Skip to comments.Moderate Republicans need to defend ideals (revealing piece)
Posted on 07/02/2014 5:37:28 AM PDT by cotton1706
I have fond memories of my internship on Capitol Hill last summer, many of which have broadened my understanding of the political culture brewing in Washington. As I mentioned already in the Daily, I had the privilege of meeting Bill Nye, Francis Collins and other well-known faces.
It would be difficult, though, for me to place those delightful occasions ahead of the durable friendships I built during that time. These friendships crossed party lines and I found that we could have thoughtful discussions from across the aisle, absent the scant and cheap points typical of the comments section of any newspaper.
I remember frequently declining invitations to a round of drinks after work in order to spend extra time discussing policy in a Republican office with my Republican friends. A byproduct of those conversations was the subtle realization that there is still a great deal of reason found in the Republican Party, despite the festoon of superstition, ignorance and imprecision adorned by its tea party compatriots.
Safeguarding that reason is of utmost importance to the identity of the Republican Party. Where once the tea party was an asset to the GOP, it has now become a liability.
Despite taking some recent blows, the tea party movement continues to challenge establishment
(Excerpt) Read more at iowastatedaily.com ...
“Moderate” republicans don’t have any ideals.
There, fixed it.
“Moderate republicans dont have any ideals.”
Oh, but they do! They just “happen” to be the same ideals as the democrats.
Youth of college-age are probably allowed to be callow and crass to the level seen in this article. Perhaps when he has a job and sees the difference between “gross” and “net”, he’ll begin to understand the nature of the leviathan known as government.
Another pimp of the election industry who does not understand that COMPROMISE to a LIBERAL or a DEMOCRAP means accepting their position on everything. If anyone fails to that they are branded as Right Wing Extremists or Racist or Homophobe or the current BRANDING LABEL!
Well, maybe one - conflict avoidance. "Can't we all just get along?"
Moderate Republicans do nothing more than rubber stamp Democratic Party policies and ideas. These knucklehead centrists in the GOP just don’t get it. They think the Democrats want to find common ground with them but they don’t. That party has a whole different mindset and has an agenda none of us want. Being nice and giving in to the left only emboldens them to chart their radical course even more. Why can’t these idiots in the GOPe see that? What a waste of time. We all know the answer and that is the GOPe and the Democratic Party are one in the same.
So what he’s saying is- support moderates we stand for nothing and when leftists tell us what the center is we will accommodate them even if its unConstitutional.
Know of people like that, they stand by and do nothing as children are abused. More evil than the abuser cause they don’t want anyone to not like them so they do nothing.
Statist Republicans can easily find common ground with other statists, because they aren’t arguing about whether to put dog crap in the ice cream, but rather about how much to stir in.
People who refuse to eat dog crap understand that any compromise on the subject is a total loss.
“If you visit teaparty.org, give yourself the amusement in reading the poorly structured and comical About Us page. “
One must assume that Michael Glawe is one of those faux elitist Marxist A-holes.....typical of modern day Dimocraps.
I am reminded of an eloquent quote by Karl Marx: Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and cull the living flower.
Absurdly, the propositions put forth by the religious gain robustness when backed by a quote from the Bible. Again, this is allowed by somewhat of a social acceptance. Closer scrutiny reveals what were asked to believe, and the concluded logic perceived by many opposed is, Indeed, what I say is true for it was written in the Bible, and the Bible is true because I say it is true. In the spirit of the Socratic method, I find this to be a contemptible position and unworthy of public discourse.
Indeed, it is arrogant to claim superiority in the realm of truth, and it is a betrayal of the mind to blindly accept the poisoned chalice offered. Lets instead replace the preachers at the free speech zone with Socratic warriors. Wielding our reason, we may march forth to mount the scaffold and advance to the muzzles of guns with perfect nonchalance.
By Michael Glawe, email@example.com | Posted 9 months ago
Ever notice how it’s ALWAYS the GOP who needs to be “moderate”??? Do we ever here these journaltwits calling for “moderate Democrats”??
“...The Republicans who are worthy of respect are those who arent afraid of evidence that could usurp their positions and are willing to find a middle ground, if even for small victories....”
The Republicans who are worthy of respect are those actually STAND UP for Republican ideals and fight democrat Marxism. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, LtC Alan West, Sarah Palin, Trey Gowdy, Louie Gohmert... they’re the ones who deserve respect.
The only thing that standing in “Middle ground” does is get you run over by one side or the other.
Moderate = spineless traitor who will compromise your rights away.
“... As we witnessed in Cantors defeat, duty to the party supersedes compromise. ...”
Cantor was defeated BECAUSE he went “moderate” and was willing to compromise our security and national sovereignty away with his shilling for amnesty.
“The Peasants Are Revolting” - oh my dear Muffie, whatever shall we do?
So now the elitist RINO’s are calling the Tea Party elitist? What breathtaking arrogance. These RINO’s are going down. They know their days are numbered and they can’t stand it.
I read the whole thing, and didn’t see the ideals. “Me too, just not quite so much as the Democrats” isn’t much of an ideal.
If this idiot is a ‘moderate’ then give me extremism!
When someone is willing to compromise principles, that person has no principles to begin with. One doesn’t compromise with evil and liberalism is evil.
an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.
principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one’s principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.
Glawe: Climate change requires no debate
By Michael Glawe - (intern on Capitol Hill)
firstname.lastname@example.org | Posted 1 month ago
I was once given the opportunity to meet Bill Nye “The Science Guy.” By meet, I mean to say that I actually had a conversation with the man. I was a lowly intern on The Hill in Washington D.C., clamoring for the chance to rub shoulders with the elites. My supervisor informed me that Nye graced Congress with his presence, and that if I hurried, I still might be able to catch a glimpse of my hero. I sprinted down the polished marble hall toward the committee room where he had recently given a lecture on education. I turned the corner, and there he was. He was speaking with a colleague, a conversation which I did not wish to interrupt. I intended only to take a quick picture of him. A lady, whose shiny lanyard hinted at officialdom, approached me and asked if I wished to meet my hero. I did, and so I was introduced.
Many of Nyes public appearances reveal the same humility. Indeed, his crusade against climate change deniers and believers in Young Earth Creationism shows a man who is willing to abandon the innocence of childhood education and rise in defense of science. The opposition is often cringeworthy and infuriating, but Nye always keeps his composure.
John Oliver perhaps explained the dichotomy of the climate change debate best when he said, More often than not, its Bill Nye the Science Guy versus some dude. The climate change debate has thrust Nye to the forefront of public discourse. The problem, however, is that Nye is too nice, too understanding and too respectful. As Nye once said, What [people] have done is used the word science in this new way.” He then added that they “take scientific uncertainty ... and turn it into doubt about the whole thing. Disrespect of the scientific method deserves disrespect. It deserves no kindness. Folly must be stamped out, however cruel the means may be. Clearly, simply educating people is no longer enough.
I desire a skilled debater who is fluent in climatology and can hammer down the argument with precision. The arguments of the opposition should not be moderated but rather completely destroyed. By that means, we can rebuild societys understanding of science. But for now, Nye will suffice.
The root of scientific denial is freshened by the media. John Oliver rightly points out that the major media outlets, in the spirit of public discourse, must have a 50-50 debate on climate change. Thats a misrepresentation the debate is far from 50-50. Nevertheless, the debate” however fabricated it is exists, and there is a growing demand for both scientists and those skeptical of climate change.
The danger of science becoming political is that it falls victim to public opinion. The nonscientific community should never have the authority to select the truths that best comfort it. The truths revealed by the scientific process are not up for debate. The use of science, however, is up for debate such as the use of the atomic bomb. That is an important distinction not many people recognize.
Nye once said, I have no trouble taking these political stances because I think the evidence is overwhelming. Therein lies the problem: science is not inherently political. None of the debates he takes part in are actually debates at all. The scientific community holds itself accountable, and by that process, it proves itself to the public. Alas, that is the portrait of an ideal world.
By allowing science to be discussed by interest-driven and non-scientific demagogues, we lose our sense of what is true in the world or at least the device by which we can decide what is true and what is not. Instead, truth is spun to fit popular narratives and political interests. For instance, conservative commentator Sarah Elizabeth Cupp once thrust upon Nye the notion that scientists are “bullies and that the reports on climate change are mere “scare tactics.” However, science itself is oppressed by reality it is in no position to bully. That shows how much of the discussion has been eroded away. Scientists are now perceived as bullies when they report facts. Those who side with Cupp think that scientists are deceiving everyone or that there is some devious twist behind their claims. Nothing could be further from the truth.
George Orwell once wrote, Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. Those vehemently denying the labors of scientific inquiry are pure wind. Nye and his kind will do well to remember that.
This is my first guest appearance for Elite Millennial (yeah, Ill call it that it makes me sound important) and I suppose it would only be prudent to introduce myself. My name is Michael Glawe. My nom de plume is M.R. Glawe the R standing for Reed, my fathers name. I am twenty-one years old and I am currently a student and columnist at Iowa State University. Saliently, as a matter of qualification, I am a Millennial. That much should suffice for now.
Moderate Republican = Democrat Lite
Moderate republicans dont have any ideals.”
damn you took the words right out of my mouth
Compromising with bad policy is like adding just a little sewage to your drinking water.
They’re offering us the clean end of the turd.
Because apparently the ideas of small government aren’t worth fighting for.
(Why would we need repubs to fight democrats If the only government in our lives was the post office? )
I’d like to see this brainiac, or anyone who touts the moderate nonsense to put together the case study showing where the Republican party succeeded - both electorally and with policy achievements - following their suggested path. Our party wins elections and advances limited government policy when it moves right. It’s a simple undeniable fact.
Reagan, Newt Gingrich of the 90s, to a large extent GWB in his electoral success and 2010 are all electoral successes and at least championed some conservative policy successes (the later being the exception because the DC leadership mangled their duties in 2011 and 2012 and were tactically and strategically a failure). Their path is Ford, Bush senior who dismantled the Reagan majorities, Dole, McCain, Romney, and the failed Northeastern republican efforts that have essentially erased the party from segments of the country.
Run a conservative campaign and advance conservative solutions and you win and move the ball in the right direction. Run to appease the opposition and sign on to slightly less left-wing solutions and you are defeated. It’s simple.
Yeah. I would love to have “Democrat style” compromise from our moderates. If that were so, they’d toss the Democrats a rare bone while getting 99% of what we conservatives wants. That’s what compromise means to Democrats—give me nearly everything I want.
Don’t ask me why the moderates can’t get it through their thick heads that we conservatives aren’t really purists—at least many of us aren’t. Most of us would settle for far less than that 99% compromise so long as we see some sort of smaller government.
I would be perfectly happy to see the moderates reach a real “moderate” result which would mean smaller, more efficient and less intrusive federal functions. So maybe the EPA doesn’t go away, but certainly moderation would mean they might not keep expanding control over virtually every aspect of life with the C02 nonsense, right?
I’m just using the EPA as an example, but I’m sure you get my drift. Since when have the moderates produced moderate/centrist results? Am I really supposed to believe there isn’t a single government program, rule or regulation anywhere that can’t be cut or eliminated—not one???
Using another example, most conservatives I know don’t really want Social Security eliminated overnight. We might want other options that would allow the younger folks to opt out, but nearly all of us don’t really want to cut off the elderly who are dependent on their SS checks. Why isn’t providing more flexibility while protecting current recipients a “moderate” approach?
Reasonable compromise to me is when both sides get something they want, but again, the moderates seem incapable of actually delivering any moderation.
Glawe: Masochism of ‘Atlas Shrugged’
By Michael Glawe, email@example.com | Updated Feb 17, 2013
Just this past week a bill was introduced to the Idaho state senate by Sen. John Goedde requiring high school students to read Atlas Shrugged and take an exam on it to graduate. He wasnt being serious, though, as he has stated he has no intention of pushing the bill through the legislature. It was brought up merely to make a point about some of the arbitrary decisions being made by Idahos Board of Education.
Whether Goedde was subtly and frivolously lauding his favorite book, or just making a point, his actions highlight Rands influence on politicians nowadays.
Prominent politicians Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Paul Ryan, and other devotees of Ayn Rands magnum opus Atlas Shrugged, will have you believe that the work is a realistic political parable, even more relevant today than ever before. Sales of the book have soared to great heights (according to the Ayn Rand Institute, more than 7 million copies have been sold), with business leaders emulating the heroines of Rands dystopia every day.
Detractors like myself, however, dismiss the work as a silly homage to greed. I should admit, though, that I was once an aficionado of Rands ode to capitalism. I snapped out of the fantasy, however, after I realized my egotism was driving my friends and family away. In retrospect, my love of objectivism was, perhaps, just a phase.
You can see why “Atlas Shrugged” appeals to most, if not all, businessmen, nowadays.
The novel itself was used as a channel through which Rand could push objectivism, a philosophy based around the pursuit of ones own happiness as the moral purpose of life, absent of any sort of altruism.
Can we possibly imagine a society that has adopted these principles? I suppose wed be reinforcing what humans are already good at doing being self-interested. Rand contends that this is necessary to mans survival, but havent we moved beyond these primitive means? The human solidarity renders objectivism a supererogation. Caring for others is a part of that solidarity. It is our nature to not only be selfish but also selfless.
Many libertarians and conservatives whove adopted Rands work seek to defend businesses from the tyranny of big government. The list of politicians pushing Rands ideology is extensive. The major figures include Ryan, Paul, Ronald Reagan and Gary Johnson, all of whom were serious contenders for the presidency. The major political endorsements of “Atlas Shrugged” has, in turn, dramatically altered the political landscape. Because people believe Rand prophesized the future of capitalism, a pseudo-revolution against the government has erupted.
Our allegiance to capitalism has rendered us masochists, of which the infliction of pain is given by the corporate sadists who deliberately crash their company in exchange for bonuses. To praise a pure capitalist society, where the powerful innovators willfully harm our economy, is the definition of sadomasochism.
I believe the government has the power and the responsibility to prevent the infliction of pain on the participators of our economy. In Greek mythology, Atlas beared the celestial sphere on his shoulders. Oftentimes, the citizens, the true Atlases of our country, must bear the same burdens. Though, the true Atlases will never shrug.
I think this kid has a crush on Bill Nye.
Compromising with bad policy is like adding just a little sewage to your drinking water.
Ever notice when they speak of “compromise” it’s always only one side that’s expected to betray it’s values?
No more compromise
No more “Socialism/Collectivism - lite”
No more BS
Why is it always on us to compromise? Why don’t the so called ‘moderates’ compromise our way?
I think, I have been insulted once again.
copyright restrictions apply down thread as well, thank you.
Bill Nye The Science Guy Dead: Uses Death Hoax Fame to Warn Against Creationism Taught in Classrooms
“The Earth is not 6,000 or 10,000 years old. It’s not. And if that conflicts with your beliefs, I strongly feel you should question your beliefs.
If we raise a generation of students who don’t believe in the process of science, who think everything that we’ve come to know about nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text, you’re not going to continue to innovate.”
In September 2012, Nye claimed that creationist views threaten science education and innovation in the United States.
In February 2014, Nye debated creationist Ken Ham at the Creation Museum on the topic of whether creation is a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era.
Nye is a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a U.S. non-profit scientific and educational organization whose aim is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. Interviewed by John Rael for the Independent Investigation Group IIG, Nye stated that his “concern right now... scientific illiteracy... you [the public] don’t have enough rudimentary knowledge of the universe to evaluate claims.”
Nye began his professional entertainment career as a writer/actor on a local sketch comedy television show in Seattle, Washington, called Almost Live!. The host of the show, Ross Shafer, suggested he do some scientific demonstrations in a six-minute segment, and take on the nickname “The Science Guy”. His other main recurring role on Almost Live! was as Speedwalker, a speedwalking Seattle superhero.
True, but compromise means the other side gives occasionally, too. When is the last time Republicans moved toward a SMALLER, less intrusive government? When is the last time someone other than an 'angry bird' stood UP to the socialist Democrats?
There's always an excuse, of course. We need more Republicans in office, We need more money, We need you to hold your nose and vote.....AGAIN!
In a moderate Republicans context, 'compromise' means - lay down, shut up, and do it our way.
No! No how, no way, no more.
Oh, so no scientists are skeptical of "climate change"? Moron.
Just what we need, some snot-nosed liberal punk explaining to us what we need to do. I knew two phrases in that he was a liberal juvenile, enamored of his poor writing skills. Ironic that he deigns to criticize the writing of others.
“...give yourself the amusement in reading the poorly structured...” This reads like an eastern European who has learned English recently. Admirable in one new to the language, not so much in an arrogant twit attempting to belittle another’s writing.
“Written by a paltry and unlettered...” SHREIKING and reeking arrogance! A stilted use of the word paltry - it reads like he searched for a word to make him sound “lettered”.
“...and reap the benefits of credulity.” Uhhh, misuse of the word you arrogant tool. Credulity is the willingness or the ability to believe. The appropriate, but more common, and therefor less high-fallutin’ sounding word is “credibility” which is the quality of being believable.
” and tries to appear eloquent. I can do that too” You can and do, you yapping pup, and you throw Orwell in to make you sound “lettered” again.
“And for God’s sakes...” it is “sake” for the sake of one being, for the sakes of more than one, you ignorant tool.
‘...who arent afraid of evidence that could usurp their positions” Evidence is inert, therefor unable to usurp anything. One can use evidence to help them usurp another’s position, but evidence cannot usurp it. I get a huge laugh when the poorly educated use words with which they are unfamiliar in an attempt to make them sound “lettered”.
“As we witnessed in Cantors defeat, duty to the party supersedes compromise.” This phrase is meaningless babble with no connection to actual events. Cantor was both dutiful and willing to compromise. Both traits led to his defeat.
“...their claim to be non-negotiable.” Terms are either negotiable or non-negotiable. People are not. The correct word would be “implacable”
The entire “non-negotiable” paragraph is pure nonsense. If the reason for being “implacable” is because one is unwilling to compromise foundational principles, then implacability serves its purpose. The cautionary is instructive here: “Don’t just do something, stand there.” Which reminds me of Eph 6:13 “...and having done all, to stand.”
“What happened to the commentators of the right such as William F. Buckley, who, as many would have it, was the preeminent man to beat on the field of debate?” He speaks of someone about whom he has little or no knowledge. Buckley was not a man of compromise, he was the antithesis. When it came to matters of principle, Buckley was as implacable as any - which was the beauty of his abilities. He not only refused to budge, but he was able to convincingly thrash anyone who tried to bully him to move.
So, after his inept screed about the beauty of compromise, he bewails the absence of a man whose memory serves as a monument against compromise - standing athwart history yelling “stop!”
My understanding then was that TEA actually stood for Taxed Enough Already.
To that end, the philosophy seemed to be that government was too big, and needed to be shrunk, and stop spending money left and right, provide less non-productive welfare services and bring the deficit down while easing the pressure on the taxpayers and businesses wallets.
In this regard, it was all about the economy and deficit. So, am I wrong?
Just what do non-TEA party aligned people think the TEA party is about?
Is it a social conservative movement? Is that the problem that younger people have with it? Because I will say that no matter how opposed we are to homosexuality, the younger crowd has no problem with. I will say neither do I, but I just don't want to hear about it. Private behavior should be private. But that's just me. Why does the TEA party (Taxed Enough Already) even have a position on gays? So if anti-TEA party types dislike the TEA party's stance on gays, well, they're wrong because they don't have a stance on gays.
Next social issue: Religion. Again, the TEA party doesn't have a position except to whole-heartedly approve the government staying out of religion. Even if a liberal, what is the problem with that position? Do you seriously want the government to regulate religious thought?
Next, Abortion. Does the TEA party have a formal position on this? Probably only that government should not pay for or promote it.
Discrimination: The TEA party is against, no matter which way it comes. There are a lot of people who feel that in order to help one group, we've unjustly penalized another. Beyond this, if you equate support for blacks to equal unrestrained welfare than yes, the TEA party is totally against that. However, it is not racism that breeds this opposition, but rather the extravagant spending that they are against. It is not racist to oppose welfare even if a lot of welfare goes to blacks, especially if you are convinced that welfare stifles responsibility and the desire to work. And in this case, it is an economic debate on how to bring forth more jobs. The TEA party believes that it is private businesses that would create jobs if the government would reduce their expenses by cutting taxes and eliminating regulations (hint: smaller government, the original idea).
Immigration: Legal, OK, but regulated to not hurt the economy by removing job opportunities for citizens. The TEA party believes that illegal immigration is wrong and should be strongly opposed due to economic issues once more and it is not anti-Hispanic although that is what the Left believes.
What's left for the anti-TEA partiers to rally against? Gays, abortion, religion, blacks, illegals... None of these save illegals are a TEA party issue.
I absolutely believe almost all Americans share TEA party values, that is, the real values, not the phony arch-conservative racist Snidely Whiplash ones made up by the media.
We NEED to properly challenge all who misrepresent TEA party values.
They’re all for conflict when it’s with conservatives. All the dirty tricks and “fight” they won’t bother to use against America’s enemies, including the left.
Interesting, according to his stilted attempt to be high-brow, he claims to have only met the faces, not the people.
“In the spirit of the Socratic method, I find this to be a contemptible position and unworthy of public discourse.”
This pathetic, self-important boob is about as ignorant of the Socratic method as any I have heard or read.
From the text: “Although it would be difficult to characterize it as a tea party victory, Eric Cantors defeat and threats other incumbents still face leaves us wondering as to what direction the Right is moving.”
The Right has always been right, the Republican Party has moved left. And this by the virtue of redefining the middle, brought to you by the Progressives on both sides of the aisle.
“copyright restrictions apply down thread as well, thank you.”
I don’t understand. What did I do wrong?
He makes the same arguments as Marx...
Tea Party opponents are “unscientific”.
Of course, he, being a “moderate” “atheist”, has beliefs and ideals that are “scientific”.
You posted the rest of the article in the Comments section.
“...despite the festoon of superstition, ignorance and imprecision adorned by its tea party compatriots. ....”
Aha, proof that the writer has a worthless degree and has never been able to confront any truly difficult problem.
May he forever be shoved up his own Obamahole.