1 - 10 Next
Pre Roe v. Wade then Governor Reagan supported the liberalization of California's abortion law (an act he later said he regretted because it was abused). The law was then AND SHOULD BE NOW a reflection of individual state legal choice. The Supreme Court liberals corrupted the concept of federalism by imposing a national standard on abortion-a legislative initiative and power grab if there ever was one. But the idea that conservatives will ever eliminate abortion (after 20 weeks or whenever) with a national amendment is absurd, both politically and practically: there never has been and never will be a federal abortion police. That is the position-precisely because it will never pass-which the pro abortion interests would choose for the pro life movement if they got to select the pro life position. The appropriate response is to return the decision making process to the state electorates-were it was historically, and restore the federalist concept.
In response to:

Here We Go: Ted Cruz Revs 2016 Engine

ITSTLN Wrote: Jan 20, 2015 2:15 PM
The GOP "base" is not composed uniquely or disproportionately of "hard right" conservatives. While certainly important, the typical TEA party member is about 25% of the aggregate registrants.. The rest are largely what I would define as center right.. Virtually all are committed to restoration of fiscal responsibility, but the tactics and consequences are debate points. The self definition of the hard right (we are the base) is simply wrong; the current polling with 60% of the GOP indicating they would like to see Romney run again illustrates the point. Romney is a mediocre politician, but it does not follow that Cruz is therefore the viable alternative, nor that the self promotional description of the hard right makes any political sense. The key need is to harness both components in the party into a cohesive electorate: the candidate who can do that has a good chance. Its certainly not clear that Cruz's polarizing personality and rhetoric can deliver that. And its very clear that Iowa's significance as a primary state is almost completely an illusion.
The absence of any reference to traditional Islamic ideological motivation( and infidel treatment )has been a staple since from virtually all of our senior politicians since 9-11. Bush wouldn't go there either. That isn't a defense of Obama et.al., but it's a fact and noteworthy. I understand why, but disagree with their premise. The Egyptian President hit it when he said the modern Islamic believer has to reject Islam as a purveyor of submission (the actual meaning which Bush never remotely referenced), and inferentially,Sharia law must be rejected as well. It isn't that hard: the American leaders have to come up with an appropriately negative terminology to describe the ideology,and make it clear modern culture requires overt rejection of Islamic supremacy (not merely episodic condemnation of terrorist events). I hold out for "radical Jihad"as a narrative description of both the terrorists and their actions. But while nomenclature can be a variable, it has to incorporate the unacceptability of the cultural submission concept of Islam which informs the terrorists. And not a few of the non-terrorists.
Unlikely passage with a GOP Congress.
As noted, this is an ideological indulgence-which probably makes him feel good. There is precisely no chance it will be passed.
Point taken. Valid. Very poorly timed:appropriate later not now. And Donohue reference is superfluous and actually undermines your observations: his point was that there is a "freedom from offense" explanation which, while not perhaps justifying the killing, explains it. And he's a moron.
The Electoral College and largely fixed red/blue state alignments would mean a "conservative" party ( conforming to your definition ) would consistently produce Democratic Party landslides.
I like Walker as well, but he is not a high decibel conservative like Cruz et.al. He is however a governor with good credentials. His policy positions, on issues like immigration, are more moderate than the right wing component of the base, but he is generically more conservative than Christie and Bush.
In response to:

The Pontiff and 'Climate Change'

ITSTLN Wrote: Jan 08, 2015 11:39 AM
Simply put: this Pope is not the brightest bulb in the pack, and he is, regrettably, a perfect export of the Latin American left. He will wind up damaging his faith leadership by his excursions into an arena where he has marginal experience or knowledge. Further, by issuing an official documentary opinion (encyclical) from his religious office he elevates what could otherwise be dismissed or accepted as a personal view to a "corporate" opinion-one which is well outside the faith and morals obligations of his office. And it will be promoted by the political left,as his statements on capitalism have already demonstrated. Catholicism may well follow in the Western nation footsteps of the mainstream Protestant churches.
In response to:

Epistemic Closure 2.0

ITSTLN Wrote: Jan 06, 2015 5:33 PM
Tell them to boogaloo across the campus and picket Gruber at MIT. And while they are at it they can drop by Avik Roy's office and get some tips on how to deal with the ACA and its results.
1 - 10 Next