Around The ‘Sphere
Our occasional linkfest giving you interesting reading from sites representing varying viewpoints. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Moderate Voice or his co-bloggers.
Has Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist Flip-Flopped On Stem Cell Research? Charging RINO looks at the issue.
This Ties In With A Question About The GOP: Is there now what Bull Moose calls a neo-AuH2O faction in the GOP? He explains:
Barry Goldwater was the first prophet of the conservative insurgency. Despite his disastrous defeat in ’64, his race was the harbinger of the right’s ascendancy to power. In his later years, of course, Barry expressed his disgust and disagreement with the emergence of the religious right as a force. He colorfully collided with its leaders.
He notes that Goldwater didn’t like Jerry Falwell. And Ronald Reagan? Bull Moose notes that RR paid lip service to the religious right and that was about it but:”In contrast, Bush and Rove have elevated the religious right to a dominant status in the Party ,while eschewing any notion of limited government. The reign of the Bushies is predicated on an alliance of plutocracy and theocracy.”
And what does this mean? Bull Moose (who used to work for Senator John McCain) writes:
The “neo-Goldwaterites” are Republican center-right voters who are fiscally conservative-libertarian, defense hawks who are repelled by the inordinate power of the religious right. They are not necessarily moderates – in fact they have a deeper commitment to balanced budgets and limited government than the Bushies.
Watch for the “neo-g’s” to play a significant role in the ’08 Republican Presidential primaries as the conventional Bushie-cons divide the spoils of the religious right. And Barry’s band has a natural leader who is truly the heir to his political legacy.
It makes sense because: (a)A segment of the GOP presidential hopefuls will be wooing the religious right and they could split that part of the vote. (b)The stem cell research issue is just about to boil over: it has NOT hit its peak yet. (c)We already know of some Democrats and independents who would enthusiastically register in the GOP to vote in primaries for the candidate Bull Mooose suggests could be a viable one.
Resources And More Resources: Julien’s List (on our blogroll under Left Voices) is compling a GREAT resource page with lots of links. Take a look — and bookmark it. This will be of use to bloggers, journalists and plain old citizens who have a life and don’t blog.
A Complicated Tale Of A Former American Hostage Indicted For Plotting Hostage Taking In Romani can be found at The Jawa Report. We won’t try to describe it here. Read the post in its entirety. Curious…
Government’s Tax Citizens For Everything…But SPERM BANKS? Read this post and you’ll get the thrust of it.
Fate And History: Iowa Voice has been pondering a bunch of what ifs, such as:
I was just browsing through the Memoirs of Ronald Reagan for the umpteenth time…and I got to thinking about some “what ifs”.
At first, I thought “What if Ford had beaten Carter in 1976?” Ford more than likely would have ran again in 1980. Would Reagan still have ran? Would he have won? Would inflation, gas prices, etc., all been spiraling out of control? Would Iran have fallen and the hostages taken?
Then, I got to thinking even more deeply. We only had Ford because of Watergate. We only had Watergate because of Nixon. We only had Nixon because of Vietnam. We only had Vietnam because of Johnson. So what if we never had Johnson? What if Kennedy wasn’t assasinated in 1963? He surely would have been re-elected in a walk, so that would have meant no Johnson, at least not until 1968.
He outlines his question in more detail (read this in full). And includes this:
It’s my belief that if Kennedy was not killed, we wouldn’t have had Johnson, Ford, or Carter. We may have still had Nixon, but we more than likely wouldn’t have had Reagan. The Soviet Union would still be around (and winning).
I’d be really interested to hear other bloggers’ thoughts on this. To think that so much history pivots on a single event of mere seconds (the shots fired by Oswald) just boggles the mind. I am a great believer in fate. That things happen for a reason, and that forces conspire to place certain men in the middle of events. My standard statement is that “History will find a way”. History and fate have always found the right person for the right job at the right time.
So? What do YOU think??
Do Conservatives Actually Fear Air America? Crooks And Liar’s John Amato makes the case that they do in this satire run on The American Street. A small part of his argument:
They will cry and whine and whimper at its arrival, but they are afraid, afraid that time is running out. The fairness doctrineâ€™s destruction was their lift off, and now the domination of the airwaves will slowly diminish. Itâ€™s too late now. It has begun. The infrastructure is being built and voices are in training. The carefully controlled media will soon follow suit. They have to. When the money pours in the corporate stockholders will want their returns. The republicans are like the moneychangers that Jesus kicked out of the temples. They disguise themselves in the bible, but they cannot hide any longer. David will soon slay Goliath once again.
Their arguments will grow tired as a new and fresher voice will emerge. Be patient where we are now because the preparation has just begun. Air America is flying high in the twilight summer air, like a magnificent dove, its white feathered wings spread across the majestic skies. They try to extinguish it but the match has been lit. The tremors have begun; a rippling effect is in motion. Even Pat Robertsonâ€™s God cannot stop the coming storm.
How To Support The Troops: Winds of Change has an exhaustive post with tons of links on ways you can help. It doesn’t matter what policies you support or don’t support. These are American young people who are out there and could use some help (we donated our old laptop to a company that refurbishes computers and sends them to the people out in the field).
Political Purity Political Shmurity: Jay Tea at Wizbang has a great post about people insisting on political “purity” (read that: inflexible, no compromise, take-no-prisoners politics). Read it IN FULL but here are a few excerpts:
The extremists on both sides tend to test everyone on their “purity” to their ideals, and cast aside or turn on those who fall short of their goals. The Democrats are doing that with people like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, and the Republicans have their own history of turning on the moderates in their ranks. They both seem to forget that in a democratic republic like we have, numbers count — and chasing away people is not a very good way to expand one’s influence and advance one’s agenda.
A while ago, in my ongoing quarter-hearted effort to lose some weight (I’ll let you know when it gets to half-hearted), I started piling lettuce on my sandwiches. The idea was to add bulk to the meal so I’d feel fuller, without actually eating more stuff that will add to my weight problem. Now, when I eat sandwiches without lettuce, I notice that I’m hungrier after. I think both political parties could use a little time in the kitchen, because it’s that added “bulk” in the party that often makes the difference between tasting victory and still being left hungry after the election.
Now, “purity” does have a second meaning — uncorrupted, unsullied, untainted. Those are, indeed, things to be valued. But the two meanings are non synonymous, and those who attempt to blur the lines between them do so to their own detriment.
Yes. American politics used to be about aggregating interests, not just going after your right or left base and telling the rest of the voters to go hang or to do the biologically impossible (well, for some politicians it IS possible, but they’re too busy doing it to the voters who aren’t part of their base).
The new name of the game is to just make sure all your supporters are beside you so they can destroy the other side in the political gang war — versus the older style, where the two gangs might sit down and try to ward off the bloodletting…and even invite non-gang members to come in and help settle the problem. Walk away from TOTAL victory? Oh, that’s so 20th century!
THE REVILING OF A BLOGGER: No, for a change, it’s not TMV being denounced by people of both parties. THIS time its Armies’ of Liberation’s Jane Novak who is being trashed in the Yemen Times with the headline:”Jane Novak a docile pupil of a monkey monk.” Whoa! Them’s fighting words! It’s too complicated for us to go into here but it is a MUST read because it seems to be retaliation for her writings about Al Qaeda links in Yemen’s government, plus repressive policies there. READ IT IN FULL.