Progressive or Conservative? The choice

[Mavs<Spurs]

It's funny. I'm a graduate student and in certain ways has an influence upon my political thinking: it tends to make me contemplate certain views which might be more "progressive", example more and better financial aid for students., environmental concerns, ...

However, just as I find myself thinking from that point of view, someone full of hate and venom who assumes the worst about every conservative, someone who wants peace at any price who insults all conservatives and is completely irrational comes across my path. I can't and won't throw away my brain to become more "progressive" and until there are reasonable people who don't assume the worst about all conservatives, aren't hostile to spiritual people, aren't filled with hatred and care about this country's national security, it will be difficult to consider other viewpoints favorably.

Those of you who consider yourself progressive might want to consider how you address people with whom you are discussing political topics. No doubt many conservatives are not very winsome in their presentation of their viewpoints as well. However, I already know how a conservative thinks. And, this is purely anecdotal, it has been my experience that more progressives are venemous and hostile and loud than conservatives.

Being a winsome person, not assuming the worst about your political opponents and offering logically sound arguments might go a long way toward moving people to adopt your point of view, if you are a progressive.

[Ocotillo]

I just attended a conference yesterday that featured James Carville and Mary Matalin as the featured speakers. The circle of people I work with with are overwhelmingly conservative. I am liberal. I avoid political discussions in my work environment simply to avoid unneccesary confrontations and possible ill feelings. Your reflections on progressives being more shall we say hostile may be a cir stance of which circles you run in. As a graduate student you are more likely to encounter passionate individuals than in the ususal work place.

Another thing that would contribute to incivility of progressives is they are out of power now. I encounter rudeness and vehemence in people's disdain for progressives in the circles I run in. It was at it's zenith when Clinton was going through his second term and I am sure it will increase again if the Democrats regain power.

Anyway, the reason I mentioned the conference I attended, Carville basically felt America was going to move toward a new paradigm in the '08 election. His contention is that most people cannot be pigeonholed as liberal or conservative. For instance one may have strong environmental opinions about CAFE standards yet hold a passionate belief that is considered conservative on gun control. He seemed to be describing the way you describe yourself.

There are going to be jerks on both sides of issues or parties. Let your own mind and conscience take you where you want to be in your political affiliation and not the actions of stupid people.

I think the contempt extremist feel is directly related to whether or not who is in power is perceived to be with them or against them.

[Mr. Peabody]

It's funny. I'm a graduate student and in certain ways has an influence upon my political thinking: it tends to make me contemplate certain views which might be more "progressive", example more and better financial aid for students., environmental concerns, ...

However, just as I find myself thinking from that point of view, someone full of hate and venom who assumes the worst about every conservative, someone who wants peace at any price who insults all conservatives and is completely irrational comes across my path. I can't and won't throw away my brain to become more "progressive" and until there are reasonable people who don't assume the worst about all conservatives, aren't hostile to spiritual people, aren't filled with hatred and care about this country's national security, it will be difficult to consider other viewpoints favorably.

Those of you who consider yourself progressive might want to consider how you address people with whom you are discussing political topics. No doubt many conservatives are not very winsome in their presentation of their viewpoints as well. However, I already know how a conservative thinks. And, this is purely anecdotal, it has been my experience that more progressives are venemous and hostile and loud than conservatives.

Being a winsome person, not assuming the worst about your political opponents and offering logically sound arguments might go a long way toward moving people to adopt your point of view, if you are a progressive.

I just love dramatic irony.

[Yonivore]

I just attended a conference yesterday that featured James Carville and Mary Matalin as the featured speakers. The circle of people I work with with are overwhelmingly conservative. I am liberal. I avoid political discussions in my work environment simply to avoid unneccesary confrontations and possible ill feelings. Your reflections on progressives being more shall we say hostile may be a cir stance of which circles you run in. As a graduate student you are more likely to encounter passionate individuals than in the ususal work place.

Another thing that would contribute to incivility of progressives is they are out of power now. I encounter rudeness and vehemence in people's disdain for progressives in the circles I run in. It was at it's zenith when Clinton was going through his second term and I am sure it will increase again if the Democrats regain power.

Anyway, the reason I mentioned the conference I attended, Carville basically felt America was going to move toward a new paradigm in the '08 election. His contention is that most people cannot be pigeonholed as liberal or conservative. For instance one may have strong environmental opinions about CAFE standards yet hold a passionate belief that is considered conservative on gun control. He seemed to be describing the way you describe yourself.

There are going to be jerks on both sides of issues or parties. Let your own mind and conscience take you where you want to be in your political affiliation and not the actions of stupid people.

I think the contempt extremist feel is directly related to whether or not who is in power is perceived to be with them or against them.

So, what'd Mary say?

[xrayzebra]

It's funny. I'm a graduate student and in certain ways has an influence upon my political thinking: it tends to make me contemplate certain views which might be more "progressive", example more and better financial aid for students., environmental concerns, ...

However, just as I find myself thinking from that point of view, someone full of hate and venom who assumes the worst about every conservative, someone who wants peace at any price who insults all conservatives and is completely irrational comes across my path. I can't and won't throw away my brain to become more "progressive" and until there are reasonable people who don't assume the worst about all conservatives, aren't hostile to spiritual people, aren't filled with hatred and care about this country's national security, it will be difficult to consider other viewpoints favorably.

Those of you who consider yourself progressive might want to consider how you address people with whom you are discussing political topics. No doubt many conservatives are not very winsome in their presentation of their viewpoints as well. However, I already know how a conservative thinks. And, this is purely anecdotal, it has been my experience that more progressives are venemous and hostile and loud than conservatives.

Being a winsome person, not assuming the worst about your political opponents and offering logically sound arguments might go a long way toward moving people to adopt your point of view, if you are a progressive.

You sound like a level headed individual. Some on this board do not realize
how Conservative many Democrats were before the late 60's, when the
so called progressives came along. Politics is like religion, you can
start a discussion about either and I can guarantee you can find someone
who be will the opposite of you. It seems from the point of the 68
Democratic convention until this date only hate of those who believe in
the old values has been more prevalent You must now believe in
gay marriage, abortion, the homeless, the downtrodden and sundry
other programs to be a qualified dimm-o-crap. You cannot criticize any part
of their agenda. You must not question any added tax burden or
question any gay agenda item or why is abortion wrong. You must put
down all things put forth by the Republicans. Without exception.

Stick with your guns. Being conservative does not mean you don't want
to help the helpless. It doesn't mean that you hate all things in the
Democratic party. Being a Conservative only means that you want the
best for you country, even when it means you, yourself may be hurt
financially or otherwise for the good of the country. Someday and I
hope soon, both parties are going to have to learn to work together, like
they used to to make this country really great. The people, like you,
have in spite of the politicians, have make it a great country. Hang
tough and defend what made the country great. You will take you lumps
but it will be well worth it.

[Mr. Peabody]

I can't and won't throw away my brain to become more "progressive" and until there are reasonable people who don't assume the worst about all conservatives, aren't hostile to spiritual people, aren't filled with hatred and care about this country's national security, it will be difficult to consider other viewpoints favorably.

...it has been my experience that more progressives are venemous and hostile and loud than conservatives.

Being a winsome person, not assuming the worst about your political opponents and offering logically sound arguments might go a long way toward moving people to adopt your point of view, if you are a progressive.

You sound like a level headed individual.

[xrayzebra]

^^you seem to have forgotten the rest of the post. But that is typical of you.

[Mr. Peabody]

^^you seem to have forgotten the rest of the post. But that is typical of you.

Please post "the rest of the post" you are referring to that supports your statement.

[Nbadan]

It's funny. I'm a graduate student and in certain ways has an influence upon my political thinking: it tends to make me contemplate certain views which might be more "progressive", example more and better financial aid for students., environmental concerns, ...

However, just as I find myself thinking from that point of view, someone full of hate and venom who assumes the worst about every conservative, someone who wants peace at any price who insults all conservatives and is completely irrational comes across my path. I can't and won't throw away my brain to become more "progressive" and until there are reasonable people who don't assume the worst about all conservatives, aren't hostile to spiritual people, aren't filled with hatred and care about this country's national security, it will be difficult to consider other viewpoints favorably.

Those of you who consider yourself progressive might want to consider how you address people with whom you are discussing political topics. No doubt many conservatives are not very winsome in their presentation of their viewpoints as well. However, I already know how a conservative thinks. And, this is purely anecdotal, it has been my experience that more progressives are venemous and hostile and loud than conservatives.

Being a winsome person, not assuming the worst about your political opponents and offering logically sound arguments might go a long way toward moving people to adopt your point of view, if you are a progressive.

I think it takes alot more than a few posting in a message forum to get people to change their political affiliation, but over-time, if you present the truth, people will start question their long-held beliefs, and that's the beginning of change. Overtime, I have gone from being a liberal, to a conservative, and now I'm neither, except what people label me.

[gtownspur]

Please post "the rest of the post" you are referring to that supports your statement.

Xray, you must prove to Peabody that you're worthy by his standards.

[Vashner]

Progressive? Well that whole term is bull ..

They are anti Science.. Anti business.. anti Nasa...

Your not going to get "progress" with democrats... your going to get backwards bull and old thinking...

You think a government that wants to tax the rich.. and corporation.. the oil .. is going to lower oil AND have a better economy?

Don't belive the ing liars...

[Mr. Peabody]

Xray, you must prove to Peabody that you're worthy by his standards.

I am a relativist. I don't believe in standards.

[Yonivore]

I am a relativist. I don't believe in standards.

That explains alot.

[Mr. Peabody]

Your not going to get "progress" with democrats... your going to get backwards bull and old thinking...

You're right, because formulating policy based on the dictates of a deity that were allegedly handed down thousands of years ago is certaintly not "old thinking."

[Mr. Peabody]

That explains alot.

Like why I bother responding to gtown's posts....

[A-Train]

Apathetic.

[Mavs<Spurs]

You sound like a level headed individual. Some on this board do not realize
how Conservative many Democrats were before the late 60's, when the
so called progressives came along. Politics is like religion, you can
start a discussion about either and I can guarantee you can find someone
who be will the opposite of you. It seems from the point of the 68
Democratic convention until this date only hate of those who believe in
the old values has been more prevalent You must now believe in
gay marriage, abortion, the homeless, the downtrodden and sundry
other programs to be a qualified dimm-o-crap. You cannot criticize any part
of their agenda. You must not question any added tax burden or
question any gay agenda item or why is abortion wrong. You must put
down all things put forth by the Republicans. Without exception.

Stick with your guns. Being conservative does not mean you don't want
to help the helpless. It doesn't mean that you hate all things in the
Democratic party. Being a Conservative only means that you want the
best for you country, even when it means you, yourself may be hurt
financially or otherwise for the good of the country. Someday and I
hope soon, both parties are going to have to learn to work together, like
they used to to make this country really great. The people, like you,
have in spite of the politicians, have make it a great country. Hang
tough and defend what made the country great. You will take you lumps
but it will be well worth it.

Thanks for the encouragement. This may not be popular, but my kind of democrat is Joe Liebermann. He is not naive in his view of international relations; he understands the importance of the executive branch (whoever is in power) having the acknowledged authority (given both by precedent and in the authorization of force) to do the things that are necessary to keep this country safe. He is a spiritual person whose view of morality seems similar to mine. Moreover, he has the advantage of standing up for what he believes in regardless of its popularity. I greatly admire him. Had he emerged from the democratic primary, a lot of people like me would have voted for him. Instead the radicals got their person in Kerry and left conservatives no viable alternative to Bush.

If you dislike the outcome (Bush being elected), don't allow the extreme left wing of the democratic party choose a an extremely liberal candidate as the dem's Presidential nominee. If you want to occupy the WH, please nominate reasonable candidates. Liebermann is not the only conservative democrat.

[Nbadan]

a lot of people like me would have voted for him. Instead the radicals got their person in Kerry and left conservatives no viable alternative to Bush.

If you dislike the outcome (Bush being elected), don't allow the extreme left wing of the democratic party choose a an extremely liberal candidate as the dem's Presidential nominee. If you want to occupy the WH, please nominate reasonable candidates. Liebermann is not the only conservative democrat.

Kerry is not a leftist. In fact, he is a centrist. Just turns out he was a boring, New-England centrist, but he still managed to win the popular vote in 04 if we are to believe the GAO.

[Mavs<Spurs]

Progressive? Well that whole term is bull ..

They are anti Science.. Anti business.. anti Nasa...

Your not going to get "progress" with democrats... your going to get backwards bull and old thinking...

You think a government that wants to tax the rich.. and corporation.. the oil .. is going to lower oil AND have a better economy?

Don't belive the ing liars...

Okay, so let me ask a question. This is something that I am wrestling with in my mind.

On the one hand, from a logical point of view, it appears difficult to me to disagree with the thought that cutting marginal tax rates stimulates economic growth and generates new job. The higher the taxes, the lower the incentive to work hard and invest in research and development.... Plus, it seems obvious that the shoebox theory of economics is ridiculous. This is the idea that those whose taxes are lowered will not reinvest that money in our economy; rather, they will keep it out of circulation by putting it in a shoebox or under the mattress. The greatest place to invest money is in the United States which has the fastest growing GDP of any developed country in the world. Eventually, it will inevitably buy products or services which are made by Americans. While I am not an economist, one of my two degrees which I already have, involved a number of courses in economics. I am definitely not an expert in the field, but my exposure in my courses in macroeconomics (and our equations which we worked with) led me to this position.

On the other hand, the evidence that the social safety net (financial aid for school, health care...) directly and immediately helps the needy (at least temporarily) is of a different sort. It does not require belief in a certain theory of economics. It is does not require hoping that you are reasoning correctly. It is manifestly clear that this helps a needy person directly.

So, to me, from a logical point of view, I must adopt a conservative point of view, which views the redistributionist goals of socialists as a serious drag on the economy and which ultimately hurts the people it is designed to help. For me, the logic of the conservative viewpoint, is utterly convincing.

On the other hand, I wish I had another type of proof.

Which helps the average citizen more: a one time rebate check for a couple hundred bucks or a reduction in the confiscatory tax rate which may not directly give that average citizen as much as the one time rebate check immediately, but which may provide more work for that average citizen, which gives him more money?

[Mavs<Spurs]

Kerry is not a leftist. In fact, he is a centrist. Just turns out he was a boring, New-England centrist, but he still managed to win the popular vote in 04 if we are to believe the GAO.

My understanding is that Kerry lost the popular vote in 2004 by about 4 million. This seems to be the consensus view of elected officials in both parties. I am not big on conspiracy theories as a rule.

It appears to me to be the case that on a number of issues Kerry would be viewed as to the left of most Americans. Kerry was one of a handful of senators who opposed DOMA, which President Clinton signed. Kerry opposed parental notification. Kerry opposed the ban on partial birth abortion. These are a sample of issues which seem to make clear that Kerry is not a centrist since his views are held by perhaps 20 % of the population.


When one uses a great deal of invective against Bush, one appears to occupy the far left of the political spectrum. What some in the democratic camp refer to as neocon appears to be what I consider a conservative (like Reagan would act if he were in office during this time period). Isn't neocon the term used to refer to a conservative who would rather prevent a crisis from taking place by not allowing the threat to fully materialize instead of waiting for smoking gun evidence (which means someone is probably dead since the gun is smoking), someone who opposes leaving the status quo intact in the Middle East, someone who is not opposed to trying to detect what Al Qaeda members are saying to people in the US and someone who doesn't want to have to keep trying to retaliate (in a way which is acceptable to the UN) after we get victimized again. It also appears to include those who are not certain that completely redistributing income from those who earned to those who did not earn it so that all people in the United States have exactly the same amount of income is good economic policy.

[Mavs<Spurs]

I am a relativist. I don't believe in standards.

How do you define relativist? What is the standard that differentiates a relativist from an absolutist?


One good thing about you: logically, you can't say that Bush has done anything that is wrong or a sin since you don't believe that right and wrong or sin exist.

[Nbadan]

Okay, so let me ask a question. This is something that I am wrestling with in my mind.

On the one hand, from a logical point of view, it appears difficult to me to disagree with the thought that cutting marginal tax rates stimulates economic growth and generates new job. The higher the taxes, the lower the incentive to work hard and invest in research and development.... Plus, it seems obvious that the shoebox theory of economics is ridiculous. This is the idea that those whose taxes are lowered will not reinvest that money in our economy; rather, they will keep it out of circulation by putting it in a shoebox or under the mattress. The greatest place to invest money is in the United States which has the fastest growing GDP of any developed country in the world. Eventually, it will inevitably buy products or services which are made by Americans. While I am not an economist, one of my two degrees which I already have, involved a number of courses in economics. I am definitely not an expert in the field, but my exposure in my courses in macroeconomics (and our equations which we worked with) led me to this position.

Wow, that's alot of stuff to answer, so I'll try and break it up into managable segments. Your right, historically, lowering taxes has stimulated the economy. The trouble is, governments get used to spending what they see as easy money, and this leads to deficit spending. Kennedy lowered taxes, but he didn't over deficit spend, so the growth in GDP was not over stimulated. It was a managable growth. Reagan lowered taxes and also deficit spent. The result was growth in the economy, but also a growth in what is called the neutrality of money - inflation grew because the FEDS increased the money supply, and people wages grew too, although some would argue that it didn't grow nearly as fast as inflation.

Well, Dubya is taking Reagan's economic policies a step further with deeper tax cuts and even more deficit spending by the government to 'prime the economy'. Trouble is, by the governments own economic reports, the economy is growing at 4.99%, anything over 2.5% is considered inflationary. Like I posted in another thread, businesses do not like to raise prices, so there is a lag time between when the government over-stimulates the economy and when the true rate of inflation hits the market.

This is a big reason why I don't see why anyone expected the FEDS not to raise interest rates. Of course they are going to raise interest rates. There is too many increasingly worthless dollars chasing to few domestic goods and imported goods don't do our economy any good either because every good we import we lose more American jobs and productivity.

[Nbadan]

My understanding is that Kerry lost the popular vote in 2004 by about 4 million. This seems to be the consensus view of elected officials in both parties. I am not big on conspiracy theories as a rule.

A report from the Government Accounting Office takes a big bite out of the Bush clique’s pretense of legitimacy. This powerful and probing report takes a hard look at the election of 2004 and supports the contention that the election was stolen. The report has received almost no coverage in the national media. CNN said the Judiciary Committee got more than 57,000 complaints after Bush’s claimed re-election. Many were made under oath in a series of statements and affidavits in public hearings and investigations carried out in Ohio by the Free Press and other groups seeking to maintain transparent elections.

Online Journal.com reported that the GAO report stated that “some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes.”

This is the only democratic nation that permits private partisan companies to count and tabulate the vote in secret, using privately-held software. The public is excluded from the process. Rev. Jesse Jackson and others have declared that “public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines.” The makers of nearly all electronic voting machines are owned by conservative Republicans.

The chief executive of Diebold, one of the major suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren “Wally” O’Dell, went on record in the 2004 campaign vowing to deliver Ohio and the presidency to George W. Bush.

In Ohio, Bush won by only 118,775 votes out of more than 5.6 million cast. Honest election advocates contend that O’Dell’s statement to hand Ohio’s vote to Bush still stands as a clear indictment of an apparently successful effort to steal the White House.

Some of the GAO’s findings are: 1. Some electronic voting machines “did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected.” In short, the machines; provided a way to manipulate the outcome of the election. In Ohio, more than 800,000 votes were cast on electronic voting machines, some registered seven times Bush’s official margin of victory.

2: the report further stated that: “it was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works, so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate.” Very many sworn statements and affidavits claim that did happen in Ohio in 2004.

Next, the report says, “Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level.” The GAO found that falsifying election results without leaving evidence of doing so by using altered memory cards could easily be done.

The GAO additionally found that access to the voting network was very easy to compromise because not all electronic voting systems had supervisory functions protected by password. That meant access to one machine gave access to the whole network. That critical finding showed that rigging the election did not take a “widespread conspiracy” but simply the cooperation of a small number of operators with the power to tap into the networked machines. They could thus alter the vote totals at will. It therefore was no big task for a single programmer to flip vote numbers to give Bush the 118,775 votes.

Another factor in the Ohio election was that access to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user ID, coupled with easy-to-guess passwords. Even amateur hackers could have gotten into the network and changed the vote.

System locks were easily picked, and keys were easy to copy, so gaining access to the system was a snap.

One digital machine model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary manner that if one machine experienced a power failure, the entire network would go down. That is too fragile a system to decide the presidency of the United States.

Problems obviously exist with security protocols and screening methods for vendor personnel.

The GAO study clearly shows that no responsible business would operate with a computer system as flimsy, fragile and easily manipulated as the one used in the 2004 election.

These findings are even more damning when we understand the election in Ohio was run by a secretary of state who also was co-chairman of Bush’s Ohio campaign. Far from the conclusion of anti-fraud skeptics, the GAO’s findings confirm that the network, which handled 800,000 Ohio votes, was vulnerable enough to permit a handful of purposeful operatives to turn the entire election by means of personal computers using comparatively simple software.

One Ohio campaign operative, Tom Noe, a coin dealer, was indicted Oct. 27 for illegally funneling $45,400 to Bush by writing checks to others, who then wrote checks to Bush’s re-election campaign, allegedly dodging the $2,000 limit on contributions by an individual.

“It’s one of the most blatant and excessive finance schemes we have encountered,” said Noel Hillman, section chief of the U.S. Department of Justice’s public integrity section, as quoted in the Kansas City Star.

In the 2000 election, Florida was the key; in the 2004 election, Ohio was the key.

The complete GAO report can be read here in PDF format

[RandomGuy]

[QUOTE]

Okay, so let me ask a question. This is something that I am wrestling with in my mind.

On the one hand, from a logical point of view, it appears difficult to me to disagree with the thought that cutting marginal tax rates stimulates economic growth and generates new job. The higher the taxes, the lower the incentive to work hard and invest in research and development.... Plus, it seems obvious that the shoebox theory of economics is ridiculous. This is the idea that those whose taxes are lowered will not reinvest that money in our economy; rather, they will keep it out of circulation by putting it in a shoebox or under the mattress.

Taxes shouldn't be cut until we have paid off a substantial chunk of our federal debt. The overall federal debt is something like 75% of the size of our GDP, higher than at anytime since WW2. The interest payments on that debt will cause taxes to be higher than they would otherwise be. A certain amount of that debt is a useful thing, and indeed a good thing, but the amount that has been racked up is going to eat us alive in the long run.

I find it very odd that a lot of people who say they are "conservative" think that borrowing massively to finance government spending is a good idea.

The greatest place to invest money is in the United States which has the fastest growing GDP of any developed country in the world. Eventually, it will inevitably buy products or services which are made by Americans. While I am not an economist, one of my two degrees which I already have, involved a number of courses in economics. I am definitely not an expert in the field, but my exposure in my courses in macroeconomics (and our equations which we worked with) led me to this position.

My money would go to China. Sooner or later they will have to let their currency "float" (more than the extremely small amount they have already) and in that case a yuan-based investment will rise a great deal in dollar terms as our currency falls against it.

On the other hand, the evidence that the social safety net (financial aid for school, health care...) directly and immediately helps the needy (at least temporarily) is of a different sort. It does not require belief in a certain theory of economics. It is does not require hoping that you are reasoning correctly. It is manifestly clear that this helps a needy person directly.

Yup. We have lifevests on boats for a similar reason.

So, to me, from a logical point of view, I must adopt a conservative point of view, which views the redistributionist goals of socialists as a serious drag on the economy and which ultimately hurts the people it is designed to help. For me, the logic of the conservative viewpoint, is utterly convincing.

Pure socialism is as silly as pure capitalism with an ineffective government.

On the other hand, I wish I had another type of proof.

Which helps the average citizen more: a one time rebate check for a couple hundred bucks or a reduction in the confiscatory tax rate which may not directly give that average citizen as much as the one time rebate check immediately, but which may provide more work for that average citizen, which gives him more money?

I agree heartily.

I happen to think that the best way to permanently reduce that tax rate is to pay off some of that massive debt. The HUNDREDS of billions in interest payments per year could go to much better things.

[RandomGuy]

I consider myself to be something of a moderate, which in terms of politics these days seems to make me a screaming liberal.

The thing that has caused me to be aghast of what the conservative movement has morphed into is the "win at all costs" mentality.

There are indictments floating around against a GOP state chairman for setting up the following operation:

Hiring a phone bank in Idaho to flood democratic "get out the vote" centers in a state that provided rides to democrats who needed them so that they could get out and vote.

While I am NOT a conspiracy theorist, things like this have happened with disturbing frequency. I think it speaks more to the "tone at the top" than to an organized conspiracy.

I have met and talked to conservatives who I have a lot of respect for, but it seems to me that the "win at all costs" mentality is corrupting the whole movement. :