Comments Posted By Eric Florack
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 27 Comments


No one who gets the endorsement of the NRA can, by any stretch of the imagination, be termed a “radical leftist.”

Nor can anyone with ties to ACORN, or that is endorsed by Wade Rathke, of the SIEU and the Daily Kos, be much a conservative, either.

The point wasn't that she is, by any stretch of the imagination a conservative. The point is that it is exaggeration and gross hyperbole to refer to her as a "radical leftist."


Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 1.11.2009 @ 11:45


Let's remember, dear reader, that way we lost the last election so badly, both to the conservative base and the supposed middle, who either sat on their hands in their disatisfaction, or crossed the road to vote for Obama, was that the GOP decided to compromise on their principles. I don't care WHO you are, or what you think. You don't sway people in the long run if you're willing to compromise your principles. The GOP leadership has spent far too long doing just that, which is exactly why they're in minority status today in the halls of government.

And in that mnority status is where they richly deserve to stay, if they don't start dealing with the base as what it is... the heart of the Republican party and it's values.

Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 17.10.2009 @ 11:57


So lets set “who’s at fault” to the side, and for the moment assume that 100% of all obstructonism is entirely the Democrats fault, and the Republicans are blameless. What you are implying is that if the Dems just went along with Repubs we’d get “minimalist government . . . and that’s demonstrably not true.

Not what I said at all. RINOS are also an issue, of course. Consider; Republicans are far less unified in their objections to big government than Democrats are in their objection to the lack of it.

Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 11.10.2009 @ 16:25

What are the conditions? Given the way I was reading the thread that sounds like “as long as Republicans are a minority”, and that doesn’t make any sense.

"these conditions" includes a tota;l lack of cooperation form the Democrats... which is invariably an issue the last 40 years or so. As Sal suggests...

... the Republicans simply don’t have any room to negotiate. Their margins are so small, that they don’t have any bargaining power

Of course they wouldn't even if the margin were much smaller. The issue isn't really the number of Republicans and Democrats but the number of liberals vs real conservatives.

Is the condition that a “new” government agency will be established and/or an existing agency gets expanded? If that’s the case it at least makes literal sense (a government getting bigger is pretty much the definition of “not minimalist government”) but you can’t simply refuse to ever add another government employee regardless of the issue. “Minimalist government” is a height to which we aspire, not a floor beneath we cannot fall. You can’t fairly say “The government of NASA, the NSA, Nuclear Regulatory agencies, the FAA, all these good things that were expansions of government . . . they’re all cool. ANYTHING ELSE from this moment forward, however, is an abomination upon your soul.” That’s a bit arbitrary, isn’t it?

Straw man arguments, now?

Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 11.10.2009 @ 11:52

The Baucus bill hasn’t a chance of surviving a conference committee between the House and Senate. But it might have if the GOP worked to improve it rather than be terrified of their wild eyed base who sees any cooperation with the Democrats in trying to govern the country as tantamount to a betrayal of conservative principles.

The fact of the matter is, that under these conditions any bill that becomes law is going to be a direct betrayal of the ideals of minimalist government. On that basis, who was going to take them seriously when they start preaching that ideal? Nobody, and rightly so.

Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 10.10.2009 @ 11:57


I would disagree with McDonald on the basis of private virtue — keeping sacred one’s promise to be faithful - as being reflective of and relevant to a politician’s basic trustworthiness.

Quite so, and I'll tell you this, Rick: It seems to me that this is where we get ourselves into trouble when we try to separate the personal from the political.

First of all, I have always held that the political is the reflection of the personal. Politics is not a game unto itself, it is ideally a tool by which we implement our most personal values. On that basis, then, is it logical not to question how someone is going to be operating in the political world in terms of trustworthiness and so on, when one turns their back on their most personal promises and values? Put another way, how am I going to trust a bill Clinton to keep his word to me, when he can't even keep his word to himself and his wife and his God, Vis' a vie' his marriage vows, and Lewinsky et al?

Now, I'm quite sure I'm going to be told and no uncertain terms by some of the left, that these problems would seemingly include Newt Gingrich for example. John McCain. And that's quite right. It does. You mention Giuliani, Rick, so let's include him on that list as well.

Is such a transgression a showstopper, particularly years down the road after the fact? Should it kill off someone's political chances going forward for all time? Perhaps not. But it doesn't make sense to me to exclude such considerations altogether, particularly when the event is a recent one.

There's another level of this, as well. Time was, when someone getting elected to a higher office meant that he was among the best our country had to offer itself. In terms of respect, for the person elected was an honorable person. Certainly this was true in this country's early days. Not so much, anymore, I'm afraid.

Someone above, mentions that this is a mere reflection of the society as it has developed. That certainly can be argued. But in our acknowledgment of increasing levels of depravity in our society does that mean that we must make increased allowances for it in those we elect? Or should we be in fact more diligent in our choices of those we elect to high office?

At the risk of throwing a conversation off the rails entirely, I will close by suggesting that most of our problems in government today and for the last 60 or 70 years are so can be directly attributable to our lack of diligence about who we give the power of government to.

Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 2.07.2009 @ 21:27


But it strikes me as genuine - a realization by Whelan that his actions caused real damage to a real person:

I wonder if Publius ever had the same idea about the damage his coomments caused since Whalen by virtue of using his real name, was already exposed to their consequences?

You've already read my comments, Rick, so you know where I stand on this. I think Whalen did nothing wrong under the circiumstances. In short, I'm with Jonah, who says it well:

In short, I think the answer to this question depends entirely on the conduct of the anonyblogger. It seems counter-intuitive to bullies and cowards who like the idea of sticking pins in voodoo dolls from a safe distance, but anonyblogging requires more politeness and decency even though it liberates you to use less. If you are honest, fair-minded, and polite I think people should probably respect your anonymity. If you play fast and loose with the truth and are altogether a shabby person, I am at a loss as to why everyone should respect your desire to hurl insults and brickbats from the safety of anonymity.

By the way, Rick, see your mail for a note from me on this topic.

Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 9.06.2009 @ 09:41


I’m trying to understand how this will be a “disaster”. If Justice Souter was seen as generally leaning left, how will Justice Sotomayor change that?

Tell ya what, c3... Soromayor managed to slip off my radar after the bout of nomination-itis we had with her back in 1998. I've gotten to look at her record since, and I'll tell you true; Sotomayor manages to do something I'd often thought impossible. She comes down to the left of Souter.

Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 28.05.2009 @ 20:12

In other words, are the principles involved in this nomination fight so important that a Republican senator should be prepared to go down to defeat rather than act pragmatically and tone down their opposition and perhaps even vote to confirm?

You'd better hope so, Rick. Republicans have felt themselves needing to be pragmatists for so long that the majority of them have forgotten what principles are, and so are going to find themselves ill equipped to fight for them. I don't wanna hit this one too hard, but frankly, such is the cost of leaving principles behind.

There's no question in my mind that she'll be confirmed. That said, however, there is much more at stake than knocking down this nomination. The entire identity politics meme, for one thing. there's no way to stop this nomination from becoming confirmed. As disasterous as that will be for this country, at least we can kneecap the identity politic as the racist nonsense it is, thereby saving us this exposure in the future.

Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 28.05.2009 @ 07:36


What is it about paying taxes that make liberals coo and gurgle like a newborn making satisfied noises after soiling its diaper?

It's the power that they generate, of course.

Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 15.04.2009 @ 13:51

Powered by WordPress


Next page »

Pages (3) : [1] 2 3

«« Back To Stats Page