Oh Lawd: The Great Debate: The Future Of The Right

Ah, merry blog readers - how long has it been since my debate with Conor with one N Franknfurter (no substance, only filling)? Twas so memorable, I seem to have forgotten, now.

Fair Conor has now issued a challenge to John Hawkins - here is part 1. Bookmark it so you can find two and three when they are up.

Careful John, Conor with one N is a sharp cookie. And if he bests you with one-half of his brain up his azz and the rest of it MIA, as is the case with Conor with one N, I dare say your credibility may never recover. Good luck! Courage! And all that rot!

::: tick ... tick ... tick :::

Hurry commenters, before fair Conor with one N doth throe himself into the comments section with all the gusto the moron can muster up. ; )

Or, perhaps he's learned his lesson by now? Hmm....

Comments

[Jamie Lockett]

P.J. O'Rourke you are not, funny man.

[Dan Riehl]

O'Rourke? Never claimed to be you dour missy. Conor send you in his place? ;)

[gary gulrud]

No, I won't be reading parts II & III. Their advice to conservatives?

H: Forget the Reagan agenda-to wit, smaller government?

F: Quit choosing your candidates on the basis of how much the liberals detest them.

Writing, good or bad, should be reserved for those with something to say. Go home, and may traffic always be against you.

[mark l.]

since it only part one:

conor did pretty good.

his only problem is that he sees intra-party fighting on the right, but glosses over(IGNORES) one of the largest political "impacts" in the past 10 years- the lieberman 2006 campaign.

relevant? guess who is going to filibuster any public option? the 2000 vp nominee for the dems. I don't deny the fissures in the gop, but this is not isolated within just the one politcal party.

the biggest "coffee spewing moment" came not from conor, but actually from John.

"Conservatives WILL NOT win by following the "Reagan agenda" because Reagan's agenda was designed, using conservative principles, to deal with the political situation of his day. Some of those battles have been won. Others have been irrevocably lost. Some have grown in importance. Others have lessened."

strong dollar policy? emphasis on smaller govt, relative to the economy as a whole? strong focus on productivity?
the realization that the economy grows faster under less taxation?

which of these reagan ideas are now no longer in vogue?

[Jamie Lockett]

Oh my bad, Dan. I assumed that your sophomoric attempt at humor was an attempt to emulate those much greater than yourself.

And no - I read your site often. When you're not being a condescending snide jackass you actually write some good stuff.

[mark l.]

along with the aformentioned lieberman purging, I'd also have to point to the 92 election...

ross perot draws almost 20% of the country, creating a split in the gop that wouldn't heal, until the next election cycle.

relative to these two incidents of infighting, this current intraparty squabble of the gop is like a tiny food fight.

The thing that jumps out at me every few months is the gallup ideology polls...
40% conservative, 36 % moderate, 20% liberal.

politics in a two party systm is a polar system. I'm really unsure that one can find a point between the two competing factions, and declare it a "true north". Since its location is dependent upon the attractive forces of either side, the positioning is inconsistent at best...

[Ran / Si Vis Pacem]

NeoSquish: "Going Rouge! Saving the Right from Conservatism."

http://ifyouseekpeace.blogspot.com/2009/11/going-rouge-saving-right-from.html

This is primarily a link back to here, Dan, with my own addition of graphical snarkitude... This being the "crucible of public discourse" 'n stuff.

If only those jerks on the Left could only get over their school-boy hang-up about the purpose of Government being "governance." [Nice lipstick, boys.]

[gary gulrud]

Palin/Bachmann in 2012!

Mittens, TPaw, Huckster? Pants Afire can beat the flaccid without us.

[cindi]

Too many of those Jamie crossin dressers on your blod Dan.

[Sam]

From Conor (mit ein "N"):

Ask a conservative Republican today about how his government performed during the Bush Administration, and you’ll hear complaints about profligate spending, the prescription drug benefit, the early management of the Iraq War, No Child Left Behind, the financial industry bailout, the Harriet Meyers nomination, attempts at foolhardy immigration reform, rising deficits, a GOP establishment that lost touch with the grassroots, official corruption, etc.

With the exception of Harriet Myers, "a GOP establishment that lost touch with the grassroots," and maybe immigration reform - all these were overwhelmingly supported by Democrats/liberals, or, if opposed, opposed because Bush didn't sell out enough.

So, most of conservatives' complaints about Bush were that he leaned too much to the left,and Conor's solution is.... move more to the left!

How anyone who openly supported Obama for President and fellow-travels with the likes of Andrew "Milky Loads" Sullivan can describe himself as a "conservative" with a straight face is beyond me.

Conor is at best a left-leaning libertarian, which means he's a liberal who pays lip service to limited government every once in a while.

[Jamie Lockett]

Sam,

So you're saying that the massive growth in entitlement spends, government scope and power during the Bush administration was conservative? Please explain how that is so.

[Mike2Cents]

Dan's gone and found yet another reason to - out of the blue as usual - to throw some pebbles at CF's window...just begging him to come an play with him.
This is all starting to feel a little stalker-ish at the point...

"Hurry commenters, before fair Conor with one N doth throe himself into the comments section with all the gusto the moron can muster up. ; )
Or, perhaps he's learned his lesson by now? Hmm...."

Man, are you even capable of feeling embarrassment?
And right, I'm sure CF has 'learned his lesson', what with all intellectual smack downs (aka silly name calling)he's had to endure from this bastion of wit and insight...

[Ran / Si Vis Pacem]

My 2 cents, Mike? This "bastion" has already provided more real content and genuine reporting than 1N will ever produce... Dan doesn't rely on a "Verbal Advantage" CD. He can tell a "crucible" from a crapper, thanks. But I'm with you on the bating 1N fetish. [1N can masterfully bate himself, eh? Nudge? Wink?]

Sam... I never did get the "compassionate" modifier Bush Lite™ applied to Conservatism. He was too damned compassionate with my kids' earnings and futures for my liking.

[gary gulrud]

"So you're saying that the massive growth in entitlement spends, government scope and power during the Bush administration was conservative?"

Obviously not, mouth the words while you read them.

I think there's some confusion of terminology in the use of conservative, libertarian, independent, etc., in the 'debate'(sic).

While I can't say how representative my views are, I'm a life-long independent, never given a nickel to either major, consider myself a social moderate, fiscal conservative and feel our two debaters couldn't find those like me sitting on their chests.

Anyway, defining conservatives as Republican is not enlightened I dare say.

[mark l.]

["Hurry commenters, before fair Conor with one N doth throe himself into the comments section with all the gusto the moron can muster up. ; )
Or, perhaps he's learned his lesson by now? Hmm...."

Man, are you even capable of feeling embarrassment?
And right, I'm sure CF has 'learned his lesson', what with all intellectual smack downs (aka silly name calling)he's had to endure from this bastion of wit and insight...]

**************

so you see it as a case of 'dan picking on the weakest child on the playground'?

[Jamie Lockett]

No its just a case of one man being a dick and thinking he's cool because of it.

[Mike2Cents]

Mark -
As I think you know, that of course wasn't my point.
Dan does indeed denigrate any 'debate' enough to the point where it does resemble a bunch of kids on the playground. And CF, futilely, does sometimes attempt to get Dan into the classroom.
And I kinda get the feeling that you might find some of Dan's antics and comments a little cringe worthy...just a little, maybe?

"...one-half of his brain up his azz and the rest of it MIA..."

I mean, come on , now. Dan does himself no favors with all this.

[X11B1P]

I guess liberalism is just as contagious for some Republicans as PTSD was for Major Nadal?

[Philip McDaniel]

"No its just a case of one man being a dick and thinking he's cool because of it."
Well, you're right about that, Jaime -- and I agree, you have summed up Conor exactly...

[mark l.]

"Dan does indeed denigrate any 'debate' enough to the point where it does resemble a bunch of kids on the playground."

read any good dailykos posts lately?

I understand your condemnation becuase of the tone...but dan still links to conor, and provides a forum for him, that I wouldn't otherwise get.

"And I kinda get the feeling that you might find some of Dan's antics and comments a little cringe worthy...just a little, maybe?"

who shouldn't make me cringe?
will, krauthammer, samuelson, etc...?
they all are guilty of making me cringe at sometime or another.

where are these purists that are divinely cringeless?

[mark l.]

in all honesty, no one makes me cringe more than ann coulter.

Still, I love her work.

[Sam]

Jamie:

Please work on your reading comprehension skills.

While that work is in progress,I will restate my point in real simple words so you can follow along.

Bush was NOT particularly conservative, as evidenced by the list provided by the Boy With One N. And he was criticized quite vociferously by plenty of conseravtives for doing so. Politically, however, sane conservatives realized that the electoral alternative would have done all those things, and worse, plus losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so they supported Bush as best they could.

However, Bold New Thinkers like Milky Loads Sullivan and his buttboy Conor decided by some (possibly drug-addled) reasoning that The Anointed One was the REAL conservative choice and ....well, the results speak for themselves.

So basically, Conor's complaint with Bush (on the surface)is that he was too liberal, and his solution for this problem was to elect the most left-wing President the country has ever had.

Now,can you explain to me why anyone should pay any attention whatsoever to his deluded ramblings?

[templar knight]

Sam, you read my mind. Thank you, and I'll await an answer to your question. For quite a long time, I would imagine. Lol.

[Jamie Lockett]

Sam,

I don't recall much vocal opposition from the right on No Child Left Behind or the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. Nor did I hear much beyond "stay the course" in Iraq until Patreus showed up. The general response from 99% of the right (exceptions like Harriet Meyers only prove my point) was the defend Bush and the Republican Congress no matter how unconservative they were. Conservatives only really started criticizing them once the Democrats took back Congress and Obama won the White House.

All your lovely ad hominem attacks can't hide these facts.

Seriously do you people think that calling people names REALLY amounts to arguments? Are you all 12?

[Sam]

Jamie:

There was a LOT of criticism from the right on Bush's mushy domestic policies, much of it from the very same people (Limbaugh, Hannity, National Review, etc.) that gives you and your friend Conor the vapors - I don't why you keep pretending otherwise. There was also considerable, though much less, criticism from the right about the conduct of the Iraq war. As Casey Stengel would say, "You could look it up." Conservatives did probably cut Bush more slack than he deserved because (1) we were (and still are) at war,and (2) the political alternatives were so much worse - just imagine President Kerry.

True, there was not very much criticism from Republican officeholders, because (1)too many of them were happily spreading the boodle around themselves, and (2) they are POLITICIANS - getting elected and re-elected is all 90% of them care about. To expect otherwise is utopian foolishness.

I know that you have this glorified self-image of you and Conor and your friends as the heroic few "real conservatives" standing alone in the fight for Truth, Justice,and the American Way, but that's a bunch of baloney. You can criticize and complain about Bush all you want, but in real life, it was a choice between him and (gag) Gore and (barf) Kerry. Bush may have not been the best choice for ther conservative movement, and he certainly far from ideal by my lights, but he was a hell of a lot better for the country than either of those two, or any other feasible alternatives.

Is that enough argument for you?

BTW, I find your complaint about ad hominem attacks amusing, considering the name-calling you routinely engage in.

P.S. I really am 12, but I'm very tall for my age.

[Jamie Lockett]

To Quote Rush Limbaugh:

"I feel liberated, I no longer have to carry the water for people who don't deserve it."

Basically the party first "conservatives" supported Bush and the corrupt Republican Congress until it became politically inconvenient.

Its nice of you to put everything into a black or white dichotomy but that simply isn't the case. Saying that Bush was a better choice than Gore or Kerry is one thing at the time of the election. Refusing to hold him to conservative principles over the course of his presidency because he has an R after his name is completely different.

And if you read this site, or listen to much of talk Radio, you would realize that the only people trying to define what a "real conservative" is are your ilk. I'm quite happy to have a conservative movement with both Dan Riehl, Conor Friedersdorf and Mark Levin - but remember its the Levin's and the Riehl's casting everyone else out, calling people faux conservatives and liberals in sheeps clothing. I, and I believe Conor, simply want the alleged conservatives to live up to the standards they set for everyone else.

[Sam]

Jamie:

Conservatives supported Bush because the alternatives were worse. Period.

As far as defining what a real conservative is,I will fall back on William F. Buckley, who said that he could not always define who was a conservative, but he could always tell who was a liberal.

Your friend Conor is a liberal - socially, politically, philosophically,and temperamentally. I have read as much of his writing as I can stand, and I cannot think of one conservative principle that he stands for. As I said before, he pays lip service to limited government but he never seems to say what should be limited about it. He blathers about fiscal restraint, but seems to think the solution is raising taxes. He is certainly not a social conservative. He is not a "national security" conservative. He's not a "law and order" conservative. His views on civil liberties are undiluted ACLU.

He is an Andrew Sullivan "conservative", which is to say, no conservative at all.

It's nice that he's a friend of yours, and it's admirable that you show up here to defend him at every opportunity, but don't let your friendship blind you to reality.

BTW, I don't even have an ilk.

[Jamie Lockett]

In between elections there are 2 years in which there are no choices to be made - just the guys you elected. The vast majority of conservatives failed to hold Bush and the Republican Congress to any sort of principled conservative standard. They failed as conservatives. Period.

As for Conor, I don't agree with everything he believes or says - but to say you're either a down the line conservative or you're a liberal is a false dichotomy. I come here to defend him only from the stupid remarks made by people like Dan or yourself that fail to address any sort of argument and instead cast personal attacks for the purpose of looking cool to the random retards that populate internet message boards.

[Sam]

Jamie:

Is "dichotomy" your word of the day? You sure are giving it a workout.

Nowhere did I say "you're either a down the line conservative or you're a liberal."

If you will bother to read my last response, you will see that I clearly identified that there are many variants of conservative thought, and that from my reading, your friend Conor fails to qualify for any of them.

Of course, instead of trying to show me how I am wrong, you pitch another litle hissy fit.

I have made a very clear argument and explained it about three times to you, and all you do is:
1. Ignore and/or misrepresent my views.
2. Accuse me of personal attacks.
3. Make personal attacks on me and others ("stupid remarks," "random retards")

Your schtick is getting old.

[Jamie Lockett]

1) You yourself misrepresent Conor's views when you say his solution is to "move more left" - why should I give you better treatment? The entire piece was about the need to figure out why otherwise professed conservatives governed like liberals before we can think about moving forward. He made no suggestion about "moving more left" - who is misrepresenting now?
2)"buttboy" "Conor (mit ein "N")" - not personal, nor an attack?
3) Since it is the general tenor of the vast majority of the posts in threads like this I felt I should respond in kind.

[Sam]

Jamie:

1. As you can tell if you really read what I wrote,my statement about "moving left" did not refer to the linked article, but to the totality of what I have read of Conor's work. Maybe I should have been more clear.

2. "Buttboy", while accurate, is needlessly perjorative. I will substitute "sickeningly obsequious sycophant" in the future.

3. I am deeply saddened by your participation in lowering the civility of our public discourse.