• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

An Illustration of Part of the Problem

Part of the Republican Party’s problem is that it lives mostly inside a media bubble of its own creation (as, I think Jonathan Bernstein correctly describes in a piece about the Romney campaign).  The problem is a conflation the Republican Party, conservatism, and media like Fox News.  It is a conflation that blurs lines and leads to sloppy thinking that explains, in part, the party’s anemia at the moment.

This conflation is well illustrated by the following quote from Chris Wallace from an interview with Politico:

“Peggy Noonan has bashed George W. Bush, based Mitt Romney, wasn’t crazy about McCain. So, [her] conservative bona fides I’m not sure I take too seriously,” Wallace told POLITICO’s Patrick W. Gavin. “[Columnists] like Peggy Noonan, sometimes they’re New York City’s idea of conservatives.”

The first thing that leaps out at me is that Wallace is conflating being a “conservative” with unquestioningly  boosting the Republican Party’s candidates.  It is not healthy to assume that having a particular political philosophy equals automatic and unwavering support for the political party with which that philosophy is associated.   Philosophical considerations should be based in thought and therefore not lead to sycophantic adhere to a party.  At that point the issue ceases to be philosophy and is rather ideology or simply crass partisanship.

The second thing that leaps to mind is that Wallace clearly sees the role of the conservative commentator as a cheerleader.  After all, there is a campaign going on, so Noonan should be boosting, not analyzing or criticizing.  Who needs that?  Unfortunately, this is how Wallace himself often comes across in his own work, and it is certainly the ethos of Fox News (and reminds me of Limbaugh’s lament about “carry[ing] water” for  GOP).

This kind of criticism is why, by the way, that people like Bruce Bartlett are no longer in the Republican fold:  criticism of the party is shunned.  How can there be a vibrant, intellectual conservatism if all that is really wanted are cheerleaders?  And while it may very well be that any given cheerleader is a genius, the fact of the matter is that cheerleaders are no chosen for their intellect and certainly are not encouraged to act independently.

Indeed, Wallace noted David Frum, another conservative on the outs there days, by noting “David Frum is the guy who turned on George W. Bush.”  Can’t have that, now can we?

One does wonder how much better off the GOP might be at the moment had its leadership taken more seriously some of the “bashing” of George W. Bush and McCain.  Perhaps introspection would have lead to the nomination of a better candidate and the running of a better campaign.

The interview can be seen on the site linked above.

Related Posts:

About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is Professor and Chair of Political Science at Troy University. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. He is the author of Voting Amid Violence: Electoral Democracy in Colombia and is currently working on a comparative study of the US to 29 other democracies. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging at PoliBlog since 2003. Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. michael reynolds says:

    The number of people who even know what the world “philosophy” means is small. The number who have one is smaller still. The number of people who can feel loyalty to a team is quite large.

    If you’re in the business of making money in media, are you going to appeal to the eight people who actually have a philosophy? Or are you going to appeal to the broad mass that can’t differentiate politics from sports?

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 0

  2. @michael reynolds: I don’t disagree.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  3. calder says:

    “Peggy Noonan has bashed George W. Bush, based (sic) Mitt Romney, wasn’t crazy about McCain. So, [her] conservative bona fides I’m not sure I take too seriously,”

    He actually said “Peggy Noonan has bashed George W. Bush, bashed Mitt Romney … ” but the Politico got it wrong.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  4. mattb says:

    For what it’s worth, the bloggers at the American Conservative have been doing some excellent writing on this topic, in particular Daniel McCarthy’s “Why we criticize Mitt.” http://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-we-criticize-mitt/

    It seems to me that all of this discussion of criticism and abandonment is happening very early in the cycle. The Republican coalition has been fragmenting for a while, but things really seem to be accelerating and this may ultimately end up being less about Mitt and more about a lot of long standing hurts and differences finally coming to the surface.

    If this continues for a few more days, I have to wonder if Mitt is going to have to give a major speech with the goal of unifying his party (something unheard in recent years for Republicans) before he can move on to unifying the electorate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  5. swbarnes2 says:

    Perhaps introspection would have lead to the nomination of a better candidate and the running of a better campaign.

    What policies would this better candidate and better campaign have forwarded? And would those policies have allowed the bearer of them to win the Republican primary?

    Forget philosophy. Be empirical. What policies do the Republican 27% base want, and can they get a majority of the country to go along?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0

  6. Nick says:

    The “news” portion of “fair and balanced” is now officiating the heretics and the lead water carrier for the Republican Party? This wasn’t how Chris Wallace operated back in the day. I haven’t listened to Rush in a while…do the heretics no longer call in to apologize to him when they cross the aisle?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  7. mattb says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Or are you going to appeal to the broad mass that can’t differentiate politics from sports?

    Great point. And note that Limbaugh was an aspiring radio sports caster and a self-proclaimed sports junkie. Its worth thinking about how he tapped into the politics as sport/party as home team vibe for his program.

    Which get’s to this amazingly succinct tweet by Daniel McCarthy (who is assembling a really interesting team of bloggers and thinkers at the American Conservative):

    Daniel McCarthy (@ToryAnarchist):
    Chris Wallace is as plain as can be: Fox defines “conservative” as “supports whomever the GOP nominates.”

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0

  8. mattb says:

    @swbarnes2:

    What policies would this better candidate and better campaign have forwarded? And would those policies have allowed the bearer of them to win the Republican primary?

    Again, I think this gets back to the point that the Republicans are increasingly becoming a coalition party (though they still act like they are a unity party). Being a coalition-in-denial they are attempting to avoid the entire policy thing since too many of their stakeholders have opposing view points. So instead their entire platform this time around has largely focused for standing against anything the democrats are for.

    To your point, the most vocal aspect of the Republican coalition is the populist conservative base. And they are going to be the ones that have to be overcome if Romney wants to win and for the Republican party to reinvent itself.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  9. OliviaC says:

    Here’s their problem and I don’t like to use the phrase true conservative but I think I’m allowed here: no true conservative can follow false teaching.

    What Romney and Ryan and the Republicans are teaching is false. It’s analytically false, morally false, and spiritually false. They’ve got a threesome going on between Christ, Rand and Aquinas and I’m not getting anywhere near that open wound.

    This time around I’m not going to vote. And no, the Libertarian party represents no viable Third. Maybe someday but not today.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  10. I’m trying to remember the phrase used when the base liked Santorum and thought that the ____ were pushing Romney on them. Elites? Washington insiders?

    I think that’s the same fault-line we are seeing now, but with Romney on the other side of the divide.

    As I say in other threads, I think that will be the fight, Santorum vs the RINOs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  11. In Woodward’s latest book, he talks about what Valerie Jarrett did to Peter Orszag for running a piece in the NYT that he actually ran by the administration first. So I guess it’s a two way street?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  12. @michael reynolds:

    The number of people who even know what the world “philosophy” means is small. The number who have one is smaller still.

    I’m reminded of the Ayn Rand observation, “As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation — or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind’s wings should have grown.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  13. Woody says:

    The first thing that leaps out at me is that Wallace is conflating being a “conservative” with unquestioningly  boosting the Republican Party’s candidates.

    I believe this to be one of the more important lessons of Election 2012.

    I will always believe Rupert Murdoch, while preferring conservatism, will always choose money over anything. And Fox, more than anything else, applies itself to reinforcing itself as the only fair media outlet to the 27%-plus. Thus, Fox will never allow any nuance or uncertainty to air over the prime time hours (or Fox and Friends — but that might be because Grover Dill, er, Kilmeade is incapable) because its captured audience doesn’t want thinking – it demands reassurance.

    Only conservative intellectuals – increasingly outcast from con-media – distinguish between conservative and Republican.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  14. Jen says:

    One could argue that a good part of what weakened Romney was his attempt to mold himself to a figure that the “team” could support, separating him from any successes as a Governor that he may have claimed. Their determination in getting a team player as their candidate may well be their undoing.

    The ridiculous and self-destructive narrative that “intellectuals” and “party elites” are what is damaging the party is what will ultimately be their undoing. Until they realize that you can’t drum out the smart people and the moderates and still have enough numbers to win, they will continue to dig a deeper and deeper hole. And the problem with really deep holes is that it takes a long time to crawl back out of them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  15. superdestroyer says:

    It had to do with the nitpicking mentality. I have found that many of the good conservatives such as Bartlett have developed a shtick of criticizing Republicans without offering any helpful suggestions. Too many critics just like calling other people idiots without stating anything that would be helpful.

    A good example is that Bruce Bartlett keeps complaining about about deficit spending but makes little attempt to explain how conservatives can balance the budget without making the Democrats stronger and without being doubled crossed by the Democrats.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  16. OliviaC says:

    I agree with Superdestroyer. Bartlett and Frum are exiles who have very little positive feedback to offer.

    Frum is getting a little better now that he’s at the Beast but when he was hawking his own site he and the Mrs. were following tweets between Palin and her daughter. That’s pretty déclassé.

    And because of his “bitter exit” he’s likely not to be welcomed back even by people who agree with him but appreciate continence more.

    Tunku was right when he wrote the following about Frum’s Bitter Exit:

    Arthur Brooks, AEI’s president, is a man I’ve known for many years. Far from being a paint-by-numbers conservative, he is a free-thinking free-marketeer—libertarian, not conservative—who voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. (He has voted for other Democrats, in other elections.) His forthcoming book, The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America’s Future, is—if I know the man at all—likely to be harsher on the Republican Party than anything Frum could conjure. To suggest that he hounded Frum out of his institute on the basis of one little blog defies belief. Knowing him as I do—and having observed the way Frum has spun his departure from AEI for a ravenous, gloating audience—I am certain about which narrative I choose to believe here. Put bluntly, it is not Frum’s.

    Lastly, the arrogance he displayed against Novak and others he summarily dismissed as unpatriotic likely pleases him still but he can’t come close to matching Novak in mind or heart.

    In the end, Frum’s left spewing an impotent spiel of “Iraq haunts me,” it haunts me. And Matthew Dowd gets time w/Jake Tapper while Frum’s doing tanking CNN.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. Mike in VA says:

    “It is not healthy to assume that having a particular political philosophy equals automatic and unwavering support for the political party with which that philosophy is associated.”

    Obviously and of course it’s not healthy… but when you have a party that is in bed with religion, it’s very easy to revert to a faith-based, unquestioning philosophy. A party that loses its ability to question/reassess its own status quo or direction becomes becomes unimaginative and incapable of innovation, toxic at a time when all Americans agree that change is needed.

    Ladies and gentlemen… Mitt Romney.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  18. swbarnes2 says:

    @OliviaC:

    Knowing him as I do

    Good grief. Yet another conservative who has zero inclination to look at the evidence, and instead judges people by what they think is in their “heart”.

    This is why conservatism is at best a waste of time. The ones who aren’t batsh*t are like this. The whole lot of them live in fantasyland while real people suffer the consequencs of their actions.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  19. superdestroyer says:

    @OliviaC:

    I good example of a bad critic is Daniel Larson. Virtually all of his posts on his website just repeat the theme that Republicans are stupid. Yet, Mr. Larison never makes any suggestions on how the Republicans can improve, compete with the Democrats, yet be distinct enough to warrant being a separate political party.

    I think many people forget that becoming Democratic Party-lite is just one of the routes of failure for conservatives in the U.S.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

  20. Murray says:

    @superdestroyer:
    “…his website just repeat the theme that Republicans are stupid. Yet, Mr. Larison never makes any suggestions on how the Republicans can improve…”

    Well his first implicit suggestion seems to be: stop being stupid.

    Anybody with a half a brain would then explicitly suggest as a first step things like:
    - accept evolution
    - acknowledge climate change
    - stop bending over backwards to Limbaugh, Hannity and the like

    In other words, signal that the GOP is willing to confront reality.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  21. superdestroyer says:

    @Murray:

    If Climate change is really a big issue and needs action, the Democrats should take the first step and really push for lessen American’s impact on the environment. However, as long as the Democrats support immigration amnesty, open borders, and unlimited immigraiton, it should be obvious that Democrats do not really care about the environment.

    Also, whether any politicians believes about evolution, it has no impact of any policy, program, or governance. Evolution is just a way for liberals to signal that they are smart. Of course those same liberals fear immunizations, genetically modified food, fracking, nuclear power, high tension power lines, or fluoride in the water. To claim that liberals are rational on science is wrong. What can you say about a party and a sitting president who believe that the U.S. in not competent enough to build a pipeline.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  22. mattb says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Yet, Mr. Larison never makes any suggestions on how the Republicans can improve

    Either you don’t read Larison carefully, of you simply read his suggestions as “too Democrat”.

    Especially on Foreign Policy, Larison usually lays out a noninterventionist path that could have been taken. And at times (though not too often) Larison backs the option chosen by the current administration, not because that path is ‘democratic” per sea, but rather because it makes more sense than what the Republicans are suggesting.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  23. superdestroyer says:

    @mattb:

    I read Larison consistently and Larison never makes a conservative argument for his foreign policy proposals. The best conservative argument for what Larison calls a “Jeffersonian” foreign policy is that it is cheaper. It is also easier to conduct since paying attention to the nuances of other countries is not required.

    However, that is not what Larison ever argues. His basic argument is that a temperamental conservatives will just give other countries whatever they want. Larison is consistent is promoting the idea that the U.S. should give Russia and China whatever the current leadership of those countries want.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  24. Herb says:

    @superdestroyer:

    “However, as long as the Democrats support immigration amnesty, open borders, and unlimited immigraiton, it should be obvious that Democrats do not really care about the environment. “

    The Democrats support none of those things. Get your facts straight. Then type.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  25. Herb says:

    @superdestroyer:

    “Larison is consistent is promoting the idea that the U.S. should give Russia and China whatever the current leadership of those countries want.”

    Wrong again.

    It must be exhausting beating up on all those straw men.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  26. superdestroyer says:

    @Herb:

    You have to listen to the dog whisles:

    1. Dream Act to encourage illegal aliens to stay in the U.S. And set the rules up so that it will be very easy to commit fraud.
    2. A proposal for comprehensive immigraiton reform which means amnesty for at least 10 million illegal aliens.
    3. Converting uncontrolled illegal immigration to uncontrolled legal immigration. Given that million of third world citizens who would love to immigrate to the U.S., the Democrats and progressives are never saying that would put any restrictions on immigration. If you look at the Green Party platform, the far left supports the idea of the free movement of people across the border to the U.S.
    4. No physical barrier along the border to Mexico. I guess if you never catch any illegal aliens, progressives will claim that no illegal immigraiton is occurring.
    5. A hatred of government issued identity. As long as the Democrats benefit from illegal aliens, Democrats will oppose any employer enforcement of immigration rules.

    If you believe that progressives want to restrict immigraiton, then please point to how progressives will limit immigration into the U.S. Is a lousy job market and little to no private sector employment growth really the best way to control immigraiton?

    As long as Greens and progressives support the free movement of people across borders, then Greens and progressives have zero real interest in the environment or global climate change.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  27. superdestroyer says:

    @Herb:

    You obviously do not read Larison;s posts on Russia. If Russia wants to do something, Larison will find a way to justify it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. Eric Florack says:

    The first thing that leaps out at me is that Wallace is conflating being a “conservative” with unquestioningly boosting the Republican Party’s candidates.

    apparently, it’s an easy enough mistake to make. Democrats seem to do all the time when directing their bile at conservatives. Take for example the constant mistake of labeling 41 or 43… either one will do this, as conservatives. They are not. Less so is John McCain, (Hence his loss in 08) and even less than that is Mitt Romney, hence his loss to McCain in the 08 Primary.

    By the way, David Frum isn’t a conservative, either, much as the leftist commentariat likes to think him so, because it suits their purposes to have someone who invariably agrees with them, and yet can wear their misapplied label of “conservative”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  29. Herb says:

    @superdestroyer:

    1. Dream Act to encourage illegal aliens

    Wrong.

    2. A proposal for comprehensive immigraiton reform which means amnesty for at least 10 million illegal aliens.

    Wrong.

    3. Converting uncontrolled illegal immigration to uncontrolled legal immigration.

    Wrong. You cannot have “uncontrolled legal immigration” any more than you can have an “unlimited speed limit.”

    4. No physical barrier along the border to Mexico.

    Wrong.

    5. A hatred of government issued identity.

    Huh? Which straw man hates that?

    I’d say you have a point…but you don’t. Sorry.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  30. Eric Florack says:

    @superdestroyer: Correct, all points, with the addition of the idea that such immigrants as you mention will undoubtedly be democrat voters. Which, by the way, goes hand in hand with democrat efforts to eliminate photo IDs as part of the voting process.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  31. Herb says:

    @Eric Florack:

    “By the way, David Frum isn’t a conservative, either, much as the leftist commentariat likes to think him so, because it suits their purposes to have someone who invariably agrees with them, and yet can wear their misapplied label of “conservative”.”

    David Frum would be surprised to hear that….

    I think what you mean is that he’s not a soldier for the “conservative movement,” as defined by Limbaughism and Fox News propaganda. Which is no great insult since, after all, those people aren’t very conservative either..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  32. Herb says:

    @Eric Florack:

    “Correct, all points, with the addition of the idea that such immigrants as you mention will undoubtedly be democrat voters.”

    Wow….

    You guys will buy anything, provided it’s xenophobic enough, won’t you? “Undoubtedly be democrat voters.” Or they could become Republican governors and senators, you know, like Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal.

    Feet…meet bullet.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  33. Andre Kenji says:

    @Herb:

    5. A hatred of government issued identity.

    Huh? Which straw man hates that?

    I’d say you have a point…but you don’t. Sorry.

    Errr, most people in the United States. A government issued identity is usually a document with a number that everyone is supposed to carry and show to the cops if that´s required. The number allows a infinite number of Government Agencies to identify and store information about you. It´s very different than a Driver´s License or anything like that.

    It´s commonly used all over the world, but most Americans for cultural reasons would NEVER accept that. That´s an issue that would unite the ACLU, the NRA, the NACP and most people in the right.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  34. superdestroyer says:

    @Herb:

    If you look at the Democratic Party platform, it mentions amnesty for every illegal aliens currently in the U.S. (bringing them out of the shadows) and it mentions comprehensive immigration reform (unlimited legal immigration).

    It also mentions that the U.S. currently only deports felons (dangerous people) and lets everyone else stay.

    The Democrats are against any form of papers please for illegal aliens even though citizens are required to show identity to fly on a plane, serve on a jury, or purchase a car. The Democrats also believe that requiring adults in the U.S. to have government identity is racist and that the government should take people’s word as to their identity when looking for a job, enrolling in school, voting, or receiving government entitlements. http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

    The Democrats could not care less about the environment as long as they support unlimited legal immigration and refuse to limit the millions of third worlder citizens who want to immigrate to the U.S.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  35. superdestroyer says:

    @Andre Kenji:

    Many progressives refuse to answer the question of how will single payer work with no form of government identity. If I can walk into a hospital and use your name and address to receive medical care, single payer cannot work. How will privacy of electronic medical records work if there is no form of acceptable government identity.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  36. Andre Kenji says:

    @superdestroyer: That´s not the problem. Most single payer systems issues separated cards for it´s users. I live in a country that has single payer health care and a federal government issued identity. I can say that the fact that everyone can be identified by any number it´s something that makes the job of government agencies easier.

    That number could be used to easily track gun owners, for instance. I doubt that civil libertarians, gun owners, Hispanic Groups and all kinds of people in the right would accept that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  37. Andre Kenji says:

    For instance, here in the Brazilian state where I live I´m supposed by law to give my identity document to the hotel if I´m going to stay there. I´m also supposed to give my identity document number if I travel to another state by bus or If I travel more than 46 miles by bus. I carry my wallet to anywhere that I go because I may have to show my government provided identity to a law enforcement official.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  38. andrew says:

    “The first thing that leaps out at me is that Wallace is conflating being a “conservative” with unquestioningly boosting the Republican Party’s candidates.”

    Typical dishonesty from Steven Taylor. Nobody is saying that you have to be unquestioning towards the party. But if someone consistently takes Democrat Party media narratives at face value and attacks Republicans it’s a little tough to believe that person is really a Republican or a conservative. Take David Frum, he’s not even shy about what his schtick is, but he’s always trotted out at as evidence that Republicans are bad as if he’s some sort of authority.

    And if Republicans are so anemic what does that make the Democrats? It’s not the Republican Party that leveled California, Illinois, Detroit, etc…. What about a Senate Majority Leader that can’t even get a budget passed for how many years now?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  39. Herb says:

    @Andre Kenji: Careful now…..we cannot assume that Superdestroyer is referring to this non-existent document when he talks about “hatred of government issued identity.” Especially, when he says this immediately after:

    “Democrats will oppose any employer enforcement of immigration rules”

    I took that to mean that he’s talking about things like E-Verify and how the Democrats-in-his-head oppose it.

    I’m all for a charitable reading…..and calling this a straw man rather than a bald-faced lie is the most charitable reading possible.

    @superdestroyer:

    “If you look at the Democratic Party platform, it mentions amnesty for every illegal aliens currently in the U.S. (bringing them out of the shadows)”

    Sorry, dude, but it mentions something you interpret as amnesty.

    The problem is this: Your interpretations are suspect.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  40. @Andre Kenji:

    RFIDs would be much easier ;-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  41. superdestroyer says:

    @Herb:

    Herb, all you have to do if google E-verity on any progressive website. For example http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bier/why-everyone-should-fear-e-verify_b_1610057.html

    Democrats will never tolerate E-verity after the U.S. becomes a one party state. And the Democrats will not tolerate a requirement that adults have a government issued I.D. until they implement single-payer healthcare. Then all of the arguments about old people, poor people, miniorities will be forgotten because single payer will require national ID.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  42. superdestroyer says:

    @Herb:

    When what does bringing them out of the shadows mean if not amnesty.

    Also, who would the progressives keep out of the U.S.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  43. Herb says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Democrats will never tolerate E-verity after the U.S. becomes a one party state.

    You prove this by pointing to a Huff Post article written by a guy who works for the CEI.

    That stands for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Google them.

    And if you feel stupid….don’t blame me.

    As to this:

    When what does bringing them out of the shadows mean if not amnesty.

    It could mean many things. Leniency, maybe. Amnesty has a very specific meaning, and while I can appreciate those who use it metaphorically (which is what you’re doing) that doesn’t make it capital A “Amnesty” any more than calling my wife “My Better Half” makes her half a person.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  44. bk says:

    @superdestroyer:

    However, as long as the Democrats support immigration amnesty, open borders, and unlimited immigraiton, it should be obvious that Democrats do not really care about the environment.

    I am trying to think how, even if (a), (b), and (c) were true, you get to (d). Immigrants cause global warming?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  45. @andrew:

    Typical dishonesty from Steven Taylor.

    If you are going to accuse someone of dishonesty (as opposed, to say, disagreeing with them) you ought to back up your claim. If you watch the clip, you will see that Wallace is questioning the conservative bona fides of persons who are critical of GOP nominees. You want to offer an alternative explanation, by my guest (it would be the less intellectually lazy route to take).

    Also: nice bait and switch: Taylor is dishonest! The Senate hasn’t passed a budget, so there!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  46. superdestroyer says:

    @Herb:

    the point is that the post was on Huffingtonpost.com, It was not on a conservative website. I doubt if many conservative websites are going to promote open borders and unlimited immigration. However, the open border libertarians and progressives have the same attitude toward open borders. Both groups believe that they are clever enough to gain from open borders while avoiding any of the downsides. I believe that both groups are fools.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  47. Buffalo Rude says:

    @bk:

    I am trying to think how, even if (a), (b), and (c) were true, you get to (d). Immigrants cause global warming?

    Logic, how does that work?!

    Yeah, I stopped reading everything he posted after that obvious non sequitur. Why waste time considering “arguments” that are not, in fact, actual arguments grounded in simple logic?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  48. Andre Kenji says:

    @Herb: I live in Brazil, and I can say that the matter of government identification makes all the difference. I find difficult to implement employer based verification of immigration without creating a national identification system or by creating additional bureaucracy for businesses.

    It´s much tougher to be illegal immigrant in Brazil than in the US precisely because of that. But Brazil is also known for it´s red tape.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  49. superdestroyer says:

    @bk:

    The environmental impact of being a poor person and living in the U.S. is much higher than if the same person stays in their country of origin. Flooding the U.S. will immigrants leads to sprawl, more driving, and it leads to people consuming more energy.

    That people seem to understand that the 10th percentile of people in the U.S. consume more energy than people at the 50% in Guatemala means that a lot of people who claim to be environmentalist. How else do you think that the U.S. is 5% of the world population but consumes more than 20% of the energy?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  50. Herb says:

    @superdestroyer:

    “the point is that the post was on Huffingtonpost.com, It was not on a conservative website.”

    Yes, but you cited the post as proof of your “Democrats will never tolerate E-verify” statement.

    Apparently without bothering to check if the guy complaining about E-Verify was even a Democrat. He wasn’t.

    He’s from the CEI, a Libertarian think-tank that Ron Paul (R- TX) called “a true asset to the freedom movement, on issues form global warming to financial regulation, I can always count on CEI to effectively make a principled case for liberty.”

    Now you’re not even talking about Democrats. You’re talking about “open border libertarians and progressives.” Goal posts…moved.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  51. grumpy realist says:

    @superdestroyer: So what’s your solution? Shoot them? I don’t see the difference between the ecological footprint of an illegal immigrant and a legal immigrant. Unless you’re thinking that legal immigrants have larger and nicer houses and gas-guzzling cars. Which means if we’re really interested in going after energy hogs we should go after all those idiots who live in McMansions and all the people down south who use air-conditioning day in and day out.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  52. Andre Kenji says:

    @Herb

    : He’s from the CEI, a Libertarian think-tank that Ron Paul (R- TX) called “a true asset to the freedom movement, on issues form global warming to financial regulation, I can always count on CEI to effectively make a principled case for liberty.”

    That´s what I´m pointing out: making businesses to verify the status of their workers would require increasing the bureaucracy. Considering how easy it is to use fake Social Security numbers a Federal identification registry would be the only choice.

    Businesses and libertarians would not want that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  53. Herb says:

    @Andre Kenji:

    That´s what I´m pointing out: making businesses to verify the status of their workers would require increasing the bureaucracy.

    This is what the E-Verify program already does. Businesses comply when it’s legally mandated because they have to. (It’s not legally mandated in all states.)

    I don’t expect Libertarians to like it because they don’t like anything the government does.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  54. Eric Florack says:

    @Herb:

    David Frum would be surprised to hear that…

    .
    Oh, of that I’m quite sure. And I’m sure you think him a conservative as well. Then again, you thought McCain a conservative, right? Obama thinks he’s in the political center, too. At least, that’s what he tells us.

    I have noted that the perceptions of self from people who have been in the limelight for an extended period of time tends to suffer somewhat. Frum is no exception. I point as an example to his CNN piece about Bloomberg’s restrictions on soda sizes. The effect is no conservative would come up with anything of this sort.

    “Undoubtedly be democrat voters.” Or they could become Republican governors and senators, you know, like Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal.

    Doubtful, since with those, there’s far less free stuff. you see, it neither one is prone to buying votes with Taxpayer funds.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  55. Andre Kenji says:

    @Herb:

    This is what the E-Verify program already does. Businesses comply when it’s legally mandated because they have to. (It’s not legally mandated in all states.)

    That´s not enough. Real enforcement of immigration laws would be more burdensome for businesses.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  56. Herb says:

    @Eric Florack:

    “And I’m sure you think him a conservative as well. Then again, you thought McCain a conservative, right?”

    Yes, both conservatives. I get that they do not appear as such from your vantage point, but have you considered the possibility that it’s YOU who is not the “real conservative?”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  57. Ben Wolf says:

    @Herb: Florack is an unapologetic racist and misogynist, as evidenced by his personal blog (hint: search for the word ni**er), who sees anyone not in total agreement with his lunacy as a communist. He’s been hoping for a blogging gig at Powerlineblog or Redstate for some time, but no matter how often he repeats the dogwhistles, they never seem to notice him. I suppose he could try calling Michelle Obama a whore, that might get some ultra-right bloggy juices flowing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  58. mattb says:

    @Herb:

    have you considered the possibility that it’s YOU who is not the “real conservative?”

    Perhaps a better question to ask is if there is a single type of real conservative. I suspect that Eric would argue that most of the writers at the American Conservative magazine are not true conservatives. And, chances are, most of them would say the same thing about Eric.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  59. al-Ameda says:

    @superdestroyer:

    If Climate change is really a big issue and needs action, the Democrats should take the first step and really push for lessen American’s impact on the environment. However, as long as the Democrats support immigration amnesty, open borders, and unlimited immigraiton, it should be obvious that Democrats do not really care about the environment.

    Just so I understand you … are you saying that support of more immigration, and/or immigration amnesty is somehow evidence that Democrats are not serious about environmental policy?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  60. superdestroyer says:

    @al-Ameda:

    If the U.S. really wants to get serious about reducing emissions that contribute to global climate change, the easiest thing to do would be to suspend immigration. When people move from other countries to to the U.S., their marginal impact on the environment increases. There was a faction within the green organizations that pushed for reduction of immigration. However, for those who are interested in environmentalism due to status seeking put an end to any efforts to reduce immigration.

    Once again, if progressives and Democrats want to reduce emissions and lower the demand for energy, deporting 10+ million plus illegal immigrants would have a greater effect and a much quicker effect than all of the alternative fuels and solar panels will have in the next ten years.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  61. @superdestroyer:

    As this chart shows, US and Mexican GDPs have been growing at similar rates. GDP growth does indeed lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions, but it’s going to happen whether a worker is in either economy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  62. al-Ameda says:

    @superdestroyer:

    If the U.S. really wants to get serious about reducing emissions that contribute to global climate change, the easiest thing to do would be to suspend immigration. When people move from other countries to to the U.S., their marginal impact on the environment increases. There was a faction within the green organizations that pushed for reduction of immigration. However, for those who are interested in environmentalism due to status seeking put an end to any efforts to reduce immigration.

    Well then, on that basis, wouldn’t conservatives and Republicans support Planned Parenthood and other organization as that encourage family planning, birth control and reduced family sizes? Seems to me that an inference can be made that Republicans do not care about any of that, right?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  63. superdestroyer says:

    @john personna:

    I always love how people use semi-log graphs to misrepresent data. What that graph shows is that per capita economic activity in the U.S. is almost an order of magnitude above that of Mexico. If you want to accelerate the emissions of green house gases, then maintain massive immigration from the third world to U.S.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  64. superdestroyer says:

    @al-Ameda:

    A better way to put the issue is that the poorest, least educated people in the U.S. should have the lowest birthrates and the richest americans should have the highest birthrate. Since the actual birthrates in the U.S. are almost the reverse, then the current situation will continue.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  65. @superdestroyer:

    We don’t need absolute level for this discussion, we need growth from each, which that graph and other data shows.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0