« Bolton at the U.N. | Main | Someone needs a new marketing department »


...so screams a headline for this Reuters story on Drudge.

Do you suppose that maybe it's because he's... anti-abortion?

Don't know about you, but that'd be my guess. That would mean that he and I disagree on at least one issue. As I've said before, however, I don't give a rat's ass what his personal views on abortion are, so long as they aren't instrumental in determining how he rules on abortion-related issues.

As I've pointed out here and here, Alito has demonstrated to my satisfaction that he is capable of ruling on the matter without subordinating his jurisprudence to his personal beliefs, whatever they may be. I think even his critics would have to give him that. And that's good enough for me.

So he's pro-life. So what?

(BTW, I apologize for the light blogging of late. Today was an exceptionally busy day, work-wise. With any luck the storm has passed.)


It sounds to me that you disagree with anything republican except the war. I start thinking that you are a closet democrat, but you are afraid to admit it. Iraq is a transient issue. Ideology is not. And you dont sound like a real republican to me.

> I start thinking that you are a closet democrat...

I've been called a lot of things on this site, but I do believe that's a first.

No Blue Wind, you'd have to add tax policy (Barry supports more fundamental tax policy change than the current administration), government spending (Barry & CRB, like most Conservatives want even LESS government spending) and a host of social issues, like how best to address violent crime (common sense Conservatives say punishment, kooky Liberals say therapy - "Murderers just need a hug").

The Democrats are abysmal on tax policy, government spending, crime control and even the border issue, making no bones about it, that "open borders is ideal," from their view.

I'm pro-abortion and I'm pro-Union (to a reasonable extent) as well, and I WISH the Democrats would offer up a real pro-working class (lower taxes & far more limited government), tough on crime and our borders candidate (like maybe a Zell Miller type?), but they insist on offering up warmed over plutocrats, like Gore & Kerry, with only more in sight.

For starters, most republicans in this country vote AGAINST their financial interests. They simply dont want to admit it. They somehow think that if they decide they are republicans and against tax cuts, they will magically become richer.

The republican party of today has a completely different focus than the repiblican party of the past. For instance, Lou Weicker was a republican, and he was far more liberal than many democrats. Even McCain, despite being a "republican", is more of democrat than many democrats.

The republican party of today has been hijacked and is completely controlled by the religious right. Ideologically, it is the party against women's rights, against scientific advances and against the separation of church and state. Barry clearly does not share any of these values. I insist that he is a closet democrat :). Maybe conservative closet democrat, but still a democrat.

The so-called "Religious Right" is a small part of the Republican Party.

They may be a significant force in that Party and in American politics because of their numbers (40+ million and growing) and their organization, BUT no one can deny that they deserve a voice and a share in making the decisons comensurate with their size and organizational strength.

On the issues, virtually every common sense Conservative opposes the ERA because it would result in inane and disatrous policies like "comparable worth," (ie a Secretary = a Truck Driver = a Cop at least in terms of pay rates)...NO, the market pays employees based on supply and demand. The more rare, dangerous or hard to master a skill is, the more valuable it generally is. That's why a Secretary, working in a clean, comfortable office, requiring minimal skills, generally earns less than a cop or a Truck Driver (both more dangerous and more difficult jobs).

Those opposed to the ERA can be called a lot of things (common sense thinkers, good, decent Americans, tradionalists, etc) but "anti-woman," isn't one of them.

Ditto race/gender based preferences, which have reulted in a horrible stigma that many minority employees face, and one that's especially stinging for those who are very competant in their fields (those less competant warrant that stigma).

Bottom line, those preferences (1) violate equal protections and equal opportunity statutes and (2) are patently unnecessary, as removing the barriers is all that's necessary to let a group succeed.

Higher tax rates KILL workers, literally and figuratively.

Income = productivity. Truly "wealthy" people don't rely on incomes as their primary source of wealth, so the graduated income tax is a tax on workers designed to keep ambitious workers from acruing much capital.

Lower taxe rates, down to about 23% always result in more government revenues, and that is UNFORTUNATE. That's why marginal tax cuts never shrink government, the way most Conservatives and Libertarians want, we'd need much deeper cuts to do that.

Higher taxes and increased government spending are the two biggest burdens on American workers. While tax cuts won't make them rich, tax increases not only make them poorer but always decrease the quality of their lives.

Taxes, spending, crime control, preferences, comparable worth and the borders - the Democrats are sadly on the wrong side of all those issues.

I wish there were a case for higher taxes and more government spending being beneficial to today's worker, but it can't.

At least no one has made such a case to date.

I wonder why alleged conservatives support the wildly irreponsible spending of Dumb Dubya -- far worse than any modern Democrat adminstration. OK, so it's actually Dubya's rubber stamp congress ... picky picky.

Dubya is like a teenaged girl at the mall with daddy's credit card.

The bulk of the current administration's spending has been on a necessary war effort in the Mid-East (Afghanistan & Iraq and more to go) and Domestic Security...both are Constitutionally mandated ("to provide for the common defense" & "to ensure domestic tranquility"), as opposed to reckless social spending.

Oh Jesus, even the most naive Dittohead can see the billions going into Halliburton, right? I mean, you do know that Cheney worked for them, you know, like RIGHT BEFORE he took office. You do realize that the main beneficiaries of our "necessary spending" have been Dumb Dubya's puppeteers ... or are you that brainwashed?

After a thousand years, the Romans developed a simple rule of thumb: "Who profits?"

You can use this to reliably understand any situation involving politicians, and human beings in general.

Didn't Smirking Chimp say that he wasn't going to get into "nation building"? Are you sure your brain is operational?

Have you honestly forgotten years ago, when we waited every day to see those WMD's that never materialized?

Twice burned, shame on you.

Once associating with any political party at all and losing sight of how to actually think about problems and solve them instead of bitching about how much you hate the other party? Shame on all of us.

Haliburton is an easy target for inane conspiracy mongers, which you seem quite fond of.

Haliburton got virtually all of the first Gulf War contracts and those in Bosnia as well.

Iraq was NOT invaded over WMDs nor to enrich Haliburton, but to remove from power a dictator with strong ties to international terrorism and one who'd ignored twelve consecutive UN Resolutions before 1441 and thumbed his nose at that one as well, at least until March of 2003.

Again, most of the current excessive spending done by this administration has been in two areas, (1) the Military over dual campaigns in both Iraq & Afghanistan and (2) Homeland Security.

Excessive government spending is always negative, BUT it's often impossible to curb that during war and it would be foolish to think of cutting back on Homeland Security right about now.

Post a comment