It’s been busy as of late, but I’ve got 5 articles currently in review. And that is an impressive feat, to say the least. If this school doesn’t’ give me tenure, I think I’ll be OK with that; I wouldn’t want to be here anyway.
Now that I’m taking a breather, I’ll look at this MH argument and assess it for it’s quality.
In the first paragraph, the author makes the argument that the nature of the office will overshadow the values of the person in it. And I still don’t know how to respond. The alcoholic will often change jobs or even move to new cities to try to flee from their problems. However, since they (themselves) are the problems, their location or position in life is entirely moot. I can’t see how the author’s argument is all that different. If MH is pro government expansion/entitlements for his social causes at a state level, then he will be included to sign such tripe in a federal office as well. I just can’t see how anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty can believe otherwise. It's as if to say that a fox will change it's nature (and not eat the farmer's livestock) if the fox is somehow given a new job title; reality suggests that the nature of the fox will remain a fox. Further, the author espouses conservative ideas in theory, but there’s no way that they can be applied to MH, given his well-documented record of governmental expansionism and entitlements (which I have documented in a previous post).
The second paragraph is an ivory tower argument. (And as a member of such tower, I can smell my own.) Citing theoretical dynamics is quaint, and great for intellectual masturbation—but ultimately fails the vast majority of the time. (Only to be “fixed” with another layer of “fixes”.) Yes—in theory, the federal government should only be responsible for a select few responsibilities, but liberalism is increasing its entitlements as a means of expanding their voting base. MH has a history and reputation of government expansionism and entitlements. To deny this correlation is intellectually dishonest.
The third paragraph cites that since the author hasn’t heard about any of MH’s expansionistic behaviors, they are moot. I guess since I haven’t heard about an influenza outbreak at my church or workplace, I've got nothing to worry about...
The final paragraph seems to be the stink test. (i.e., which candidate stinks the least?) This one has a bit of merit in that its, at least, founded in realism. However, why face reality now?--when the past 3 paragraphs are theoretically based? In theory, why can’t the conservative movement produce a decent candidate? I want someone I can vote for, rather than candidates I will vote against.
The funny thing is that ALL the candidates, on both sides of the isle, are fatally flawed. BO is the essence of vapid inexperience. Billary is billary. McCain fingers conservatism and republicans for decades, only now to cite his “Reagonism”. MH has great one-liners, but fails to demonstrate that he understands the principles of fiscal conservatism. The mormon had issues of his own, which I cant begin to account for either. It’s just one big disappointment—which gives me a sense of freedom, because it’s crap no matter how it turns out.
To me, the interesting question is the VP. If BO is nominated, who’s the VP? It won’t be Billary, as she would likely knock off the sitting president in a matter of months. (Vince Foster, anyone?) McCain—heck, that would probably be Liberman. Billary would likely choose Richardson for the Hispanic vote.
And I shall digress…
Now that I’m taking a breather, I’ll look at this MH argument and assess it for it’s quality.
In the first paragraph, the author makes the argument that the nature of the office will overshadow the values of the person in it. And I still don’t know how to respond. The alcoholic will often change jobs or even move to new cities to try to flee from their problems. However, since they (themselves) are the problems, their location or position in life is entirely moot. I can’t see how the author’s argument is all that different. If MH is pro government expansion/entitlements for his social causes at a state level, then he will be included to sign such tripe in a federal office as well. I just can’t see how anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty can believe otherwise. It's as if to say that a fox will change it's nature (and not eat the farmer's livestock) if the fox is somehow given a new job title; reality suggests that the nature of the fox will remain a fox. Further, the author espouses conservative ideas in theory, but there’s no way that they can be applied to MH, given his well-documented record of governmental expansionism and entitlements (which I have documented in a previous post).
The second paragraph is an ivory tower argument. (And as a member of such tower, I can smell my own.) Citing theoretical dynamics is quaint, and great for intellectual masturbation—but ultimately fails the vast majority of the time. (Only to be “fixed” with another layer of “fixes”.) Yes—in theory, the federal government should only be responsible for a select few responsibilities, but liberalism is increasing its entitlements as a means of expanding their voting base. MH has a history and reputation of government expansionism and entitlements. To deny this correlation is intellectually dishonest.
The third paragraph cites that since the author hasn’t heard about any of MH’s expansionistic behaviors, they are moot. I guess since I haven’t heard about an influenza outbreak at my church or workplace, I've got nothing to worry about...
The final paragraph seems to be the stink test. (i.e., which candidate stinks the least?) This one has a bit of merit in that its, at least, founded in realism. However, why face reality now?--when the past 3 paragraphs are theoretically based? In theory, why can’t the conservative movement produce a decent candidate? I want someone I can vote for, rather than candidates I will vote against.
The funny thing is that ALL the candidates, on both sides of the isle, are fatally flawed. BO is the essence of vapid inexperience. Billary is billary. McCain fingers conservatism and republicans for decades, only now to cite his “Reagonism”. MH has great one-liners, but fails to demonstrate that he understands the principles of fiscal conservatism. The mormon had issues of his own, which I cant begin to account for either. It’s just one big disappointment—which gives me a sense of freedom, because it’s crap no matter how it turns out.
To me, the interesting question is the VP. If BO is nominated, who’s the VP? It won’t be Billary, as she would likely knock off the sitting president in a matter of months. (Vince Foster, anyone?) McCain—heck, that would probably be Liberman. Billary would likely choose Richardson for the Hispanic vote.
And I shall digress…
posted by Greg | 4:16 PM
2 Comments:
The only thing I had a reaction to here was saying McCain would probably pick Lieberman for his running mate. I disagree. I think he knows he can't win without significant conservative support, so I think he'll go with someone with more "conservative cred". No idea who that'd be, though.
And I actually think the common wisdom is that "Billary" already has the Hispanic vote--although I think some of the more recent primary/caucus results are casting doubt on that.
Liberman was hyperbole, but really--not beyond reason.
I think there's little chance of the Maverick getting conservative support. For him, it all comes down to the stink test--which is his only hope.
Post a Comment
<< Home