What ugliness? I do not know, but it will not be pleasant. Perhaps it will merely be like the unparalleled ugliness that the Dems have projected into the national conversation for the last 8 years, or perhaps it will be far more intense, since our survival as as nation may well be at stake. We had to impeach the last egoistic Dem in the WH.

In any event, it will not be a peaceful ride, with the nation heavily split between those who want to take more and more from the government, and those who want to return us to constitutional government, fiscal responsibility and thrift, self-reliance, patriotism, and equal opportunity--not equal outcome--to name just some of the directions we will not see from Obama. The idea of redistribution of wealth will be Obama's greatest theme.

Give it a few years...

The door is opening for the riffraff and demigogues of the nation to have a go at pilfering, plundering, and punishing the rest of the citizens.

This time will not end peacefully.

Really? Why not?

The door is opening for the riffraff and demigogues of the nation to have a go at pilfering, plundering, and punishing the rest of the citizens.

This time will not end peacefully.

tom p,

I understand the Anchorage newspaper may dislike Palin but her 80% approval rating says more. The MSM argument is immaterial here, the fact is Alaskans like her a lot. That is a pretty good measure of her abilities.

Steve: You are probably way past reading this by now, but I feel the need to point out that getting an 80% approval rating is real easy when one has the energy resources to allow one to eiliminate state income taxes AND give every one $3200 a year. That is hardly a good measure of anybodies abilities. Even I could have done that.

I also understand your point about conservatives versus Republicans. While the party disappoints me at times it is still the best vehicle for attaining conservative goals. The alternative is unacceptable to me.

In 2002 I refused to vote for any of my choices for congressional representativees (they were "pro-I-war v pro-I-war")(I live in MO) In the years since, I have caught unmitigated hell for not voting for Jean Carnahan... and yet, the Dem Party stands in a stronger position now, then they did then or have since. Sometimes, making the easy vote, is not the right vote.

I would also disagree with your characterization of Palin as a pork-monger. She trimmed the state budget and is recognized as a fiscal conservative

.

As a blue dog democrat, I can not help but laugh at how far the GOP has fallen. SP as a fiscal conservative? It is a joke... The woman who left Wassilla in a $3000 per person hole of debt? For a Rec center they do not need, and do not even own (my understanding is, this is STILL working it's way thru the courts)????

If that is "fiscal conservatism", God save us all.

In the meanwhile, I leave all, with this thought from Larison:

"What is instructive about all this is what it tells us about loyalty. For the denouncers, loyalism ultimately seems to mean keeping your mouth shut, ignoring reality and not breaking ranks. In another era, these would be the legitimists who would have defended the rights of an imbecile heir rather than a competent claimant on the throne. What we see is that it is not loyalty that is being defended, but rather conformity. The loyalist is bound by devotion, and the conformist by fear, usually fear of an enemy or opponent. We see the former when people rally to a monarch or leader they genuinely admire, and we see the latter in support for a dictator as the lesser of two evils."

'Nuff said.

You keep saying that. Yet, you've done anything but prove the point.

Try, now.

It does not matter that less than half of the subprime loans went to people who could have qualified for traditional loans or that only about 20% of the subprime loans were related to CRA or that there is not a significant difference in default between CRA and non-CRA subprime loans; no matter what, it is the fault of socialism. It does not matter to you that deregulation in 1995 and 2004 increased the problem by at least an order of magnitude, perhaps much, much more; it is all the fault of socialism. We have covered this ground before, it is not on topic and no matter what anyone says or what evidence is offered you will continue to make the same argument, so there is no point in continuing.

So, yes, he's a hack, even by your own definition.

1. Not my definition
2. only in the sense of one who writes on order or perhaps one who writes for commercial success and we both know that when the term is used in political discussions it is the Wiktionary definition that is intended. Whatever else he may be he is not a political hack.

His sexuality?

It's the one point upon which he can be counted on to lose all sense of reality.

and what exactly does that have to do with the rest of his political philosophy?

It is just obvious that Obama is also political lightweight.

Yes, this would explain how he dismantled Hillary Clinton, who had every conceivable advantage going into the primaries, and why he is now doing the some to John McCain, who is alleged to be the proven leader, battle tested, possessor of wisdom, so on and so forth...

Obama crushed one of our great political dynasties and is doing the same to a man who has been one of the elite since the day he was born. To dismiss him as a lightweight is either the act of a fool or someone who is simply denying reality.

This conversation has been rehashed too many times to fully go into it again. Suffice to say that your opinion is in a small minority among economists and most everybody else in the US and elsewhere. Oh, and it is wrong.

You keep saying that. Yet, you've done anything but prove the point.

Try, now.

for example, the column you offer is decidedly wrong. He never mentions the casues behind the housing slump, all of which... I say again... all of which... weere the result of governmental tampering in the market.

See above definitions. Do you really think he is supporting the American Socialist Party or are you just grasping at straws?

Obviously, he writes for the NYT. He gets paid to do so. But in taht role, he's found two seperate niches, as I suggested, to write to... GED's and hard left types... and that keeps him valuable to the Times. So, yes, he's a hack, even by your own definition.

His sexuality?

It's the one point upon which he can be counted on to lose all sense of reality.

The only purpose for such action must be to provide a mattress for the future when and if the Republicans lose. It is very much the "I told you so" syndrome, with a defensive twist.

There is perhaps another motive for such anti-party action, and that is a sneaking wish to abandon the Republicans to their fate altogether, and start planning for a future election.

Why one would desire to aid in any way putting us in the hands of tax-and-spend liberals with a strong socialist odor for the next decade or two I have no idea. It would also mean a resurgent liberal majority in the Supreme Court that could last much longer than that.

It seems to me that the issues of motivation have been over-intellectualized like too much salt in the soup.

or for a definition more specific to what we are talking about there is the Wiktionary definition of political hack:
a negative term ascribed to a person who is part of the political party apparatus, but whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction. The term "hired gun" is often used in tandem to further describe the moral bankruptcy of the "hack".

I understand the Anchorage newspaper may dislike Palin but her 80% approval rating says more.

Now 68%, not bad but not 80%.

I would also disagree with your characterization of Palin as a pork-monger. She trimmed the state budget and is recognized as a fiscal conservative.

She sought and received hundreds of millions in pork as mayor and governor. I think that qualifies her more as an eager courter and customer of the pork mongers.

Easy there. This is not reverse snobbery

Perhaps not on your part, but anti-intellectualism and the snobbery that accompanies it have become all too common in general and particularly on the right during elections.

The elite seem to be claiming those who stick with the team of being 'hacks'

See above definitions. It would seem that while many of the accused aren't (at least explicitly) part of the party machinery their "intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction."

...people support candidates who are flawed to some extent.

That is a perfectly valid and reasonable position and is shared by most if not all of the people who contribute and comment here. The logical extension of that support is where the disagreement lies.
Some here apparently see the logical extension meaning that they must or should publicly defend their choice and admit no fault. The other extreme would be those who demand ideological purity on all fronts to give their support. Then there is the vast middle ground where most of us have staked out our positions. You apparently cleave rather close to the first position while the contributing authors here appear to fall somewhere close to the center in that broadly generalized dichotomy.

What he showed is he's a political hack, driven not by the Democrat party, but by socialism.

See above definitions. Do you really think he is supporting the American Socialist Party or are you just grasping at straws?

In a sane world, Paul Krugman should be hammered flat on economics

You mean, of course, in a world that Bit considers sane. That is a very different world than most of us live in (or want to live in).

Take our current economic situation… which is the direct result of the socialism Krugman pushes in his written work.

This conversation has been rehashed too many times to fully go into it again. Suffice to say that your opinion is in a small minority among economists and most everybody else in the US and elsewhere. Oh, and it is wrong.

assume I’m not in error, here, and say he’s not so much as made mention of the whole thing in public,

But you are. Give some specifics about the type of links you want. How old must the column or speech be? There are plenty from 2007 and some earlier. If you have LexisNexis access (i don't) you should be able to find plenty.
Here is one you won't like.

and if he has, he’s certainly not laid the problem at the feet of socialism, as I've done repeatedly.

That would be to his credit rather than yours.

What is that, you ask? We need only look at his own words to make that determination

His sexuality? Do you not want him 'gaying up' your political philosophy?
I guess if it were not for the overt homosexuality the log cabin republicans would be good republicans.

No. Recall that the "rank and file citizenry" weren't even allowed to vote. Suffrage was reserved for stakeholders.

Well, landowners, anyway. But it certainly was not limited to the political class, per se.

Further, only state officers and the House of Representatives were voted on at all. The Senate was indirectly chosen by the state legislatures until the early 20th Century and the president is still indirectly chosen by the Electoral College -- which was never intended to be even a proxy for a popular vote.

And I wonder, often, if we'd not have done better sticking to that part.

No doubt. Of course, the Bush Administration's actions on Schiavo were supported by substantially all the Republicans in Congress, especially the more conservative ones, and opposed by all the Democrats. Which is why that incident is an example of how, contrary to your perpetually wrong political compass, Bush is a conservative.

Laughable.
Once again, you pick up the one instance... the perception of the value of life, in this case... where Bush's view meets that of a frustrated Roman catholic?

Didn't our founders expect that our leadership would be drawn from not the political establishment, but from rank and file citizenry, who would serve a term or two and go back to life?

No. Recall that the "rank and file citizenry" weren't even allowed to vote. Suffrage was reserved for stakeholders. Further, only state officers and the House of Representatives were voted on at all. The Senate was indirectly chosen by the state legislatures until the early 20th Century and the president is still indirectly chosen by the Electoral College -- which was never intended to be even a proxy for a popular vote.

No doubt. Of course, the Bush Administration's actions on Schiavo were supported by substantially all the Republicans in Congress, especially the more conservative ones, and opposed by all the Democrats. Which is why that incident is an example of how, contrary to your perpetually wrong political compass, Bush is a conservative.

So in other words, you have no idea what a political hack is, but just like throwing the term around. Duly noted

.

So, you view hackery as being commtted in support a particular political PARTY, not a particular ideology?

Interesting, if just a little narrow.

As for Sullivan, he was a blind follower of the Bush Administration until the Schiavo mess

Something which I assure you wouldn't have occurred had Bush been a mere centerist.

I'm not sure he'd have liked any of these people. But, certainly, a man who spent most of his life thinking and writing about politics wouldn't have been impressed with Palin.

I don't entirely disagree with that, I never felt that Palin was a political heavyweight, It is just obvious that Obama is also political lightweight. The two compare fairly even experience wise (just different kinds of governance experience)