I'd have added the militias, but they came and went — and weren't quite up to the Birchers' or even the KKK's standards, anyway. [grin]

“Yet by the same logic there are no real liberals in Washington either since the Communists are not in charge of the Democratic party.”

In charge? No dispute whatsoever. The Dem Party leadership goes to lengths to give swing voters the impression the party is staid, trustworthy, and has learned from liberalism's past mistakes and failures. That was what lay behind their use in a contemporary sense of the term “Third Way.” (Smart people never bought it, but some did.) I believe Al From told Jesse Jackson that activists like Jackson (the party's left wing, well left of center to truly far left) had no place in party decision making.

Third Way — New Democrats — what's not decided in the Executive or Congress or by activists in the judiciary is devised by the likes of Brookings or PPI — [writhing]

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=132

http://www.ndol.org/

The party overall is much more diverse and interesting than the GOP in that respect; it has many who are well left of center and normal by US standards (though many would wish for another party like the Greens if one were viable), and some truly radical (think of McKinney, Lee, and don't forget Dellums if our adventure in Grenada gets any revisitation any time soon). Wellstone was radical; Kucinich is radical. The special interest groups of the Dems are numerous (unions, lawyers, etc.) and at times have sought or supported radical, not just liberal, objectives. It's an uneven playing field (which you can see in how the GOP and conservativism is so badly mischaracterized and misplaced on the spectrum by the media, who overall are well left of center and of neutrality).

The solution to the Dems especially but also to the GOP is to fracture these parties and to then go to proportional representation everywhere it can be done (practically speaking, with groups of five or more seats to be contested). Many small states don't have enough Congressional seats by themselves but perhaps a regional system (which is more “representative,” to use an overused word about Iowa and New Hampshire, of different parts of the nation and their different ways of life; this nation is NOT homogeneous) would be ideal for this purpose (for the House of Representatives).

I'd have added the militias, but they came and went — and weren't quite up to the Birchers' or even the KKK's standards, anyway. [grin]

“Yet by the same logic there are no real liberals in Washington either since the Communists are not in charge of the Democratic party.”

In charge? No dispute whatsoever. The Dem Party leadership goes to lengths to give swing voters the impression the party is staid, trustworthy, and has learned from liberalism's past mistakes and failures. That was what lay behind their use in a contemporary sense of the term “Third Way.” (Smart people never bought it, but some did.) I believe Al From told Jesse Jackson that activists like Jackson (the party's left wing, well left of center to truly far left) had no place in party decision making.

Third Way — New Democrats — what's not decided in the Executive or Congress or by activists in the judiciary is devised by the likes of Brookings or PPI — [writhing]

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=132

http://www.ndol.org/

The party overall is much more diverse and interesting than the GOP in that respect; it has many who are well left of center and normal by US standards (though many would wish for another party like the Greens if one were viable), and some truly radical (think of McKinney, Lee, and don't forget Dellums if our adventure in Grenada gets any revisitation any time soon). Wellstone was radical; Kucinich is radical. The special interest groups of the Dems are numerous (unions, lawyers, etc.) and at times have sought or supported radical, not just liberal, objectives. It's an uneven playing field (which you can see in how the GOP and conservativism is so badly mischaracterized and misplaced on the spectrum by the media, who overall are well left of center and of neutrality).

The solution to the Dems especially but also to the GOP is to fracture these parties and to then go to proportional representation everywhere it can be done (practically speaking, with groups of five or more seats to be contested). Many small states don't have enough Congressional seats by themselves but perhaps a regional system (which is more “representative,” to use an overused word about Iowa and New Hampshire, of different parts of the nation and their different ways of life; this nation is NOT homogeneous) would be ideal for this purpose (for the House of Representatives).

Next up, superdestroyer, you and I go around on this every month or two, but one's ethnicity does not truly determine how people vote. Hispanics consider candidates the same way that everyone else does. Republicans can win them over if they are welcoming to Hispanics and fight for this issue Hispanic voters care about. Of course, Hispanics are many millions of people from many countries and many different economic and social backgrounds, so they have many various issues they care about. If the only message the Republican party can consistently give out is that we don't want you here, then they are indeed in trouble.

Finally, I understand what you are saying, DLS, about the KKK and Birchers. Yet by the same logic there are no real liberals in Washington either since the Communists are not in charge of the Democratic party.

Next up, superdestroyer, you and I go around on this every month or two, but one's ethnicity does not truly determine how people vote. Hispanics consider candidates the same way that everyone else does. Republicans can win them over if they are welcoming to Hispanics and fight for this issue Hispanic voters care about. Of course, Hispanics are many millions of people from many countries and many different economic and social backgrounds, so they have many various issues they care about. If the only message the Republican party can consistently give out is that we don't want you here, then they are indeed in trouble.

Finally, I understand what you are saying, DLS, about the KKK and Birchers. Yet by the same logic there are no real liberals in Washington either since the Communists are not in charge of the Democratic party.

True, and aptly deserved.

True, and aptly deserved.

Clinton leads OVERALL in delegates, 845-765 according to the most recent numbers.

Clinton leads OVERALL in delegates, 845-765 according to the most recent numbers.

You were corrected already, elsewhere, about misuse of the term “far right.” The Birchers and KKK and Spanish Inquisition and Nazi Party don't run Washington, no matter what some may believe and claim.

“classical authoritarian behavior”

Straw man. Also ironic, given the Left has been the main totalitarianism-flirting element of our society here in the USA since the Progressive Era.

You were corrected already, elsewhere, about misuse of the term “far right.” The Birchers and KKK and Spanish Inquisition and Nazi Party don't run Washington, no matter what some may believe and claim.

“classical authoritarian behavior”

Straw man. Also ironic, given the Left has been the main totalitarianism-flirting element of our society here in the USA since the Progressive Era.

Some of that is just applied modern liberalism, and the rest is a distorted version of it.

“like brushing your teeth with baking soda”

Mischaracterization. Greatly reducing the size and scope of Washington is in no way negative or crude. Anything truly sought or desired can still be undertaken by state and local government, where almost everything properly belongs.

On the other hand, our modern liberalism and government interventionism has a great analogy to describe it. You (our society, or our economy) has an ailment. The doctor prescribes medication (a government program or regulation or other form of interventionism). Never mind that what often happens is that the problem is made worse. We get side effects from the medication (unintended consequences, though in practice they're often predicted). What does the doctor do? Why, prescribe more medication, this time for the side effects of the earlier, original medication. What happens? Additional side effects. More medicine is prescribed. And so it goes. That's what we have with Washington as well as in some states (such as in New York).

Stopping the medicines that are harming us is hardly choosing to be crude.

“What's a guy gotta do around here to get some conservative credentials?”

Be consistently conservative, not opportunistically conservative (or opportunistically liberal at times to draw attention to one's self).

Example? End a federal entitlement program. Don't just reduce future cost growth; end the program. If it's wanted badly enough in some places, those places 9states and localities) can undertake it.

Some of that is just applied modern liberalism, and the rest is a distorted version of it.

“like brushing your teeth with baking soda”

Mischaracterization. Greatly reducing the size and scope of Washington is in no way negative or crude. Anything truly sought or desired can still be undertaken by state and local government, where almost everything properly belongs.

On the other hand, our modern liberalism and government interventionism has a great analogy to describe it. You (our society, or our economy) has an ailment. The doctor prescribes medication (a government program or regulation or other form of interventionism). Never mind that what often happens is that the problem is made worse. We get side effects from the medication (unintended consequences, though in practice they're often predicted). What does the doctor do? Why, prescribe more medication, this time for the side effects of the earlier, original medication. What happens? Additional side effects. More medicine is prescribed. And so it goes. That's what we have with Washington as well as in some states (such as in New York).

Stopping the medicines that are harming us is hardly choosing to be crude.

“What's a guy gotta do around here to get some conservative credentials?”

Be consistently conservative, not opportunistically conservative (or opportunistically liberal at times to draw attention to one's self).

Example? End a federal entitlement program. Don't just reduce future cost growth; end the program. If it's wanted badly enough in some places, those places 9states and localities) can undertake it.

Having read some of your comments I get the impression you think of conservatism in a more pure, old fashioned form whereas I only think of modern conservatism as demonstrated by corporate welfare, anti-science thinking, increased government intrusion, anti-environmental policy, and consolidated federal power.

The old kind of conservatism may have some value, like brushing your teeth with baking soda, but it certainly isn't evident in the practice of any current self-proclaimed conservative policy makers.

So we end up with McCain, who has voted 85% percent along those conservative lines for his entire career suddenly not being conservative enough.

What's a guy gotta do around here to get some conservative credentials?

Having read some of your comments I get the impression you think of conservatism in a more pure, old fashioned form whereas I only think of modern conservatism as demonstrated by corporate welfare, anti-science thinking, increased government intrusion, anti-environmental policy, and consolidated federal power.

The old kind of conservatism may have some value, like brushing your teeth with baking soda, but it certainly isn't evident in the practice of any current self-proclaimed conservative policy makers.

So we end up with McCain, who has voted 85% percent along those conservative lines for his entire career suddenly not being conservative enough.

What's a guy gotta do around here to get some conservative credentials?

My offer of the chest strap to give her an unsurpassed outdoor aerial view of things still stands.

(Once at altitude — oops! “Inadvertent” cargo hook release!)

My offer of the chest strap to give her an unsurpassed outdoor aerial view of things still stands.

(Once at altitude — oops! “Inadvertent” cargo hook release!)

I'll spare comment on your other, incorrect statements about conservatism (I'm on the moderate side and don't find most conservatism harmful, let alone loathsome, whereas liberalism has a record of failure and was responsible for the 1980 election results). I do enjoy the reader battles on Town Hall that respond to Hugh Hewitt, who has been a tireless Romney cheerleader and one of the leaders of the charge against McCain. (The reader remarks in fact are not in any true way disturbing; they are entertaining.)

Poor Hugh-ie had to face some ugly facts last night, McCain vs. Romney.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/b7d8fd20-...

I'll spare comment on your other, incorrect statements about conservatism (I'm on the moderate side and don't find most conservatism harmful, let alone loathsome, whereas liberalism has a record of failure and was responsible for the 1980 election results). I do enjoy the reader battles on Town Hall that respond to Hugh Hewitt, who has been a tireless Romney cheerleader and one of the leaders of the charge against McCain. (The reader remarks in fact are not in any true way disturbing; they are entertaining.)

Poor Hugh-ie had to face some ugly facts last night, McCain vs. Romney.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/b7d8fd20-...