Now listen, queer, you leave high school out of this or I’ll sock you in the face and you’ll stay plastered . . . And I might even push Richard Huss into a bush while I’m at it!

see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li73RRLEyW8

2) So we have a difference of opinion on how long is long enough to stay in Iraq. Since neither of us are expert witnesses I’m inclined to go with the opinion of General Petraeus. When it comes to the candidate who I trust most to back up the military opinion on the ground I would go with the war veteran John McCain rather than Mr. Obama. Interesting note: McCain is not some radical hawk. He initially was reluctant to go to war with Iraq, but once we got involved he intended to see it finished as best as possible. The same was true of McCain during the Kosovo/Serbian bombing campaign.

3) The only reason I brought Bill Clinton up was because you used him as an example of good economic policy-making. I agree that he did most of whatever the Republican Congress requested of him…thus the good economic decisions, like NAFTA and budget cutting, were because of Conservatism, not liberalism.

4) True, and I think the winds of popular opinion, pointed out by you and Austin, are on the side of government provided healthcare of some form, so we will get to see how it works out first hand.

5) It was originally in the Feingold half of McCain-Feingold last summer, but it got cut out in the compromise plan.

- You may very well be right about the split in the Republican party. Although I think if there was to be a formal split it would have happened already. The differences between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives has been a source of tension within the party ever since 1980, but although social conservatives are ticked at McCain I don’t think that they are that annoyed. They may not vote for him, but so far there haven’t been any rumblings of a third party for disaffected social conservatives, just for moderates like Mayor Bloomberg.

2) We did crack the eggs and it is messy. I don’t expect any president to pull out of Iraq irresponsibly, but how much is enough? I think we’ve been there long enough. Violence is down, however, at the same time we are paying extremists on both sides so they do not increase violence. So is the surge working? maybe, but i think us paying people off is also dropping levels of violence. We can’t keep combat troops there forever and the longer we do the less incentive the Iraqi’s have to support themselves. I think that the time has come to start deescalation. Again, I don’t expect Barack to take troops out if he knows there will be a disaster and he will base his actions on what the status is in 2009.

3) right, but Clinton also had a republican majority in the congress. Keeping him on the conservative side. The republicans are set to lose more seats this election as Bush has left a bad taste in the mouth of many. Democrats are challenging many republican incumbents again this year and the chances are high for them to win, and probably even higher with Obama at the top of the ticket.

4) Moore’s movie was obviously biased, focusing on the good only, I definitely agree with that. I feel this comes down to republicans and democrats just agreeing to disagree. There are positives and negatives with both private and public health care. We feel its time to shift to public health care and feel it will work, but the negatives and arguments against it are sound. We will have to see what happens here, just like Iraq.

5) I haven’t heard about him having them join unions…not in any speech or talking point I have ever heard him say on immigration. But I think all the candidates have the right stance on immigration.

-You make good counter arguments, we will just have to wait and see. I feel that the polls show the American people are swaying towards the democratic policies of health care and Iraq. Again, I feel that Bush has severely crippled his party, which is obvious when McCain gets the nomination. The country has clearly shifted left a bit as I don’t think someone as liberal as Obama would be doing so good. 2008 is a point where our politics will change and I wouldn’t be surprised if a new party emerges, like a conservative party, as Americans take a left shift.

Thanks Jeff for providing the link to your blog post on Obama, Rhetoric, Aristotle, and Plato; it is as thought provoking as it is humourous.

Thanks Eric for reminding me that rhetoric, especially for the believer, is not only the means to the end. Our choice of speech/style has eternal significance in and of itself because it has the capacity to dishonor or honor Christ. The end (substance, content) does not always justify the means (style, rhetoric).

Timmy, I used the Dr. Bob’s as an example because: 1) I actually like them and have something of a reputation of a BJ apologist. So by using them as an example I hoped to reveal a willingness to play fair…both liberals and conservatives can say pretty stupid things. 2) The Dr Bob’s have also rarely retracted or apologized for their inflammatory comments (ie Betty Ford as the whore of Babylon, Bush Sr as the ally of the Anti-Christ). Their rhetoric was merely a way to express the intensity of their displeasure. I am willing to give Rev. Wright similar latitude even though he clearly is as opposite from Dr. Bob as it is possible to be!

I think it somewhat unfair to say that I’ve been unfair in my coverage of conservatives. The preponderance of my political posts up till now have sought to prove that John McCain was (mostly) a conservative and I applauded his most conservative positions. Indeed, the post I’ve been thinking of writing next deals with a libertarian understanding of educational systems. I’m not becoming “more liberal” though I may be becoming more libertarian.

At the same time, I may very well post more about common ground with liberals/moderates simply because that is somewhat untread ground. If you want a constant diet of reactionary conservative vitriol, than maybe I’m not the best blog to check (though I hope you do because you say the funniest things about me!).

Nick, thanks for joining the discussion! A diversity of opinion makes for good clash (Mr. Nicholas would be proud) in a discussion. Unfortunately, you are still a male WASP like the rest of us, with the exception my fiancee, who is half Puerto Rican. Allow me to respond to your observations point by point.

1) “I find that this Wright controversy has done the awful thing of making Barack into the “black” candidate.” - I don’t think that Barack’s transformation into the “black” candidate was a result of Wright. If you crunch the exit poll data from early on in the race, at least up to South Carolina, Obama’s numerical base has been black voters. In South Carolina between 3/4 and 4/5 of black people voted for Obama. As the primaries went on the gap increased until by states like Alabama and Mississippi the proportion was more like 9/10. Obama’s momentum was built on black votes. White votes have been relatively evenly divided between the Hillary and Obama until recently. I would go so far as to nearly agree with Ferraro that Obama’s blackness, and thus his black appeal, is what made his candidacy viable. This is a bit tangential, but I find it ironic that white democratic voters appear statistically more color blind than black democratic voters.

2) Iraq is a mess, certainly. We were mistaken about WMD, the troop strength required, and the cost of the war. That cost has been ruinous…war is NEVER healthy for the economy since it is inherently destructive of wealth. At the same time, to pull out either immediately or within a year or two could undo the shaky infrastructure created at the cost of thousands of American lives and billions of dollars. Even if I cede that it may have been “wrong” to go into Iraq, that doesn’t mean we should make things worse by pulling out. We cracked the eggs and so we have some moral duty to make the best omelet we can.

3) The Clinton “Democratic way” was more conservative than it was liberal. He actually managed to decrease the size of government by cutting welfare benefits and general government spending…a bit too laissez-faire for most hardcore liberals. Admittedly Clinton was a finger in the wind style politician and was signing most of what the Contract With America Congress put in front of him.

4) Healthcare is a bit of a quality v. quantity argument. Universal healthcare sounds great in theory (or in a Michael Moore video), but in practice, based on my personal experience in Australia, it provides pretty shoddy, though universal, service for the general population while the wealthy come to America for better healthcare. Even if universal healthcare worked, it is still ruinously, and I don’t use that term lightly, expensive. The Continent is already beginning to have massive shortfalls as they fail to meet their healthcare promises. I would like to learn from their negative example rather than only focusing on their positives as Moore does. His healthcare plan may be feasible now, but it won’t be in another 10-20 years as the boomers age and our workforce shrinks as a proportion of the population.

5) Immigration is a bright spot in Obama’s platform. Yet I would still go with McCain because I fear Obama likely to agree to Democratic stipulations on required Union membership for all immigrant laborers. Artifical intervention in the market hinders the production of wealth.

Anywho, this has been a good lively debate!

1. My claim that conservatives are far more likely and able to use politics of personal destruction is indeed an empirical one. I’m confident that any reasonable look at political contests in the past 25 years would absolutely support my claim. I am, however, too lazy to see if such work has actually been done. But my claim is neither dogmatic, one-sided, nor unfounded.
2. I thank you for your praise of my prose—indeed, I’m quite proud of it myself. However, my joy is tempered by your apparent misinterpretation of what I wrote. I said the rot is at the base of conservative politics, not conservative principles, as you seem to interpret.
3. As for the substance of my last comment, though citing one example is hardly a Q.E.D, I thought it was illustrative enough for my point to be persuasive. In the interest of bolstering my case though, I’d ask one only to consider Lee Atwater a South Carolina native, and the unquestionable father of modern Republican political tactics—and its subsequent rot. A case that the “liberal media” has influenced electoral outcomes more than his brand of politics could perhaps be made, but I doubt it. I take it as an uplifting sign that his influence seems to be waning.

Anyway, that’s all from me. After reading Tim’s comments I’m reminded at how debates with him in high school over lunch were wearisome and never edifying, and sometimes ended with him physically striking me and/or throwing greasy Snack Shop food at me. Though thousands of miles apart and the communication purely electronic, I can’t help but feel the similar
in the utter pointlessness of it all and, slumping in my office chair, my nose seems to detect the aroma of French fries wafting in the air…

Just break down that paragraph. It’s quintessential liberal rhetoric. Sentence 1: unfounded claim clothed in pretty rhetoric. Sentence 2: dramatic illustration. Sentence 3: unfounded conclusion, again, clothed in pretty rhetoric. Sound as pretty as you want, but at least say something substantive! Shall we forget McCain’s rumored affair that the NY Times ran for days after McCain the Republican nominee? Shall we also forget the report of Bush’s decades-old DUI that the liberal media broke days before the ’04 election?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m attacking the message, not the messenger, and I’m not arguing that either conservatives or liberals are “far more skilled at and use far more often the politics of personal destruction.” I’m arguing precisely that it’s impossible to make a claim either way without substantial evidence, especially a claim so dogmatic and one-sided.

However, I’ve always thought liberals were the better politicians. That’s just my opinion, and I have my reasons. If personal attacks are simply the nature of politics, then it would seem to follow that liberals would be more skilled at and use with greater frequency personal attacks because they’re better politicians. Granted, that conclusion flows from an opinion, but I think it’s a fair observation.

Finally, a phrase like the following should not be ignored because, although wonderfully written, it evidences a complete ignorance of conservatism: “To deny this rot in the foundation of conservative politics is cognitive dissonance at best and utter dishonesty at worst.” The sentence is empty rhetoric, at best, and complete error, at worst. First, it asserts that if you disagree with its author’s position, you’re an idiot. No reason given. You’re simply either cognitively dissonant or utterly dishonest. Second, and more significantly, it misuses the phrase “foundation of conservative politics.” The foundations of conservative politics would be stuff like the preservation of freedom, the separation of governmental powers, or a judiciary that says what the law is and not what it should be. Of course, those foundations have no relevance is the context of that sentence or, even, that paragraph.

So what does that sentence even mean? Well, probably nothing. Its style is rather coercive, and it would seem that its language attempts to pressure its reader into agreeing with the position of its author. Although deceptive, the technique is not rare and is found, often, in the newsrooms at ABC, NBC, and CBS, as well as in the classrooms of liberal professors at secular universities all across America.

I felt the biggest problem with the Wright controversy is that people are using guilt by association in order to perform a political assassination, and it isn’t just some conservatives or fox news. Watching some of the blogs on Politico, Democrats, Hillary supporters, are doing the SAME thing. As a Democrat I find it disgusting. Look, if you are part of my party the only thing that will be important once the nominee is elected will be defeating John McCain, who i respect, however wouldn’t vote for because of his aligning with Bush’s policies, some of which he used to oppose.

I find that this Wright controversy has done the awful thing of making Barack into the “black” candidate and has scared some whites, which i feel is an unfortunate view into racism and ignorance being at a higher level than thought before.

I also felt that his speech on Tuesday was a remarkably candid response to race. One that has never been said out in the open by a politician and I believe Barack is probably the only politician that could have said what he has, because he is African-American and in a remarkable presidential race. What he also did was remind America that he is also white, raised by whites, and that he has more of a balanced view on race than most Americans can.

Unfortunately, for some, Obama not throwing his pastor under the bus, lighting him on fire and then blowing him up with a hand grenade means that he, of course, agrees with the pastor’s anti-American views, instead of looking at what Wright said. Wright is a man of God, who brought Obama to the church, yet he is a man of contradiction. He is an African American born out of the Civil Rights movement with a social view that white America just cannot understand (no matter how much people like me may say we do). Obama loves the man for his religion, but vehemently disagrees with his social views and I, and others, respect the fact that he cannot disown him.

I myself, have or had, plenty of racist older relatives, who I love but thought some of their views were disgusting.

When it comes to the election, if Obama is the nominee, I know that McCain will not bring up Wright and will stick to the issues. The “swift-boat” groups, however, are a different unfortunate story. I feel that when conservatives put the kind of spin on this story that you have mentioned, it displays racism and breeds an ignorance of people to be caught up in what is being said without a broad look at its context and the fact that Obama doesn’t feel the same way.

When it comes to the issues you have brought up the exact differences between McCain and Obama:
Iraq: I feel that ending the war in a responsible way is what he will do. He has said that it would take 16 months in a best case scenario to take out troops. He won’t just remove them immediately, something i feel Hillary may do, but instead look at whats going on before acting. This war has been proven to be one that we got into for the wrong reasons. There were no WMD’s and there was no Al Queda link, but we were led to believe that and now we’re in a mess. Yes, it is great that Saddam is out of power, but there are plenty of dictators that we do not go after.

Economy: But not only are we in a messy war, but also a messy economy, and I feel that the 500 billion + spent in this war has obviously helped us towards this. Taking this money and investing in our country is what needs to be done and Obama will do this. I also don’t agree with the Bush tax cuts, which are, as you say, supposed to help those that stimulate the economy. This was a good argument, but the position we are in today shows that the fiscal conservative way isn’t working as well as the Clinton democratic way of doing things 8 years ago. Now, whether that is actually because of Bush’s plans or because of differing circumstances out of his control are unfortunately in the minds of Americans irrelevant. They just see and say “Last Dem. Pres. = great economy, This Republican Pres. = Bad economy.

Health care: It is deplorable that we as the “strongest nation in the world” have some of the worst health care in industrialized nations. Universal health care, Obama’s plan being more realistic than Hillary’s, is the path to getting Americans better health care and improving our life expectancies, standards of living and child mortality and morbidity.

Immigration: This is a problem that doesn’t disappear, but also one that I think McCain and Obama agree with. Busing out 12 million illegals is impossible and way to costly so ignoring the problem and just screaming “get out,” as many conservatives do, does nothing. Better border security coupled with a pathway to legalization/documentation/citizenship is the only practical way to tackle the problem. Holding down an immigrant population affects our economy in a negative way and will only create an underclass, which is disgraceful.

Many say his policies will be impossible to pay for, however, according the Wall Street Journal, his policies are realistically within our economic reach. The past 8 years have seen some of the worst foreign policy and economic policy. Bush will go down in history as one of the worst, and this is something that not only democrats are saying.

I feel, and so do the democrats, that McCain will continue an overwhelmingly unpopular war, instead of taking out combat troops, leaving peace troops to maintain peace with the right to strike Al Queda targets - like Obama will do. The fact is that Bush has hurt the republican party more than anyone else. The polls clearly show that what the democrats are talking about and how they want to change the status quo is what a majority of Americans prefer. Republicans may scream that its socialist, unrealistic, to expensive and that their way is better, but the proof is in the pudding. This compassionate conservative has done nothing but worsen the problem for the average American, who may not hold the offices of power, but controls who enters into them.

P.S. - Tim, the Earth is actually 4.5 billion years old, but we will never agree on that one

Barring that, you could of course look at my thee part series on rhetoric and Obama (where Obama is simply representative sample of all politicians).

There is no denying that conservatives are far more skilled at and use far more often the politics of personal destruction–even on their own kind. Need I remind my old friends at Bob Jones how a certain professor helped pushpollers destroy McCain in 2000 by perpetuating a baseless story about him having “sired” an illegitimate—wait for it—black baby. To deny this rot in the foundation of conservative politics is cognitive dissonance at best an utter dishonesty at worst.

But I happen to think this is simply the nature of politics, and I don’t dare have the audacity of hope that it will ever be different.

Paul, I hope you’re doing well, by the way—all the best from your Webelos hiking companion of yore.