Banning the Birthers

Jon Henke thinks it’s time for the Right to throw out the lunatics:

In the 1960’s, William F. Buckley denounced the John Birch Society leadership for being “so far removed from common sense” and later said “We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner.”

The Birthers are the Birchers of our time, and WorldNetDaily is their pamphlet.  The Right has mostly ignored these embarrassing people and organizations, but some people and organizations inexplicably choose to support WND through advertising and email list rental or other collaboration.

Several of us — notably Melissa Clouthier, Doug Mataconis, and Matt Sheffield — bandied this about on Twitter yesterday.  And while I’m still inclined to agree with Jon that the Republican Party and organized conservative movement should distance itself from the yahoos, I’m not sure how much energy it’s worth.  Aren’t we better off, as Melissa suggests, in focusing “on a positive message all can unite around?”

Casting out the infidels will likely not have much benefit and comes with quite a bit of cost.

As Steve Benen notes, the RNC is among those advertising on WND.  And, while I’d love to see them not legitimate the loons by sponsoring their websites, it’s true that loons vote.  And they’re not going to go away just because the RNC doesn’t give them any money.  Indeed, it may well just prove to them that both parties are corrupt.

The more important criticism is that Jerome Corsi, the loon that sparked Jon to say “Enough” is the yahoo who was behind the Swift Boat Veterans slime group that attacked John Kerry so successfully in 2004.  While some of us on the Right denounced them at the time, most sat by and figured the ends justified the means.

At this point, I’d just be happy if the GOP can find leaders who rise above the Birther and Death Panels fray and put forth principled alternatives to the Obama-Reid-Pelosi programs.  Aside from continuing the status quo, what’s the Republican plan for solving the impending financial collapse of our health care system?  What’s the Republican vision of American security policy?  Does it envision continuing nation-building in every country where Islamist terrorists might live?  How do we pay down the national debt and get back on the road to fiscal sanity?

Ultimately, focusing on that might take the spotlight off the crazies.

FILED UNDER: General, , , , , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. I love the suggestion that you can ban the crazies from the GOP. The crazies are the GOP. It’s their party, not yours.

  2. Anderson says:

    While some of us on the Right denounced them at the time, most sat by and figured the ends justified the means.

    Well, there’s a reason that most people see a problem with “the end justifies the means.”

    Tolerating the contempt for truth, in favor of a whatever-works relativism, turns out not to be something that can be just put back in the bottle. And it doesn’t seem to be doing the GOP much good. JJ calls for a positive message the party can rally around, but that’s just it — the GOP has become the party of reaction. “I’m against it,” like the Ramones song.

    Leaving aside how, if Obama is gunned down by some nutter whose apartment turns out to be full of tracts and books about how Obama is a socialist Nazi Communist liberal foreigner, the “ends justifies the means” people will be falling over themselves to say THEY never embraced such stuff.

    They just tolerated it, trying to win elections.

  3. kth says:

    The bottom line is that none of the recent activity has added a single voter to the Republican party. It has only driven up the negatives on both sides (including among leftists who will never vote Republican, but who are demoralized by the seeming legislative quagmire).

    But this actually may not be a bad idea, as a hyper-polarized, scorched-earth electoral field has recently proven to be to the GOP’s advantage. And you can perhaps see how, if your demographic base is shrinking, and you don’t have any policy ideas to erode that shrinkage, depressing participation can stave off complete marginalization for a couple of cycles.

  4. Anderson says:

    The segregationist wing of the Democratic Party, disgusted with LBJ and the Supreme Court, could’ve gone on to form a third party openly supporting racism and “states’ rights,” which would’ve dwindled and died.

    Instead, Nixon brought them into the GOP.

    That didn’t have to happen. The GOP could’ve said, no, we’re the party of Lincoln, we’re not going to tolerate this kind of thing, we’re not going to appeal to these people.

    But for Nixon, the ends justified the means. And there were elections to win.

    And now, 40 years later, the GOP is stuck in the house Nixon built for them.

    I begin to suspect that the older population of GOP voters will simply have to die off naturally for the party to recover and to figure out what it stands for.

  5. Bill says:

    While some of us on the Right denounced them at the time, most sat by and figured the ends justified the means.

    The Swift Boat Vets had a weak, eminently criticizable, mostly but not entirely incorrect argument regarding Kerry’s service in Vietnam. It came off as petty, and basically besides the point.

    Their later effort regarding Kerry’s testimony and antiwar efforts after Vietnam, were perfectly legitimate and should have been their main/only line of attack. I still have trouble dismissing people like Col. Bud Day (MOH) as a crank who was part of a “slime group.” (recommend his bio, it’s amazing)

    And some of the press conferences by vets who cried while discussing the impact of Kerry’s testimony on their lives and families make me continue to believe that the campaign deserves more complex treatment than “knowing dismissal.”

    As I said – there was plenty to criticize. But it was not the black and white caricature of a political hit job that it’s assumed to be in many circles.

  6. Steve Plunk says:

    Just because the Dems propose a sweeping overhaul of health care doesn’t mean the Republicans have to do the same. Sure the status quo may not be an option but why must we always be searching for a single piece of legislation to solve all of our ills? Small steps that can be adjusted or even undone would be a more prudent approach to correcting the failures of our system. Overall the system is still pretty darn good so why are we trying to kill it off completely and replace it with something untried?

    Other policy initiatives should be the same. Small changes that can be monitored and adjusted.

    As for Birthers and whatever other group is being disparaged today I would remind everyone about the “big tent”. You don’t throw out people while claiming to have a big tent. You talk some sense into them and control the message. Frankly I’m getting tired of the self proclaimed “elite” of the party (who are seldom representative of the party) telling us all how unwashed we are. If Joe Hillbilly has a dumb question then try to answer it. Throwing him out makes no sense and makes the party seem arrogant.

  7. steve says:

    The GOP really, really needs ideas and leaders. We need an alternative party. The GOP needs to address the major public policy issues. No more emphasis on gay marriage.

    Steve

  8. Ben says:

    As for Birthers and whatever other group is being disparaged today I would remind everyone about the “big tent”. You don’t throw out people while claiming to have a big tent. You talk some sense into them and control the message. Frankly I’m getting tired of the self proclaimed “elite” of the party (who are seldom representative of the party) telling us all how unwashed we are. If Joe Hillbilly has a dumb question then try to answer it. Throwing him out makes no sense and makes the party seem arrogant.

    I think we have seen, both on this site and on every other, that birthers are not willing to listen to sense or reason. They are so hysterically over the deep-end in favor of their cause, that (not that I ever thought I would quote Barnie Frank in my entire life) arguing with them is like arguing with a dining room table.

  9. kth says:

    You don’t throw out people while claiming to have a big tent. You talk some sense into them and control the message.

    I actually agree with this, and no doubt JJ does too. What is called for is leadership, for someone trusted by the base to address their legitimate concerns, but at the same time to admonish them to take their role in democracy more seriously, and to stop believing and repeating outlandishly false things.

    As I commented upthread, allowing the current wildfires to burn is actually not a bad strategy for a party hoping to hold ground but resigned to not gaining any. But they will never elect a President unless he, or someone, is willing to Sistah Souljah the paranoid element. Trouble is, at least up till now, no elected Republican has been willing to step up and say those things.

  10. Eric Florack says:

    Tolerating the contempt for truth, in favor of a whatever-works relativism, turns out not to be something that can be just put back in the bottle.

    That’s a two edged sword, Anderson. What Henke’s been trying to do… for years now… even before the laughably named “Next Right” came along… is ignore principles so as to gain power. In this, I see him as being no different than Democrats, as I’ve been saying for some time.

    And you’ll forgive me Anderson, if I take you saying the question of Obama’s birth has been sufficiently answered, with a grain of salt, given your overt support of the man. What, I ask you, is behind your support of someone who flat out refuses to show us his birth certificate, thus proving he is qualified for the role, past contempt for the truth? Fear of it, perhaps? Or is it that the end justifies the means if you’re an Obama supporter?

    Oh, I don’t doubt Henke would like the conservatives to STFU. I don’t doubt that at all. But remember, gang… Labeling people who bring up uncomfortable truths as ‘crazies’ is one of the older tricks in the book….and is straight from “Rules for Radicals”.

    “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

    “Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It”.

  11. C.Red says:

    As an outsider looking in, I would have to say I more or less agree with Michael Reynolds. You are more likely to be cast out by the current GOP than to be able to toss out the birthers.

    You generally present a reasoned opposition, but at least you agree that there are problems that need to be addressed. The Republican party is currently the anti-Obama/Democrats party, they seem to be unwilling to actually initiate anything (other than torture.)

    How many Republican politicians and commentators (off the web) are taking a similar position?

  12. Eric Florack says:

    Now, look; Argue if you will that at this stage we might be more productive arguing on other topics. There’s a fair amount to commend that argument. But dismissing those demanding the truth as ‘crazy’ is hardly the way of someone of principle, particularly given how easy it would be for Obama to turn back such questions, and given the effort he’s put into avoiding answering the questions put him.

  13. Eric:

    You are the crazy you’ve been waiting for.

  14. DavidL says:

    John Kerry swore on the floor of the Senate that he was serving in Cambodia while Richard Nixon was president. Just two stubborn problems with Kerry’s yarn. One the Mekong was not navitable into Cambodia, and two, Kerry’s entire four month tour of duty was under President Johnson.

    The Johnson in Cambodia just doesn’t fit any socialist approved narratives. The fact is that Kerry lied about his Vietnam experience and the American public owes the Swift Boater’s a debt of gratitude from exposing Kerry as a fraud.

    Was the Swift Boater’s narrative completely accurate? No. But much more accurate than Kerry’s yarn.

  15. anjin-san says:

    So after you ban the crazies from the GOP, are the rest of you going to get together for an intimate dinner?

  16. Eric Florack says:

    David; Quite. You and I both wrote quite extensively to that point during that campaign. As, for that matter, did about half of the ‘sphere.But of course, we were treated for doing so to being called a band of crazies . Seems to me there’s a pattern there that should raise an eyebrow among anybody that values truth.

  17. William d'Inger says:

    Something doesn’t add up here. All the “birthers” I know have dropped that subject and moved on to Obamacare. I kind of suspect the issue is being kept alive by liberals for political gain.

    Of course there are always going to be a few incurable nut cases, but I’ll bet there are die-hard liberals still investigating Bush’s military records.

  18. Eric Florack says:

    I kind of suspect the issue is being kept alive by liberals for political gain.

    I wouldn’t doubt it… and more than just liberals.

    but I’ll bet there are die-hard liberals still investigating Bush’s military records.

    You’d win. And when was the last time you saw a call for those to be seperated from the left?

    Telling, that.

  19. karen mobile says:

    We are currently living in a nanny state where you cannot live or breathe without being advised on the risks, its gotten silly.

  20. sam says:

    @DavidL

    One the Mekong was not navigable into Cambodia

    Bullshit:

    The allied push into Cambodia during the spring of 1970 brought the SEALORDS forces into a unique operational environment. At 0730 local time on 9 May, 10 days after ground troops crossed the border, a combined Vietnamese-American naval task force steamed up the Mekong River to wrest control of that key waterway from North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces. The flotilla, led by a Vietnamese naval officer, was composed of American PCFs, ASPBs, PBRs, HAL-3 and VAL-4 aircraft, Benewah, Askari, Hunterdon County, YRBM 16, YRBM 21 and 10 strike assault boats (STAB) of Strike Assault Boat Squadron 20, a fast-reaction unit created by Admiral Zumwalt in 1969. The Vietnamese contingent included riverine assault craft of many types, PCFs, PBRs, and marine battalions. Naval Advisory Group personnel sailed with each Vietnamese vessel. By the end of the first day, Vietnamese naval units reached the Cambodian capital of Phnom Penh [my emphasis], while to the south the combined force stormed enemy-held Neak Luong, a strategic ferry crossing point on the river. For political reasons, no U.S. personnel were allowed past Neak Luong, midway to Phnom Penh. Although the American component pulled out of Cambodia by 29 June, the Vietnamese continued to guard the Mekong and evacuate to South Vietnam over 82,000 ethnic Vietnamese jeopardized by the conflict.

    By Sea, Air, and Land: An Illustrated History of the U.S. Navy and the War in Southeast Asia — Chapter 4: Winding Down the War, 1968 – 1973 Department of the Navy — Navy Historical Center.

    A look at any map of Cambodia will show you that Phnom Penh is quite a ways up the Mekong from the Vietnamese border.

  21. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Dr. Joyner is it that you do not respect the Doctorate earned by Jerome Corsi? Why is his credential less valid then yours? Are you accusing Dr. Jerome Corsi of intellectual dishonesty? Having done none of the research Dr. Corsi has done, you have come to a different conclusion. How quaint.

  22. sam says:

    @DavidL

    Kerry’s entire four month tour of duty was under President Johnson.

    More bullshit:

    Kerry’s four month tour of duty as commander of a Swift boat

    On November 17, 1968, Kerry reported for duty at Coastal Squadron 1 in Cam Ranh Bay in South Vietnam. Kerry took part in Operation Sea Lords, the brainchild of Admiral Elmo Zumwalt. The goal was to project a U.S. military presence more aggressively into an area that had long been a Viet Cong stronghold. As part of that plan, the Swift boats were assigned to patrol the narrow waterways — inlets, canals, and coves — of the Mekong River delta, to monitor enemy movements, interdict enemy river-based supply lines, invite attack and otherwise draw out hostile forces.

    During his tour of duty as an Officer in Charge of Swift boats, Kerry led five-man crews on patrols into enemy-controlled areas. His first command was Swift boat PCF-44, from December 6, 1968 to January 21, 1969, when the crew was disbanded. They were based at Coastal Division 13 at Cat Lo from December 13 to January 6. Otherwise, they were stationed at Coastal Division 11 at An Thoi. On January 30, Kerry took charge of PCF-94 and its crew, which he led until he departed An Thoi on March 26 and the crew was disbanded. [6]

    Nixon was inaugurated President on January 20, 1969. Kerry left Vietnam in April 1969.

    You’re 0 for 2, dimwit.

  23. An Interested Party says:

    At this point, I’d just be happy if the GOP can find leaders who rise above the Birther and Death Panels fray and put forth principled alternatives to the Obama-Reid-Pelosi programs.

    If the political enemies of the Democrats use arguments advanced by people like Glenn Beck and Jerome Corsi, the Dems will continue to win elections…

  24. Steve Verdon says:

    If the political enemies of the Democrats use arguments advanced by people like Glenn Beck and Jerome Corsi, the Dems will continue to win elections…

    You know, I seem to recall this kind of arrogance about…mmmm…6 years ago. Didn’t work out for those arrogant S.O.B.s then, I doubt it will work for your side.

  25. TangoMan says:

    You know, I seem to recall this kind of arrogance about…mmmm…6 years ago. Didn’t work out for those arrogant S.O.B.s then, I doubt it will work for your side.

    WTF are you talking about? Of course it worked, it worked beautifully. The leader of that effort to create Republican dominance has catapulted himself to a gig on Dancing with the Stars where the women of America will swoon over him.

    Just think, if Obama and Pelosi and Reid and Rangel play their cards right, in 6 years, they too could be decked out in sequins and find themselves sashaying across a dance floor, or in Rangel’s case he could be dancing with a fellow named Bubba in the prison yard.

  26. Gustopher says:

    Skip over the question of whether the Republicans should ditch the Birthers, I would ask how?

    As near as I can tell, the Birthers are the base of the Republican party. They’re the ones who go to precinct meetings and organize at the local level.

  27. Matt says:

    karen mobile I had no idea you lived in England..

  28. Wayne says:

    We need to expand the Republican Party by kicking out all those we disagree with. Yep, sound logic. Oh the Democrats got back into power because they kick out their fringe groups. Right (sarcasm off)

    The GOP didn’t lose because of a few fringe elements after all there are many more on the DNC side. They lost mainly for two reasons. The pendulum was swinging out of their favor and more importantly they compromise their sole with too much compromise. Yes we need some compromise but the GOP went too far and spent way too much money. Dem lite is not good enough.

  29. An Interested Party says:

    You know, I seem to recall this kind of arrogance about…mmmm…6 years ago. Didn’t work out for those arrogant S.O.B.s then, I doubt it will work for your side.

    While it is true that too much arrogance could bring down the Democrats, it is hardly “arrogant” to point out that if the face of the opposition is foolish conspiracy theorists who espouse ridiculous ideas like the Birthers or the death panels, the opposition will lose…

  30. An Interested Party says:

    re: Wayne September 1, 2009 19:35

    I am curious how the GOP expands if RINOs (people who have the nerve not to be completely conservative) aren’t welcome…

  31. DavidL says:

    Oh the perils of trying to do a five year old arguement from memory, alas. However, Kerry may claim to have the hat, but I have his quote:

    “I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me.”

    From the Washington Post.

    The President on Christmas of 1968 was Lyndon Johnson. That not only makes Kerry a liar, but a rather poor one at that.

  32. G.A.Phillips says:

    While it is true that too much arrogance could bring down the Democrats, it is hardly “arrogant” to point out that if the face of the opposition is foolish conspiracy theorists who espouse ridiculous ideas like the Birthers or the death panels, the opposition will lose…

    Who cares if the ender of all earmarks except his own(pun intended) was born here or not, he bullsh-ted the dumb people fair and square, but the king of ALL abortionist(I SAY THIS BECAUSE IT’S ONE OF THE ONLY TIMES HE EVER VOTED FOR ANYTHING) not open to death panels? Come on pookie. was up with that? Have you any idea who he picked to be his science czar?Didn’t I tell you. Oh ya, I forgot all you liberals think like that, sorry for wasting both of our times.

    And speaking of DumbB.O. can’t speaker Astroface loan him it’s Plastic surgeon, maybe he’ill stop knocking over his teleprompter if he gets them sh-ts fixed.

  33. Steve Plunk says:

    “I am curious how the GOP expands if RINOs (people who have the nerve not to be completely conservative) aren’t welcome…”

    The answer is to keep them but convince them to change a bit through rational argument. It’s not that hard. Conservatives like myself think this way and can keep the tent big.

  34. tom p says:

    At this point, I’d just be happy if the GOP can find leaders who rise above the Birther and Death Panels fray and put forth principled alternatives to the Obama-Reid-Pelosi programs. Aside from continuing the status quo, what’s the Republican plan for solving the impending financial collapse of our health care system?

    As a committed “leftist”, I’d have to say I agree.

  35. andy says:

    Uh oh, it looks like triumph hacked into G.A.Phillips’s account.

  36. tom p says:

    I’ll bet there are die-hard liberals still investigating Bush’s military records.

    What military records?

  37. An Interested Party says:

    …sorry for wasting both of our times.

    Actually, you waste everyone’s time whenever you post your drivel here, pookie…by the way, your concern for the unborn really is quite touching…a pity you (among others) don’t seem to show the same concern for lives once they actually leave the womb…

    The answer is to keep them but convince them to change a bit through rational argument.

    And what “rational” arguments would work on, say, Lincoln Chafee or Bruce Bartlett…

  38. TangoMan says:

    by the way, your concern for the unborn really is quite touching…a pity you (among others) don’t seem to show the same concern for lives once they actually leave the womb…

    Being a pro-choice fellow myself, I’m embarrassed when this shallow argument is trotted out. A citizen who intervenes to protect a helpless child from live-threatening danger does a good deed regardless of whether the same citizen later rejects the notion that he is then required to support that child.

    Pro-life people believe that the fetus is worthy of being given a chance to live. When they protect the fetus from destruction they are doing a good deed. That good deed isn’t conditional on a follow-on good deed. The responsibility for the child rests with the parents, not with those who wanted to stop its destruction.

  39. anjin-san says:

    That not only makes Kerry a liar, but a rather poor one at that.

    If there was no such thing as trashing combat vets, what would a guy like David do with his time?

  40. An Interested Party says:

    re: TangoMan | September 1, 2009 | 10:41 pm

    Considering your slavish devotion to Sarah Palin, you should be embarrassed about things other than the argument that I presented…and how can you be pro-choice if you believe that abortion presents life-threatening danger to a helpless child…

  41. floyd says:

    Wm.Buckley was a man of depth and intellect,
    Jon Henke… You’re no Wm. Buckley!
    May All the lunatics “moon” you where ever you go!

  42. TangoMan says:

    Considering your slavish devotion to Sarah Palin, you should be embarrassed about things other than the argument that I presented…and how can you be pro-choice if you believe that abortion presents life-threatening danger to a helpless child…

    Dude, when was the last time you were paid a six figure sum to give a speech in Hong Kong?

    Secondly, try harder to comprehend what you read. I didn’t say that I saw life-threatening danger to a helpless child, I said that a pro-life person sees the situation that way. Their actions are acting consistent with their beliefs. You wanting to slam them with a charge of hypocrisy means that you’re the one who is walking the logic plank.

  43. An Interested Party says:

    You wanting to slam them with a charge of hypocrisy means that you’re the one who is walking the logic plank.

    Umm, not really…if all life is precious, whether inside or outside the womb, then those that are so worried about protecting fetuses should also be as worried about protecting babies and children…and my comprehension is fine, dude…originally, you made the argument that a fetus is a “helpless child”…you didn’t clarify whether you believed that yourself…now it is obvious you don’t…

  44. sam says:

    @Tangoman

    Dude, when was the last time you were paid a six figure sum to give a speech in Hong Kong?

    Well, and I really mean this, I hope she’s not going over there just to be set up:

    Palin’s latest date a prank?

    Business Insider suggests that a widely reported appearance by Sarah Palin at a Hong Kong finance conference is a high-end prank:

    Hopefully Sarah Palin realizes she’s been invited to Hong Kong as a practical joke.

    CLSA, the Asia-focused broker who invited Mrs. Palin as keynote speaker for an Asian investment conference, is well known for their cheeky takes on investment research.

    In the past, they’ve polled Asian fortune tellers for index targets, hired anime cartoonists to draw Japanese research, and generally love to push the boundaries between entertainment and analysis. They are a real research firm, it’s just that they love to sprinkle in some hilarity every now and then as a smart marketing gimmick.

    Sarah Palin is this year’s big laugh for them.

  45. G.A.Phillips says:

    Uh oh, it looks like triumph hacked into G.A.Phillips’s account.

    Hey, I keep wondering who keeps going on my puter and making a right wing extremist terror suspect out out of me!!!!

    TRIUMPH!!!!!!!

    Umm, not really…if all life is precious, whether inside or outside the womb, then those that are so worried about protecting fetuses should also be as worried about protecting babies and children…and my comprehension is fine, dude…originally, you made the argument that a fetus is a “helpless child”…you didn’t clarify whether you believed that yourself…now it is obvious you don’t…

    Well I believe it, and if you liberals give up your right to vote and stop pooping in this giant diaper that we used to call the U.S.A., I would be more then happy to give you some charity as Im am sure millions of others would, I’m all for protecting babies and children that can’t think for and or take of care of themselves.

  46. anjin-san says:

    Dude, when was the last time you were paid a six figure sum to give a speech in Hong Kong?

    Given Pailin’s erratic behavior, her career in public speaking may be a short one…

    Sarah Palin will not give a pro-life speech tonight for the Alaska Family Council at Anchorage megachurch ChangePoint, as event organizers had previously advertised.

    A spokeswoman for Palin said the former governor had never accepted the invitation in the first place, though Alaska Family Council organizers said they’ve been speaking with “Palin contacts” for weeks. This is the fourth time such an incident has happened: Palin scheduled to speak at an event, organizations advertising the event for weeks, and the speech being cancelled at the last minute due to apparent miscommunication.

    http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/oops-she-did-it-again-palin-cancels-for-fourth-time.php

  47. anjin-san says:

    Dude, when was the last time you were paid a six figure sum to give a speech in Hong Kong?

    Did the president of France call her up to invite her?

  48. Wayne says:

    AIP
    I never suggested in kicking out RINOs from the party only that I don’t want them as my representatives. Surely you wouldn’t suggest putting and very extreme right person in as a Senator? The problem I have of many is that they will compromise their principles and vote for a RINO in hopes of putting in someone with an R behind their name.

    I agree with Steve and think the best approach is to maintain our conservative principle and convince others to join us than to try to adopt their liberal principles. Do we have to agree on everything? Of course not and we should be tolerant of the of small % difference. Tolerant doesn’t mean we can’t try convince each other of our rational but we shouldn’t call each other nasty names. Moderate,liberal, RINO, far right, big time conservative are always said in the nicest way but I wouldn’t consider them to nasty. Nut job, loser ,wing bats etc would be.

  49. TangoMan says:

    Well, and I really mean this, I hope she’s not going over there just to be set up:

    Let’s say that Goldman Sachs invited President Clinton or President Chirac to give a speech and then punked them for the world to laugh at. What effect would that have on Goldman Sach’s reputation and their ability to draw high value speakers to future conferences?

    Just because an idiot with a blogging account can write something that speaks to the irrational bias of his audience, something that they truly and desperately want to believe, doesn’t mean that there is any merit to his ramblings.

  50. TangoMan says:

    James,

    At this point, I’d just be happy if the GOP can find leaders who rise above the Birther and Death Panels fray

    Yup, no such thing as death panels:

    A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Hawaii’s government must continue providing lifesaving dialysis and chemotherapy treatments to Pacific island migrants suffering from kidney disease and cancer.

    U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright granted a temporary restraining order preventing the state from instituting a new, limited health insurance program intended to save $15 million. The new health program was scheduled to start Tuesday.

    As much as it pains you, you need to be objective and realize that the death panels meme has no similarity to the birther nonsense.

  51. odograph says:

    TangoMan, when you stop to think about it, I’m not sure that article says what you want it to say.

    Are you with the judge, and for unlimited government health care for the uninsured?

  52. TangoMan says:

    Are you with the judge, and for unlimited government health care for the uninsured?

    When the US government blows up nuclear bombs on these people’s islands and promises them certain benefits, including health benefits, I don’t think that the Death Panel Committee has the right to put a limit on the chemotherapy these people need, a need that has a high likelihood of being caused by living on irradiated islands.

  53. odograph says:

    Sorry, your link didn’t show for me yesterday.

    Following it now, yes I can agree with you that we should honor treaty obligations, but it seems a strange paragraph in a story about a state and it’s health care program.

    The Fed’s aren’t picking up treaty obligation tabs?

  54. TangoMan says:

    If the birthers are a problem for the Republican Party, then how come having a communist-truther as a Czar is not a problem for the Democrats?

    Why is the media focusing on birthers, who as private citizens have no influence on policy, when a communist-truther is sitting at the right hand of the President?