GOP Primary Megathread!

[Jacob]

I think we've also established that Canadian Conservatism is different from US Conservatism.

US Conservatism is a unique thing for sure....

[derspiess]

No, being the one who knows exactly how gutless I think you are, I can assuredly say that you are wrong here.

I think we're talking past each other now.

Yes.  You said as much yourself: "Okay, since it apparently means so much to you guys for me to form an opinion on the issue, I decided to give it a little thought and form one."  You interpreted criticism of your unwillingness to oppose anti-liberty legislation from your side as mere criticism of your lack of an opinion, and so attempted to mitigate the criticism you thought you were getting by an insipid and uninformed cursory "opinion" that you thought would obviate the need for defending yourself based on principles and courage.

You seem to be unable (or more likely unwilling) to detect sarcasm. 

I don't think you understand my position, nor perhaps Berkut's.

I do.  I even stated that I knew my reasons for deciding to oppose the law were different from Berkut's, and it's pretty clear that I stated reasons different from yours.  I *knew* you guys would take objection to my reasons, and I did not take a the position I did in order to please either of you.  If you think I did, you need to get over yourself.

You do get shit for basing opinions on expediency while claiming to be guided by principles.  Sorry, but you can't change your spots.  You can't even see them, it appears to me.

Being the one who knows exactly how I formulated my opinion, I can assuredly say that you are wrong here.

Simply put, the reason I decided to formulate an opinion and the reasons for forming the opinion I did are two separate things.  So put your strawman away.

[Sheilbh]

Abortion is one of those issues that historically seemed to cut across party and ideological lines.  I know that for the last 30 years the pro-life position has solidified behind the GOP in the US, but I don't see any ideological basis for it.  As you and I have discussed the Catholic church takes generally a left-wing position on most issues, but is of course staunchly anti-abortion.

I think that because it was decided by the Supreme Court, which is politically appointed, it would almost inevitably become a partisan issue.  If the only way to get rid of abortion is to change the Supreme Court then you'll take over a party to get President's who'll appoint pro-life judges and Senators who'll support them.

In this country it's for the legislature, it's a free vote and while Tories, in general, vote against abortion more than other parties, opposition is cross-party.  For example, there's a pretty solid rump of devoutly Catholic old Labour votes against abortion from cities like Liverpool and Glasgow (Galloway used to be one).  I think if it was still an issue in the legislatures in the US it'd be the same.

[grumbler]

Opposition to abortion is a pretty fundamentally conservative opinion.

This is the fallacy known as "begging the question." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

I suspect you're trying to draw me into some sort of trap here, with calling yourself conservative rather than *a* conservative.  But I'll play.  In what ways are you conservative?

I am not sure what the difference is between being conservative and being *a* conservative (they seem to be the adjective and noun forms of the exact same word), but I will assume that the difference is something that matters to some secret handshake group and doesn't apply to me.

I am conservative in that I oppose change for the sake of change, and hold with conserving  things which have served well.  I believe that, while change is necessary, change has a transaction cost that proponents of change tend to ignore, and so I support only those changes whose benefits seem likely to heavily outweigh the benefits of the existing alternatives, because i think that the law of unintended consequences bites harder on change than continuity.

Arguments that conservatives must be statists who want to impose their own religious/moral views on others is false - that's what the abortion debate is all about.  I am a libertarian conservative, in that I think the best way to avoid the law of unintended consequences is to limit the power of the state to make any changes that affect the lives of its citizens, and the more effect a change will have, the harder I want it to be for the state to make it.

There is nothing fundamentally conservative about adopting laws designed to make it harder, more humiliating, or more dangerous to get an abortion.  In fact, I'd say those were anti-conservative laws, which is why the Virginia Republicans amuse me so much, with their whole "Emperor has no clothes" approach to "conservatism."  They appear to me to care not a whit that their new law directly violates the concept of their anti-Obama stance on the insurance mandate, which they opposed in court because in order to "preserve the choice of all Virginians from having to pay for health care they don't need, want, or can't afford" (from the preamble to the Virginia Republicans' "Virginia Health Care Freedom Act").

I think it is clear here who the real conservative is, here, and who those guys are that just claim to be conservative to get the support of gullible conservatives to pursue a campaign that is really reactionary, not conservative at all.

[Jacob]

Santorum suspends his campaign: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120410/us-santorum/

So long and thanks for the laughs!

[derspiess]

I guess we were both wrong, Shielbh. 

[Sheilbh]

I guess we were both wrong, Shielbh.

Indeed

[garbon]

Santorum suspends his campaign: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120410/us-santorum/

So long and thanks for the laughs!

How sad!

[MadImmortalMan]

Gingrich will stay in to do fundraising and trim down as much of that debt as he can. Once that dries up, he'll drop too.

[Jacob]

Gingrich will stay in to do fundraising and trim down as much of that debt as he can. Once that dries up, he'll drop too.

Doesn't seem a compelling case to make a donation.

[Viking]

Gingrich will stay in to do fundraising and trim down as much of that debt as he can. Once that dries up, he'll drop too.

Doesn't seem a compelling case to make a donation.

He's less likely to retire if he's broke. If that isn't a good reason to donate I don't know what is.

[Sheilbh]

Gingrich will stay in to do fundraising and trim down as much of that debt as he can. Once that dries up, he'll drop too.

Given Newt's ego he's probably thinking 'this is my moment!'

[HVC]

Given Newt's ego it's more likely he's sizing up which intern will be his next wife.

[Razgovory]

What a bizarre turn this took.  Why are people telling the conservative what conservatives think?  Derspeiss is a conservative, it's his ideology.  Those balls of light like Berkut and Grumbler are beyond such tribal trivialities, why are they telling Derspeiss what he should think?  I took a nap it's like everyone took idiot pills.

[grumbler]

You're right. I think it's just that the selfish strain of American libertarianism seem more vociferous right now... actually, not even that, but that ideological selfishness is using the language of liberty to justify their positions. I don't want to get into a "no true libertarian scotsman" situation. Sufficeth to say, I have high respect for the principle of freedom as espoused, and often enacted, by the American people at their best.

Okay.  Maybe you were talking about the American Libertarian Party, which I agree seems mostly motivated by personal gain than principle.  That's a tiny, tiny sliver of the libertarian movement in the US, though.  I have never met one, myself.