Comments Posted By tccesq
Displaying 1 To 6 Of 6 Comments



You might not be as alone on the blogosphere as you think. Over at RedState (yes, RedState, the home of the "movement conservatives" who you think would dismiss someone like Daniels out of hand), Leon Wolf had a front-page post up on Monday about Daniels, which struck a remarkably similar tone to your post here. His last line summed it up best, when he said, "But for those of you who are tired of "exciting and sexy" and would prefer simply for the government to be run well, Daniels is certainly worth a second look."

If Daniels decides to run, don't be surprised if many of the movement conservatives gravitate towards him, as a conservative who can actually govern effectively.

I think that Daniels, Huntsman, and Ryan are the future of the party. A close examination of Daniels' record might cause some of those movement conservatives to pause. He signed a very liberal gay and transgender executive order that placed them under state civil rights laws. ANd he has kept Indiana evangelicals at arms length for most of his administration.

Not saying that those are deal breakers but it may upset some on the religious right.


Comment Posted By tccesq On 24.02.2010 @ 18:17


I'm with Boy O on this one - if gays marry, it has no effect on my marriage at all. However, in order to avoid thorny Constitutional issues that nobody in the gay marriage debate (pro or con) seems to bring up, I think that it would be wise to separate the legal contract that a marriage forms from the religious rite of marriage. What the pro-gay marriage proponents are really seeking is the right to form a union between two individuals regardless of sex. Fine. Call them civil unions. However, problems may arise if the government should find itself in the position of forcing religious institutions to recognize gay marriages, or even perform gay marriages. At that point, those religious institutions' First Amendment rights may be violated. Further, what about other service providers, such as caterers, photographers, etc., who may individually have religious conflicts with gay marriage? Would the government force them to participate in the name of non-discrimination? (I recall reading a case like that with a photographer, where the state government was attempting to force him to photograph a gay wedding despite his religious convictions.) These issues need to be addressed.

Comment Posted By tccesq On 21.02.2010 @ 14:48


Mr. Reynolds,

Your rant at #12 above is, unfortunately, a perfect example of what the left and the Democratic party have devolved into. Your arguments are devoind of any substantive policy points, and are litle more than (1 accusations of racism, (2) crude sexual references, and (3) filled with the same type of paranoia and hatred which you accuse the GOP, and, more broadly conservatives, of being consumed by. Sure, our side has their nuts (as does yours, judging by your posts). However, a common complaint on the right about the left is the left's unwillingness to engage in open, honest and rational debate of the issues. Most on the right, if you would take the time to discover, base their opposition to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid on the opposition to their hard left agenda, which has nothing to do with the race of any of the individuals noted. The left, knowing that their positions usually do not hold water when critically examined, choose to avoid debate altogether, either by lobbing epiteths (as you did) or by claiming "the debate is over", a la Al Gore.

What really gets me is that those on the left like you who scream about how hateful, racist, ect. conservatives are are usually the most hateful people you will ever come across.

Comment Posted By tccesq On 3.02.2010 @ 18:57



Count me among those on the right who agree with your assertion that "sacrificing lockstep ideology for victory at the polls is not a betrayal of principal but a pragmatic and realistic assessment of how to throw Obamaism on the ash heap of history." What conservatives should be focusing on right now is developing a coherent message, firmly based in conservative principals, that will clearly resonate with a majority of the voters in the next election. Along with that, we should be doing all we can to support those candidates (incumbent or not) who share our conservative principals. Having said that, silliness like the proposed "purity test" to be floated by the RNC (which I actually thought was a joke when I first read about it) is not the way to go. Nor is hounding "apostates" out of the Republican party or the conservative movement simply because they do not fall in line with conservative ideology on each and every issue of the day. For example, if anyone makes an argument in favor of gay marriage (by the way, why shouldn't gays be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us?), are they hounded out of the movement? (If so, then bye, bye Dick Cheney.) We need a variety of voices in the conservative movement, else we will fail in our quest to develop a message that will resonate with a majority of voters.

In short, what is most vital right now is electoral victory in 2010 and 2012. If we are mindful of conservative principals, as opposed to ideology, the voters will follow.

Comment Posted By tccesq On 3.12.2009 @ 13:40



Redstate has shifted their focus to more of an "activist" website, and have made no bones about it. Not that there is anything wrong with that, mind you. Conservative activism is vitally important in these times. Further, it has become apparent that more than a few elected officials pay attention to the message put out by Redstate, and that message has had positive effects. However, even activists should be open-minded enough to not shut out ideas and imput from others who would otherwise be considered fellow travelers in the right-of-center universe but somehow differ from the official narrative on one issue or another.

Having said that, I think you may have been a little over-the-top with your assessment of the Redstate community ("a barbarous brew of angry yawpers."), at least as far as the bloggers/diarists are concerned. Some of the commenters? Well...

Finally, Warner Todd Houston and Pejman Yousefzadeh (sadly) no longer appear on Redstate. Pejman, along with several other former Redstate writers, have gone over to The New Ledger.

I guess that some of the activists would do well to remenber that their activism should be informed by political thought that goes deeper that the latest talking points memo.

Yes, "angry yawpers" is over the top. Can't help myself sometimes.

I suppose it was shock more than anything. Where I received a good share of sharp criticism for what I've written in the past, many would take the time to respond to specific points I was trying to make. But what happened yesterday was a real bucket of cold water.

Obviously, I had not visited recently or would have been aware that Pejman and WTH don't post there anymore. I'm sure there are still other fine conservative contributors there and my beef is not with them.


Comment Posted By tccesq On 1.09.2009 @ 12:54



I am glad that I was not one of the OLC attorneys tasked with justifying enhanced interrogation techniques. I believe that you are correct in your assertion that under US law, the Geneva Convention, etc., that waterboarding would be considered to be torture. But, by the same token, releasing the OLC briefs on the matter, and threatening prosecution of those responsible for those briefs, is childishly irresponsible in a number of ways. First, by telling the world what lengths we will no longer go to in our interrogations, future enemy combatants will have a much easier time preparing for said interrogations. Secondly, the release of these memos, in my opinion, will have a chilling effect on government attorneys in their preparation of legal opinions. How can any government attorney be comfortable in the knowledge that an opinion that he or she is asked for may be used aainst him or her by a future administration with an ax to grind?

Finally, and this is somewhat off-topic, but how many of you found it immensely satisfying to watch Jack Bauer dress down Jaenene Garafolo's character for her liberal whining over the use of the CTU servers? Kiefer Sutherland lived the dream for many of us.

Comment Posted By tccesq On 29.04.2009 @ 12:57



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page