Geez, Bob, couldn't you just put your pundit/editor hat on the rack for a minute and enjoy an amazing and inspiring speech?? The speech wasn't for Obama supporters or McCain supporters. It was for everyone who has believed in overcoming incredible obstacles and eventually triumphs. More than anything it was a speech crafted for the historic moment. Clinton was a great speaker but I don't remember too many times that he moved and inspired as many people as Obama did on Tues night.

I'd love to see people get past the rhetoric of abortion and find practical ways to actually reduce the number of abortions. I guess there are too many political points to be scored for the vested interests to get to work on this. Also, I like Ross's ideas about tax and other policies that help support working families. The European social democracies are so much better at this than the US, so it's really ironic that the Republicans have been opposed to these kinds of policies. You'd think the social conservatives, at least, would be all for ideas that encourage stable families.

Quoting BeachFrontView: South Park's Political Humor does it right.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/207897/

Time for a Libertarian take over of the Republican Party!

LOL. That Obama-McCain South Park vid was hilarious!! Thanks for posting the link

ok. I accept that Ross believes what he says, but he should be aware the reason he is getting so much play on democrat media outlets is because he is not much of a conservative. Ross says the citizens have to be forced to participate in social security because markets are so volatile and presumably retirement savings will be lost overnight when entire industries go bust. Putting aside that the fed government may go bust as deficit spending accelerates, what is the entity that has caused the current round of financial turmoil? The feds have flooded the money market with easy credit, encouraged/forced banks to give mortgages to the credit unworthy, opened the borders to millions of newcomers who both got mortgages and increased the demand for housing, has tax policies ( mortgage interest writeoff ) which raise the price of homes, then switches the immigration policies practically overnight, causing the demand for housing and ability to pay the mortgage to drop ( an untested theory of mine as to one of the causes of the mortgage crisis ). The government creates the economic turmoil, then advocates

By all accounts, Bobby Jindal is significantly more socially conservative than Sarah Palin, yet both Bob and Ross talk as if Jindal would be far more acceptable to libertarian leaning voters than would Palin, and from what I've seen I think they are right about this. Very odd.

John McWorther couldn't have put it better: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/156...8:53&out=08:57

I read his quick post just after the election : http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/a...remarkable.php and thought it struck a good note just when it needed to be heard. I would like to think I would be as magnanimous had the election turned out differently but I probably not. As much as he likes palin she cannot move back to the center. McCain will be "forgiven" and his "base" will return to their tire swinging ways, minus a few, but Sarah just brings out the Buchaninite in people. Her dislodging of corruption seemed to serve only as a way to install her own brand. Her pragmatism worked great when there was lots of money flowing to Alaska from oil companies and the US govt. since she could throw money around and stay in power but if she is as honest and forthright as her fans say she is she is just too polarizing and honestly she will never hit the wonky tone Ross would suggest. Depending on how she plays it she will be able to keep interest in her alive for quite some time but unless she moves out of alaska

Quoting thouartgob: I read his quick post just after the election :

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/a...remarkable.php

and thought it struck a good note just when it needed to be heard. I would like to think I would be as magnanimous had the election turned out differently but I probably not.

As much as he likes palin she cannot move back to the center. McCain will be "forgiven" and his "base" will return to their tire swinging ways, minus a few, but Sarah just brings out the Buchaninite in people.

Her dislodging of corruption seemed to serve only as a way to install her own brand. Her pragmatism worked great when there was lots of money flowing to Alaska from oil companies and the US govt. since she could throw money around and stay in power but if she is as honest and forthright as her fans say she is she is just too polarizing and honestly she will never hit the wonky tone Ross would suggest. Depending on how she plays it she will be able to keep interest in her alive for quite some time but unless she moves out of alaska

I think Ross is a cool guy, and I like listening to him. (And always Bob too of course.) Ross talks here about free trade being a policy he doesn't have a problem with, and that he wants a smart populism that includes it. What he says is that the working class benefits from the low cost of goods. He does except certain industries, which I assume means e.g. the steel industry, etc. I'm not making the argument that free trade is bad, but the thought of the cost of goods being cheap as justifying it for the working class seems off to me. If I were to defend free trade, I would resort to saying it is an entropic fact of the globalized world, and will happen one way or the other, so you gotta go with it, make it slow, and protect the common man as you can. I mean, by definition if requires an equalization of wages planet-wide, which is going to be bad for Americans. Costs go down, but disparity rises, people surrender the dignity of certain types of jobs as they lose them. Picking that one thing out as an example of agreement with the

If the GOP abandons free trade then I'll abandon the GOP. The GOP needs to ditch the anti-immigrant wing of the party and emphasize its free trade standing in strengthening its coalition with those who will be cast aside by Obama.

Quoting BeachFrontView: South Park's Political Humor does it right.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/207897/

On a related note, here's ONN's take on the immediate aftermath.

Douthat's claim that pro-lifers are "in it for the fetuses" is dead wrong. Sure, that's what they BELIEVE. But in fact, they oppose efforts to lower the abortion rate through contraception, comprehensive sex education, and similar programs, as well as anti-poverty programs and more funding for education generally. Further, scratch the surface of any pro-lifer and you will find the attitudes about sex and gender that Ross claims are no longer prevalent. Point out, for instance, that forced pregnancy forces women to bear a burden in the workforce and in their lives that men never have to bear, and you will get the reply that "if they don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex". Further, Ross assumes that the life issue is the only issue involved here. In fact, everyone cares about life. The real difference between pro-choicers and pro-lifers come when you look at the competing interests. Pro-choicers believe that the interest of a woman in living her life, having a good sex life, achieving parity in the workplace, and gender equality outweighs the interests in a microscopic fetus with no brain and incapable of feeling pain. In contrast, pro-lifers sneer at health exceptions, as

Quoting osmium: Ross talks here about free trade being a policy he doesn't have a problem with... I'm not making the argument that free trade is bad, but the thought of the cost of goods being cheap as justifying it for the working class seems off to me. If I were to defend free trade, I would resort to saying it is an entropic fact of the globalized world, and will happen one way or the other, so you gotta go with it, make it slow, and protect the common man as you can. I mean, by definition if requires an equalization of wages planet-wide, which is going to be bad for Americans. Costs go down, but disparity rises, people surrender the dignity of certain types of jobs as they lose them.

I suspect that Ross is referring to studies like the one described here, that show that the lower prices from globalization have kept inequality in the U.S. lower than it otherwise would have been (basically because the price effect is less pronounced for items that the rich are more likely to buy). I don't see how a planet-wide equalization of wages would be

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Geez, Bob, couldn't you just put your pundit/editor hat on the rack for a minute and enjoy an amazing and inspiring speech?? The speech wasn't for Obama supporters or McCain supporters. It was for everyone who has believed in overcoming incredible obstacles and eventually triumphs. More than anything it was a speech crafted for the historic moment. Clinton was a great speaker but I don't remember too many times that he moved and inspired as many people as Obama did on Tues night.

Indeed. Between the start of this diavlog and pretty much end to end in his last, I'm for calling him Buzz Kill Bob from now on. There's a point where playing the skeptical academic, or whatever it is he's trying to do, gets to be eye-roll-provoking carping. I think Bob -- and Glenn Loury -- ought to take a few weeks off. Maybe walk the streets a little bit, and see if they can't find something to believe in besides their own diminished expectations.

Quoting Dilan Esper: Douthat's claim that pro-lifers are "in it for the fetuses" is dead wrong. Sure, that's what they BELIEVE. But in fact, they oppose efforts to lower the abortion rate through contraception, comprehensive sex education, and similar programs, as well as anti-poverty programs and more funding for education generally.

Being pro-life, and knowing plenty of other pro-life people, I can with firsthand knowledge that you're incorrect in this assessment. I support contraception and sex ed. Now, education policy is another matter, but if you think that throwing more money at schools will solve problems, you're sorely mistaken.

Further, Ross assumes that the life issue is the only issue involved here. In fact, everyone cares about life. The real difference between pro-choicers and pro-lifers come when you look at the competing interests. Pro-choicers believe that the interest of a woman in living her life, having a good sex life, achieving parity in the workplace, and gender equality outweighs the interests in a microscopic fetus with no brain and incapable of feeling pain. In contrast, pro-lifers sneer at health exceptions, as McCain did at the debate, as nothing more than a spurious claim by doctors and women to get around the law. Sneering at health

Being pro-life, and knowing plenty of other pro-life people, I can with firsthand knowledge that you're incorrect in this assessment. I support contraception and sex ed. The same political movements and party that is pro-life also opposes all the things that I listed. Asserting that pro-life people hate women is ignorant. Sneering at health exceptions is pure misogyny. And the pro-life position itself is shockingly uncaring about the desires of women to have a full sex life without harming her career and her education. That's misogynistic and anti-feminist too.

Quoting thouartgob: ... and honestly she will never hit the wonky tone Ross would suggest.

Agreed. Nothing amazes me more than these people who continue to insist that Palin is smart, and that she's going to change from the insular, vacuous, and thoroughly uncurious person that she is. It's not that I think that she doesn't, in principle, have the inherent capability to go on a four-year crash course of learning about the world, it's just that I think she shows every indication of believing she already knows all she needs to know. She's got the Bushian attitude that views not knowing something as meaning that thing is not worth knowing, and that anyone who asks her about it is an elitist who's just trying to play gotcha. People who have their minds as thoroughly made up as she appears to will never learn anything new.

Sneering at health exceptions is not caring about fetal life-- it's hatred of women. Thank you!

Quoting bjkeefe: Agreed. Nothing amazes me more than these people who continue to insist that Palin is smart, and that she's going to change from the insular, vacuous, and thoroughly uncurious person that she is. It's not that I think that she doesn't, in principle, have the inherent capability to go on a four-year crash course of learning about the world, it's just that I think she shows every indication of believing she already knows all she needs to know. She's got the Bushian attitude that views not knowing something as meaning that thing is not worth knowing, and that anyone who asks her about it is an elitist who's just trying to play gotcha. People who have their minds as thoroughly made up as she appears to will never learn anything new.

I really do disagree. I don't think she's stupid, I think she's somewhat narrowly informed and accustomed to getting by on a level of BS that just won't fly at the level she's been playing recently. But I'm really just here to bait you to cross a benchmark. Update: damn, you're quick.

Quoting Dilan Esper: Pro-choicers believe that the interest of a woman in living her life, having a good sex life, achieving parity in the workplace, and gender equality outweighs the interests in a microscopic fetus with no brain and incapable of feeling pain. In contrast, pro-lifers sneer at health exceptions, as McCain did at the debate, as nothing more than a spurious claim by doctors and women to get around the law. Sneering at health exceptions is not caring about fetal life-- it's hatred of women.

McCain didn't come up with the idea that health exceptions can be used to get around abortion restrictions. The idea is present in the Doe v. Bolton decision (the companion case to Roe). Also, a fetus develops a brain around the sixth week of pregnancy, which is before 80+% of abortions. In terms of competing interests, people of course will differ. But I would submit that if one thinks that abortion involves the taking of human life, then justifying on the grounds of "having a good sex life" is not going to sound all that plausible.

Quoting Dilan Esper: The same political movements and party that is pro-life also opposes all the things that I listed.

Bush pushed for abstinence only education but attempting to then draw a conclusion about all pro-life people based on that is unwise. Furthermore, I see little in the way of anti-contraception.

Sneering at health exceptions is pure misogyny.

Health exceptions as existed were used as blank checks for late term abortions.

And the pro-life position itself is shockingly uncaring about the desires of women to have a full sex life without harming her career and her education. That's misogynistic and anti-feminist too.

Hmmm I didn't know that using the pill somehow went against having a "full sex life."

Quoting AemJeff: I really do disagree. I don't think she's stupid, I think she's somewhat narrowly informed and accustomed to getting by on a level of BS that just won't fly at the level she's been playing recently.

Well, I did say that in principle, I don't see her as inherently incapable of intellectual growth. However, I will repeat that I saw nothing to suggest she's inclined to pursue that, nor that it's even occurred to her that she should consider it. If the gossip leaking out from the McCain/Palin campaign is even half right, my sense is that she wanted to be present herself as even dumber and nastier than we saw. And if you believe the story about her coming to Steve Schmidt on Tuesday night, speech in hand, demanding to speak before McCain gave his concession speech, I don't know how else to see that except as heavily blinkered ambition and her complete lack of awareness about how the world works, even the very narrow one of politics. But, yeah, who knows. There is always the possibility of a road-to-Damascus moment for anybody, I suppose.

Douthat's claim that pro-lifers are "in it for the fetuses" is dead wrong. Sure, that's what they BELIEVE. But in fact, they oppose efforts to lower the abortion rate through contraception, comprehensive sex education, and similar programs, as well as anti-poverty programs and more funding for education generally.

I thought Ross got the abortion issue backwards too, although I found his demographic observations in the first part of the conversation very valuable. What I notice about abortion views is that an enormous part of the Dem. coalition is anti-abortion and pro-choice; so framing the issue as pro-choice vs. pro-life is incoherent. I personally have know lots of women who -- on religious grounds -- would never dream of getting an abortion, but who likewise would never dream of voting for a so-called "pro-life" Republican or supporting overturning Roe v. Wade. They want choice, including their own choice to reject abortions. "Pro-life" Republicans may be appealing more to an authoritarian/patriarchal world view, whereas pro-life/anti-abortion Dems. are more respectful of individual freedom.

Health exceptions as existed were used as blank checks for late term abortions. Please provide proof. Also, do you believe a woman must give birth to the child of her incestuous rapist?

Quoting bjkeefe: Well, I did say that in principle, I don't see her as inherently incapable of intellectual growth. However, I will repeat that I saw nothing to suggest she's inclined to pursue that, nor that it's even occurred to her that she should consider it. If the gossip leaking out from the McCain/Palin campaign is even half right, my sense is that she wanted to be present herself as even dumber and nastier than we saw. And if you believe the story about her coming to Steve Schmidt on Tuesday night, speech in hand, demanding to speak before McCain gave his concession speech, I don't know how else to see that except as heavily blinkered ambition and her complete lack of awareness about how the world works, even the very narrow one of politics.

But, yeah, who knows. There is always the possibility of a road-to-Damascus moment for anybody, I suppose.

I deeply doubt that she has the innate level of ability required to compete at the top of a national ticket. I also don't think she'll get a serious chance to try. Her appeal is deep, but also fairly narrow, and I think at this point she's unlikely to be able

Quoting AemJeff: I deeply doubt that she has the innate level of ability required to compete at the top of a national ticket. I also don't think she'll get a serious chance to try. Her appeal is deep, but also fairly narrow, and I think at this point she's unlikely to be able to particularly broaden it. I'm not sure quite how seriously to take all the fingerpointing from the McCain campaign factions, but my impression is that she's fallen victim, in part, to her own overweening ambition.

Yeah. Or become an exemplar of the Peter Principle. Which I guess is just another way of saying the same thing.

Quoting ohcomeon: Health exceptions as existed were used as blank checks for late term abortions.

Please provide proof.

It's been years since I saw the senate testimony on the matter so I'll have to pass on the temptation to reach back into history and make a further case. You have to respect people who have different views than you. That seems sorely lacking in some circles. If you keep on calling pro-life people sexists, authoritarians, etc. it only shows you to be intolerant and not desiring civil discourse. Not tolerating opposing views generally shows an insecurity in one's own positions.

Also, do you believe a woman must give birth to the child of her incestuous rapist?

no

Quoting ohcomeon: Health exceptions as existed were used as blank checks for late term abortions.

Please provide proof.

Exactly right. Pro-lifers believe that health exceptions are used in this fashion, because they don't trust women. Further, even if health exceptions ARE sometimes used in that fashion, only a misogynist would feel that making sure women don't break the rules is more important than ensuring a woman doesn't commit suicide or preventing a woman from having a serious health complication.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: You have to respect people who have different views than you.

It seems to me that if you really want to practice what you preach here, there is no case to be made for being against keeping abortion legal.

Quoting Dilan Esper: Exactly right. Pro-lifers believe that health exceptions are used in this fashion, because they don't trust women.

Actually we don't trust doctors Though I guess in instances where the doctors are also women, your argument is not incorrect.

Further, even if health exceptions ARE sometimes used in that fashion, only a misogynist would feel that making sure women don't break the rules is more important than ensuring a woman doesn't commit suicide or preventing a woman from having a serious health complication.

Oh please. I suggest you rewatch the senate testimony from a few years ago. We're talking about partial birth abortion here. We're talking about a viable child being killed.

Quoting bjkeefe: It seems to me that if you really want to practice what you preach here, there is no case to be made for being against keeping abortion legal.

See, that shows a lack of understanding of the pro-llfe position. For pro-life people, this is a basic human rights issue: the life of the unborn. Now, I respect that reasonable people arrive at a different conclusion than I do on abortion. If you don't feel the same, then that's too bad for you.

So mental health of the woman is more important than physical health? I mean she is allowed to kill this human because of who the father is but not because giving birth might cause her extreme pain for life or an inability to have sex or give birth in the future?

Quoting cognitive madisonian: It's been years since I saw the senate testimony on the matter so I'll have to pass on the temptation to reach back into history and make a further case.

You have to respect people who have different views than you. That seems sorely lacking in some circles. If you keep on calling pro-life people sexists, authoritarians, etc. it only shows you to be intolerant and not desiring civil discourse. Not tolerating opposing views generally shows an insecurity in one's own positions.

Bear in mind, testimony from pro-life groups is worthless. Only a serious unbiased study would constitute any evidence of women actually subverting health exceptions. As for sexism, as I said, it is inherently misogynist to believe that the interests of a tiny little fetus with no feelings, no consiciousness, and no sense of self outweigh the needs of women to have both full equality in the workplace and in their educations while also having a full and pleasurable sex life without fear of pregnancy. This is what women want, need, and are entitled to. Pro-lifers think tiny tadpole-like beings are more important than the central interests and needs of

You have to respect people who have different views than you. No, I don't. When I was 12 years old my best friend told me about the death of her grandmother in NAZI Germany. She was in her 40's and pregnant with her 8th child. Her doctor told her she was in extreme danger of dying if she gave birth again. The German government did not allow white, non Jews to have abortions so she died in child birth. I don't respect that and I don't respect your assumption that you have the right to tell me what to do with my body.

Quoting Dilan Esper: Bear in mind, testimony from pro-life groups is worthless. Only a serious unbiased study would constitute any evidence of women actually subverting health exceptions.

As for sexism, as I said, it is inherently misogynist to believe that the interests of a tiny little fetus with no feelings, no consiciousness, and no sense of self outweigh the needs of women to have both full equality in the workplace and in their educations while also having a full and pleasurable sex life without fear of pregnancy. This is what women want, need, and are entitled to. Pro-lifers think tiny tadpole-like beings are more important than the central interests and needs of adult women.

That's the reality of this issue. If you really care about women, stop trying to force them to carry unwanted pregnancies at severe costs to their lives and join feminists and liberals in fighting the conditions that lead to unplanned pregnancy.

The error you're making here is assuming that everyone shares your philosophy on the intrinsic worth of a human fetus (and, this also misses another great response by someone else summarizing the development of humans

Quoting ohcomeon: You have to respect people who have different views than you.

No, I don't. When I was 12 years old my best friend told me about the death of her grandmother in NAZI Germany. She was in her 40's and pregnant with her 8th child. Her doctor told her she was in extreme danger of dying if she gave birth again. The German government did not allow white, non Jews to have abortions so she died in child birth. I don't respect that and I don't respect your assumption that you have the right to tell me what to do with my body.

Fundamental flaw: a child in the womb is not part of your body. It is a separate human entity with a unique genetic code. Look, if you don't respect other opinions, then you're a closed minded person. If you're ok with that, then you're ok with that. Not my problem. But I hope I don't find you preaching 'tolerance' and the such in other threads

Erstwhile hardcore Republican John Cole has a great post up that ties in nicely with this diavlog.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: The error you're making here is assuming that everyone shares your philosophy on the intrinsic worth of a human fetus (and, this also misses another great response by someone else summarizing the development of humans in the womb), and also that your philosophy is scientific fact. I disagree fundamentally on denying basic rights to humans in development.

Also, there are quite a many pro-life charities that aim to help pregnant women.

Actually that's not true. Pro-lifers lie or are confused about how much they value fetuses. They certainly don't mourn the millions of fertilized eggs naturally expelled from women's bodies every year, even though "life begins at conception". And they certainly are especially outraged at partial birth abortions, even though they claim that those "babies" are no different than 4 week fetuses. The reality is nobody becomes a pro-lifer because they have a special concern for life that we pro-choicers don't. We pro-choicers are fine with protecting fetuses when that doesn't come at the expense of women, e.g., promoting contraception, discouraging smoking and drinking during pregnancies, promoting a cleaner environment through regulation (opposed by most pro-lifers), etc. We all care about life, and

"when your crowning achievement of the last eight years is the Schiavo legislation." mmmm hmmmm Secondly, concentrating on the tire gauge, which was cute and making a legit point about Obama's lackluster energy plan, while ignoring Obama's ridiculous ads on McCain's shoes, homes, and foreign-made cars, is, well...You know.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: See, that shows a lack of understanding of the pro-llfe position.

In fact, I understand it quite well. The forced pregnancy crowd has no willingness to accept that their views concerning fetuses, or blastocysts or zygotes, for that matter, aren't the only valid ones. They seek to impose their views on others, rather than just taking care of their own lives. And by and large, they're not even interested in discussing measures that would reduce unwanted pregnancies, nor in general are they especially "pro-life" in many other areas.

Quoting bjkeefe: The forced pregnancy crowd

Huh?

has no willingness to accept that their views concerning fetuses, or blastocysts or zygotes, for that matter, aren't the only valid ones. They seek to impose their views on others, rather than just taking care of their own lives. And by and large, they're not even interested in discussing measures that would reduce unwanted pregnancies, nor in general are they especially "pro-life" in many other areas.

If you actually talked to them instead of only about them, you'd find that many of your assumptions, particularly that last one, are not grounded in truth.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: ... ads on McCain's shoes, homes, and foreign-made cars ...

You think if you keep saying that over and over, anyone's going to care? Get over it. The legitimacy of those ads is beyond dispute. They exposed the dissonance between McCain in reality and the self-created image he was trying to sell. They also showed the McCain people what the campaign was going to be like as long as he wanted to spend his entire ad budget on trying to tie Obama to Paris Hilton. Problem with you wingnuts is you've gotten soft. For too long, you got no pushback from Democrats when you went pedal to the metal on attacking character through focusing on trivialities and outright lies. When you finally came up against someone who was tough enough and smart enough and indeed humorous enough to throw a little bit back at you, you were left unable to do anything but clutch your pearls. The more whining I hear from people like you about things like this, now that the election has been run and the people have spoken, the better I like it. Keep nursing your grievances. It'll

Quoting cognitive madisonian: If you actually talked to them instead of only about them, you'd find that many of your assumptions, particularly that last one, are not grounded in truth.

Again, you're making statements when you have no idea what you're talking about. You've been on this board, what, two weeks? Rid yourself of the notion that no one debated anything of substance before you came along. And rid yourself of the notion that I haven't met a few people in my life before this site even existed. I've been hearing out the anti-choice side for decades, and a few individual exceptions aside, my generalizations are accurate. You may not be a stereotypical "pro-lifer." If so, fine. But you're dreaming if you think most of the rest aren't pretty much as I've described them.

Quoting bjkeefe: You think if you keep saying that over and over, anyone's going to care?

Get over it. The legitimacy of those ads is beyond dispute. They exposed the dissonance between McCain in reality and the self-created image he was trying to sell.

They also showed the McCain people what the campaign was going to be like as long as he wanted to spend his entire ad budget on trying to tie Obama to Paris Hilton.

Problem with you wingnuts is you've gotten soft. For too long, you got no pushback from Democrats when you went pedal to the metal on attacking character through focusing on trivialities and outright lies. When you finally came up against someone who was tough enough and smart enough and indeed humorous enough to throw a little bit back at you, you were left unable to do anything but clutch your pearls.

The more whining I hear from people like you about things like this, now that the election has been run and the people have spoken, the better I like it. Keep nursing your grievances. It'll keep you out of power that

Quoting cognitive madisonian: You are reaching a point of comical absurdity.

Yet you're unable to really convince yourself of that, aren't you? You keep having to try to get in the last word, don't you? Seems to me I'm striking nerves here, and you're trying to shout down your own uncertainties. But please. Say "ads about shoes" some more.

But please. Say "ads about shoes" some more.

We established before that you'll also justify horrible, misleading ads painting McCain as a bigot. So, trying to convince you of anything is pointless. You can keep calling me a wingnut, but you're showing yourself to be a vulgar partisan devoid of ethics. You're part of the problem in America, not the solution. There are those that believe Obama will bring change and a better political climate. Then there are those like you, vicious partisans who engage in the worst kind of politics and celebrate it.

After hearing Ross's intelligent, thoughtful and polite approach to the abortion issue, I've changed my position. previous position: Stay the f*** out of my f****** bedroom and mind your own f***** business. new position: I would respectfully prefer that you apply your ideas about sex, marriage and increasing the population of the planet to your own life and allow others to choose, if they wish, to keep sex and reproduction separate, not contribute to overpopulation, and not to be further punished when they've been raped or otherwise impregnated when they didn't intend to be ... oh, and by the way ... mind your own f****** business.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: We established before that you'll also justify horrible, misleading ads painting McCain as a bigot. So, trying to convince you of anything is pointless. You can keep calling me a wingnut, but you're showing yourself to be a vulgar partisan devoid of ethics. You're part of the problem in America, not the solution.

Call out the wahmbulance. No, to show you I have ethics, I'll stop picking on you now.

Quoting bjkeefe: Call out the wahmbulance.

No, to show you I have ethics, I'll stop picking on you now.

Thank you for confirming my point about your wing of the Democrat party. You guys are hopeless. You rooted for failure in Iraq to spite George Bush, you smeared a great American in John McCain, and you believe it becoming to spread lies and call names. Pathetic.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Thank you for confirming my point about your wing of the Democrat party. You guys are hopeless. You rooted for failure in Iraq to spite George Bush, you smeared a great American in John McCain, and you believe it becoming to spread lies and call names. Pathetic.

You're related to Ann Althouse, aren't you?

Quoting ohcomeon: Also, do you believe a woman must give birth to the child of her incestuous rapist?

Rape and incest account for around 3% of all abortions. I would also note that, in the case of incest, abortion is often used as a means of covering up the crime, so that the incestuous relationship (e.g. between a young girl and her older relative) can continue.

really

Jindal should be as almost as attractive to blacks and hispanics as Palin was to Hillary supporters. It's like failing to see the Shia-Sunni problem.

in spite of my whining, I loved this one and listened to every word, rewinding at times.

Quoting Dilan Esper: As for sexism, as I said, it is inherently misogynist to believe that the interests of a tiny little fetus with no feelings, no consiciousness, and no sense of self outweigh the needs of women to have both full equality in the workplace and in their educations while also having a full and pleasurable sex life without fear of pregnancy. This is what women want, need, and are entitled to. Pro-lifers think tiny tadpole-like beings are more important than the central interests and needs of adult women.

Again, this isn't accurate in terms of the level of fetal development at which most abortions occur. Look, suppose that having pleasurable sex required one every so often to kill a newborn child. Would anyone suggest that this killing was justified for this reason? Of course not. The same goes for the stuff about education, the workplace, and the rest of it.* Well, from the pro-life perspective, attempts to justify abortion in this way are implausible and for the same basic reason. One can dispute the pro-life premise, but if it is granted none of the considerations raised would come close to justifying abortion, let alone showing

Quoting Blackadder: Again, this isn't accurate in terms of the level of fetal development at which most abortions occur.

Look, suppose that having pleasurable sex required one every so often to kill a newborn child. Would anyone suggest that this killing was justified for this reason? Of course not. The same goes for the stuff about education, the workplace, and the rest of it.* Well, from the pro-life perspective, attempts to justify abortion in this way are implausible and for the same basic reason. One can dispute the pro-life premise, but if it is granted none of the considerations raised would come close to justifying abortion, let alone showing that opposing legal abortion makes one a misogynist (in fact, if one grants the pro-life premise many pro-choice arguments take on a rather ghoulish character). The irony is that women tend to be more pro-life than men.

*I would, of course, deny that it really is impossible for women to get educations, compete in the workplace, have pleasurable sex, etc., without legal abortion. But that's a subject for another time.

1. The argument that more women are pro-life than men is (1) false and dishonest pro-life propaganda, dependent on framing the question

Here's a nice recent Gallup poll (neutral polling organization) showing an absolute majority of women are pro-choice: http://www.gallup.com/poll/110002/Wi...rt-McCain.aspx The citation in the comment above claiming otherwise was to a pro-life propaganda group which lies to get its talking point. Another easy way of seeing this is to look at how many female politicians of national prominence are pro-life-- the number is tiny (when Liddy Dole lost, the last pro-life female Senator was knocked out), whereas pro-choice women abound in both parties. (The same is true among female business leaders.) That has something to do with the fact that successful women know intimately that an unplanned pregnancy at the wrong time could have derailed their career, and that they shouldn't have had to give up their sex lives to get ahead.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Fundamental flaw: a child in the womb is not part of your body. It is a separate human entity with a unique genetic code.

One of the impressions that I have gotten in discussing these matters with pro-lifers over the years is that they can understand the rudimentary meaning of concepts like "separate human entity" and yet not grasp its significance. It is true that a fetus has a unique genetic code and can be distinguished from its mother, but up until a certain point (after the 21st week or so), any separation of a fetus from its mother is known as an abortion. If abortion is illegal, it means that the government must have legal control over part of the anatomy of all pregnant women until they give birth. To me, that doesn't seem particularly enforceable nor does it sound compatible with modern society. Now, I understand that the pro-life movement views "human life" as sacred and worth protecting in and of itself. But what I must ask is: On what basis? What makes human life sacred? And in a specific scenario, what is your opinion on the status of an

This is a PRE-viewing comment: This is perhaps the perfect bhtv pairing to begin to hash out the new political reality. Here is my prediction: Ross calmly but firmly declares that Obama didn't win a mandate for his agenda and that attempts to implement it in any but a watered down way will lead to a major backlash in 2010. Bob puts up token opposition to the point but basically concedes it because as the owner-operator of the host he wants to remain the nominally disinterested interlocutor (his favorite role). I will now view the diavlogue and report back on my prediction.

Quoting bjkeefe: Indeed. Between the start of this diavlog and pretty much end to end in his last, I'm for calling him Buzz Kill Bob from now on.

There's a point where playing the skeptical academic, or whatever it is he's trying to do, gets to be eye-roll-provoking carping. I think Bob -- and Glenn Loury -- ought to take a few weeks off. Maybe walk the streets a little bit, and see if they can't find something to believe in besides their own diminished expectations.

No kidding. You'd think nothing good had ever happened in America. We still have slavery, women can't vote, unpropertied men can't vote, nothing ever gets better, why even try. They need to get in the hope frame. It's not like Obama's trying to create heaven on Earth. He's really just trying to get us to be more like every other rich country, and less like a middle income country.

Word 'round the campfire is that Bill Kristol might not get his one-year NYT op-ed contract renewed. Sully passes along a link to a post where you can vote for a replacement, and Ross is one of the nominees.

I do wonder how much rationality can be introduced into the dogma-driven beliefs of the Religious Right pro-lifers. You have to change their ideas about God's intentions. And God doesn't give press availabilities.

Quoting Meng Bomin: One of the impressions that I have gotten in discussing these matters with pro-lifers over the years is that they can understand the rudimentary meaning of concepts like "separate human entity" and yet not grasp its significance. It is true that a fetus has a unique genetic code and can be distinguished from its mother, but up until a certain point (after the 21st week or so), any separation of a fetus from its mother is known as an abortion. If abortion is illegal, it means that the government must have legal control over part of the anatomy of all pregnant women until they give birth. To me, that doesn't seem particularly enforceable nor does it sound compatible with modern society.

Well, the enforceability is a legitimate issue. It's why I don't favor a blanket ban on abortion currently. Well, that and the fact that a majority of Americans believe in legalized abortion. What I favor is greater restrictions on abortion, and a majority of Americans fall within this opinion. Most Americans support the Infant Born Alive Act, and oppose partial birth abortion.

Now, I understand that the pro-life movement views "human life" as

Quoting AemJeff: I really do disagree. I don't think she's stupid, I think she's somewhat narrowly informed and accustomed to getting by on a level of BS that just won't fly at the level she's been playing recently.

Sarah Palin seems to represent a kind of mini-revolution for the belief that Americans are all essentially equals in terms of ability and that the real defining factor of a leader is their authenticity. I was never a great student (unlike Clinton, Clinton, and Obama) so I can see the appeal. The real life Palin supporters I know all can't believe that their girl gets tarred while Hillary, who just went to some liberal college and then practiced law, gets treated like an intellectual heavyweight. Palin went to the same kinds of schools that they went to and has done quite well for herself, they argue, so why can't that translate into success on a national stage? I think it's a really interesting subject. On the one hand, I don't think it's fair to demand that people leave their home states and attend Ivy League schools to enter public life -- that is a lousy form of snobbery. On the other

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Health exceptions as existed were used as blank checks for late term abortions.

I never understand this. Are we to believe that, if left to their own devices, doctors and pregnant women are going to go hog wild, like homeless people at a buffet, on late term abortions? It's not like these offices are offering free massages. They're abortions! People don't enjoy having them done! Seems to me that if you request a late term abortion (given all the psychological difficulties associated with it, the pain, the cost, the general terribleness of the whole ordeal) then you probably need one. Why would the government have any interest in controlling an activity that seems to control itself?

First post from a long-time bhtv viewer... First - this was a great diavlog. Rarely have I seen the broad spectrum of ideas and challenges in today's conservatism so concisely and intelligently identified and discussed. IMO, Bob did a great job framing the discussion and Ross presented his thinking on a possible roadmap for conservatism with great clarity As a libertarian leaning independent, I like a lot of Ross's ideas on how conservatives should proceed to reconstruct a new majority. However, I'm not a social conservative, so in truth I'm not sure I'm even rooting for conservatives to be successful. OTOH, a Republican party lead by Sarah Palin (or her equivalent) that caters only to the fears and prejudice of southern backwaters could turn out very badly for all of us for a lot of reasons.

Oh, and one thought about Palin that's been missed IMO - In many ways her rise and fall was a mini replay of Bush's rise and fall. The media, the punditry, and the country at first loved Palin and praised the brilliance of McCain's pick. Later, they came to mock and even loathe her. In the process, many of the same memes from eight years of Bush emerged. There was blind adoration, incompetence, scapegoating, recrimination, and finally (for the most part) acceptance of reality. Defecting pundits were at first chastised for not following the party script, then the loyalists were ridiculed for following it long after it became silly to do so. For me, it was a replay of the media and punditry of the Bush years. One encouraging thing is that for Palin, the cycle played out very quickly. Maybe nothing has changed and "Reality Based" political coverage isn't as healthy as I think it is, but I am hopeful.

Quoting AemJeff: I really do disagree. I don't think she's stupid, I think she's somewhat narrowly informed and accustomed to getting by on a level of BS that just won't fly at the level she's been playing recently.

Bingo. This is a woman who had an amazing rise to power in Alaskan politics on the basis of her natural intelligence and charisma (two traits that I think are more closely related than some people realize). But that's all she had when McCain picked her, and the results speak for themselves. If Palin intends to enter national politics, she needs to learn a lot in the next few years. I mean that she should be reading think tank pieces and having regular briefings by folks at the Rand Corporation and Heritage Foundation so that she can talk competently about things and (more importantly) develop a political ideology beyond her immediate instincts. But if Palin doesn't expand her knowledge, she's dead.

Quoting magellan: First post from a long-time bhtv viewer...

First - this was a great diavlog. Rarely have I seen the broad spectrum of ideas and challenges in today's conservatism so concisely and intelligently identified and discussed. IMO, Bob did a great job framing the discussion and Ross presented his thinking on a possible roadmap for conservatism with great clarity

As a libertarian leaning independent, I like a lot of Ross's ideas on how conservatives should proceed to reconstruct a new majority. However, I'm not a social conservative, so in truth I'm not sure I'm even rooting for conservatives to be successful. OTOH, a Republican party lead by Sarah Palin (or her equivalent) that caters only to the fears and prejudice of southern backwaters could turn out very badly for all of us for a lot of reasons.

The big thing that Ross didn't hit on (at least that I heard) is the need to emphasize diversity. Well, he might have hit on something along these lines. The GOP needs to put a sock in the Buchananite/Mark Krikorian wing of the party and get back to being the party of diversity and multiculturalism. Palin in

Quoting Dilan Esper: 1. The argument that more women are pro-life than men is (1) false and dishonest pro-life propaganda, dependent on framing the question in a way that ensures that many women who would keep the procedure legal are defined as pro-life, and (2) irrelevant, in that pro-life women have no right to dictate the lives of pro-choice women.

The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and General Social Surveys are pro-life propagandists? If you say so. The fact that more women than men are pro-life may not go to whether the pro-life position is correct, but it does speak to your claim that opposition to abortion is misogynist. While I suppose it's possible for a woman to be a misogynist, the idea that women would be more likely to hold misogynistic views than men is not very plausible.

Quoting Dilan Esper: The fact is gender equality and the sexual revolution are two of the greatest accomplishments in the history of humankind. Before then, 50 percent of human talent was wasted, women lived in a form of slavery, and the central and sublime pleasure of sex was denied to most women.

Does it justify 40 million murders? I don't think so. I find

Quoting cognitive madisonian: The big thing that Ross didn't hit on (at least that I heard) is the need to emphasize diversity. Well, he might have hit on something along these lines. The GOP needs to put a sock in the Buchananite/Mark Krikorian wing of the party and get back to being the party of diversity and multiculturalism. Palin in this regard sends the wrong message due to her natural base of appeal.

I'm afraid that the prospects for the GOP in this regard are not great. If it adopts a immigrant friendly approach this will alienate the white working class voters than make up its core constituency, whereas any attempt to take a hard line on immigration will thwart attempts to expand beyond this base. So long as the immigration issue was on the back burner, it was possible for the Republican coalition to maintain itself despite the internal contradiction. Once the issue came was thrust into the spotlight in 2005 (in what has to be regarded as a bad tactical move on the part of fans of comprehensive immigration reform) this uneasy alliance became untenable.

Quoting Blackadder: I'm afraid that the prospects for the GOP in this regard are not great. If it adopts a immigrant friendly approach this will alienate the white working class voters than make up its core constituency, whereas any attempt to take a hard line on immigration will thwart attempts to expand beyond this base. So long as the immigration issue was on the back burner, it was possible for the Republican coalition to maintain itself despite the internal contradiction. Once the issue came was thrust into the spotlight in 2005 (in what has to be regarded as a bad tactical move on the part of fans of comprehensive immigration reform) this uneasy alliance became untenable.

You're definitely correct in your assessment of the tension there. Ross tries for a solution to placate both sides, but I think it'd satisfy neither. I haven't seen multivariate analysis yet, but I'll be anxious to see how the votes broke down in terms of white 'working class', white middle class, etc. For WWCV, economic issues might be more important in the coming years than immigration. Immigration became a hot topic when the economy was doing

Quoting cognitive madisonian: It also remains to be seen how much economic nationalism becomes in vogue. If WWCV become much more economically nationalist, I think that will pose a greater challenge to rebuilding the coalition, because that hits a major tension that will be at the forefront of discussion. The GOP will struggle to gain diverse support without free trade, because trade matters a great deal to Hispanics and also many Asian Americans.

This may show my political naivete, but I don't think the anger around the immigration issue is just about nationalism. As I've often heard Mickey Kaus point out, there's a difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration. I suspect some of the anger is rooted in "law and order" conservatism as much as it is in nationalism. Ross's suggested compromise, that starts out with decent border security, would greatly reduce the anger that stems from a violated "law and order" sensibility. Although I'm personally in favor of relatively open borders, IMO, there's an inherent unfairness in the current defacto policy that encourages lawbreaking. This unfairness, although explained perfectly by the political forces at work, seems hard to overlook or justify on any rational basis.

Quoting Blackadder: The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and General Social Surveys are pro-life propagandists? If you say so.

The fact that more women than men are pro-life may not go to whether the pro-life position is correct, but it does speak to your claim that opposition to abortion is misogynist. While I suppose it's possible for a woman to be a misogynist, the idea that women would be more likely to hold misogynistic views than men is not very plausible.

Does it justify 40 million murders? I don't think so.

I find the idea that women weren't able to experience the pleasures of sex prior to 1973 to be quite hilarious. Since the matter is obviously very important to you, I would note that religious married women report higher levels of sexual satisfaction than other women. Does that mean that we should impose a theocracy, so that more women can experience the "central and sublime pleasure" of a full sex life? If not, then a fortiori I don't see how it could justify abortion.

1. There are no "murders" here. Killing a tadpole isn't "murder". And labeling women who are trying to strive to better themselves and achieve equality, and the

I cannot listen to anyone who considers Palin a potential future President. She is a religious maniac who knows very little about the world.
Mc Cain was an old fool to pick her. Lets just forget about the Hillbillies from Wasilla.

The immigration issue was not even brought up in this election. In California it's a pretty hot issue. I don't see any movement on it for at least a couple of years. I have studied this one to death and the best I can come up with is it's win-win for both parties. The dems and repubs like it the way it is for there own particular reasons which are many and varied. Now, for the people in the country its' a different matter. I think most viscerally don't like the illegal part of it. However, if you don't live in a state that's highly impacted by it then on a priority range it's quite low. Generally, with the high rates of Hispanic visibility in public life and starting to vote in large numbers it's become a hot potato that no one wants to touch. Someday the current convoluted, non-sensical immigration policy will have to be dealt with but I don't know when that will be. John

Quoting schumacher: I cannot listen to anyone who considers Palin a potential future President.

She is a religious maniac who knows very little about the world.

Mc Cain was an old fool to pick her.

Lets just forget about the Hillbillies from Wasilla.

I think this type of vitriolic talk has run it's course. I have followed politics closely for 30 years and am frankly getting tired of it and believe it serves no purpose. Some people on all sides of the political spectrum engage in it and find no efficacy in this kind of discourse. There are so many problems facing American in 2008 and think it's time we came together and work for our betterment. Calling one another names will not even get us to first base. Civility is what is needed now and in the future. This includes soon to be President Obama's inappropriate remark about First Lady Nancy Reagan that he promptly phoned her and apologized for. John

I don't see how a planet-wide equalization of wages would be bad for Americans. Certainly it would not be so by definition. .

Yes, by definition that is bad for americans. we are on the high side of the distribution. to equalize that distribution means that american wages will drop precipitously. It would be good for those on the bottom end of the spectrum, so you can make a moral argument that it is the right thing to do. but it is bad for americans.

So you respect Racism? or are there some ideas that are not worthy of respect? I am intolerant of intolerance. If your ideology is merely odd, different, or even stupid, in my opinion, then yes i will try to respect your point of view. When your ideas oh say, promote the genocide of all Jews like the Nazis did, then yes it is time to stop respecting your ideas. please note that i am not comparing you to a nazi, I am pointing out that you don't really believe in tolerance of all other ideas either. nobody does.

If the story is true that she didn't know that Africa is a continent and not a country and she couldn't name the countries of NAFTA (two questions that probably wouldn't even make it onto Jeopardy because they are too easy), I would have to lean towards "stupid" or at least "woefully ignorant." I don't think either of those adjectives would necesarrily prevent someone from becoming a governor of a small (population-wise) and relatively irrelevant state. I don't think her achievements are any proof of intelligence.

Quoting Dilan Esper: There are no "murders" here. Killing a tadpole isn't "murder".

True, but then an unborn child is not a tadpole. If one has to make the case for abortion by relying on basic biological ignorance, then it probably isn't that strong.

Quoting Dilan Esper: I cited the Gallup poll. A majority of women are pro-choice. You cited a website sponsored by a misogynist group, the American Family Association. The pro-life movement is a bunch of liars on this issue.

The data in the article I linked to comes from the General Social Survey and a couple of professors at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute. The Gallop poll you cited is not to the contrary (you do realize that there is a difference between saying that there are more pro-life women than pro-life men and saying that there are more pro-life women than pro-choice women, right?)

Quoting popcorn_karate: Yes, by definition that is bad for americans. we are on the high side of the distribution. to equalize that distribution means that american wages will drop precipitously.

There are two ways to equalize wages between two different groups. One can bring the wages in the higher group down, or one can bring the wages in the lower group up. In the former case those in the higher group will end up worse off, in the latter case they will not. Since both are possibilities, neither can be said to be true by definition. In terms of what is likely (rather than what is or isn't true by definition), experience indicates that the latter possibility is the more likely result of trade. When wages in South Korea, for example, rose closer to parity with American wages, this didn't result in an impoverishment of America. In fact, Americans were themselves made better off by being able to trade with South Korea. The same is true of current trade with China, as the study I linked to earlier makes clear.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: If the story is true that she didn't know that Africa is a continent and not a country and she couldn't name the countries of NAFTA (two questions that probably wouldn't even make it onto Jeopardy because they are too easy), I would have to lean towards "stupid" or at least "woefully ignorant."

If it's true. I'm inclined to doubt it.

I don't think either of those adjectives would necesarrily prevent someone from becoming a governor of a small (population-wise) and relatively irrelevant state. I don't think her achievements are any proof of intelligence.

Have you ever been the boss of anything? I don't mean to demean you, I'm only wondering if you've ever acted in a leadership capacity. Because if you have, I have to believe you wouldn't make such a statement. Great intelligence does not inherently correlate to great leadership. To be a good leader requires a certain amount of intelligence, but not as high as you may think. At least in terms of so called 'book-smarts.' FDR was a C student, Hoover an A student and absolute genius. Yet in leadership, Hoover wasn't quite up to the task, whereas FDR was. Leading a state, no matter the size, is difficult. Doing it

Quoting magellan: This may show my political naivete, but I don't think the anger around the immigration issue is just about nationalism. As I've often heard Mickey Kaus point out, there's a difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration.

I suspect some of the anger is rooted in "law and order" conservatism as much as it is in nationalism. Ross's suggested compromise, that starts out with decent border security, would greatly reduce the anger that stems from a violated "law and order" sensibility.

I don't really disagree. I've talked to first and second generation immigrants who are absolutely against an amnesty program. They went through the process and their position is, "hey, I waited, I made the sacrifice. Don't reward them for not doing so." And, I don't want to impugn the motives of all other conservatives. Yes, there are some folks out there who are genuine about it being a law and order issue. But there are also a lot of people who are making this a very ugly and unpleasant "culture" issue, folks like Krikorian.

Although I'm personally in favor of relatively open borders, IMO, there's an inherent unfairness in the current defacto policy that encourages lawbreaking. This unfairness, although explained perfectly by the

Quoting Blackadder: In terms of what is likely (rather than what is or isn't true by definition), experience indicates that the latter possibility is the more likely result of trade. When wages in South Korea, for example, rose closer to parity with American wages, this didn't result in an impoverishment of America. In fact, Americans were themselves made better off by being able to trade with South Korea. The same is true of current trade with China, as the study I linked to earlier makes clear.

I'm completely with you till the last sentence. I appreciate the link, and I acknowledge that Chinese goods may offset inequality. (Remember, I didn't say I thougth free trade was bad. Merely that I didn't think Ross was on firm ground there.) The paper doesn't make its point "clear," but it does advance the argument. I'm not an economist, so I can't judge it very well, but here are some quotes: page 26 (conclusions):

Using detailed household consumption data between 1994 and 2005, we find that this “price effect” offsets almost all the rise in inequality measured by official statistics over this period. In particular, this offsetting effect comes from the fact that non-durable inflation faced by the poor was smaller

Quoting Blackadder: True, but then an unborn child is not a tadpole. If one has to make the case for abortion by relying on basic biological ignorance, then it probably isn't that strong.

The data in the article I linked to comes from the General Social Survey and a couple of professors at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute. The Gallop poll you cited is not to the contrary (you do realize that there is a difference between saying that there are more pro-life women than pro-life men and saying that there are more pro-life women than pro-choice women, right?)

1. A fetus isn't an "unborn child". It is something that is akin to a tadpole. It can't think, it doesn't feel, it has no sense of self, it has no dreams and aspirations, it just swims around. It is also a parasite, in that its survival can harm its host. Meanwhile, its host is a living breathing thinking woman with real hopes, aspirations, and interests which can be ruined by privileging this thing inside her. 2. A majority of women are pro-choice. Who cares whether the pro-life minority is slightly larger among women? Why do they get to tell the

The power of the modern executive is such that I wonder if it makes sense to think as hard about party definition and Bob and Ross are doing here. The party in power is defined quite strongly by the President. Or, at least, the party's incoherence gets papered-over so there is a facade of party definition. Now it's the Republicans' turn to look incoherent for four years. I suspect the Republicans will find a way to drift towards those in the electorate who become disenchanted with the Obama administration.

Brendan, thanks for the tip. I have followed your suggestion.

Quoting Simon Willard: Brendan, thanks for the tip. I have followed your suggestion.

You're welcome. Thanks for voting! ;^)

Ross does a seven-minute interview on this week's On The Media, focusing on where the rightwing media goes from here. Annoying 40-second promo message at the start, but worth it. For balance, there's also a segment with Eric Boehlert. The whole show is available here, for stream or download.

Listening to Ross talking to Bob, I just keep thinking, why isn't he a Democrat? He's not that much to the right of me, and I consider myself pretty liberal. It took me a couple of days to figure it out, but I think I've got it. Ross is trying to develop policies that improve people's lives. He wants to use government to improve society. That makes him a progressive. The biggest difference between progressives and conservatives isn't that they disagree regarding the means to achieving our country's potential. It's that conservatives just don't care. And by caring I don't me talking about it at campaign time, I mean actually caring enough to do something about problems. More cuts to the capital gains rate isn't going to keep families together. By caring Ross gives himself away. He's just another reformer, like Daniel Patrick Moynahan, or like Barack Obama, or like me. For example, except for Ross, what kind of Republican cares about the effect of long commutes on family life? In my part of the country Republicans stand for more highways, lower gas taxes, getting rid of HOV lanes and transit, and sprawl. Which is a recipe for longer commutes. I see what Ross is

As anecdotal evidence of the lack of interest in problem-solving among the Republican base, I give you this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB-jdJpvhxk (why can't we embed?) Note where the crowd erupts. Does anyone think that this crowd was somehow different than the Republican base?

Quoting claymisher: Listening to Ross talking to Bob, I just keep thinking, why isn't he a Democrat?

Apart from his anti-choice stance, I sometimes think that Ross describes himself as a conservative because it's easier to get pundit gigs if you bill yourself as a (thoughtful) conservative.

Aw hey, we're not supposed to question motives. But I expect he's a conservative for the reason most conservatives are: he hates the left. Check this out: McCain chief strategist Steve Schmidt, interviewed by Ana Marie Cox:

Can I also add to the thought about where we’ll get the ideas of the party? There is a new generation—there are leaders that have emerged from this campaign that are worth paying attention to. Governor Romney did a fantastic job in this campaign and is certainly an important voice on the national stage. Newt Gingrich is someone that the party in my view must pay very close attention to because he is an idea champion for the future and has many great ideas about how to define 21st-century conservatism and how to define the Republican Party and to establish an intellectual base on which a political movement can be rebuilt.

That's right, Romney and Gingrich are the new generation of Republican thinkers! Rejoice!

That's right, Romney and Gingrich are the new generation of Republican thinkers! Rejoice!

Not so fast. They will do a reality check and look instead at Jindal, Palenti (spelling?) and Palin. Even the Republicans cannot fail to realize that all their old white guys are really obnoxious and out-of-touch.

Quoting Wonderment: Not so fast. They will do a reality check and look instead at Jindal, Palenti (spelling?) and Palin.

Even the Republicans cannot fail to realize that all their old white guys are really obnoxious and out-of-touch.

Did you mean Pawlenty? Okay, maybe not so old.

Quoting claymisher: Aw hey, we're not supposed to question motives. But I expect he's a conservative for the reason most conservatives are: he hates the left.

Could be -- a feeling of alienation formed at college or something. Ask garbagecowboy about that sometime.

That's right, Romney and Gingrich are the new generation of Republican thinkers! Rejoice!

Heh. I think Gingrich got the message from his own party this year -- remember that one week when he was making noise about tossing his hat in the ring? And I can't resist repeating the great Jon Chait line:

Newt Gingrich is living proof that you can acquire a reputation as a man of ideas merely by insisting with sufficient repetitiveness that you care deeply about ideas. (It helps to occasionally cite some semi-obscure author as a seminal influence. Actually understanding said author is unnecessary.)

I can't think of any ideas I've ever heard from Romney apart from "double Gitmo." I have the feeling that his supposed financial/economic acumen was only mentioned this past campaign because McCain and Palin were even less well-informed on such matters. So, I'm with you. If these are the GOP's point men on ideas, then I think we

I just counted them up, and this is Bob's 205th diavlog. Yes, you could go about 8 and a half days straight (assuming you didn't fall asleep) watching Bob on Bloggingheads and never watch the same moment twice.

Quoting Nate: I just counted them up, and this is Bob's 205th diavlog. Yes, you could go about 8 and a half days straight (assuming you didn't fall asleep) watching Bob on Bloggingheads and never watch the same moment twice.

Wait a minute. I dispute your concluding assertion. I bet we could knock a day off just by eliminating all the times he's said, "Oh, Mickey." In all seriousness, though, I can think of a lot of other weeks in my life I've spent a lot less productively.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Yeah, right now we have defacto amnesty with the occasional capricious raid that just disrupts good, hard working people's lives.

Well said. Worst of both worlds, in a lot of ways.

Quoting claymisher: Check this out:

McCain chief strategist Steve Schmidt, interviewed by Ana Marie Cox: ...

Also interesting, from that same interview, was his blatant implication that Sarah Palin is nowhere near ready to be president:

[Q:] But she'll have to show she's competent at a national level—which she didn't really show. When you look at the numbers, it seems that the vast majority of voters weren’t critical of her over trivial things—clothes, for instance—but rather they were deeply concerned that she wasn’t ready to be president.

[A:] Looking into the future, every candidate for president, in order to win their party’s nomination and ultimately to win the presidency itself, has to demonstrate to the party and then to the American people that they’re ready to be president. If she were to run for president, she will have to cross that bar.

Can I also add to the thought about where we’ll get the ideas of the party?

Whereupon he goes on to talk about Mitt and Newt.

Romney spent his entire candidacy insisting that he had no ideas at all! You don't get Rush Limbaugh's endorsement by having new ideas.

And as for Newt, who could forget this?

I was just lamenting the other day that Bob has the gumption to nit-pick on Obama's speech rather than simply enjoy it the way that even Ross D and Will B were able to. I think to prove his point, Bob should deliver the speech that he would have written for Obama, as his next monovlog, and let us be the judge over whether it is better than the speech that will go down in history. Whaddaya say Bob? Do you think you can make __ Million people weep in joy and dance in the streets (as they were in Venice, CA)?

Quoting claymisher: And as for Newt, who could forget this?

Nice. Thanks for the link. What ever happened to the old Bob, who was unafraid to bash Republicans?

Quoting claymisher: Romney spent his entire candidacy insisting that he had no ideas at all! You don't get Rush Limbaugh's endorsement by having new ideas.

Yeah, no shit. If the GOP candidates, during the past primary season, had been banned from uttering any sentences containing the word "Reagan," they could have condensed all of their debates combined into one six-minute session.

I think the country would benefit from a whole lot less anger attached to the abortion issue- and for starters, for both sides to acknowledge that this is an issue about which good people can disagree. I myself am that rare animal, a pro-life liberal, and I am most definitely in it for the fetuses. My pro-life values are informed by my life experience as a survivor of severe child abuse- I just can’t stand the idea that in weighing the parents’ needs against the child, the parents get 100%, the child 0%. I do think there is a way for Democratic and progressive politicians to get pro-life votes, but NOT the way Bob suggested. (If you’re in it for the fetuses, you aren’t going to be moved by some Democrat saying “hey, I don’t like free sex either!”.) I think the path to compromise (for progressives) is to explicitly offer a commitment to realistic non-coercive abortion reduction: subsidized contraception and subsidized child care for low-income folk, for example. Abortion is increasingly a function of poverty- and the Republicans, while opposing abortion in their platform, are creating the very conditions guaranteed to increase the number of abortions. And by the way, a fetus

Quoting Andrya6: I think the country would benefit from a whole lot less anger attached to the abortion issue- and for starters, for both sides to acknowledge that this is an issue about which good people can disagree. I myself am that rare animal, a pro-life liberal, and I am most definitely in it for the fetuses. My pro-life values are informed by my life experience as a survivor of severe child abuse- I just can’t stand the idea that in weighing the parents’ needs against the child, the parents get 100%, the child 0%.

I do think there is a way for Democratic and progressive politicians to get pro-life votes, but NOT the way Bob suggested. (If you’re in it for the fetuses, you aren’t going to be moved by some Democrat saying “hey, I don’t like free sex either!”.)

I think the path to compromise (for progressives) is to explicitly offer a commitment to realistic non-coercive abortion reduction: subsidized contraception and subsidized child care for low-income folk, for example. Abortion is increasingly a function of poverty- and the Republicans, while opposing abortion in their platform, are creating the very conditions guaranteed to increase the number of abortions.

And by the way, a fetus

Quoting Andrya6: I think the country would benefit from a whole lot less anger attached to the abortion issue- and for starters, for both sides to acknowledge that this is an issue about which good people can disagree. I myself am that rare animal, a pro-life liberal, and I am most definitely in it for the fetuses. My pro-life values are informed by my life experience as a survivor of severe child abuse- I just can’t stand the idea that in weighing the parents’ needs against the child, the parents get 100%, the child 0%.

I do think there is a way for Democratic and progressive politicians to get pro-life votes, but NOT the way Bob suggested. (If you’re in it for the fetuses, you aren’t going to be moved by some Democrat saying “hey, I don’t like free sex either!”.)

I think the path to compromise (for progressives) is to explicitly offer a commitment to realistic non-coercive abortion reduction: subsidized contraception and subsidized child care for low-income folk, for example. Abortion is increasingly a function of poverty- and the Republicans, while opposing abortion in their platform, are creating the very conditions guaranteed to increase the number of abortions.

And by the way, a fetus

If you look at the polling data, only about 10% think abortion should never be permitted, even in case of rape. Now if you think abortion is murder, this is the only sensible position. So only about 10% are in it for the fetuses. Another 31% think it should be permitted only in cases of rape/incest.

I agree with your overall post, but I think you're misinterpreting the data here. The 31% are people strongly opposed to abortion. They may (reluctantly) allow some narrow exceptions for rape and incest, but they are still insistent that women's abortion rights be reduced to near zero. The real question is for what percentage of voters is pro-choice a deal-breaker? What percentage on each side would never vote for a pro-lifer or a pro-choicer? It's hard to figure out because the social issues tend to cluster together.

Quoting claymisher: And as for Newt ...

Above: Newt Gingrich, pictured with everyone who wants to listen to his ideas. ==========
(pic. source)