Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Republicans and McCain
Posted by: Jon Henke on Monday, February 11, 2008

Over the past few weeks (and years, really), the Right has been in near-revolt over the idea of John McCain as the Republican nominee for President. It seems to me this is a more emotional than rational calculation, for reasons for which I'll describe in more detail below.

First, let me point out that I share areas of serious disagreement with McCain - mainly, McCain-Feingold and his general tendency towards Teddy Roosevelt Republicanism - and I am as skeptical of John McCain as I am of any politician. That said, I may be less concerned about McCain because I agree with him on torture, I am closer to him than to many on the Right on immigration, I think he's right to place more importance on spending restraint than additional tax rate cuts, I agree with him that anthropogenic global warming is real even if we may not agree on the solutions, etc. Indeed, I voted for John McCain in the 2000 Primary because, while we do differ on some key areas, I think he is an honorable man with a far better batting average than most politicians. My fundamental problem with McCain comes down to his philosophical approach to government. While I, like Arnold Kling, am anxious for "someone with humility about what government can do in general and what a President can do in particular", John McCain is a Progressive Republican, from the Teddy Roosevelt branch of the Republican Party.

It seems to me that there are three main branches of the Republican Party...

  • Teddy Roosevelt Republicans (Progressive Republicans) - "The object of government is the welfare of the people," (Teddy Roosevelt) so Great Men must sometimes do Big Things.

  • Goldwater Republicans - Limited government, Individual liberty, Strong defense; "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom." (Goldwater]

  • Bush Republicans - Big Government is fine, so long as the government does social conservative things. "Prayers can help, and so can the government." - President Bush, February 6, 2008


A Progressive Republican like John McCain is better than a Bush Republican, but it is not the Goldwater Republican for which I hope. Still, with very few Goldwater Republicans around and with the potential for Democrats to consolidate control of the government, it's better than the available alternatives. Arnold Kling expresses my thoughts well...
There may be years when it makes sense for a libertarian to lean toward a Democrat for President, but this does not look like one of them. The Democrats have a good shot at winning a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Gridlock is the libertarian's friend. The prospect of President Obama or President Clinton ramming through judicial appointments and legislation is hardly appetizing.
So, why is the Right so angry about McCain? I understand the vehemence of the disagreements, but the anger - including my own, in the past - is disproportionate.

For instance, McCain is perceived as an almost wholly unacceptable Republican (primarily) for his positions on immigration and campaign finance reform, with additional anger directed at him over a few other issues. Yet, President Bush presided over/supported, e.g., No Child Left Behind, the immigration reform bill, McCain-Feingold, the Medicare Drug Bill, a massive expansion of federal spending, egregious agriculture and energy bills, a badly conceived and conducted war in Iraq, and myriad other anti-limited government positions. And he did most of that with a Republican Congress.

Bush is worse in almost every respect - having actively introduced and supported outrageous violations of the putative ideals of the Right - but he is not regarded with the same anger. Why?

What's more, Reagan raised taxes 6 out of his 8 years as President; Reagan maintained diplomatic relations with even our worst enemies, including negotiation and compromise when it was useful; Reagan voted for immigration amnesty; Reagan failed to restrain the growth of government, etc. But today, the Right lionizes Reagan and revolts over McCain.

I have a theory for why this is so.

  • We remember Reagan so fondly because his ideals were so powerful, so poignant, and Reagan's rhetoric was such red meat for limited government/national defense Republicans. We remember him more for his soaring rhetoric than for the specific details of his governance.


  • Bush gets a pass because he's a current Republican President and the Right isn't anxious to revolt against their own President in an "us vs them" political environment.


  • However, John McCain hasn't played the Red VS Blue "choose sides and stay partisan" game as much as many have in recent years, so he has cultivated some grievances with the Right, and - in the absence of soaring rhetoric or pure team loyalty - the Right has come to focus on those, rather than on the 82.3% agreement and 8th most Conservative ratings.


It seems to me the Right is not making a rational calculation of the available choices and likely costs/benefits, but is instead employing the more emotional logic of social relationships. Unless the Right actively takes steps to elevate Goldwater Republicans again, then we must choose between Progressive Republicans and Bush Republicans. Of those, Progressive Republicans are the best bet and McCain an option with a solid tendency towards Goldwater ideals.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Aside from the fact that I have little love for anything labled "Progressive" (I mean, what is Hillary?), I am growing weary of "Hey, look at his ratings!!

It doesn’t work when Erb does it, Jon, and it isn’t gonna work here, either.

Those ratings only measure how he votes (when he votes at all).

Lets say, for example, that I’m a senator who while listed as a republican is really a more left than right wing kinda guy.

But I need to LOOK like I’m right wing...

So for bills that I loath, but would look good for me to vote on, I work to make sure they couldn’t possibly pass. They get crap added and changed until the great conservative bill is no more, replaced by a Great Steaming Pile.

The public will likely never understand the changes that have taken place, and so when I vote for the bill - which is destined to fail - I look like a fine, upstanding republican.

My vote record shows that I’m a Republican, even though I work tirelessly to make sure no real Republican bills ever pass.

Then I make sure it is all but impossible for a republican president’s nominees for judicial slots to get voted on, Get into camp with people who think humans are going to roast the planet and who support staggering, crippling measures against industry, and then to top it off, I decide to rail against waterboarding as if it were somehow the equal of - say - beheadings and burning bodies to later be hung from bridges...

Tell me Jon, what would those do to my rating?

I suspect those items would cause me about a 17.7% hit.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
but he is not regarded with the same anger. Why?
1) not on the ballot
2) some voters learn from past mistakes — why support more of the same?
rather than on the 82.3% agreement
I’ve pointed this out to Erb several times — McCain hasn’t scored above his average in 10 years. During that time he has scored below 80 more often than not.

You can’t point to his conservative record from over a decade ago as evidence of his current positions.
It seems to me the Right is not making a rational calculation of the available choices and likely costs/benefits
This is coming from a man who refused to vote for either Bush or Kerry.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
likely costs/benefits
Who will the republicans - as the minority party in congress - likely fight harder against: McCain or a Dem?

McCain is likely to get more legislation passed through the Congress. Blech.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
What’s more, Reagan raised taxes 6 out of his 8 years as President; Reagan maintained diplomatic relations with even our worst enemies, including negotiation and compromise when it was useful; Reagan voted for immigration amnesty; Reagan failed to restrain the growth of government, etc. But today, the Right lionizes Reagan and revolts over McCain.
I your first statement somewhat deceptive.

Firstly Reagan was boxed into the corner to some of those by an antagonistic congress that makes the Pelosi/Reid Congress look like love-in.

Secondly, it doesn’t try to account the tax reductions. For example, it accounts for the indexing of Social Security, but neglects to mention the indexing of income tax brackets. A built in system of tax increases that Reagan stopped. Of course it gave motive to the Clinton/Bush Administrations to lowball calculated inflation negating some of the benefit.

As for the growth of Government, the Economy grew faster so it was harder to complain. Especially in the face of that Congress who was determine to match Reagan’s military growth with entitlement growth. Take away the military build up and the economy even grew faster. A military build up that eventually paid off in multiple ways, not just financial.

On immigration, the population we are talking about is roughly 1/5 of the population we are talking about today. 1-2% of the country’s population, not 5-8%. That amnesty also introduce a bunch of legislation to fight the problem where the laws didn’t exist before. The same laws we complain about Bush not enforcing. Finally Amnesty was never really tried before and it FAILED. It was a learning experience of knowing we need to see enforcement and control in place first before we even consider Amnesty or Guest Worker programs.

So I guess, if you can take Reagan out of context you can try to use his name to legitimize any behavior we see today. Seems to be the fashion of late.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Cool, within the 1st paragraph you reminded me why I don’t want McCain.

Anthropogenic Global Warming? Read the news, okay? I predict your global warming catastrophe scenario is going to come to a screechin screamin halt within the next two years.
You can hide the help from no tax cuts and reduced spending in the disaster the 1st 4 years year of government suggested/mandated global warming ’fixes’ will cost the economy.

Immigration? Is that what we call it when people sneak across the border illegally, how about going back to calling them guest workers or something, it sounds nicer that way. I can hardly wait to hear the excuse for why we need them here working when we’re in the middle of a recession.

If I want a democrat I’ll just vote for Obama and get it done right.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Yet, President Bush presided over/supported, e.g., No Child Left Behind, the immigration reform bill, McCain-Feingold, the Medicare Drug Bill, a massive expansion of federal spending, egregious agriculture and energy bills, a badly conceived and conducted war in Iraq, and myriad other anti-limited government positions. And he did most of that with a Republican Congress.
and republicans are no happier with him than they are of McCain, if his approval ratings are to be believed.

And while conservatives in general lionize Reagan, they do not take a ’he can do no wrong’ approach, either. He isn’t the Pope of conservatism, nor was he infallable. The problem is McCain has been antagonistic towards his own party for eight years and has even flirted with the idea of jumping ship. This goes beyond the usual ’well, we disagree, but we agree more’. His attitude and disposition doesn’t garner any good will.

I disagree with the President on many things, but i LIKE the President. I feel he is a good man, and while we may disagree, I know his heart’s in the right place. The same goes for Barack Obama, though I disagree with him vehemently, it isn’t personal.

With McCain, it’s personal. His manner of being is so repugnant that I cannot, in good conscience, provide that megalomaniac with even an ounce of power if I can help it.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
" but he is not regarded with the same anger. Why? "

Possibly because Bush does not go out of his way to intentionally insult and antagonize his those who disagree with him. Bush may be just as self-righteous, but he hides it better.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"With McCain, it’s personal."

Yep. Bush is just a nicer guy. I wonder how, if McCain is elected, he can work with Congress or lead his own party, since he has a habit of annoying even his own side. He definitely ain’t a uniter.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Bush is worse in almost every respect - having actively introduced and supported outrageous violations of the putative ideals of the Right - but he is not regarded with the same anger. Why?
Because he’s IN OFFICE and we’re stuck with him until his term ends. If I could vote him out next week I would do so.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Previous Henke:
CONCLUSION: There is no candidate that I can endorse on principled grounds. No candidate seems likely to advance the philosphical principles in which I believe. Bush is moving the GOP in all the wrong directions, Kerry and Cobb are antithetical to libertarianism, and Bardarik is the typical Libertarian candidate: he prefers principled failure. That’s not a strategy for advancing libertarianism....it’s a rant.

I see no strategic Neolibertarian value in voting for either Bush or Badnarik. If a failure to vote for Bush results in a Kerry Presidency? That is still better than the permanent loss of the GOP to libertarians and fiscal conservatives. Inasmuch as one vote can exert any influence, my only option is to make a principled vote for Nobody. So....

I Endorse None of the Above In 2004. I plan to vote that way. .
But now that Henke likes a candidate he wants to argue that everyone else is "not making a rational calculation of the available choices and likely costs/benefits."

Whatever.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Teddy Roosevelt Republicans (Progressive Republicans) - "The object of government is the welfare of the people," (Teddy Roosevelt) so Great Men must sometimes do Big Things.

Bush Republicans - Big Government is fine, so long as the government does social conservative things. "Prayers can help, and so can the government."
A Progressive Republican like John McCain is better than a Bush Republican, but it is not the Goldwater Republican for which I hope.
A Progressive Republican is better than a Bush Republican? Why? Because one is concerned with "general" welfare and the other tries to stick to socially conservative welfare? I’ll take the lesser of those two, please, but really, they’re just different colors in the same rainbow.

I’ll vote for McCain over Obama, but if it’s McCain vs Hillary, Hillary gets my vote. In ’92, I was writing on bbs’s in NWFlorida that Slick Willy would be the best thing to ever happen to the Republican party. I believe he was, with his Most Ethical Administration Ever. Hillary is the only person in the race that would make Bill the second best thing to ever happen to the Republican party.
 
Written By: Arcs
URL: http://
I consider their love of a Globalized economy, which includes disliked open borders policies (aka illegal immigration), as well as big government spending and big government solutions to define McCain and Bush. It makes them much more alike than apart when viewed from my perspective.

In fact I consider Bush, McCain-Lite. Its whey Conservatives revile him. He’s a step further along the Bush Path. And we just had 8 years of that crap.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Firstly Reagan was boxed into the corner to some of those by an antagonistic congress that makes the Pelosi/Reid Congress look like love-in.
This is a myth, used primarily to deflect any criticism of Reagan’s Presidency, whereby anything good that happened is credited to Reagan, and anything bad that happened is blamed on the Democratic Congress.

Reagan was not great for his policies, Reagan was great for essentially being the most effective cheerleader this nation has ever had. He almost single handedly made Americans believe that we were still the greatest nation on earth, after a lot of people had given up on that notion.

But as far as policies go, Reagan was every bit as responsible for the not-remotely-conservative budget explosion, if not moreso, than the Democratic Congress.

Here are some facts to dispel this myth.

1. Reagan had a Republican Senate for his first 6 years, and when he had a completely Democratic Congress in his last two years, spending growth went DOWN.

2. Reagan cultivated Southern Democrats, called "Boll Weevils" in the House, which gave often him an effective majority.

3. Had things worked out just as Reagan proposed and predicted, the debt still would have gone up 85% as much. But even this is deceptive. The reason his predicted savings did not materialize was not Congress. The reason was that he predicted much more economic growth from supply-side magic than actually happened. So he counted on taxes that were never collected to help his budgets. In fact a study by the House found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more in spending than Congress passed.

Reagan was a great President, but it had nothing to do with his policies, in fact, if his rhetoric matched the policies, there is only word that could be used to describe him, Democrat.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
He’s a step further along the Bush Path. And we just had 8 years of that crap.
Don’t forget that part of Bob Dole’s argument in his letter to Limbaugh was that McCain supported Bush over 90% of the time every year.

But Henke wants us to believe that McCain will be better than Bush?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
I cannot see a reason to get all excised over any of the candidates. They will say what they need to say to get the maximum number of votes, then reward the ones that gave the most to get them elected and the ones that give the most to get them re-elected. None of them will care about values, character or patriotism unless it serves their purpose. To be a politician you must be a hollow shell of a person. The term "political animal" is more than poignant, it is reality. If you vote for the Hill-witch you get a piece of crap. If you vote for McCain you get the same.
 
Written By: MarineCorpsVet
URL: http://lcmslutheran.wordpress.com
The reason I dislike McCain is really one of temperament. If a generic Republican was put in front of me with his positions, I would not like him but I wouldn’t find him grossly objectionable. Romney was just such a tabula rasa. No, what kills me about McCain is the pettiness, the vindictiveness, and the rages. The Boston Globe has a decent story on this, quoting Sen. Thad Cochran:

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Cochran said about McCain by phone. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
Living in the DC Metro area, I still recall when he held up construction funds for local airports out of apparent pique at not getting nonstop flights to Arizona from National Airport, a terminal which most people here think is already overused, and there were concerns that large tonnage planes as could handle the long trip could not land safely on National’s short runway.

Has anyone read Reason Magazine’s profile of McCain’s philosophy? Any comments?
 
Written By: Don’t Immanentize the Eschaton!
URL: about:blank
I wonder how, if McCain is elected, he can work with Congress or lead his own party, since he has a habit of annoying even his own side. He definitely ain’t a uniter.
So, you want a uniter? Or someone who is going to almost ensure gridlock?
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
This is a myth, used primarily to deflect any criticism of Reagan’s Presidency, whereby anything good that happened is credited to Reagan, and anything bad that happened is blamed on the Democratic Congress.
That crap might work on someone younger. I lived that in real time. Your myth is the myth for the most part.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
That crap might work on someone younger. I lived that in real time.
The very first vote I cast was for Ronald Reagan, and I was a Poli-Sci major studying the Reagan government contemporaneously. What you think you remember is rhetoric, what you seem to forget is everything else.

Do you deny that Reagan had a Republican Senate?

Do you deny that Southern Democrats often sided with Reagan and the Republicans giving Reagan an effective majority?

Do you deny that Reagan raised taxes with TEFRA and a half dozen other measures?
Your myth is the myth for the most part.
I give you facts, you offer unfounded assertions.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I give you facts, you offer unfounded assertions
Your "facts" in are also assertions, especially #1 & #2.

#3 comes with a little more window dressing, but post a source to prove the analysis.

We could go round and round all day whipping out ’facts’. If that’s the case, I have a life and you win. I was there through many of the House challenges and know it wasn’t exactly in Reagans back pocket. Especially when we had several Republicans in the Senate that has a predilection for the center much like today. I’m comfortable in my conclusion. If you’d like to espouse otherwise. Feel free.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
I’ve pointed this out to Erb several times — McCain hasn’t scored above his average in 10 years. During that time he has scored below 80 more often than not.
True, and the various ratings systems are not very good judges of compatibility, in any event. However, the second rating I linked was specifically for the 110th Congress.
I your first statement somewhat deceptive.
And yet, you didn’t actually claim it was inaccurate. You merely pointed out that he had some reasons for doing so.
But now that Henke likes a candidate he wants to argue that everyone else is "not making a rational calculation of the available choices and likely costs/benefits."
Please note that I worked for Fred Thompson, not John McCain. In any event, we had an all-Republican Congress in 2004. In 2008, we have an all-Democratic Congress.

Perhaps that is not a major consideration for you. It is for me. I supported gridlock in the past and will do so again.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
I supported gridlock in the past and will do so again.
You supported gridlock by not supporting anyone for president in 2004? How’s that?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Your "facts" in are also assertions, especially #1 & #2.
Of course they are assertions, but they are not unfounded, as your assertion is. It is a matter of historical record that the Senate had a Republican majority from 1980 until 1986. Do I really have to "prove" this to you?

Here you go, from www.senate.gov

97th Congress (1981-1983)

Majority Leader: Howard H. Baker, Jr. (R-TN)

Minority Leader: Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)

————————————————————————————————————————

98th Congress (1983-1985)

Majority Leader: Howard H. Baker, Jr. (R-TN)

Minority Leader: Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)

Note: Howard Baker retired from the Senate at the end of the 98th Congress.

————————————————————————————————————————

99th Congress (1985-1987)

Majority Leader: Robert Dole (R-KS)

Minority Leader: Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)

Note: Robert Dole was elected Republican leader on November 28, 1984, effective January 3, 1985.


Number 2 - Reagan Democrats - you are correct that you recall hearing about legislative battles, there were certainly legislative battles, but in his first term, Reagan won virtually important vote, with the assistance of 30 to 40 conservative Democrats from the South, like Phil Gramm and Richard Shelby (who later switched to Republican). In the battle for the 1982 budget Reagan got almost exactly what he asked for, with a vote of 217 to 210, with 29 Democrats breaking party ranks to give Reagan the win.
#3 comes with a little more window dressing, but post a source to prove the analysis.
In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
"I agree with him that anthropogenic global warming is real..."
You’ve apparently stopped reading anything on this topic. The evidence calling AGW into question is stacking up more and more each day.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://

Bush is worse in almost every respect - having actively introduced and supported outrageous violations of the putative ideals of the Right - but he is not regarded with the same anger. Why?


I have a theory for why this is so.

Bush gets a pass because he’s a current Republican President and the Right isn’t anxious to revolt against their own President in an "us vs them" political environment.
This is the reason. Of late, anyway.

With the Left hating Bush with such ferocity, there is little desire among the Right to pile on. And in fact, with an enemy of my enemy… mentality, the Right finds reasons to view the President with affinity.

Once McCain gets the eventual nod, the Left will (and we’ve already begun to see it) cast aspersions on McCain with similar ferocity.
This will cause the Right (and we’ve already begun to see it) to at least dampen their emotions toward McCain.

And as November approaches, and especially if Hillary is his opponent, you will see even the likes of Coulter and Limbaugh lighten their rhetoric against McCain.

Cheers.


 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Once McCain gets the eventual nod, the Left will (and we’ve already begun to see it) cast aspersions on McCain with similar ferocity.
This will cause the Right (and we’ve already begun to see it) to at least dampen their emotions toward McCain.
See, I’m not so sure...

Unlike knee-jerk Leftists, simply because Democrats say something doesn’t automatically cause us to accept the oposite position.

The fact that they are often wrong is what does that. And in criticising McCain, I’m not sure they’ll be wrong...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
I predict your global warming catastrophe scenario is going to come to a screechin screamin halt within the next two years.
Gosh, I wish I had your optimism on this. Any evidence regarding such is already brushed aside.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
National Geographic Channel ran something over the weekend about the sun’s effect on global temp. It seemed to lean very heavy towards the "This causes global warming" side of things...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
You’ve apparently stopped reading anything on this topic. The evidence calling AGW into question is stacking up more and more each day.
When it’s published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, let me know. Until then, I’m mostly reminded of the fellow who recently told me that evolution was rapidly losing favor and would soon be totally discredited. I’m sure nobody you know believes in global warming. Or voted for Nixon.
National Geographic Channel ran something over the weekend about the sun’s effect on global temp. It seemed to lean very heavy towards the "This causes global warming" side of things...
Astounding! It has finally occurred to you that the sun is a factor in the temperature of the earth! Congratulations, you’re only quite a few centuries behind science!

Of course, if you bothered to look into it, you would find that the question of solar impact and solar variation has been discussed and answered extensively in the course of climate research. If you continued to try to find the answers to the questions you ask about climate change, you might also eventually grow very annoyed with the persistent and willful ignorance of the people who constantly bring up such elementary fallacies and misdirection, and you might conclude that they were either ignorant or dishonest (mostly the former).

Unfortunately, most skeptics on this issue are satisfied to raise the questions, and disinterested in looking for the answers.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Unfortunately, most skeptics on this issue are satisfied to raise the questions, and disinterested in looking for the answers
Well, since we’re told ad nauseum that AGW is a fact, that the science is settled, that consensus is supreme etc etc.....I’d say raising questions is good enough. You think the science is "settled" then you’re the one who has to answer them.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
If you continued to try to find the answers to the questions you ask about climate change, you might also eventually grow very annoyed with the persistent and willful ignorance of the people who constantly bring up such elementary fallacies and misdirection, and you might conclude that they were either ignorant or dishonest (mostly the former).
Gee, I feel the exact same way about people who try to shove this issue as a settled matter down my throat!

With rhetoric like that, how long until you side with the "throw AGW deniers in jail" side of things?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
When it’s published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, let me know.
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=7411
The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society
 
Written By: ABC
URL: http://
"So, you want a uniter? Or someone who is going to almost ensure gridlock?"

It might be useful for the Republican party to have as its putative leader someone who won’t destroy what is left of it. McCain seems to confuse being a commander with being a leader which, although it may work in the military, doesn’t work too well with civilians. Particularly civilian politicians with large egos that need to be stroked.


"Do you deny that Reagan had a Republican Senate?"

You make much of the Republican Senate, but we also have another body, the House of Representatives, which was solidly Democratic. I seem to remember Tip O’Neill, the Democratic leader of this body, saying every year that Reagan’s budget was dead on arrival. Tax bills originate in the House, which was controlled by Democrats.



 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=7411
Guess Jon doesn’t read the site. :)
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
You think the science is "settled" then you’re the one who has to answer them.
Here you go:

  • http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

  • http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/primer/index.html

  • http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/activities/art19631.html

  • http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp

  • http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/index.cgi?page-selection=5

  • http://www.realclimate.org/


And in particular, see this link, which also links to quite a few FAQs and responses to common skeptic questions:

  • http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/faq/

If you’re actually interested in finding the answers, that should answer your questions. Of course, if you had much interest in learning the answers, you would have known that already. Speaking of things that people might think to look into first....
The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society
Yes, and it says far less than people seem to want it to say. Including, apparently, the authors, who restricted their subject and data points to exclude problematic elements.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
This year will it be 10 years of no increase in global temperatures
I am sure as we hit 12,13,14,15 years with no increase (or even a slight cooling), the consensus will have to crack.
That’s why I am comfortable with McCain professing to believing in AGW, if the president was skeptic, he would be a lightning rod for all the nutters as Bush has been. Paradoxically, a President McCain may help the cracks to occur faster.
 
Written By: emmess
URL: http://
So you’d rather the AGW wack-jobs be able to push anti-emissions, and carbon footprint BS through congress and it get signed, economy be damned?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
doesn’t work too well with civilians. Particularly civilian politicians with large egos that need to be stroked
If, by this, you mean that McCain will create ’enemies’ in both parties, and not get much done, I say, that may not be such a bad idea.

I really don’t care about the Republican Party falling apart. If it’s recent behavior is any indication, it will take such an event to get Republican politicians back on the right track.

Now, how that effects the country, is up for debate.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
All we need is a few more ’almost record heat’ years that fall short because, mysteriously to some, ’it got colder at the end of the year’.




 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
AGW aside, I have always thought Reagan got credit for something he didn’t provide. The conservative revolution, which didn’t seem to last very long anyway. While he deserves recognition for the many things he did do, the conservative revolution was a present from Jimmy Carter. His failed policies and 17% inflation gave conservatives an opening which The Ronald took full advantage of. That was RR’s genius, the ability to take advantage of his opponents weaknesses. I would kill for a republican that could do that today. Maybe kill is too strong a word. Being a part of the lunatic fringe I have to avoid that sort of verbiage.
 
Written By: Paden Cash
URL: http://
Hmmm, another global warming first - snowiest winter ever on record in Wisconsin.

I know, I know, that doesn’t mean anything - isolated incidents only matter when they FAVOR global warming theory.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
This all misses the point. You can’t analyze the right’s worship of Reagan or of Bush or even of Jesus for that matter.

Once it is decided that someone is a Hero of the Right, then that person can do no wrong. Any misstep or apostasy is excused as being forced on them from the outside. Any serendipitous development is credited to their leadership.

This is the nature of faith: the facts are fitted to the conclusion. It is a foregone for the rabid right: Bush good, McCain bad. Nothing will change that.
 
Written By: Ralph Dosser
URL: http://
"Once it is decided that someone is a Hero of the Right, then that person can do no wrong."

That’s only fair. If Democrats can have Saint Willy, Republicans can have Saint Ronald.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Well Ralph, welcome to the non-rabid right, Bush not good for quite a while.
McCain just as bad.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Always interesting to come see the freak show on the right....
Limited government delusionists.
How many years of republican government have we just had. And what have they cut? What have they even tried to cut? What government programs and agencies get cut under the Republicans delusional belief in ’limited government’.
Face facts: Big government works. big government defeated the Nazis, Big government defeated the soviet union.
Big government is so efficient that not even republicans who have campaigned for years on ’smaller government’ b.s. can find something to cut.
Of course, Republicans really hate our country and our government and support filling our government with incompetents, cronies and industry lobbyists.
Oh look, over there, the people who were in charge of our nation security in 2001. In September. On the 11th. Bang up job they did.
And they are still in government. Still with the support of the people who hate America- the Republican party.
 
Written By: Aaron
URL: http://
Right A-ron, that would be the same people in charge of the 1st World Trade Center attack. With the support of the people running for office again today, the Clintons.

And prior to that, 40 years of Democrats running the legislature, expanding government like there was no tomorrow - Great Society.

Yeah buddy.
Some of us weren’t born last week. Go peddle your crap to the youngsters.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"Face facts: Big government works. big government defeated the Nazis, Big government defeated the soviet union."

Nazis and USSR were defeated. And they were even bigger govenment.
 
Written By: ABC
URL: http://
You have as deft a touch as McCain has in dealing with those who disagree with you, Jon. And likely just as unsuccessful. Looking at your list of citations, I see many like-minded partisan reviewed articles, but few peer reviewed. Those that are peer reviewed come with some significant, but not surprisingly, under-reported questions of methodology and questions of basic premise. Most importantly though, is the question of modeling.

None of your experts have been able to recreate on their models that "prove" anthropogenic global warming, global weather patterns of years past. And the ones that do recreate yester-years’ climate patterns are far from conclusive about tomorrow. Seems there is a built-in bias of premise that certain peers reviewing don’t question.

How convenient.

But aside from the AGW aspect, there are many legitimate reasons why right leaning folk dislike McCain. In my mind, he is a reincarnate of Bush (with whom I was so unimpressed, I voted for Harry Browne in 2000). Right leaning folk are sick and tired of defending ostensibly conservative people while having core beliefs tossed under the bus for temporary (and illusionary) legislative gains. McCain is even worse, for he’ll kick me in the groin along the way. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Of course they are assertions, but they are not unfounded, as your assertion is. It is a matter of historical record that the Senate had a Republican majority from 1980 until 1986. Do I really have to "prove" this to you?
As was pointed out, the budget derives from the House not the Senate, A House that was firmly Democrat controlled.

What was the Republican control of the Senate at any given time 1 or 2 seats, If I recall. Bush had a Republican Senate and House, could he get the judges he wanted?
In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases...
As I originally stated with Jon Henke’s post. Your choosing not to count the Tax decreases. Also there’s difference between Tax Increase and Revenue Increase. As a percentage of the GDP, taxes when down over Reagan’s term even though Absolute Revenue went up.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf
Table 2.3

===========================================

In all honesty, I’ve seen your kind before. I’d swear I could name you from another website.

You feign being a moderate and feign levelheadedness so people won’t dismiss your rhetoric out of hand. You use that and a soft sell to try to engage people. "Yeah, that’s sort of true, but there this and this and that. So you see really its not what it seems."

When that doesn’t work you give responses that spiral the discussion off-topic. Here we are discussing the minutia of who controlled the Senate, a bum steer, because I misspoke and said Congress instead of the House. I’m sure you knew the budget comes from House and knew what my point really was in that regard. But you engaged in a tangent anyway.

But that’s the point, isn’t it? We’ve gone so far off-topic anyone following has lost my original point and its context. So even if I win the discussion of who controlled what and what it meant, you win by derailing my original point.

Well, have fun. I’m sure you’ll get far with some people here, but probably not with as many as you think and not for as long as you expect.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Yet, President Bush presided over/supported, e.g., No Child Left Behind, the immigration reform bill, McCain-Feingold, the Medicare Drug Bill, a massive expansion of federal spending, egregious agriculture and energy bills, a badly conceived and conducted war in Iraq, and myriad other anti-limited government positions. And he did most of that with a Republican Congress.

Hmmm... if a Republican Preisdent and Republican Congress did this, what’s the difference in the parties again?

A third party vote is a vote of desperation and disenfranchisement.
 
Written By: Dissident
URL: http://

Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Sally Bulinas is the latest distinguished scientist to declare anthropogenic global warming theory wrong.
The Tyler (TX) Morning Telegraph reports:

Dr. Sallie Baliunas shared her findings Tuesday at the University of Texas at Tyler R. Don Cowan Fine and Performing Arts Center.

Dr. Baliunas’ work with fellow Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics astronomer Willie Soon suggests global warming is more directly related to solar variability than to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, an alternative view to what’s been widely publicized in the mainstream media.

"Some people argue solar influence is large; some argue it is small. I’m somewhere in the middle," she said during a press conference Thursday afternoon.

Her research goes back to time periods when the amount of carbon emission was small enough that it wasn’t a major player.

"If you go back far enough you eliminate some of your variables," she said. "I’ve always been interested with the changes of the sun and how they impact the earth. I decided to look at a narrower time scale this time."

Baliunas asserts that increases and decreases in solar output led to historically warmer and cooler periods.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
There is all this talk about the rise in carbon dioxide level causing global warming. To conclude this, one must ignore that the planet plunged in to the Andean-Saharan ice age 440 million years ago when the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was over ten times what it is now.
 
Written By: Dan Pangburn
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider