffiliated leftist and at this point I think I'd vote for Romney over Hillary in the general. I would really like to see a woman president, but not just any woman president...
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I'd rather have Romny's MA Health Plan
January 30, 2008 - 11:42 ET by Dee Bunkthan Obama's or Clinton's or the one which would give free or subsidized health care to people who can afford it. Both Obama and Clinton are the worst candidates for the middle class.
In IL, our Dem Governor and Dem Congress passed state subsidized health care for children and had such low participation that they had to to keep raising the limits and now we are paying for people who can afford it on their own. Many people taking advantage of it are wealthy self employed people. They aren't cheating - they are encouraged to take advantage of it. Who wouldn't?
That is the type of thing Obama and Clinton will do. The middle class who are employed by companies will be subsidizing the middle class who are self employed even though most self employed professionals make more money. It's crazy.
I don't have that much of a problem with Romny's MA plan because it requires those who can pay to pay. I truly believe the majority of uninsured can afford it but choose not to.
FL vote count 53% REP!
January 30, 2008 - 11:43 ET by MaximusBraveheartThis system really sucks! I voted Perot and that helped get Clinton in. Now I want Paul to limit government to sensible levels and now Obama or Clinton can get in. The media does not present stories on how to fix washington, and that we need LESS govt. for a strong economy.
I checked the FL numbers: Looks like about 1,895,000 voted REP and 1,699,000 voted DEM. That is 53% REP. FL was 55% Bush in 2004.
Maybe many older Americans want liberal hand outs so it makes sense that McCain is their man. When you have limited income you pay very little tax so that is not a priority. Maximum freebees (that many never paid enough into to deserve) are the priority. Never mind if these programs (existing and future proposals) are economically unfeasible and would undermine good medical practices to a cattle trough socialist system.
What happened to a FREE society? I hope the other states put McCain behind again. Less than 2M FL REP votes have such an influence is crazy. Why don't they debate all the issues fairly w/ many candidates. Then have primaries on the same day accross the country. That way you vote your mind and don't have to factor in who may win or not win... The best man could then win when you take the politics out.
as NB goes so goes the
January 30, 2008 - 13:05 ET by TruthMongeras NB goes so goes the RNC:)...
NB has chosen Mitt...
It will play out...
I hope you are right Truth
January 30, 2008 - 13:09 ET by Dee BunkI hope you are right Truth
A McCain nomination would be an absolute miracle...
January 30, 2008 - 13:50 ET by TruthMongerme too - McCain is not popular among Republicans - a really big trust problem - much bigger than Mitt...
And again Mitt has a ton of executive experience - McCain, Obama, Hillary have none to speak of, if any - the national election will place that in the glaring spotlight...
Just like Kerry - who was way more qualified than Hillary or Obama - at least he had a substantial legislative record but it was still not enough even with the MSM full-court press behind him - McCain has a record at least as well...
But McCain is despised among the bulk of the RNC - and rightly so - he's a well established RINO - the MSM endorsement is a big negative for him...
Mitt may be a RINO as well but he gets the benefit of the doubt for now coming from a socialist republic...
Our primaries are liberal weighted, John will have big lead soon
January 30, 2008 - 15:08 ET by Daniel BakerAll the northeastern states are voting next with winner take all. The conservative states are not winner take all on Super Tuesday.
Texas could decide the election after Super Tuesday
...Romney, like Reagan, may
January 30, 2008 - 15:44 ET by TruthMonger...Romney, like Reagan, may have to run for the nomination again next time...
I hope you are wrong, but
January 30, 2008 - 15:59 ET by Gary P JacksonI hope you are wrong, but you may very well be right. I'd like to say I have faith in America not to repeat the same mistake of voting for a Jimmy Carter before voting for someone who knows what they are trying to achieve, but most Americans have a short memory, and the drive-bys sure won't remind them!
Edwards is out
January 30, 2008 - 11:05 ET by OldSailor88Breitbart Headline. John Edwards is pulling out. He's not endorsing yet. Looks like he'll use that for leverage on VP. I'm still shocked that Florida gave the win to McCain. Hopefully the Republicans on Super Tuesday will see through the RINO camouflage. Remember everyone....JUAN HERNANDEZ works for McCain. JUAN FREAKING HERNANDEZ!!!
Stultus est sicut stultus facit
Edwards drops out - Endorses McCain
January 30, 2008 - 11:46 ET by SouthJersey1953Okay, not really. But then again, it wouldn't suprise me. The only difference between RINO McLame and the DIMs is that he is tough on national security. He sides with Ted Kennedy more than Hellary does....
It's not Right vs. Left; it is Right vs. Wrong
Good! And it has nothing
January 30, 2008 - 12:11 ET by motherbeltGood!
And it has nothing to do with his politics. He needs to go home and take care of his wife and his family.
duplicate post
January 30, 2008 - 11:50 ET by SouthJersey1953duplicate
duplicate post - deleted
January 30, 2008 - 11:51 ET by SouthJersey1953.
Edwards drops Out of the Campaign
January 30, 2008 - 14:23 ET by ThisnThatI'm going to miss Edwards -- and her husband, the candidate.
After all, who's going to call in to Hardball now when people like Ann Coulter are on?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
TnT Well you know what
January 30, 2008 - 14:26 ET by Jack BauerTnT
Well you know what they say: hair today, gone tomorrow.
The Media loves McCain.
January 30, 2008 - 11:05 ET by kgThe Media loves McCain. That is enough for all conservatives to beware. We all know they DO NOT care about our views.
The media also hates Mitt....hmmm. Looks like a good choice.
It was a hard night. I look
January 30, 2008 - 11:14 ET by USA4freedomIt was a hard night. I look at the results and some how can’t believe it. The Grand Old Party, well I for one am not feeling too grand.
The Grand Old Party in Florida has just nominated for the Republican presidential nomination, the man who enthusiastically promoted amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws.
The man who had opposed the Bush tax cuts, a marriage amendment to the Constitution, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in Alaska.
The man who had called the ads of the Swift Boat Veteransfor Truth "dishonest and dishonorable."
Well, my note to the NYT’s, are we following your blueprint? Did we do just what you wanted us to do?
I cant believe with my eyes that a majority of Republicans would follow what the NYT said, and vote for Mc Cain.
Yesterday W, put his foot down. Now after 7 years “we deside to to a little something about earmarks” not much but a little. That is the way to read your base there, W.
There is a total intellectual vacuum of the GOP leadership,
What a gutless party we have become.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
→ Gutless Party
January 30, 2008 - 11:19 ET by Cool ArrowAfraid you're right, USA. He's more RINO than Bush, and I don't think we're all that willing to put up with more of the same.
He's certainly not "change"
♣ a seal
Yea what is worse then a
January 30, 2008 - 11:38 ET by USA4freedomYea what is worse then a RINO that loves the lime light. UGH..
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Look, if people were going
January 30, 2008 - 12:14 ET by motherbeltLook, if people were going in "undeclared" and getting Republican ballots to vote for McCain, that could have had an effect. And he didn't win by all that much.
I am still hoping that Romney can pull this out. I'm thinking that Mc ("I'll build the g-d fence if they want!")Cain won't be able to hold his temper in for the duration.
Yea I notice no one is
January 30, 2008 - 12:30 ET by USA4freedomYea I notice no one is looking into that. I wonder why?It was perfect for the Dems. no one running, what is there to loose?I haven't given up, but I get so tired of the MSM telling US, what we should do.I think that the Dems have to be jumping up and down right now.Some things we might never get back, the SCOUS, 20 million that might be citizens.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
McCain
January 30, 2008 - 11:11 ET by somedaysJohn McLame slogan "More electable than Bob Dole". Hillary and Obama must be having a great days knowing that if the Republicans nominate McCain their election is assured. This must have been how Nixon felt when the Dems trotted out George McGovern.
Dole
January 30, 2008 - 11:31 ET by iveseenitallRight on. McCain is Bob Dole without the niceness. It's his turn (to lose). I know a pretty influencial insider who told me over a year ago that the RINO's in Washington had already decided that its the Democrats' turn. I guess I was wrong to laugh at that notion.
McCain , when nominated, is going to lose big. He's a nasty little twit, and quite liberal. I, for one, will not vote. I figure the bigger the loss, the better. Let them work hard to screw my beloved nation and maybe we'll wake up in 212.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Choate update: Follow The Money
January 30, 2008 - 11:16 ET by RJA piece in today's Hartford Courant says there are reports that the school's "left-of-center alums....flooded the school with calls and e-mails threatening to cancel their donations if Rove wasn't replaced as commencement speaker."
The school caved to threats and pushed Rove to accept "an alternate date" to come to campus. So much for the high-minded claim that students were just exercising their freedom of speech, and that it was Rove's decision.
So it wasn't just a bunch
January 30, 2008 - 11:21 ET by JasonCSo it wasn't just a bunch of bratty teenagers? Well that kind of tanks the element of this discussion that this whole thing was the result of bratty over-entitled teenagers.
So let's consider this news. The incident was sparked by alums who used their money and their potential donations as political leverage. Shouldn't you conservatives be proud? I mean, whenever the issue of campaign finance reform comes up, y'all start shrieking that restricting how people use their money for political purposes is the same as squelching first amendment rights. Hell, after the taser incident in Florida, our very own Blonde even speculated that if she'd known Kerry would be invited to her distinguished alma mater, she would have made a few calls to the alumni association.
People who were financially successful in life using their money to influence political decisions. That's the conservative ideal, my friends. Too bad it involves Rove, so it's a little harder for you to cheer about it....
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
...of course, if blonde had
January 30, 2008 - 11:27 ET by JasonC...of course, if blonde had done that, and it had worked, you all would have missed out on the spectacle of a bourgeois liberal kid being, ahem, "appropriately dealt with by the fine law enforcement officers of UF".
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
hahaha! Jason, you've GOT to be kidding.
January 30, 2008 - 11:28 ET by RJBut, sigh, I know you're not.....
Blaming conservatives for something done by leftists? Wow, you leftists have your very own language. Read below:
"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness and who expended all of his energies on preserving his opinions from contamination." -Michael Chabon, "
EDIT:
How does this revelation exonerate the bratty teenagers?
I'm not blaming anyone, I'm
January 30, 2008 - 11:33 ET by JasonCI'm not blaming anyone, I'm stating that the use of one's own money to wield influence is considered a cherished privilege. The right tends to more vocally defend it (as I stated, especially when CFR comes up), but obviously leftists have no compunction about it either. As to the 'high-mindedness' of the students, that is what Warner's orignial story focused on, so that is what we replied to.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
LOL, Jason, that's a pretty strained rationale
January 30, 2008 - 11:35 ET by RJ...silly, too.
(gotta go for awhile. I'll check in later for more Wednesday Comics With JasonC.)
I'm not saying it's good
January 30, 2008 - 11:38 ET by JasonCI'm not saying it's good for our culture, RJ. Just anticipating the cries of "Rove was censored by those rich liberal alums donation-cessation threats".
Believe, me I'm finding this whole Choate incident endlessly amusing.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I think I have to go with
January 30, 2008 - 12:36 ET by motherbeltI think I have to go with Jason on this one. They used their money as influence. Sometimes that's the only leverage one has, and it's certainly not a new phenomenon
JasonC
January 30, 2008 - 12:06 ET by well99It just goes to show that free speech is only allowed for the left.The left likes to spew 1st amendment rights but denies those that dont follow their communist ways.Yes they have the right to spend their money the way they want and should have a influence on how their children are schooled.Doesnt change the fact that they are intolerant and closed minded.They follow their little red book and allow only communist to speak while others are censored by them.
let me get this right Well....
January 30, 2008 - 15:01 ET by JasonCSo they should have the inherent right to influence what goes on at their children's school, but by putting that right into practice they are being Communistic thugs?
does not compute...
Exactly whose first amendment rights are being violated by this little flare-up. Say "Rove's," I double-dog dare you.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
JasonC
January 30, 2008 - 22:30 ET by well99Dont twist my words.Yes I believe parents should have influence in school.But their method of only allowing one view is a crock.I know you are probably a proud supporter of those Columbia students that rushed the stage when the minutemen were there.
The rights for students that wanted to hear him.I doubt only 1 student was in on the vote to have him come.So they were denied their right.
Does that mean the small
January 30, 2008 - 23:57 ET by JasonCDoes that mean the small handful of students that wanted him are being DEPRIVED of their RIGHT to hear Stephen Colbert speak?
What's this method of only allowing one view all about? Do you keep current with the political views and censoring habits of Choate parents? What one view is being promoted through this?
I think the Columbia students' decision to rush the stage was asinine. I think the Minutemen are thugs, yes, but it would have been far more interesting and productive to engage them in conversation. Rushing the stage only made the students look reactionary and foreclosed the possibility of a debate.
And I'm afriad I was not twisting your words at all. You said:
"The left likes to spew 1st amendment rights but denies those that dont
follow their communist ways.Yes they have the right to spend their
money the way they want and should have a influence on how their
children are schooled.Doesnt change the fact that they are intolerant
and closed minded.They follow their little red book and allow only
communist to speak while others are censored by them."
How is this anything but saying that they should have an inflence in theory but that by putting that into practice they're being Communistic or Stalinist? Sorry, that doesn't work.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Well, Jason
January 31, 2008 - 00:01 ET by BlondeI see you've continued blathering on about students, speakers, and even mentioned me.
Kindly leave me out of it....unless I choose to be in it.
BTW...who cares about Choate? Or the rest of academe for that matter? You all live in la la land....enjoy.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde... I didn't start
January 31, 2008 - 00:45 ET by JasonCBlonde...
I didn't start this topic or this line of reasoning. I'm responding to Warner's original story about who is responsible.
Choate is not exactly 'academia'.
Sorry for mentioning you. I forgot about that ironclad rule of etiquette that you can't make reference to posts by other NBers.
Academics live in la-la land? Whatever. We also make a living doing something we love. And college education is in high demand in this country. So why should we care if people stereotype us as eccentric?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
JasonC
January 31, 2008 - 02:19 ET by well99"So they should have the inherent right to influence what goes on at their children's school, but by putting that right into practice they are being Communistic thugs?"
Never called them thugs.Communist yes.That in regards in their stopping Rove from speaking.If it had been Bill Maher or Rosie I sure you probably would be up in flames.Two standards for the left.As far as the minutemen being thugs well you have the right to your opininon.No facts to back it up but you have the right to be wrong.
OK, forget I used the word
January 31, 2008 - 08:45 ET by JasonCOK, forget I used the word thugs (the first time anyway). I don't entirely understand why they are Communistic; I didn't hear anything about them establishing collectives and appropriating farms and factories, but I'll let it go.
Rosie?! I'm a little insulted that you think I'd be thrilled about a speech by here. Don't care about Maher one way or the other. These things are not the point. If, for some masochistic reason, an organization wanted to hire Rosie to speak at an event, and people who contribute to said organization object and imply or explicitly state that they will cease to contribute if Rosie indeed shows up, I'd not only be saying "well, that's their right..." I'd also be saying "Whew, they sure dodged a bullet..."
I do believe Gilchrist and the Minutemen are thugs. I haven't the time or inclination to get into something so off-topic, but I've dicsussed it elsewhere on NB and I'm sure it will come up again. My point was that although I find them politically and morally disagreeable, and they certainly wouldn't have been my choice of guest speaker, if I'd been a Columbia student I certainly would have been in my seat waiting to ask a question, not making a childish scene. Direct, physical protest should be used against fascist and totalitarian governments. Anyone else, if you're smart and articulate enough, you should be able to take down with words.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I agree with Jason here.
January 30, 2008 - 11:42 ET by Roger the ShrubberI agree with Jason here. It's a two-way street, right, gang?
Save your energy for bigger fights!
Rog...
January 30, 2008 - 11:56 ET by JasonC...I love when we agree.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
So do I , Jason. So do I...
January 30, 2008 - 12:16 ET by Roger the ShrubberSo do I , Jason. So do I...
He who pays the piper calls
January 30, 2008 - 12:11 ET by Jack BauerHe who pays the piper calls the tune. Can't argue with that.
In fact, I applaud it. As I did when people protested the Dixie Chicks.
Another good example that I
January 30, 2008 - 12:24 ET by JasonCAnother good example that I wish I'd thought of while giving Warner a list of speakers or performers protested by conservatives.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Well the Dixie Chicks is not
January 30, 2008 - 12:44 ET by motherbeltWell the Dixie Chicks is not exactly the same thing. That was the free market operating. People decided not to buy their albums after what Maines said. They were not threatened: Don't say that or we won't sell your CD's here....it was a REaction to what they said. Now if Rove spoke at Choate, without all this brouhaha beforehand, and then because of it alumni wrote and said "Way to go, morons, I'm not giving you another penny!" that would be the same.
I don't see a difference.
January 30, 2008 - 12:48 ET by JasonCI don't see a difference. Isn't this just a case of the alumni giving Choate fair warning? I don't believe Rove was threatened either, at least not with anything more consequential than a couple of kids walking out and ruining their own graduation.
At any rate, after like 250 comments on this story, WTH moved the goalposts, so to speak, to make it more about the political leaning of the people objecting to the speaker rather than that of the speaker him or herself in order to support his precious (and mindblowingly inaccurate) claim that conservatives NEVER protest other people's public appearances or speeches or performances. He also had the nerve to finish this with 'QED', which was so ironic and funny I fell out of my chair laughing.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason
January 30, 2008 - 12:53 ET by candanceIf the parents forced the school to do it for the money, then I understand. Like I said on that blog, I got angry because I thought Rove had been threatened a la Ann Coulter. If the school made the decision without the kids threatening riot, then it is a different story.
If RJ's update about the
January 30, 2008 - 12:58 ET by JasonCIf RJ's update about the situation is accurate (and he lives in CT, where there's probably a bit more commentary on Choate than most other places), then it would appear that this idea that a phalanx of 18-year-olds exerted sufficient pressure that Rove dropped out was just a smoke-and-mirror sort of explanation. I don't doubt that a few kids expressed their intention to walk out (perhaps not very seriously), but that the real reason was alumni money makes a LOT more sense.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Right, candance, there is a
January 30, 2008 - 13:32 ET by motherbeltRight, candance, there is a big difference between being threatened with loss of alumni support (which is an age-old, nonviolent tactic, and all schools are very dependent on alumni support) and students threatening violence if a certain person is allowed to speak.
I haven't heard anything
January 30, 2008 - 13:49 ET by JasonCI haven't heard anything about threats of violence, even from the most critical assessments of this story. At worst, walkouts. Big deal. There was musing that Rove's presence might encourage outsiders to aggressively disrupt the graduation, which puts the administration in a bit of a bind. Sure they could prevent that, but is it worth turning your campus, on graduation day, into a quasi-police state? And besides, these were not threats of violence, but a hypothetical predictions that it could happen.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason, the difference is
January 30, 2008 - 13:30 ET by motherbeltJason, the difference is this:
Natalie Maines shot off her mouth, people got mad about it and retaliated in the way they knew best: financially.
What the alumni did at Choate comes under the heading of "prior restraint."
One involved a threat; the other (Dixie Chicks) didn't.
Look, I agreed with you that the alumni were within their rights. The Dixie Chicks thing is "similar" because of speech and money. I'm just saying that because of different sequence of events, the Dixie Chicks is not the same.
You can agree or not: I'm not going to argue with you over it all day.
This will be my last
January 30, 2008 - 13:46 ET by JasonCThis will be my last comment; I don't want to argue all day either and we've kept it civil so far.
I agree with your basic assessment of the situation, but "prior restraint" seems like an odd (though perhaps technically accurate) description. If the Choate alumni had hired their own private task force to block Rove from entering campus, OK, that's a little fascistic. But apprising the alumni office that you will not continue to support them financially if they allow Rove to be affiliated with the 2008 graduation seems to me perfectly reasonable, in fact MORE fair than if they kept quiet now and withdrew their donations after the fact.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
apprising the alumni office
January 30, 2008 - 20:35 ET by motherbeltapprising the alumni office that you will not continue to support them
financially if they allow Rove to be affiliated with the 2008
graduation...
Congratulations Jason! You just gave a perfect example of "prior restraint."
Although the term is generally used for government restraint, the principle is the same...forbidding an expression before it even takes place.
And yes, it was a civil discussion, thank you.
...in which case prior
January 30, 2008 - 23:48 ET by JasonC...in which case prior restraint is not always a necessarily bad thing, but a reasonable product of market forces.
But I'm still not convinced that it is prior restraint, because the decision was still not made by the alumni (it ultimately wasn't actually made by the administration either, but the point is that ultimately it would be their choice). So I'm not sure that wielding influence, as opposed to being the one to conclusively say "Rove will not be speaking here", qualifies.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
The Dixie Chicks reaction
January 31, 2008 - 02:31 ET by JerThe Dixie Chicks reaction was not entirely spontaneous, however. I listened to O'Reilly night after night after night flog the issue as if it were A Defining Moment In Unpatriotic Behavior...and I would imagine that most of the talk radio 'right' followed suit.
Jer
True, very true. "He was,
January 31, 2008 - 08:46 ET by JasonCTrue, very true.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I know Mitt Romney isn't
January 30, 2008 - 11:20 ET by motherbeltI know Mitt Romney isn't looking for advice from me (LOL) but if I were on his campaign staff, I would be telling him to start talking Supreme Court Justices. McCain is WAY too willing to work with Democrats on things. He would be all too willing to "work with" Democrats on SCOTUS nominations.
Can't you just picture a President McCain promising to work with Juciciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy, and having him and Chuck Schumer coming up with a list of "acceptable" candidates?
If that doesn't frighten the hell out of Republicans, nothing will.
→ Scary MB
January 30, 2008 - 11:21 ET by Cool ArrowHe'd have all appointees coming from the 9th Circuit.
♣ a seal
or maybe turn it all over
January 30, 2008 - 14:15 ET by TruthMongeror maybe turn it all over to the hague...
that's what the UK is doing:)
I agree with you,
January 30, 2008 - 11:24 ET by NewsbusterbrownI agree with you, motherbelt. Romney needs to distinguish himself from McCain.
Mitt also needs to start
January 30, 2008 - 11:26 ET by OldSailor88Mitt also needs to start talking up strong immigration enforcement policies. I've screamed it before, and I'll scream it again...
JUAN FREAKING HERNANDEZ WORKS FOR McCAIN!!
This has to get out in the media, and the only way to do that is for Mitt to use it in debates and speeches. The MSM will not broadcast it.
Stultus est sicut stultus facit
JUAN FREAKING HERNANDEZ
January 30, 2008 - 12:46 ET by motherbeltJUAN FREAKING HERNANDEZ WORKS FOR McCAIN!!
ooooooh, yeaaah! When do you think the MSM will ask him if he agrees with his staffer on "Mexico first!" etc.?
Romney had better bring it up, because the MSM won't.
Cards on the table ...
January 30, 2008 - 13:00 ET by KC MulvilleMB, I think you're right. Judicial philosophy is at the core of conservatism.
I heard a snippet from Tim Russert this morning, saying that the Reagan Coalition is gone. There is no longer any alliance between social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and foreign policy conservatives that Reagan brought together, because no candidate supports all of those completely. That isn't exactly true, because Romney says all the right things, now at least. The problem is that people perceive that we've had previous versions of Romney, and when version 2.0 contradicts 1.0, there's reason to wonder if 3.0 will contradict the current version. (Can you tell I'm a programmer?)
The one constant, however, has to be judicial philosophy. It's the one arena where you can't split the baby. You're either an originalist or you're not. Romney needs to force McCain to show his cards. If they have another debate, and each candidate gets to ask the other a question, Romney should ask McCain whether he would, as president, "absolutely" refuse to negotiate away his nominations. Would McCain publicly agree not to consult with Schumer and Leahy (or any other Democrat) to make the nomination easier, and instead stick to the conservative principles he now brags about and nominate only a strict originalist?
Cards on the table, please ...
Personally, if I were
January 30, 2008 - 14:04 ET by BDPersonally, if I were Romney I would be contrasting myself with McCain who's mantra is that he wishes "Bipartisanship".
I do not want bipartisanship with the liberals, I seek to defeat them.
Work to get him in office
January 30, 2008 - 11:20 ET by kdizzydazeI will vote for McCain and here's why:
If things go poorly over the next four years with McCain in the WH, the Dims will complain that it is due to the "neocons" and their hurtful agenda.
If the Dims win control of the WH and things go poorly they will simply lay blame on the previous eight years of President Bush.
Either way, the Dims will blame someone other than themselves for anything negative. Oh, and if things go well with McCain in office, they will still rail that things are bleak and pain and suffering are going on all around us at alarming rates.
If I had to, I would vote
January 30, 2008 - 11:22 ET by NewsbusterbrownIf I had to, I would vote for McCain over Obama or Clinton. I don't believe in being childish by cutting off my nose to spite my face, since McCain is still considerably better than any of the Dem frontrunners.
With that said, I'll have to bring a clothespin to the voting booth and a pail if I feel the urge to retch.
I don't think it's
January 30, 2008 - 11:45 ET by mattmI don't think it's childish. It would be dumb to stay home because there are congressional races going on too, but if we hold our noses and vote for a RINO, we are saying to the GOP "just give us any socialist ruling class elite who thinks we're all a bunch of ignorant hicks and we'll vote for him as long as he has an (R) next to his name."
Uh uh, not me. The vote is the only time the people can exercise their power, and if I have to use it to tell the GOP to take their RINO's and go to hell, that's what I'll do.
I agree
January 30, 2008 - 12:01 ET by SouthJersey1953And if more of us had that attitiude, maybe the Repub Party would stop putting RINOs up.
I cannot believe we are going to (once again) not have a conservative to vote for.... You'd think they would have learned with the congressional elections in '06......the Dems didn't win control of the House & Senate, it was the Repubs that LOST it.
It's not Right vs. Left; it is Right vs. Wrong
Sorry... My budget simply
January 30, 2008 - 12:26 ET by Hero SquadSorry... My budget simply can't afford an Obama or Clinton agenda.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
Same thing, Hero. But I
January 30, 2008 - 13:56 ET by NewsbusterbrownSame thing, Hero. But I would also say that we can't afford to lose more citizens on our soil because of terrorism either, which I believe would be the case if a Democrat came to office.
...and that's the first
January 30, 2008 - 15:07 ET by Hero Squad...and that's the first reason why I will support the Republican nominee for president, be it Romney or McCain.
Just because the cafeteria ran out of the entree I wanted most doesn't mean I'm going to stage a protest by not eating.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
I would have to say Obama
January 30, 2008 - 14:19 ET by TruthMongerI would have to say Obama is less of a threat than McCain because McCain knows how to get his whacky ideas pressed into law...
Obama would do less real damage over his brief 4-year stint - then Romney can run again...
Reagan didn't get the nomination his first time around either did he:)?
SouthJersey1953
January 30, 2008 - 15:45 ET by Delsathe 2006 election was lost and misread by our fearless leaders. They never thought they lost because they were not conservative enough.They are idiots all
The primary is when we
January 30, 2008 - 13:54 ET by NewsbusterbrownThe primary is when we should vote for the best (conservative) candidate. That's the place to make your voice heard against RINOs.
But when it comes to general election, I'm going to vote for the person that will hurt our country the least. Now, if you would be happier with Clinton or Obama as they damage the country to a far greater degree than McCain would ever do, then I don't know what to say.
What will be heard if
January 30, 2008 - 16:47 ET by mattmWhat will be heard if McCain gets the nominatio