Lie, cheat, steal and Attack, Attack, Attack and Attack again. Backstabbing is encouraged to cull the weak. Treachery beats honesty. Nice guys end up as suicides in a DC park. Oh, wait, that was Rahm’s work.

Reduce the size of government. Restrain spending. Balance the budget. Cut taxes. Fight and win the wars the country engages in.

And convince social conservatives that the best way to support them is for the government to be smaller.

But aside from that, the Democrat field is shaping up to be a who’s who of the best Democrats have to offer. Lieberman remains popular (if mistrusted by Democrat activists), NC Sen. John Edward is the second coming of Bill Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Daschle is solid, so much so that intense GOP efforts to demonize him have failed miserably (unlike Dem efforts against Newt Gingrich), MA Sen. John Kerry is a Vietnam War hero and marquee name in Democratic Party circles. Heck, even VT Gov. Dean is an effective campaigner and powerful voice for the party’s left wing. As for McCain, he’s evolved into a true RINO (Republican in name only). A McCain party switch would inflict a grevious wound on the GOP.

Lieberman, now an independent.

John Edward, dead and history.

Daschle, dead and history.

John Kerry, “Vietnam war hero” exposed as a fraud.

Gov. Dean, Arrrrggghhh.

McCain, a true rino. Seems to be the only thing Kos has right.

Maybe Kos is effective because his followers are tools. And fools.

Sure, Barry. But of Kos’s “approved” Democrats in those earliest days, Kerry and Edwards went on to become nominees, and Dean went on to take control of the DNC and provide the fundraising blueprint for the Obama financial juggernaut.

Yeah, I’ve made fun of Kos, too, but he was a major reason we got our clocks cleaned. At the beginning, almost all of his candidates lost. Now, almost all of them win.

Maybe it’s time we quit sneering at him, and tried to figure out how to coopt what he’s doing.

I don’t disagree with you on the tactics. I do believe trying to start a new party is just too damn time consuming, hence, we must revamp the GOP. I’d rather be a part of a small party, with liberty as its core principal.

My comment was somewhat snarky. I’m just not sure how much credit to give kos Vs the built in dem media arm, the meltdown in the economy, bungling by the GOP, and a GOP that has tried to run as dem lite, etc. I don’t doubt the influence kos had, particularly in pushing candidates to the front. I’m not sure how much to credit kos with the recent wins.

Somehow, the liberty foundation must be sold to the social conservatives. It has to be done by convincing them that government cannot be used as a tool to force their values, that in the long term their values will prosper when government is kept small and individuals free. I know these people. Most of them are fine individuals, but many believe govco should push the moral issues. It’s my personal belief that we have to win that battle.

Kos first post is a lie. He IS a socialist. And he uses the proper weasel words to get run of the mill Dems to listen.

So, lie.

His second and thiird posts are propaganda.

So, lie and propagandize.

His fourth post shown was pretty well torn apart by Barry–But Bill gave some insight.

Far lefties supported–with success(at least within the party)

The mechanism for accepting illegal and illicit contributions was honed

In short, based on Kos posts–and what we can see, the Dems/left decided that they had the ability to move from being an American political party to becoming an engine for leftist power. Sustainability and functionality WITHIN the American system was abandoned in favor of the raw grab for power.

And it worked.

They understand a basic tenet of war that the right abandons in favor of ‘nobility’, ‘grace’, ‘respect for the process’–that you fight a war with the intention of defeating your foe–and only that. You don’t worry about collateral damage, you don’t worry about the opinions of the univolved–any bad things you do to win can be fixed AFTER you win.

Unfortunately, one of the aims of the left has been to make the right a slave to playing by the rules. Thus, the right is excoriated for legally purging voter rolls of felons, illegals, and the dead–while the left illegally creates voters out of whole cloth without so much as a whimper.

Even worse, the right is, by it’s nature, not able to use many of the tactics the left can use. Groupthink is not common on the right–and groupthink allows their lies and propaganda to become ‘truth’.

That old canard about ‘repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth only works when EVERYONE’S repeating the lie. With academia and the media working for the left, even their most outrageous pronouncements can become ‘truth’.

We cannot fight this without greater access to information dispensing sources that permeate the general public.

Retake the GOP? First, we need to get on AT LEAST an even footing with the left in academia and the media. Without that we can retake the GOP and STILL find ourselves right where we are.

This is gettiing long–I’ve got ideas on how to do stuff, but I’ll save it for another post–after I see what anyone thinks of my rant.

The politics of the left are an outgrowth of scale, and further are designed to exploit scale (again, see Michels: “Who says organization, says oligarchy”).

The politics of ordered liberty are intended to benefit the individual, by enabling one to make the most of one’s time, talent, and treasure alone or in voluntary association. We who believe in unalienable human rights and ordered liberty are, at the moment, playing in a game rigged to favor scale. The rigging is becoming increasingly obvious and desperate; can it last? These are environmental factors that must be kept in mind, but they don’t make a program, do they? :-)

So, the program:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that these rights include, but are not limited to life, liberty of action, liberty of conscience, and liberty to hold and/or dispose of real and personal property.

I think you’re giving Kos a little too much credit. The GOP defeats were of its own making and, in part, circumstance; imminent failure in Iraq in 2006 and what we were increasingly told was the “worst financial crisis since the Great Depression” in the latter half of 2008, respectively. Now it’s common “wisdom” that New Deal-like policies are the way to get out of a Depressions (at one point 60% of Americans thought we were heading there soon). So we got a President who promised to be more socialist than the other guy.

While folks in the blogosphere like to rag on the MSM, the vast majority of Americans still get their news through the filter of the major networks and newspaper rather than through blogs. Ultimately the MSM’s narrative won the day.

Bill: a few references. First, Jonah Goldberg:

As a matter of practical politics, contemporary liberalism amounts to a coalitional ideology, while conservatism remains an ideological coalition. The Democratic Party is the party of various groups promising to scratch each other’s backs. Gay rights activists and longshoreman coexist in the same party because they promise support on each other’s issues.

The Republican Party is different. It says to voters, if you believe seven, eight or even ten out of the ten things we believe, you should be a Republican. Obviously, there are coalitions on the Right and ideologues on the Left, but I think the generalization remains valid.

Next, a mild warning from the Anchoress:

I’ve been thinking for a while that the hyperpartisanship on both sides was beginning to resemble the Protestant/Catholic sectarian troubles in Northern Ireland. Hate and malice are being extended by both sides to those “others” over there. The “other side.”

Nothing else matters but that they don’t believe the same things “we” believe (whoever “we” are, Conservative or Liberal). Because they don’t believe the same things “we” believe, they are bad, undesirable people and we shun them and will not have them in our midst.

Now, my thesis, and I hope you don’t mind my using your site as a soapbox (also gonna go up on my RedState diary).

Markos Moulitsas is the most despicable slug to have happened in online politics. This is a man for whom only power and victory matter. So, if you wish to be uncharitable to me by saying “I don’t want to be like Kos to win,” go ahead because I have a better idea: we need to be better than Kos to win.

Let us look at the deck that is stacked against us: there is an MSM that is hostile to Conservatism except in caricature. Our elected politicians are spineless cowards. There is a sore lack of creative professionals who are willing to out themselves to their professional communities. The ones who are open enough, quite honestly, are subpar. Our message is fraught with internal conflict—we air our dirty laundry in public—and at the same time we are without a commanding voice. Not to trample on Ronald Reagan, but Zombie Reagan would have a hard time in this political climate.

Consider the authoritarian nature of the Left: Kos’s methods are not only appealing to him, it is his nature. The Obama campaign, for all the talk of community organization and individual participation, maintains a command structure and enforces discipline. We know where this came from: Kos isn’t the originator, Saul Alinksy is. The conflicts you see among Moderates and Conservatives among Republicans stems from a belief in individual liberty and self-organizing structures. Like I have read you and the other writers on DP say a lot: our enemy does not play by these rules.

You know what? We can make them play by ours. All the talk of bipartisanship has undermined us, because it forced us to play by their rules, even when we were in the majority. All it takes is leadership in Congress to withold support for any and all Dem-sponsored bills that are not “centrist” enough. And when the laws are tacked to the center, the Repubs should merely vote “present.” When Pelosi’s Congress has their laws hung on their necks like millstones, when Americans have no one else to blame but Pelosi’s Congress, when we afford no Cover, then their policies will be theirs for the voters to judge. Conservative Democrats will have much to fear from a No Cover policy by Repubs. They will have to return to their constituents and tell them that they voted for something that they didn’t believe in, but their Congressional leadership enforced. We have to force them to become Fake Republicans the way Kos and our own spineless politicians, forced so many of us to be Fake Democrats.

This is a process that will take time and effort and discipline of the heighest order. We need to return to Conservative first principles in the free market and individual liberties. We need to propose from those principles, not choose which principle to betray in order to achieve a mediocre result. We need to be able to offer real solutions to real problems and be able to present them as real alternatives to state-anything.

On the grassroots level local bloggers on the Right need to be committed to discrediting their local Democrats: afford them no credit, stay silent in their “good moments” and bang the drum in their bad. Use the truth as the biggest weapon, but also shape the truth against them.

Finally, we need to accept that in many cases, the morally tilted socially Conservative wedge issues are, in a way, losing issues. The public has moved too far to liberalization on this aspect that even I am personally torn on this issue. Heck, honestly I can’t even get into it right now.

I hope my ideas ring true for some. Thanks for letting me play, Bill.

Jay C., thanks for the comment. First off, I’d like to note that I don’t regard Jonah Goldberg as the ultimate arbiter of political wisdom. He is part of the GOP’s wonk factory, and while admirable in many ways, he is more a part of our current problems than our solutions. He swallowed his gorge and supported Maverick McStain, for one thing - I did not do that. I am done supporting politicians who make no effort to represent the things I believe in. That is only a recipe for making more politicians who don’t represent me.

As for the Anchoress, I’m sure she’s a very nice lady, but her “kumbaya” message holds no appeal for me whatsoever. If things continue, one day she will look up when they come to take her away, and will say, “But you are my brothers, and I am your sister, kumbaya.” And their reply to her will be a fist in the face, and she will sit in the camps along with the rest of the Jews conservatives wailing, “How can this be happening?”

Anyway. Onward.

Yes, Kos is thuggish. And? The statists always have thugs. And thugs are not defeated by kindness or understanding. They are defeated by matching their violence with superior violence. Remember this line from Orwell’s “On Nationalism?”

Those who “abjure” violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.

Churchill updated it somewhat, to this:

“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”

I think that describes one of Kos’ roles rather well. And much of the conservative movement - including the Anchoress - is loathe to acknowledge the truth - that they are given the luxury of kumbaya because, among other things, rough men are willing to do what is necessary to permit them to indulge is such beliefs.

Consider the authoritarian nature of the Left

As if the Right does not have its own authoritarians? The religious nutcakes who want to use the authority and power of the state to impose their beliefs and practices on those who don’t believe as they do? The Bushes and McCains who, in the face of 85% opposition, wish to impose open borders and amnesty? The thousand and one “conservatvie” supporters of ever bigger, more powerful government? The Scalias, who almost never meet a state power they don’t like?

I suppose you could reply that all of these aren’t real conservatives, let alone liberty-minded conservatives, and I would agree with you. But then, why are we instructed - and expected - to make common cause with them?

Let us look at the deck that is stacked against us: there is an MSM that is hostile to Conservatism except in caricature. Our elected politicians are spineless cowards. There is a sore lack of creative professionals who are willing to out themselves to their professional communities. The ones who are open enough, quite honestly, are subpar. Our message is fraught with internal conflict—we air our dirty laundry in public—and at the same time we are without a commanding voice. Not to trample on Ronald Reagan, but Zombie Reagan would have a hard time in this political climate.

Well, maybe. But you leave out a few things - especially when you seem to intimate that Reagan had an “easy” time of it in his day, comparative to what he would face today. And that is simply not true.

First, Reagan came to power in a world where the MSM was considerably more powerful in every way than it is today. The conservative media consisted of a tiny handful of insignificant newspapers, National Review, and a few nearly-unread wonky-book authors. Rush Limbaugh was a creation of Ronald Reagan, not the other way around.

Today, we have a conservative talk radio media that reaches tens of millions of listeners on a daily basis. We have a robust online presence that reaches millions more. We have a major television news network that, if not precisely conservative, is not rabidly liberal, either. We have a major book publishing segment, and our authors regularly sit on the NYT best seller list. And we have a strong network of foundations and think tanks, and a solid fund-raising system. On the whole, given the two environments, I think Ronald Reagan would much prefer ours today to the one he had to face in 1980.

As for politicians, they have always been crappy, at least in my lifetime. I worked for Robert Kennedy. At the same time, my hometown elected one of the dumbest humans I have ever seen as the Congressman from the tenth congressional district. He walled in his front porch and called it an office, hired his wife and daughter to “work” in it, and behaved like a total dumbass. He was a Democrat, as I recall, but I’m not sure it made any difference. Both parties were - and are - full of this sort of trash, and have been as long as I’ve been alive. It is part of the playing field, and we are not really going to change that. Politicians will always, for the most part, be second-raters motivated by cheap power rushes more than anything else.

Now, as for the rest, I do like some of your strategies. PoliticalNet 2.0 scales very well, so it is more than possible to attack at every level simultaneously. I’d like to see a better way of vertical communication between the little guys on the local level and the bigger guys with national audiences. And I believe Red State and others like it is admirably suited to facilitating something like that. I particularly agree with you about this:

We have to force them to become Fake Republicans the way Kos and our own spineless politicians, forced so many of us to be Fake Democrats.

However, I think that in order to accomplish that, we will have to force the GOP leadership to forego its mindles urges toward “nobility, civility, and bipartisanship.” We must make them more afraid of offending us, than offending the people in the BosWash corridor who offer invitations to the most desirable social gatherings.

On the grassroots level local bloggers on the Right need to be committed to discrediting their local Democrats: afford them no credit, stay silent in their “good moments” and bang the drum in their bad. Use the truth as the biggest weapon, but also shape the truth against them.

I agree entirely.

Finally, we need to accept that in many cases, the morally tilted socially Conservative wedge issues are, in a way, losing issues. The public has moved too far to liberalization on this aspect that even I am personally torn on this issue.

Again, I agree. And in this vein, one of the things we must guard against is conflating these social conservative notions with true liberty-minded conservativism. The social cons are authoritarian in nature - how can they not be, when their goals spring from the Ultimate Authoritarian, God?

But flacks are right now - I was listening to one on Lew Dobbs yesterday - trying to pretend that conservatives as a whole must “move to the center,” because Americans no longer buy the SoCon wedge issues. And this is wrong. What we need to do is move to the center on the social issues, and move harder to the right on the liberty issues. America is a nation that still pretty much wants to be left alone. Americans don’t like being told what to do. A party that offers them real liberty and real security is a natural winner. The SoCon/LibCon alliance was a terrible idea, and has gone a long way toward poisoning, nay destroying, the conservative brand entirely. We need to remedy that.

Anyway, thanks once again for your comments. I’ll be looking for your Red State piece as well.

If we want to inspire the necessary fear in GOP elected officials, we need to use the Club for Growth strategy. We need to identify RINOs in districts where a real liberty-minded primary challenge can be mounted, and hit them on our liberty and small-government issues in those primaries. Rightosphere political networks and the positions we promote will be respected exactly in proportion to our ability to damage those who flout our will.

So many of the blogs on the right are just as wingnutty as Kos is to the left. What we need is for blogs like this one to become bigger.

Bill, voices like yours and those of DP commenters are the ones that need to be heard by more and more people. Ever think about how you can grow here? Ever consider writing op-ed pieces for newspapers? Surely if even one got published, it would give the URL for here, and that would draw readers. Just a thought.

I might make an additional suggestion: learn to master the language of partisanship. One problem with many bloggers is that they can’t write well. For example, I like Ace of Spades, and Cold Fury. These are blogs with a lot to say. But, IMHO, they often say it so badly that the message is muted.

For an example of superlative writing, try http://www.instapunk.com. Instapunk is (I suspect) a collective of sorts, but the writing is uniformly good, if not great. A run through one post there reveals more quality political invective than a year at most other blogs or print publications. (Note: I am a commenter there, but not associated with it in any other way.)

Language is a tool, and its mastery is a requisite to wining this war. Take the language from the left, and you’ve taken away one of their most potent weapons.

Bill, voices like yours and those of DP commenters are the ones that need to be heard by more and more people. Ever think about how you can grow here? Ever consider writing op-ed pieces for newspapers? Surely if even one got published, it would give the URL for here, and that would draw readers. Just a thought

Yes, I’ve given it a lot of thought, and am thinking about it even more lately. Any and all suggestions are welcome.

Sorry, didn’t mean to post anon. The above is mine.

Bill, the only thing to offer socons is the ironclad right to be let alone. I grew up around socons, and many of them are genuinely afraid that the end point being worked towards is an official dictation that the government will monitor and approve how they school their children, worship, etc.

If anyone wants to move from words to deeds, on either side, then the law should take notice. Otherwise, “sticks and stones…..”. After all, being called a dumb@ss by you on a regular basis does me no harm. If anyone finds a right to be unoffended in the Constitution, then you might be in trouble; otherwise, I chose to come here, chose to comment, and if I didn’t want to be criticized, I should have stayed “in the closet”.

I’d support civil marriage followed by whatever religious / carousal / ceremony takes your fancy… as long as no one tells me it has to take place in my church. Likewise, male, female, other, the public street is not where I want to see anyone’s taste in @ssless trousers, or why there are people who shouldn’t be allowed to wear Spandex in public. It is not bigotry to insist that certain acts should be kept behind private closed doors.

Your original post says “I’m now asking for some comments.” Here, and above, are mine, directed towards learning from the lessons of Kos and followers. Conservatives have got soft, and that the anger displayed by the left must, in word and deed, be copied by anyone wanting to beat them.

That is why I am posting here.

My comments are directed towards conservatives who want to learn from the tactics of the far left. The “we” in your last paragraph. I’ve used particular blogs as examples but the lessons are applicable to conservatives generally.

The left simply has a better handle on the language of attack, rage and contempt. As far as your contention that “[p]retty words don’t win battles,” maybe not, but they change hearts and minds, obviating battles. Conservatives have practiced conciliation, and this resulted in the recent trouncing. I find it hard to believe you think that words cannot be used as effective weapons of domination, power and persuasion. Words are the main tool you have, in fact, unless you’re advocating violence, which I believe you are not.

No you’re not supposed to hire me, or anyone else, to do your writing for you. Good grief.

My suggestion to conservatives who want to learn from Kos et al. would be to co-opt their language and tone. Take a position and don’t compromise. Be angry. Belittle the opinions you disagree with. Learn the details of the opponents’ position and how to dissect them. Adopt the attitude of absolute entitlement to what you want. Dominate the weak-minded and persuade the stronger. Reject “kumbaya-ism.” Part of this also means purging the moderates from the party. Noonan, etc. And yes, better writing and thinking can help to attain these goals, especially if practiced consistently by more people — not just at a few “influential blogs.”

“I further disagree that the writing I, Mike, or Ace do is inferior to that done at Instapunk.” Er, okay.

“It couldn’t have anything to do with the probability that I, Mike, nor Ace would notice your opinion if it appeared only at Instapunk, could it?” I’ve explained to you why I posted here. Asking specious questions couldn’t have anything to do with allowing you to ignore what I wrote, could it? Or was your call for comments an empty one?

Or was your call for comments an empty one?

No, but it wasn’t a call for empty comments, either. Or insulting ones.

Two thoughts.
First the Kos/Democratic victory in perspective: The political pendulum will swing, not as far as one might want but it will swing, so timing is important. Kos, like the rest of us, has had the luck of timing. Three events I would note to support my notion, the Reagan defeat of Carter and the implementation of the Reagan revolution, the GOP in the days of Newt’s ‘contract,’ and Kos this election cycle. To truly take advantage of timing, one must have a plan to shift the entire political landscape for a generation.
I believe we have finally reached the end of the Reagan boom. It has benefited all of America and the world for a generation. Newt’s contract was in part self-limiting it could have built on the Reagan revolution but failed in the final analysis through pork barrel politics and the lack of a follow-through by the GOP. Kos and Obama will have ups and downs. The ‘loyal opposition’ must have a plan to take advantage of the opening to keep the ‘galloping socialism’ from altering the landscape for another generation.
The second thought is with regard to a new political party. When you divide the political spectrum into two factions, you inevitably end up with the ‘shit sandwich.’ For example, you will never accommodate the religious right and the libertarian conservative into an honest focused party. The mind set, the values, the orientation, are just different. There are some similar values, but both factions can be dogmatic and opposed. I believe that we need to have at least three and preferably four parties. It would make a mess of the presidential race, but it would focus legislation on issues. If issues, rather than partisan politics, are the driving force in legislation I believe we would end up with better legislation. But practically, I just don’t see how we get past the current two-party system.
But with the RINOs now control the GOP; I would love to have a viable third party to join. As an afterthought, given America today, one would need a charismatic person to lead such a third party, and I usually distrust the charismatic.

Well, you’ve turned into a nasty old bugger, haven’t you?

I, for one, have never held your high traffic against you. I’ve never once compared you and Ace to Jacqueline Suzanne and Stephen King, who were after all the greatest writers of their time because their sales were so high.

Is the ACP — and all the weighty responsibilities associated with it — sapping your sense of humor? I fear so. Tell you what. Try watching a few episodes of AbFab, South Park, and House. See if your dangerously inflated amour-propre doesn’t shrink a quart or two after a few hubris-puncturing laughs. You’ll feel better for it. I promise.

That’s the prose that David O. was praising?

Apparently. Touchy, aren’t they? Funny thing is, Bill never ran Instapunk down.

martinra, you would do well to wait for the facts to roll in first. I was tempted just now to post a copy of an email that Instapunk wrote to Bill, but sent to me instead, but Bill ought to have a swing at it first. For now, suffice it to say, so far as pointless friction goes, it was not composed with eliminating same in mind.

Everbody knose I dosen’t. Write to good. I was thining of strting up one of them “I is sorry” websties, whir I hold up a sine expre…explanin…uhh, telling my regret to the whole world. But I didn’t, because I have got soft. Now my girfreind is startin one insteed.

Say,what do all them red liness under my words here mean, anyway?

Well, you’ve turned into a nasty old bugger, haven’t you?

Bite me, Punk.

I, for one, have never held your high traffic against you.

And up until your buttboy arrived here, snarking away at me and others of your betters, I didn’t hold your utter lack of any influence against you, either. In fact, I was only peripherally aware that your blog even existed - riding, as it was, on a sad ripoff from Glenn Reynolds’ original Instapundit.

Is the ACP — and all the weighty responsibilities associated with it — sapping your sense of humor? I fear so. Tell you what. Try watching a few episodes of AbFab, South Park, and House. See if your dangerously inflated amour-propre doesn’t shrink a quart or two after a few hubris-puncturing laughs. You’ll feel better for it. I promise.

Yeah, that’s the sort of soul-stirring political prose that will galvanize the masses into a new conservative revolution. Actually, my own education is not based, as yours seems to be, on a solid foundation of popular television shows.

You mock the ACP. And you’ve done - what, exactly? - to influence anything but your own bloated sense of self-regard?

Oh, that’s right. Nothing.

Okay, back to your pathetic little shithole for another dose of that corrosive envy you seem to be wallowing in. You’re banned here. I’m not going to waste any further time or prose on an irrelevant nobody. Nice try at boosting your numbers with a little blog-war, dumbass, but I’m not gonna play.

Damn, Bill, THAT’S going to leave a mark - as well it should.
BTW who or what is an instapunk? Never heard of it before now.

martinra, nobody has tried to tell religions what they can do in their churches, or in the private practice of their religion. It’s only when they venture into either areas funded by public monies, or areas serving the public, that they run into trouble with their bigotry, because it clashes with laws covering every other participant in these areas.

Here’s an example from your cite:

Wedding services: A same sex black/white couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same sex black/white unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple’s legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

The changes I made illustrate, I believe, the nut of the issue. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t practice your bigotry in areas covered by public anti-discrimination laws that apply. You can, of course, practice it in the privacy of your churches and other religious private property and ventures.

Nobody has tried to force the marriage issue yet. But, looking over the dozen precedents in that article, can you honestly say that people who fear that such a challenge is coming are paranoid?

Yes. And its misinformation at best. In order to have stopped any of those suits, there would have to be changes to the definition of public vs private in state constitutions, as well as all anti-discrimination laws.

I’ll let Misty Irons respond from the POV of an evangelical Christian.

I’m not arguing that the discrimination is in any way justifiable, or that the court case was wrongly decided, but this raises a serious moral question: Should libertarians be advocating the use of the State fist to force people to associate against their will, or do business against their will, because we disapprove of their reasons?

I have already gone to that can of worms, opened it, and vomited at the stench.

In it is also the right to bar blacks from otherwise public accommodations, Jews, Christians, or anybody else you don’t like. That may be pure libertarian ideology, but just as I am not a Republican, I am not a pure libertarian, either. The American Dream, in my opinion, does not - and should not - include such evil.

I support the anti-discrimination laws. If only from a practical matter, permitting “free association” to tear apart our society into every smaller groups is a mug’s game of suicidal proportions.

That citation on the Arkansan initiative just underscores my point about

you will never accommodate the religious right and the libertarian conservative into an honest focused party. The mind set, the values, the orientation, are just different.

There is a significant section of the current Democratic party that would love to have a party that stood for fiscal conservatism, personal liberties, social justice, and a reliance on reason not faith, and reasonable environmental
actions. Regardless of the problems and pitfalls of a third party, it may be our only real hope.

This is exactly the point I was making: the right to be let alone must, of necessity, include the right to refuse association by private citizens. Where does it end?

If the photographer were employed by a company that wanted the business, then they should have every right to fire her, thus refusing to associate with her. Same thing with pharmacists employed by Walgreen’s who don’t want to pass out birth control.

Faith involves sacrifices.

But if the owners of the company decide they don’t want to do business with gays, or blacks, or gun owners, then the only penalty should be that they lose the business, not only of those they refuse to deal with, but of all of us who are offended by them. Full page ads in the paper (radio, internet, TV, etc.) saying “This business is run by a bunch of bigots and here’s why.”: No problem. The business in question shouldn’t even be able to protest. Run countering ads, sure. But forcing someone to work at anything whether it’s a draft, a civilian service corps, or anything else, is a violation of the 13th Amendment.

SDN, the trouble with boycotts is that they only work on isolated offenders. If all the storeowners in a community collude to deny service to some class of people, what are they supposed to do? Move?

I know it may appear that I’m arguing both sides here. Never suppose that you know for certain what I believe based on which arguments I make. If you can’t make your opponent’s argument for them, then you don’t understand it and can’t predict it or the ways it will make people behave.

Oh, and while we’re talking boycotts, I promised one to the Tribune Corp, owner of the LA Times, for withholding the Obama - Khalidi 2003 tape. I should get cracking on that, wouldn’t want to break my word, you know, some of us still remember what integrity means. Plus it will be fun, and they earned it! We should start with a Tribune Corp. major advertiser list. Anyone interested?

Then I guess SDN would give a pass to Muslim taxi drivers who refuse to give a ride to people with dogs and people carrying wine bottles out of respect for their religious beliefs. No?

Sure he would. Libertarian ideologues can be just as big dumbasses as any other ideologues. It leads to moronic utterances like, “…forcing the photographer to do work, for whatever reason, is slavery pure and simple.” as if that is an accurate description of the situation.

Let me dumb it down for you. The photographer, in operating her business, implicitly agrees to abide by the laws that govern her business. (Libertarians like the rule of law, don’t they?)

And what that means is that she doesn’t get to violate the law simply because of her own bigotry. What you are in essence doing is saying that forcing her to obey the law is slavery. And yet, she is not being “forced” to work. If she doesn’t wish to abide by the laws which govern us all, she has a simple and obvious option: she can get out of the business which is governed by laws she doesn’t wish to obey. That would, in fact, be a much more principled statement of opposition - the John Galt option, if you will - than whining that she shouldn’t have to abide by the law because it doesn’t permit her to exercise her bigotry as she would like to do.

And if you don’t like me calling you a dumbass, stop posting dumbass comments.

You are much more measured than I, Ray. Which is probably a good thing.

I find myself hoisting the black flag more and more often these days. Perhaps because after all these years, I am becoming convinced that you don’t really change very many minds with sweet reason, and so the other option - crush them so they can no longer endanger our liberties - becomes more attractive.

Switching roles, I think you were very measured in your response to Glenn earlier. I’ll take a page from MLK, and call him on his complacency, as MLK did with his fellow travelers, the Churches, on theirs.

Rather than indulging his schadenfreude at folks who use the wrong way to accomplish something, and trying to have it both ways with the statement, ” …if I had the power myself, I’d make it legal”, maybe he should use his not so powerless blog, and PJM Media, to promote the issue, rather than laughing at the efforts of others. Give a bigger platform to the Misty Irons and Mel Whites of the world.

As far as I’m concerned, he and PJM are no better than the PC liberal press, who gave a pass to Obama on same sex marriage.

“Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering, than outright rejection.”

Oh, and the comments here illustrate with perfect clarity why the socons feel that they’ll never be left alone. Because you all just lurves you some Thought Police….. as long as the “right” thoughts are getting policed.

Don’t say a damned thing about the Fairness Doctrine shutting down talk radio because it’s hate speech, or why O! can’t be criticized without someone shouting “Racist” and silencing the debate. This is EXACTLY why that happens. Because you just can’t deal with the absolute truth that when the law moves from regulating clearly harmful acts or speech (which covers fraud nicely) to trying to make sure someone isn’t offended by someone who isn’t nice to them, then it becomes a matter of who has the guns of government to enforce what others think.

Sure, SDN, so you would condone restricted hotels who responded to people with the name Cohen, with the lie that they were full.

And how about some “fair and balanced” reporting of the collusion between the LDS and Catholic Churches? No anger, no name-calling, just information.

If pretty words don’t win battles, what were the Declaration of Independence, The Crisis, and the Federalist Papers?

Pieces of paper, at least until they were drenched in the blood of the victors and the vanquished, after the real battles that allowed them to become something other than irrelevant historical curiosities.