1

You didn't just classify George Bush Sr. as a neo-con, did you?

2

Tgirsch,

You didn't just classify George Bush Sr. as a neo-con, did you?

No. G.H.W.Bush was neither a paleo or a neo-con. He wasn't much of a conservative at all. Buchannan's run in 1992, though, was an attempt to take a leadership role in the conservative movement that had been left vacant after Reagan left office. That move signaled the neo-cons that their time may have come to take the lead.

3

It would be impossible for G.H.W.Bush to get the party nomination today as he is too liberal for the party leadership to accept. And only Joe Carter could call Patrick Buchanan "relatively moderate".

I notice you pass over the somewhat large split in the GOP on fiscal policy. It makes the paleo's grit their teeth that under the current Bush, domestic spending has actually increased more than under Clinton. Even without considering the cost of Iraq, etc. But you are correct that they are now a minority opinion. Those who want the nanny government are now in charge.

4

And only Joe Carter could call Patrick Buchanan "relatively moderate".

Sorry, Patrick, I know you liberals get confused over modifiers. ; )

To clarify, "relative" is an adjective that is used in relation to other terms. In this case, the "relative moderation" is in relation to more extreme paleo positions. Hope that helps.

5

No one's mentioned the battle between Eisenhower & Taft yet. I'm waiting . . .
The chance of a major fracture in the GOP is small, at least in the short term. The libertarians and the McCainiacs want the GOP to discard the religious right, but as long as they can provide 8 million or so votes each election that won't happen.
I suspect that if Bush wins on Tuesday the Republicans will have a significant power struggle. Cheney is a lame duck because of his health problems and would almost certainly not run for prez in 2008. The GOP favorite in 2008 could easily be a libertarian-oriented western governor.
Whether Bush is re-elected or not I hope the McCainiacs can be kept down. His American Greatness theme is to fascistic for me.

6

Look into people like Justin Raimondo a bit. You can read all about him through his essays at antiwar.com. A very intelligent person for whom I have a great deal of respect refers to Justin as Justin "the Jews blew up the World Trade Center" Raimondo. I have never met Mr. Raimondo; but perhaps the abandonment of modern conservativism by these folks, is, in many cases, a good thing.

7

"Sorry, Patrick, I know you liberals get confused over modifiers. ; )"

Actually, I did get the nuances of your statement. I was being facetious. But that's OK, I know conservatives have a difficult time comprehending humor. ;-)

8

Patrick,

But that's OK, I know conservatives have a difficult time comprehending humor. ;-)

Humor we comprehend. It is, after all, a noun. It's "humourous" that we have trouble with.

9

So, are the paleoconservatives the ones in the Republican party who are doing everything in their power to keep minorities from voting?

I recall some big mouthed gas bags here telling me that the Republican party was the "true" party of minorities. I'm having a hard time figuring out why, if that is the case, the Republicans are working so hard to keep minorities from voting.

But I'm sure there is something in the freeper script that someone will share with us in an attempt to respond to the human skum tactics of Republicans during this election.

I'm waiting.

10

This whole thing depresses me. Joe's opening essay covers the matter well, except for the suggestion -- perhaps he didn't mean to make it -- that conservatives can't expect to have a candidate who really advocates their vision, so either they suck it up and live with creeping Big Governmentism such as we get with Bush the younger, or we choose irrelevancy.

I don't buy the notion that conservatism can't win.

The real outrage is the GOP wins year after year with a conservative message, but doesn't really believe in it -- so won't pursue a conservative agenda full-bore. And every election, conservatives are told -- by the GOP establishment, and many in their own ranks -- that they should exact no price for the perennial sell-out: vote for those who lied to us, AGAIN, thereby rewarding them, enabling them, and forcing no change. Right now, we're all hearing it: "Well, yes, Bush did betray conservative principles over and over . . . but VOTE FOR HIM ANYWAY..." Which simply proves that Bush's decision to screw the conservatives was the right one; and they should expect even more in a second term.

And of course, the alternative of enduring 4 years of Kerry is depressing; and the prospect of who will be anointed, by Bush, to succeed him (Guiliani? Ridge? Schwarzenegger? Another pro-abortion moderate?) is depressing; the prospect of Guiliani vs Hilary in 2008 is depressing . . .

If cloning means we might be able to have Goldwater back . . . I'd think about it.

Septimus

11

Larry,

But I'm sure there is something in the freeper script that someone will share with us in an attempt to respond to the human skum tactics of Republicans during this election.

Yeah, the script is written by the DNC. It's covered in their "Emergency Action Plan" under the section "Ridiculous Lies About the Republicans that We Can Get Idiots to Believe."

12

Joe:

To clarify, "relative" is an adjective that is used in relation to other terms.

Humor we comprehend. It is, after all, a noun. It's "humourous" that we have trouble with.

On a more serious note, I'm curious as to which facets of the Republican party you would like to see "win out." Is GWB your ideal Republican? If not, what prominent Republican comes closest? I know you're scornful toward the libertarian wing of the party, and I suspect you are sympathetic to the Religious Right wing (although you disagree with them on establishment issues). So who's the best Republican out there today?

For best Democrat, I'd have to look into it more, but off the top of my head, I'd suggest Feingold.

13

Joe writes

"It's covered in their "Emergency Action Plan" under the section "Ridiculous Lies About the Republicans that We Can Get Idiots to Believe."

Huh. Was the stunningly effed-up Florida felon list a lie?

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?id=5297

Was this statement never made:

"If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election cycle." -- State Rep. John Pappageorge, R-Troy, while discussing election strategy at a meeting of the Oakland County Republican Party.

How about moving the polling places in predominantly Africa-American districts? Did that not happen Joe?

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/9947413.htm?1c

There's plenty more of this. That was what I could find in one minute of Googling.

Of course, it could all be coincidence and "honest" mistakes, right, Joe? Because there is no reason why Republicans would want to suppress the votes of minorities, is there, Joe?

Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio: "It is clear that minority turnout is a wildcard in this race and represents a huge upside for Sen. Kerry and a considerable challenge for the President's campaign."

Or did Fabrizio not really make this comment, Joe? Is Fabrizio lying about what the polls show, Joe?

I'll tell you what is ridiculous, Joe. It's your willingness to stick your head in the sand when it comes to disgusting Republican tactics. Rest assured if Bush manages to eek one out this time, the Republicans aren't going to be able to intimidate people into shutting up this time by bussing angry white men into Florida. This time their sleezy efforts will be documented in real time.

14

Larry,

Wow! The aneurism you have when Bush coasts to victory next week (in spite of all of the Democrat vote fraud and voter intimidation) will be something to behold.

You acuse Joe of having his head in the sand over Republican 'tactics', but you seem to have your head up your a** over much more egregious actions of Democrats.

15

i googled voter fruad volunteer 2004 yesterday. one of the site i found was this conservative site asking for polling volunteers to "ensure a fair election for all Republicans". Meanwhile, the legions of progressive attorneys I know heading out to the swing states for the election are good, honest, ethical people and their goal is to make sure EVERY eligible voter gets to vote and has their vote counted. I have known these guys for years and they will do exactly the same for a republican as they awould for a dem voter, they will uphold their right to vote because this election is not just about "our guy" winning. It's about restoring democracy to this country and to do that we must have a clean election.

16

Larry,

Huh. Was the stunningly effed-up Florida felon list a lie?

I can see why you might assume that felons would vote Democrat. But why do you assume felons are all minorities?

Was this statement never made:
"If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election cycle." -- State Rep. John Pappageorge, R-Troy, while discussing election strategy at a meeting of the Oakland County Republican Party.

From the Detroit">http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm20777_20040721.htm">Detroit Free Press:

"In the context that we were talking about, I said we've got to get the vote up in Oakland (County) and the vote down in Detroit. You get it down with a good message. I don't know how we got them from there to "racist,"' Pappageorge said. "If I have given offense in any way to my colleagues in Detroit or anywhere, I apologize."

How about moving the polling places in predominantly Africa-American districts? Did that not happen Joe?

Did you read why the request was made? Out of the 63 requested changes:

--10 were in non-minority neighborhoods
--1 was in the district office of a Democratic state senator
--2 were in local bars
--43 are allegedly inaccessible to the handicapped
--17 are claimed to be in businesses or homes where voters could be intimidated

Or did Fabrizio not really make this comment, Joe? Is Fabrizio lying about what the polls show, Joe?

Minorites tend to vote for Democrats? What a shocker!

This time their sleezy efforts will be documented in real time.

Yes, Larry, I realize that the Democrats aren’t going to lose gracefully. As Hugh Hewitt says about the Dems, “If they can’t cheat, they can’t win.” They realize that so I think we know what to expect on Election night.

17

Larry -

There is pretty scant evidence (and I'm being too generous) that the Republicans put forth a concerted effort to suppress the minority vote.

However, it is quite well-known about the democrats effort to suppress the military vote in 2000, as well as that tried-and-true Democrat tactic of registering felons and other inelligibles this time around. Wasn't it just reported that someone from the NAACP was paying a guy crack cocaine to do false registrations?

18

"If they can’t cheat, they can’t win.” They realize that so I think we know what to expect on Election night. "

Joe, the polls say the race is a dead heat right now--and that is with polling that discounts newly registered voters. I have never seen people so interested in an election before. the new voters will decide this election. they may well decide it for Kerry.

I hope you want what every decent American wants-- a fair election in which every legal voter who shows up to vote gets to vote and where all of the votes are counted.

If that happens, Kerry will win and so are country will be on a better course than it is now and i think you will be pleasantly suprised.

19

Am I the only one who is taken aback by the fact that both Justin Raimondo & Howard Phillips are associated with this magazine (are they both contributing editors?). Raimondo is an openly gay man; Phillips is a Christian Reconstructionist who thinks that, in a first best world, homosexual acts would be a captial offense....

20

Phil writes

"There is pretty scant evidence (and I'm being too generous) that the Republicans put forth a concerted effort to suppress the minority vote."

Concerted effort? Nice strawman. I'm talking about well-documented individual state-by-state district-by-district attempts to decrease the number of minorities who cast a vote on November 4th, for a simple extraordinarily compelling reason (if you're a Republican that is).

" it is quite well-known about the democrats effort to suppress the military vote in 2000"

Remind me, Phil, if you are intellectually capable of doing so and morally up to the task, what Joe Lieberman said in 2000 about counting legally invalid military votes. I believe he was the Democratic nomineee for Vice President at the time, and there was some dispute as to who won Florida.

21

Joe writes:

"Did you read why the request was made? Out of the 63 requested changes:

--10 were in non-minority neighborhoods"

That's called "window dressing."

--43 are allegedly inaccessible to the handicapped
--17 are claimed to be in businesses or homes where voters could be intimidated

That's called "bullshxt."

22

Phil again:

"Wasn't it just reported that someone from the NAACP was paying a guy crack cocaine to do false registrations?"

Yeah it was reported. What does that have to do with Republican efforts to suppress eligible minority votes?

"tried-and-true Democrat tactic of registering felons and other inelligibles this time around"

Please provide some documentation of this Democrat party "tactic" of "registering" ineligible voters.

Other than a bunch of absentee military ballots, how many votes were cast by "ineligible" voters in 2000 Phil? How many of those were cast by voters registered by people working for the Democratic Party election campaign?

Let's see how long it takes Phil and Joe to recognize they are on the wrong side of this argument and that it is unwillable.

Joe at least has recognized something fundamental: minorities tend to vote Democrat. Perhaps that is why Republicans tend to work hardest to keep minorities from voting, by any means necessary short of physical violence.

23

Back to the topic at hand. I agree with Jon Rowe, how does that magazine really represent true conservatives?

24

Off topic here, but we need to stop feeding the trolls. Larry isn't interested in a discussion or the content of your site. Thats why his first post is just enciting people with "well which side of the party is in charge of voter fraud." He's just here to derail discussion and cause trouble.

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:6

25

Jeff the Baptist concludes:

"Larry isn't interested in a discussion or the content of your site. That's why his first post is just enciting people with "well which side of the party is in charge of voter fraud." He's just here to derail discussion and cause trouble."

It seems to me that Larry is merely using sarcasm to convey a sense of frustration that anyone would deny the well-documented and, frankly, seemingly-unabashed efforts on the part of some Republicans to suppress the Democratic vote next week. Does it *really* need to be argued here that this is occurring?

As for 'troublemaking' and 'trolling' (however you wish to define those terms), my reading of this list has shown me that Larry is quite interested in the discussion and content of the site. Perhaps Jeff you should go and read his praise of Joe's Stem Cell summary from this morning? Joe could gatekeep, or people could ignore his contributions, but I think the list would be the poorer for it.

Does saying this also make me a troll to be ignored or disregarded?

26

"I hope you want what every decent American wants-- a fair election in which every legal voter who shows up to vote gets to vote and where all of the votes are counted.

If that happens, Kerry will win and so are country will be on a better course than it is now and i think you will be pleasantly suprised."

****

That's an amazing assertion. Are you saying that the only way Bush wins is if he is able to cheat somehow? Here's another idea: that the majority of Americans will go to the polls to reject a Communist-sympathizing Far-Left Northeastern Liberal who has promised to raise taxes, sign ruinous environmental treaties, subordinate American interests to international bodies, withdraw from Iraq, abandon our country's support for Israel, and attempt to introduce socialized health care. Isn't that possible? That you could have run a Joe Lieberman and he would be up, right now, about 10 points. But the Democrats ran far Left, and America said no thanks.

27

Look into people like Justin Raimondo a bit. You can read all about him through his essays at antiwar.com. A very intelligent person for whom I have a great deal of respect refers to Justin as Justin "the Jews blew up the World Trade Center" Raimondo. I have never met Mr. Raimondo; but perhaps the abandonment of modern conservativism by these folks, is, in many cases, a good thing.

John, I know both Justin Raimondo and the "very intelligent person for whom [you] have a great deal of respect" (at least, I have a pretty good guess who you're referring to). The accusation of the latter person, who I'll call "Mr. P.," is either ignorant or malicious. Raimondo has written a book, The Terror Enigma, claiming that Israeli intelligence had been casing the 9/11 hijackers in the US, knew they were up to something, and failed to inform the US authorities. This is a far cry from "the Jews blew up the World Trade Center." Mr. P.'s accusation is a vicious smear, designed to cut off all discussion and debate.