The conservative case for Obama

[TonyR]

I view conservatism as the practical engagement with policy and political institutions to adapt modestly and incrementally to social and economic change with the goal of maintaining the coherence and stability of a polity and a culture. It is a philosophy of moderation and balance, constantly alert to the manifold ways in which societies can, over time, lose their equilibrium. It is defined, along Burke's foundational lines, as an opposition to ideological and theological politics in every form...

...On that pragmatic, non-ideological definition of conservatism, on a wide array of issues, Obama wins hands down. Let me enumerate the ways.

...

...On issue after issue, Burke would be with Obama and against Rommey's theo-political radicalism. The idea that Obama has somehow let down those conservatives who supported him over the McCain-Palin ticket therefore seems absurd to me. Obama has done all he said he intended to do, and almost all of it is a pragmatic response to America's emergent and growing problems. On almost every question - a stimulus one-third tax cuts, a healthcare reform based on the Heritage Foundation model, cap-and-trade for carbon, and solid support for Israel while trying to nudge it away from self-destruction - Obama is in a right-of-center consensus as of a decade ago. It is his opponent who has twisted himself into a screaming radical dedicated to changing America much more profoundly - largely because Fox Nation is experiencing a cultural panic. As for temperament, the GOP is too consumed with cultural hatred to acknowledge the grace and calm of a man forced to grapple with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression with no help whatsoever from his opponents, a black man who has buried identity politics and remains a family man Republicans would fawn over if he were one of them...

Read the whole thing here:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/what-happened-to-the-obamacons.html

Good read, including discussions of the financial sector, climate, foreign policy, and social issues.

[Fedaykin]

But, he has a (D) after his name. No getting passed that.

[BroncoBeavis]

Well if I would've known this was going to be written by a "John Kerry Conservative" I probably would've just skipped the thread. :)

[BroncoInferno]

Well if I would've known this was going to be written by a "John Kerry Conservative" I probably would've just skipped the thread. :)

Easier to make a (lame, unfunny) quip than address the very valid points made in the article (almost certainly because you don't have a counter-argument). Just continue to stick your fingers in your ear and scream, "Obama is a communist Muslim who was born in Kenya!" It's more comfortable to remain abjectly ignorant.

[BroncoBeavis]

Just continue to stick your fingers in your ear and scream, "Obama is a communist Muslim who was born in Kenya!" It's more comfortable to remain abjectly ignorant.

That's not really my style. :)

I've just read enough Sullivan to know he kinda just makes stuff up as he goes along. Ol' RawMuscleGlutes says whatever's convenient to his audience, but rarely if ever believes it himself (unless by accident)

[BroncoInferno]

That's not really my style. :)

I've just read enough Sullivan to know he kinda just makes stuff up as he goes along. Ol' RawMuscleGlutes says whatever's convenient to his audience, but rarely if ever believes it himself (unless by accident)

Some examples (ideally using this article) would be useful. Otherwise, you're merely talking out of your ass.

[BroncoBeavis]

Some examples (ideally using this article) would be useful. Otherwise, you're merely talking out of your ass.

I just gave you one.

[TonyR]

I just gave you one.

The only example you gave is that of an argumentum ad hominem.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Easier to make a (lame, unfunny) quip than address the very valid points made in the article (almost certainly because you don't have a counter-argument). Just continue to stick your fingers in your ear and scream, "Obama is a communist Muslim who was born in Kenya!" It's more comfortable to remain abjectly ignorant.

Bingo. :yep:

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/536576_509535275738655_1633646806_n.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The only example you gave is that of an argumentum ad hominem.

Straw man and ad hominem arguments are all the right have left.

They know they can't run on either Dog On Roof's merits or their party's record of accomplishments.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/488372_10151139814596125_1587732152_n.jpg

[BroncoBeavis]

The only example you gave is that of an argumentum ad hominem.

No. RawMuscleGlutes is a perfect example of Andrew pontificating at length in complete opposition to what he practiced and believed.

[barryr]

Yep, Obama is so conservative that the liberals around here will vote for him. Makes sense.

[TonyR]

Yep, Obama is so conservative that the liberals around here will vote for him. Makes sense.

Well, you're making assumptions about who's "liberal" and who's "conservative", and you're also pretending to know what those terms mean. Pick one of the issues Sullivan outlined in the linked article and tell us how Romney's position is more conservative than Obama's.

[barryr]

Well, you're making assumptions about who's "liberal" and who's "conservative", and you're also pretending to know what those terms mean. Pick one of the issues Sullivan outlined in the linked article and tell us how Romney's position is more conservative than Obama's.

And I believe I have stated I'm no fan of Romney really either, so I don't feel that eager to try to defend him on every issue unlike Obama supporters, much less an article by a known liberal Obama supporter. It is cute though how liberals are afraid of that label and will do anything to pretend they aren't just that. Even to the lengths of pretending to be conservative LOL

[BroncoBeavis]

Well, you're making assumptions about who's "liberal" and who's "conservative", and you're also pretending to know what those terms mean. Pick one of the issues Sullivan outlined in the linked article and tell us how Romney's position is more conservative than Obama's.

It'd probably be better for you to pick one. It's almost impossible to deal with Andrew's 12 levels of bull**** all at once.

For him to twist things like cap and trade into some sort of conservative banner issue is beyond comprehension. It's a classic big government intervention in the free market, completely unsupportable by those wanting limited government.

The fact of the matter is Andrew lost all credibility on the right after the Bareback Sullivan episodes, so he jumped the fence and started selling you what you wanted to hear to make a living, since the same shtick finally wore out its welcome on the right.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And I believe I have stated I'm no fan of Romney really either, so I don't feel that eager to try to defend him on every issue unlike Obama supporters, much less an article by a known liberal Obama supporter.

Much of what you perceive as support for Obama is actually disdain for your party's slimy tactics and "party before country" ethic.


It is cute though how liberals are afraid of that label and will do anything to pretend they aren't just that. Even to the lengths of pretending to be conservative LOL

This from a supporter of a party that essentially denies its last *elected* president ever existed?

A party whose members morphed into "independents" and "the tea party" (and changed their screen names) after their hero Dumbya crapped the bed?

That's pure comedy gold! :laugh:

[spdirty]

K, since Obama is the clear cut conservative candidate I expect all you liberals to vote for Romney. And I'll change my ways. In fact all us conservatives will change our ways and vote for the more liberal candidate with you guys.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

K, since Obama is the clear cut conservative candidate I expect all you liberals to vote for Romney.

Nah.

Dog On Roof is conservative.

Obama is conservative lite.

[Rohirrim]

K, since Obama is the clear cut conservative candidate I expect all you liberals to vote for Romney. And I'll change my ways. In fact all us conservatives will change our ways and vote for the more liberal candidate with you guys.

Obama has this going for him. He'll protect social security, Medicare and Medicaid. If Romney gets in, especially with a GOP Congress, he lines those programs up like a buffet for the dogs. At least Obama has some understanding that many Americans are being destroyed by this "Feed the Rich" economy and will try and protect things like food stamps and health care for the poor. If left to his own devices, I imagine Romney envisions the poor as a modern day version of Soylent Green. He would send them to China in the form of protein biscuits. Romney would treat the presidency as a one way ticket to a deregulation and tax free gravy train for his constituency - the uber rich. After all, $32 trillion stashed offshore just never seems enough. You can always stash more. What if hard times hit?

The uber rich in America want to turn America into one big giant Rio: 99% in the slums, the rich 1% in skyscrapers overlooking the beaches. Romney is their man. Those who don't see this as class warfare are suckers.

[Rohirrim]

Read the whole thing here:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/what-happened-to-the-obamacons.html

Good read, including discussions of the financial sector, climate, foreign policy, and social issues.

Many have said this all along. The Right can't seem to get its head around the truth: They are the radicals.

[Garcia Bronco]

I agree with the OP. Obama has not done a bad job at all and I consider Mitt no different from Obama. So why should I take a chance on a different President when I know what I already have and he's doing a decent job? To me, the worst or most dangerous Democrat is Harry Reid. He's the one that needs to be removed from office and as a State Rep...that's on Nevada.

[DBruleU]

I agree with the OP. Obama has not done a bad job at all and I consider Mitt no different from Obama. So why should I take a chance on a different President when I know what I already have and he's doing a decent job? To me, the worst or most dangerous Democrat is Harry Reid. He's the one that needs to be removed from office and as a State Rep...that's on Nevada.

A decent job at what exactly? Running up massive debt, slowing the economy into another possible recession? Or maybe hes doing a decent job at creating class warfare. Let's all hate the rich people. That'll fix things. Raise their taxes so they can pass on their extra costs to us.

[Garcia Bronco]

A decent job at what exactly? Running up massive debt, slowing the economy into another possible recession? Or maybe hes doing a decent job at creating class warfare. Let's all hate the rich people. That'll fix things. Raise their taxes so they can pass on their extra costs to us.

The President doesn't spend the money in this country. The congress does. And Congress needs to lower spending across the board. We're not in a recession now and we haven't been for sometime. The economy has shed jobs it should have shed 10 years ago and it's due to technology.

Class warfare is something that been around since...forever. People will always be divided in such a way. To heap that on Obama's shoulders or any President's shoulders, is to not acknowledge human nature. It comes from being jealous and even Moses addressed this in the Ten Commandments.

[BroncoBeavis]

Many have said this all along. The Right can't seem to get its head around the truth: They are the radicals.

Yes, because if we know anything, it's that Chief Forensic Gynecologist Andrew Sullivan is a virtually limitless fountain of truth. Hilarious!

[DenverBrit]

Andrew Sullivan talked about his book The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back, published by HarperCollins. He focused on his experiences as a gay member of the Catholic Church, the past and future of the conservative movement, and the direction Republican Party in the current political landscape. He also talked about the need to return to fiscal conservativism, the politicization of religion, and the quality of political debate.

<object id='cspan-video-player' classid='clsid:d27cdb6eae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000' codebase='http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0' align='middle' height='500' width='410'><param name='allowScriptAccess' value='true'/><param name='movie' value='http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=194650-1'/><param name='quality' value='high'/><param name='bgcolor' value='#ffffff'/><param name='allowFullScreen' value='true'/><param name='flashvars' value='system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?programid=165836&style=full'/><embed name='cspan-video-player' src='http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=194650-1' allowScriptAccess='always' bgcolor='#ffffff' quality='high' allowFullScreen='true' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' flashvars='system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?programid=165836&style=full' align='middle' height='500' width='410'></embed></object>

[Rohirrim]

Yes, because if we know anything, it's that Chief Forensic Gynecologist Andrew Sullivan is a virtually limitless fountain of truth. Hilarious!

A fact is a fact is a fact. It has nothing to do with Sullivan. He's just smart enough to point out the obvious. Those who want to tear down one system and replace it with another are radicals. By definition. Rent a clue.

[TonyR]

The President doesn't spend the money in this country. The congress does. And Congress needs to lower spending across the board. We're not in a recession now and we haven't been for sometime. The economy has shed jobs it should have shed 10 years ago and it's due to technology.

Class warfare is something that been around since...forever. People will always be divided in such a way. To heap that on Obama's shoulders or any President's shoulders, is to not acknowledge human nature. It comes from being jealous and even Moses addressed this in the Ten Commandments.

^ Yup, good post. These dopes also need to realize that the debt situation would probably get worse instead of better under Romney.

[Garcia Bronco]

^ Yup, good post. These dopes also need to realize that the debt situation would probably get worse instead of better under Romney.

Deep down we all want the same thing, IMO. We want to live our lives the way we see fit. However, we are part of a society and that privilege entails responsibility to our fellow citizens to perpetuate said society. I think regardless of who our President is we will continue down a road of increased debt because Congress is the problem. The problem can be corrected, but our Congressional leaders lack the self-sacrifice and intestinal fortitude to do what is right for everyone. They can’t put their self-interests aside; aka their job and getting re-elected. This is not a new problem.

[Fedaykin]

Deep down we all want the same thing, IMO. We want to live our lives the way we see fit. However, we are part of a society and that privilege entails responsibility to our fellow citizens to perpetuate said society. I think regardless of who our President is we will continue down a road of increased debt because Congress is the problem. The problem can be corrected, but our Congressional leaders lack the self-sacrifice and intestinal fortitude to do what is right for everyone. They can’t put their self-interests aside; aka their job and getting re-elected. This is not a new problem.

Good post, though I don't think increased debt is inevitable. Clinton and the GOP congress proved otherwise.

The current problem is the fanaticism of the Tea Party nuts who won't accept any compromise. Norquist's idiotic pledge has thrown a big wrench into any progress that might be made.

[Garcia Bronco]

Good post, though I don't think increased debt is inevitable. Clinton and the GOP congress proved otherwise.

The current problem is the fanaticism of the Tea Party nuts who won't accept any compromise. Norquist's idiotic pledge has thrown a big wrench into any progress that might be made.

I think we're in a hole so deep that's it's impossible to get out of short of selling territory.

[BroncoBeavis]

A fact is a fact is a fact. It has nothing to do with Sullivan. He's just smart enough to point out the obvious. Those who want to tear down one system and replace it with another are radicals. By definition. Rent a clue.

The problem is if your fact base starts with "cap and trade is Conservative policy" you're using different facts than everyone else.

[barryr]

This is how "logic" works for liberals and Obama supporters. Obama is surrounded by socialists, marxists, liberals growing up and all of his friends are of the same ilk, but "hey, I know, Obama is a CONSERVATIVE." I mean, the Obama supporters, always seem to find a way, impossible as it seems, to come up with new stupidity all the time.

Just like the Clinton backers liked to think even though the Clintons hung out with criminals, especially in business deals, some fled the country, some turned up dead or never found, but the Clintons were honest people and squeaky clean. Right.

Logic and common sense are not requirements to be a liberal.

[barryr]

A fact is a fact is a fact. It has nothing to do with Sullivan. He's just smart enough to point out the obvious. Those who want to tear down one system and replace it with another are radicals. By definition. Rent a clue.

Irony indeed.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This is how "logic" works for liberals and Obama supporters. Obama is surrounded by socialists, marxists, liberals growing up and all of his friends are of the same ilk, but "hey, I know, Obama is a CONSERVATIVE." I mean, the Obama supporters, always seem to find a way, impossible as it seems, to come up with new stupidity all the time.

You mean those "socialists" and "Marxists" at Goldman Sachs? :laugh:

Amazing how Fox and Rehab Rush can stampede their herds by using political terms mental midgets like you clearly don't understand.

Just like the Clinton backers liked to think even though the Clintons hung out with criminals, especially in business deals, some fled the country, some turned up dead or never found, but the Clintons were honest people and squeaky clean. Right.


Ironic comment insofar as (a) it's complete BS based on long-discredited, trumped-up allegations, and (b) your beloved Saint Ron had more convicted felons in his administration than any president in the history of the U.S.

Every time you reach for your keyboard, you make an idiot of yourself anew.

Ha!

[Requiem]

Too many Keystone Light's for barryr.

[BroncoInferno]

The problem is if your fact base starts with "cap and trade is Conservative policy" you're using different facts than everyone else.

Cap and trade (aka emission trading) policy was a conservative idea:

In the United States, the "acid rain"-related emission trading system was principally conceived by C. Boyden Gray, a G.H.W. Bush administration attorney. Gray worked with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), who worked with the EPA to write the bill that became law as part of the Clean Air Act of 1990. The new emissions cap on NOx and SO2 gases took effect in 1995, and according to Smithsonian magazine, those acid rain emissions dropped 3 million tons that year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade

[TonyR]

This is how "logic" works for liberals and Obama supporters. Obama is surrounded by socialists, marxists, liberals growing up and all of his friends are of the same ilk, but "hey, I know, Obama is a CONSERVATIVE." I mean, the Obama supporters, always seem to find a way, impossible as it seems, to come up with new stupidity all the time.

Just like the Clinton backers liked to think even though the Clintons hung out with criminals, especially in business deals, some fled the country, some turned up dead or never found, but the Clintons were honest people and squeaky clean. Right.

Logic and common sense are not requirements to be a liberal.

First of all, being surrounded by a certain type of person, to the extent that he was, doesn't make you that type of person.

Second, nobody said he was a conservative. What many of us have said is that he has been very moderate and that many of his positions are more conservative than Romney's. A major problem with today's "right" is that is that they're so blinded by ideology and christianism and neocon bullsh*t that they've lost sight of what conservatism truly is. You're a perfect example, you clearly don't understand what it is to be conservative. You have everything sorted into neat little boxes but you don't have those boxes constructed correctly.

Third, nobody said the Clintons were squeaky clean.

Finally, your arguments would be better if you stopped making stuff up.

[TonyR]

Cap and trade (aka emission trading) policy was a conservative idea...

Not to mention that saving/conserving the environment is a conserative concept.

[Rohirrim]

Irony indeed.

Explain. If you can. My bet is, you can't.

[BroncoBeavis]

Cap and trade (aka emission trading) policy was a conservative idea:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade

Sorry, but finding some tangentially related Republican somewhere that had input or even agreed with an idea doesn't make it a "Conservative Idea"

JFK pioneered cutting taxes for the rich. So I guess that's a liberal idea. You guys better get in line. :)

[Play2win]

Explain. If you can. My bet is, you can't.

That would mean, even though he used the word, he would have to know what the word really means.

[BroncoBeavis]

Not to mention that saving/conserving the environment is a conserative concept.

Yeah, political terms don't necessarily have that kind of relationship with corresponding non-political words.

You can drink liberally. But that doesn't mean that a drinking liberal will necessarily do so. :)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Fun Cap and Trade Facts...

In the United States, the "acid rain"-related emission trading system was principally conceived by C. Boyden Gray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyden_Gray), a G.H.W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush) administration attorney. Gray worked with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), who worked with the EPA to write the bill that became law as part of the Clean Air Act of 1990. The new emissions cap on NO_x and SO₂ gases took effect in 1995, and according to Smithsonian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smithsonian_%28magazine%29) magazine, those acid rain emissions dropped 3 million tons that year.<sup id="cite_ref-31" class="reference">[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade#cite_note-31)</sup>


Public opinion

In the United States, most polling shows large support for emissions trading (oftentimes referred to as cap-and-trade). This majority support can be seen in polls conducted by Washington Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post)/ABC News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_News),<sup id="cite_ref-32" class="reference">[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade#cite_note-32)</sup> Zogby International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zogby_International)<sup id="cite_ref-33" class="reference">[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade#cite_note-33)</sup> and Yale University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_University).<sup id="cite_ref-34" class="reference">[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade#cite_note-34)</sup>

According to PolitiFact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact), it's a misconception that emissions trading is unpopular in the United States because of earlier polls from Zogby International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBOPE_Zogby_International) and Rasmussen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen) which misleadingly include "new taxes" in the questions (taxes aren't part of emissions trading) or high energy cost estimates.<sup id="cite_ref-35" class="reference">[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade#cite_note-35)</sup>

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Sorry, but finding some tangentially related Republican somewhere that had input or even agreed with an idea doesn't make it a "Conservative Idea"


Clearly, you need to get your history straight...

The Political History of Cap and Trade

How an unlikely mix of environmentalists and free-market conservatives hammered out the strategy known as cap-and-trade

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Blue-Sky-Thinking.html

[Fedaykin]

I think we're in a hole so deep that's it's impossible to get out of short of selling territory.

We survived -- and thrived -- after worse. I agree if we keep bashing our heads against the wall with idiotic trickle down policies we're screwed, but we're not unavoidably screwed.

[elsid13]

The problem is if your fact base starts with "cap and trade is Conservative policy" you're using different facts than everyone else.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Blue-Sky-Thinking.html

John B. Henry was hiking in Maine's Acadia National Park one August in the 1980s when he first heard his friend C. Boyden Gray talk about cleaning up the environment by letting people buy and sell the right to pollute. Gray, a tall, lanky heir to a tobacco fortune, was then working as a lawyer in the Reagan White House, where environmental ideas were only slightly more popular than godless Communism. "I thought he was smoking dope," recalls Henry, a Washington, D.C. entrepreneur. But if the system Gray had in mind now looks like a politically acceptable way to slow climate change—an approach being hotly debated in Congress—you could say that it got its start on the global stage on that hike up Acadia's Cadillac Mountain.

People now call that system "cap-and-trade." But back then the term of art was "emissions trading," though some people called it "morally bankrupt" or even "a license to kill." For a strange alliance of free-market Republicans and renegade environmentalists, it represented a novel approach to cleaning up the world—by working with human nature instead of against it.

[elsid13]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/science/earth/26climate.html?_r=1

[BroncoBeavis]

It's one thing to use cap and trade on already regulated emissions. In that case it could be seen as a lesser of two evils compared to arbitrarily assigned limits.

But as an avenue to regulate something global that's both unregulated and unregulatable, it could not ever be seen that way.

Taxing only your own emissions while the world's worst emitters continue on, happy to pick up the extra slack and then some isn't just anti-conservative, it's counterproductive. It creates perverse incentives that would cause even more harm than doing nothing.

[bowtown]

It's one thing to use cap and trade on already regulated emissions. In that case it could be seen as a lesser of two evils compared to arbitrarily assigned limits.

But as an avenue to regulate something global that's both unregulated and unregulatable, it could not ever be seen that way.

Taxing only your own emissions while the world's worst emitters continue on, happy to pick up the extra slack and then some isn't just anti-conservative, it's counterproductive. It creates perverse incentives that would cause even more harm than doing nothing.

You really want to play the If-Those-Countries-Do-It-Then-So-Should-We game?

[BroncoBeavis]

You really want to play the If-Those-Countries-Do-It-Then-So-Should-We game?

That's not really the name of the game.

It's more like the Don't-tax-Americans-so-Chinese-have-even-more-economic-advantage-in-manufacturing-costs-while-they're-on-pace-to-double-world-emissions-all-by-themselves-in-the-next-few-decades game. :)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You really want to play the If-Those-Countries-Do-It-Then-So-Should-We game?

Those are some ethics Beavis has, eh?

The environment can go to hell - nothing maters but the bottom line.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/417494_507007932650093_1324517684_n.jpg

[BroncoInferno]

It's one thing to use cap and trade on already regulated emissions. In that case it could be seen as a lesser of two evils compared to arbitrarily assigned limits.

But as an avenue to regulate something global that's both unregulated and unregulatable, it could not ever be seen that way.

Taxing only your own emissions while the world's worst emitters continue on, happy to pick up the extra slack and then some isn't just anti-conservative, it's counterproductive. It creates perverse incentives that would cause even more harm than doing nothing.

Well, you're sort of changing the subject now. You claimed cap-and-trade was not a conservative idea. As has been clearly demonstrated, you were flat-ass wrong and ignorant of the history.

[BroncoBeavis]

Those are some ethics Beavis has, eh?

The environment can go to hell - nothing maters but the bottom line.

Still waiting for you to do your part and send 10% of the amount you spend on Energy to me so I can plant trees and/or harness unicorn farts.

Lead by example. I'm sure others will follow once you start sending me money. Don't you care about the environment? :)

[Requiem]

BroncoBeavis was slaughtered in dis fread.

[BroncoBeavis]

Well, you're sort of changing the subject now. You claimed cap-and-trade was not a conservative idea. As has been clearly demonstrated, you were flat-ass wrong and ignorant of the history.

Nobody's made that connection. The idea was around long before any real-world examples cited here. Again, because a Conservative once proposed an existing idea as better than top-down, centrally-planned control does not make the idea itself Conservative in any case. Especially in new contexts completely unrelated to the original scenario.

[BroncoBeavis]

BroncoBeavis was slaughtered in dis fread.

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

-John Kennedy


See, Supply Side Economics were really a liberal idea. The liberal case for Romney is ironclad. LOL

[Rohirrim]

BroncoBeavis was slaughtered in dis fread.

He usually is. Although he never seems to pick up on it. ;D

[Requiem]

Swing and a miss.

[Requiem]

He usually is. Although he never seems to pick up on it. ;D

Most of the time he is off in BroncoBeavis land, doing his own little BroncoBeavis thing. Meanwhile, we are here on Earth. :)

[TonyR]

Anyone who thinks Andrew Sullivan, linked in the OP, is simply an Obama cheerleader should take note of his comments yesterday proving otherwise:

...The best aspect of the latest Obama ad is his justification of an increase in taxes on the wealthy as simply part of a collective, shared effort to cut the deficit and debt. I definitely understand the perils of deficit-hawkery in a demand-driven recession - but Obama's chief failing in his first term, in my view, is his failure to describe his own long-term debt reduction plans, allowing the GOP to trumpet their far less practicable and far more radical proposals. The biggest fail? The fumbling of Bowles-Simpson. That's about long-term debt reduction. And until Obama shows how he intends to cut entitlement spending beyond untested and unproven pilot programs in the ACA, he deserves little credit for political courage.

He could still, of course, endorse Bowles-Simpson as a model for the future, call Romney's bluff on taxes and reposition himself more to the center. But he won't. For this Obamacon, it is easily the greatest disappointment of his first term.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/its-the-deficit-stupid.html

[BroncoBeavis]

Swing and a miss.

I object. This umpire is on the take. :)

[BroncoInferno]

See, Supply Side Economics were really a liberal idea. The liberal case for Romney is ironclad. LOL

More than a single example was cited. Stop being dishonest.

[BroncoBeavis]

More than a single example was cited. Stop being dishonest.

Of Cap and Trade? Or what are you talking about?

[BroncoInferno]

Of Cap and Trade? Or what are you talking about?

Cap and trade, yes. I made one citation, then at least one other was made to a Smithsonian article. Conservatives were heavily involved in the formualtion of cap and trade. That's a fact.

[BroncoBeavis]

Cap and trade, yes. I made one citation, then at least one other was made to a Smithsonian article. Conservatives were heavily involved in the formualtion of cap and trade. That's a fact.

So a Smithsonian magazine article and then a Wikipedia article that references the same Smithsonian magazine article is what you call two examples?

Even that article credits a Canadian 20 years earlier with pioneering cap and trade theory as we know it. Is he the one that made it a "Conservative idea?"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Cap and trade, yes. I made one citation, then at least one other was made to a Smithsonian article. Conservatives were heavily involved in the formualtion of cap and trade. That's a fact.

Since when are facts important in the kooky parallel universe right-wingers inhabit?