You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘conservatism’ tag.

These are young conservatives, and the guy is still sore after a break-up with the woman next to him so he tears into her, with a smile and forced wit calling her everything from soulless to sadistic.  I have to say, she showed amazing restraint.  Few would have blamed her if she had lived up to his description of her right then and there.

There’s a creepiness to the whole thing, but it’s riveting.


Pro-feminist Sen. Jim DeMint explains his vision for education reform.


Christine O’Donnell, apparently not old enough to remember Richard Nixon, proclaims to Delaware, “I am not a witch!”

In another clip from the past, we learn that O’Donnell once had “classified information” about a Chinese plot to take over the U.S.


Sen. Harry Reid caught red-handed in an attack-ad falsehood.  He should have checked his source!


In Old Testament fashion, GOP Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman would impose penalties on children for the sins of the parents.


Insurance companies, representing the most profitable industry during the recession, is pouring money into Republican campaign coffers.


Courtney Love tweets a nearly-naked photo of herself without explanation.


A Reagan-appointed federal judge is arrested and charged on drug and gun charges.


Rep. Eric Cantor (R) on the promised Republican shut-down of federal government come January:  “We don’t want to be seen as a bunch of yahoos.”


And capping it off with Rand Paul who calls Medicaid “intergenerational warfare.”


With the name Schlafly in the news again.  Love this quote:

The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.

Since nuclear weapons were made possible by the theory, then you would think religious conservatives would advocate banning them.  I bet William Jennings Bryan would have been game – he was a principled Christian fundamentalist who quite as Secretary of State in protest of  the US entry into World War l and attacked secular science as the source of social inequity (social Darwynism) and the mega-death weapons WWI generated.

Funny thing about this Fox News interview with Ted Olson, who argued for Bush in Bush v. Gore in 2000, and so far just as successfully in the Prop 8 case.  They are discussing “judicial activism” and Wallace asks Olson about his former comments to the effect that judges shouldn’t create rights which are not enumerated in the Constitution.  Olson responds that the Supreme Court has held the right to marry as a fundamental right on numerous occasions since 1888.  Wallace then trips up a little here, and I’m certain he understands the significance of it.

Wallace says “Where is the… talk about the right to marriage, where is the right to same sex marriage in the Constitution?”  This is a very telling slip on his part, because he knows very well that the right to marriage itself is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, though he won’t call the 1888 decision “judicial activism.”  This is a big deal because the conservative philosophy is to ignore the 9th Amendment (or equate it with the 10th) and minimize the 14th – if it isn’t mentioned, it doesn’t exist.  But how popular will legal conservatives be with less educated social conservatives if they say that marriage is not a fundamental right protected by the Constitution?  It would take some explaining.  Wallace almost blew it.

So Wallace tries to frame it as the creation of a right to “same sex marriage,” distinguishing it from marriage, and asks if it appears in the Constitution.  Olson’s response was good:  “where is the right to interracial marriage in the Constitution, Chris?”  However, he might simply have asked the question Wallace started to ask, namely, “where is the right to marriage in the Constitution, Chris?”

So where are the principled conservatives who will argue that marriage is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution?  I know there are a few out there, but then tend towards the libertarian side of the movement and away from social conservatism.

By the way, Olson could have framed it differently.  It’s not necessarily the marriage itself that need be deemed a right.  Equal treatment under the law is a right already enumerated, in that 14th Amendment so many conservatives don’t like on a number of levels.

There was another remarkable moment in the discussion when Olson proclaimed, “Well most people use the term ‘judicial activism’ to explain the decisions they don’t like.”  Wallace agreed.  Of course, most people who use the phrase are in the conservative camp, since many liberals actually believe in judicial activism to protect individual rights against the will of the majority.  I’m glad it was framed that way in front of millions of Fox viewers.  It undercuts the whole narrative.

I’ve touched on the topic in a few posts past, like this one.  For your reference, the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This is what Madison said about it.

It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

It seems that Madison’s fears have come to life as a central tenet of conservative legal philosophy.  At least it’s a tenet when it’s politically convenient.

A blast from the past. Quiche anyone?

Former SNL cast member Victoria Jackson sings “There’s a Communist in the White House.”

She and Dennis Miller must have slipped off the SNL set one night in the late 1980s and shared the same drug.  At least Jackson still has a sense of humor, dorky as it is.

TPM compiles the info.

Just remarking that Eugene Genovese, ex-communist turned conservative, once remarked that he found right wingers to be so much more polite than left wingers.  He’s a stand up guy actually, part of that sidelined conservative intellectualism.  I wonder if he’s revised his opinion over the past year.

For whatever it’s worth, the differences are 6 to 11 points between liberals and conservatives.

Curiously, while monogamous men are smarter than philandering men, women who sleep around tend to be just as intelligent as monogamous women.

This article looks at some of the issues a little more closely.

Jerry Brown announces tomorrow – online.  Is he the first to do so?  Is it a good idea?  He seems pretty casual as his chief opponent has spent nearly 40 million already (albeit some of it seemingly wasteful if not counterproductive).


Condi Rice has endorsed Whitman.  Again, I think Whitman is out of touch with California.  Or I am.  I’ve been wrong before.  But I just don’t see what she gains from this endorsement.


One of the chief banes of health care reform so far has been Democratic Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln.  Progressives have been pushing a strategy to “primary” the conservative Democrats and Blue Dogs, which I really think is a good idea.  You win, you send a message to Dem pols.  You lose, and you’ve actually helped the Blue Dogger appear centrist for the general.  Anyway, the netroots is already on board with Lincoln’s progressive primary opponent.  Well, now the big boys are jumping in too.


Last week I mentioned Jim Bunning’s one-man filibuster (for which he complained that he had to miss a basketball game).  The Democrats are jumping at the opportunity to make hay.  Bunning will be their poster boy for awhile.  It has not only unemployed thousands of workers, but it will result in a 21 percent Medicare fee cut for physicians.


Tea Party – meet the Coffee Party.

Maybe the Greens should start a Chai Party!

Serious memo to Coffee Party leadership – a decent enough concept, but too many words!  Focus.  Clarity.  Don’t come across like John Kerry.


Once again McCain rewrites his voting history.

Vodpod videos no longer available.
more about “McCain 2010 claims he was misled on b…“, posted with vodpod
Obama doesn’t have FDR’s mojo.  But then, as Nate Silver points out, he doesn’t have FDR’s majority either.
Lastly (for now) the national media has caught up with the “Mexican Cartel invasion” of public lands.

Disturbing ironies all the way around.  First you have progressives bragging about Obama’s war push.  Apparently he’s “captured more Taliban leaders in the past month than Cheney did in 6 years.”  Conservatives at the wild and crazy CPAC conference meanwhile are saying that Obama is killing too many terrorists, and not leaving enough to be tortured for information.

The IRS union doesn’t find amusing the CPAC humor about the right wing terror attack on their office yesterday.

And when asked to comment on whether we should equate WWII with the Iraq War, our favorite hippie responded “Well, in the sense they’re both wars …”


June 2018
« May