Republicans, who these days are as likely to be members of the corporate establishment as the evangelical establishment, are more suspicious of intellectuals and ideas, and more likely to believe that politics is about deal-making, loyalty and power.It's been interesting to watch the struggle between these two groups. Quite fun spectating for liberals and Democrats, isn't it?
(Sorry for the TimesSelect link. I presume Brooks is too.)
পোস্টগুলি
১৯টি মন্তব্য:
Brilliant opinions? Brilliant is necessary in order to convince someone that a bad idea is actually good. Wisdom seldom requires subverting commonsense.
The National Review crowd has convinced themselves of their suprior intellect and are fond of looking at themselves in the mirror. I no longer have patience for such preening.
Liberals should be concerned. This is not a debate in the Republican party over issues or ideology. This is really only a debate about process. Miers supporters thinks they know enough about Miers to allow her on the court and that she will deliver conservative votes. The Anti-Miers group are skeptical and think there are more trust worthy candidates capable of delivering the conservative vote. Note, however, that there is no disagreement about the "conservate vote." among these two groups. Both Miers and anti-Miers conservatives agree on the vote that they want.
Please do not post links to blogs that copy the TimesSelect editorials. Obviously, if I approved of that I could do it myself! They want to wall off these writers, but bloggers can cut and paste and violate the copyright. Don't use my blog to reward those people. I'm trying to convince the NYT to tear down the wall, which I think they will have to do.
I'm a conservative because unlike ideological clones on the left, I want to think through issues myself and come to what I think is the most logical conclusion, and I want no less from a supreme court justice.
That's why a person's character is more important than his or her opinion on Roe v Wade. I don't want abortion either legal or illegal by law. I want abortion taken out of public debate. I don't want a bunch of elected officials deciding issues that are better left to individual men and women who, with the help of their families and their physicians, can make the decision that's best for them.
Public opinion about abortion must be changed so that it's seen as a last resort not a casual method of birth control. Get rid of abortion clinics where women are actually encouraged to have abortions and never forget that abortion clinics are money-making businesses just like Exxon or Pfizer.
If abortion is removed as a leftwing talking point and Ted Kennedy can't deliver his rant about coat hangers and dark allies, we'll all be a lot better off and I think the number of abortions will steadily decline until only relatively few women will see it as the only solution.
"....I don't want a bunch of elected officials deciding issues that are better left to individual men and women who, with the help of their families and their physicians, can make the decision that's best for them...."
Hmmm, you claim to be a conservative, yet you just posted a clear relativist leftist position.
Tell the truth. Is an unborn child a human with rights, or is an unborn child the property of its mother (who alone decides life or death).
"....Tell the truth Sloan, you want an activist court which will confer rights on "unborn children" and ban abortion in the U.S. If the "unborn child" has "rights" (I assume you mean a "constitutional right to life") then how can abortion in *any* state be permitted?
No. I want the state legislatures (or Congress) to decide if the unborn child has rights, i.e. Society needs to decide when an unborn person has rights.
IN 1973 the activist court decided for itself that the people can no longer decide when an unborn child should have rights. How democratic!
Hans: I did copy a small part, the same amount I'd copy if there were no wall. That is "fair use."
"...It is nice that you add in "Congress". Good to know that you are not one of those liars who says that this should be decided by the states..."
Well, I wouldn't call them liars. There is a jurisdictional question about whether a congressional law would apply to the states.
Conservatives are the ones who thinks ideas matter? I don't think that's the case; it seems entirely to flattering to conservatives. It seems to me that the group noun for people who don't think ideas matter is "morons."
"Conservatives as opposed to republicans."
This is similar to the Schiavo split, I think.
Instapundit vs. Hugh Hewitt.
BUT!
I think Michelle Malkin wanted to save Schiavo and she is against Miers so... maybe that doesn't work.
What's Peggy Noonan say?
As a centrist Democrat, I certainly think it's been an interesting spectacle. But I also think it's far healthier that the Democrats' approach to the Supreme Court.
Really, the only criterion most Democrats have had for Supreme Court justices for an entire generation has been to uphold Roe v. Wade, a position that has completely stunted any intelligent thought about Constitutional interpretation.
There's no particular reason that an originalist interpretation favors evangelicals, big business, and other Republican constituencies other than the fact that it upholds Roe v. Wade and some other dicey rulings from the Warren and Burger courts. If Roe gets overturned, both sides will simply have to fight the issue out in legislatures, just like any other political issue.
The current stunted thinking about constitution interpretation in my party seems to have been learned at the feet of Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
Even this rather nasty spat amongst Republicans is a striking improvement.
Ann, regarding your post about NOT posting links to those who are cutting a pasting articles: you make an excellent point. And, along those lines, did you see how Instapundit handled that in a post about the Brooks column? He mentioned Brooks by name, but referred to NYT Select not by name, but in terms of something like "a subscription-only service." LOL! I thought that was kind of cool--refusing to publicize their name in terms of blocked output--even if coy.
Sloanasaurus,
What I personally believe about when life starts is immaterial. However, since you asked, I think it starts at conception, but so what? Prior to Roe v Wade, unborn children had more rights, but women had fewer rights. Can't have it both ways.
People also forget that birth control was not only unavailable, but it was illegal to even talk about it. When I was a college freshman in 1952, the subject couldn't even be mentioned in a women's health class. It was only when the pill became widely available that birth control was spoken about openly.
That's why I think abortion should be taken out of the courts and the congress and left to individuals and I also think we need to get rid of abortions clinics and start a campaign to educate people about birth control and adoption.
I'm not too proud to link my blogpost today, about Conservatives/Republicans and the whole L'Affaire Miers, which echoes a lot of what you mention:
Strange Bedfellows
Warning: It's long, but as they say in academia, comprehensive.
Cheers,
Victoria
"...That's why I think abortion should be taken out of the courts and the congress and left to individuals and I also think we need to get rid of abortions clinics and start a campaign to educate people about birth control and adoption....
Yes, I get your position. I respectfully disagree and think that society needs to decide when a child has rights. After all its society that decides for most other things.
In fact if the decision were left up to the people you would probably end up with abortion being legal in every state of the union with more restrictions then you have today.
Sloanasaurus, I've been meaning to say I like your avatar best of all here (Paul's chimp is another fave).
It's Gilbert's Washington portrait, right? Well one of them.
Cheers,
Victoria
Thanks Vbspurs. Good Guess. It is Trumbulls Hamilton. How about yours?
I enjoyed your blog. I added to my list. You also inspired me to update my profile.
Thanks Vbspurs. Good Guess. It is Trumbulls Hamilton. How about yours?
Giovanni Bellini's triptych hanging in the Accademia in Venice, which includes Santa Maria Maddalena, here pictured. :)
I enjoyed your blog. I added to my list.
I'm flattered, Sloanie.
You also inspired me to update my profile.
*looks*
The Road to Serfdom! A Hayek lover!
Good avatar. Great political instincts. Good taste.
This blog has the most perfect men on Blogosphere. ;)
Cheers,
Victoria
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন