Posted on 04/23/2012 9:30:05 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
FREEPER COMMENTS REQUESTED: Is it just me, or is Mary Matalin way off base today with her entire theme for the show (guest hosting for Rush). Now I normally like her work tremendously, but her idea that we should search for "virtue" in government and for "virtuous people" to be in government seems extremely naive.
The only virtue in government is its limit. We will never get a government full of virtuous people. By definition, government is power and virtuous people are not drawn to that. Our Founders knew that. This is why they insisted on LIMITED government. Wake up Mary!
My comments were clearly intended to take into context the radio show - very very clearly - actually being meaningless outside of the context of the radio show - and by your own admission, you don’t have any idea what was said on the show, which means you just admitted that your comments solely on my comments are meaningless.
I’m not exactly sure of his quote but the point he was making was typical Milton Friedman common sense. He of course was not arguing along the lines of instituting any form of tyranny as could be misunderstood. That’s certainly not a Milton Friedman trait.
My husband and myself took a trip to Ft Myers, Fla back in the Iran Contra hearings that were televised. (they always are if they think they will snag a pubbie).
My oldest son sat and watched them and was a huge Ollie North fan. That boy was raised right.
A few years later he went to Indiana University. They turned him into a lib. He isn’t as bad now as he was about 5 years ago. But indoctrination when they leave the nest happens.
Doesn’t make a person a failed parent. I love my boy, he is good to me and we get along. We just don’t talk politics without getting into a verbal battle. LOL
You post about Beck on non-beck threads i.e. this one, and yeah I can tell you don’t like him, and it’s apparently such a burden that you can’t keep it to yourself.
Yep, I post everyday on Trayvon threads, that’s a pattern I’ve noticed myself.
I don’t take your dislike of Beck personally, wonder what makes you think I do...and I’m not preoccupied with your posting habits, they just jump out at me because, well, they are weird.
I was definitely mad with him over his inability or refusal to see the game being played here. He, of all people, should have been able to see it, as he is the one who showed everyone else how the media manipulates.
Personally, I think he is so fearful of black riots that he is willing to toss a single person under the bus to avoid them, but I could be wrong on that, bcause he has changed his tune on Zimmerman from what I can hear, but he already did damage, and he should pay for it in a civil court IMO.
But yeah, I am a fan of Beck, so what? Dude has done a lot of good and has a lot of insight, certainly much more than say, you. And you can keep up your little smiley’s all day, you’re not bothering me at all with them. If it makes you smile to know that I am a fan and listener of Glenn’s, then smile away, because that is the case.
My husband and myself took a trip to Ft Myers, Fla back in the Iran Contra hearings that were televised. (they always are if they think they will snag a pubbie).
My oldest son sat and watched them and was a huge Ollie North fan. That boy was raised right.
A few years later he went to Indiana University. They turned him into a lib. He isn’t as bad now as he was about 5 years ago. But indoctrination when they leave the nest happens.
Doesn’t make a person a failed parent. I love my boy, he is good to me and we get along. We just don’t talk politics without getting into a verbal battle. LOL
Really? LOL. Sounds to me like you have quite the vivid imagination.
I am sorry, but public virtue is a meaningless phrase. If it is anything it is only something that exists in an imaginary world.
It can and will never exist in the real world. Please understand that Government is force, nothing more, nothing less.
If government was the size that our Founders intended, we would hardly know it exists. Then, it would not matter if there were busy bodies or control freaks running it. They would not be able to do much damage.
As it is, the virtuous are in the process of controlling every d*mn aspect of our lives; from our toilets, to our light bulbs, to what we eat.
Please tell me virtuous public servants would go about drastically reducing the size of government??? It will NEVER happen.
Governments are, without a doubt, the most destruction institutions ever created by man.
The bigger a government becomes the more it becomes inhabited by utterly evil and sadistic people.
No I am afraid it’s the same Ann who at one point was dearly loved here on FR, where her articles drew hundreds of posts and calls for pics to be posted of her.
Now the admins have to delete some posts and she may get 50 posts.
Rush is too big to be pushed around by anyone - including Clear Channel. He has direct and sole control of the editorial content of his program. If his guest hosts are all spouting the pro-Romney line....well, it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out where Rush is on this election.
YEP
Sad deal.... Is anybody left with us ?
Maybe I should rephrase my point. It seems to be regarded as false by those who say nothing to refute it. Adding small government mention to it is superfluous. Remember that stuff about “governs least”, about “enumerated powers” and such?
Okay, I think I know how to word it now: “The Founders designed a government that would work well when populated by virtuous men.” Oh, that's exactly the same. It is the same because it is correct and complete.
None of us who emphasized virtue were denying small government. You see virtuous men do not violate the oaths of office, step on the Constitution or act for self-gain against the good of the country. We are where we are because unvirtuous men have at too many times led an unvirtuous populous.
“When I first tuned in I thought it was a soundbite of Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg.”
When I first listened, I knew she reminded me of someone and aha: she reminds me of Ruth Buzzard Ginsberg!
“Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like rush has been taking more and more time off from the show.”
Maybe happy marriage and enjoying the golf, the cigar, etc.
Still, I miss him a lot lately, too.
I will type slowly so that you can follow along, how’s that?
My comments were on the commentary of the substitute host of today’s Rush Limbaugh Show, and how I thought they were naive and off base to stress the notion of virtue the way she was stressing it. Therefore, my comments are totally dependent on what was said on that show to be understood.
You tried to separate my comments from the radio show, and thus you reached a jack leg idiotic conclusion about how I feel on the issue, because you had no context. Context is important.
Oops. I think I just typed too fast for you to understand. Sorry.
Bye.
You are so lost as to the point, not to mention you misunderstand an important nuance of the Founders as well. I don’t have the time or patience to help you tonight.
Best of luck to you in the future, and as a hint, I would suggest you look at the nation through the eyes of the governed, and not those who govern, for a proper perspective. The only morality in government is limit, period. Power corrupts, period. Fallen nature and all of that.
I sat up and listened intently when Mary started the show with virtue as the topic. It is something I would expect to hear on Mark Levin’s show, not Rush’s. I was only able to listen to the first few minutes, but gathered the gist.
As luck would have it, I’ve been reading Gordon S. Wood’s 1969 classic, Creation of the American Republic. The quotes below are his. He isn’t alone of course. The Constitutional Convention, Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers . . . all touched on the value of virtue.
“The very greatness of republicanism, its utter dependence on the people, was simultaneously its source of weakness. In a republic, each man must somehow be persuaded to submerge his personal wants into the greater good of the whole. This was termed “public virtue.” A republic was such a delicate polity precisely because it demanded an extraordinary moral character in the people. Every state in which the people participated needed a degree of virtue; but a republic which rested solely on the people absolutely required it. “
“Without some portion of this generous principle, anarchy and confusion would immediately ensue, the jarring interests of individuals, regarding themselves only, and indifferent to the welfare of others . . . would end in ruin and subversion of the State.”
In less eloquent terms, a people that sends enough Sheila Jackson-Lees to Congress cannot expect to keep a government designed by the likes of James Madison and Benjamin Franklin.
The founding fathers said the only way that government would properly serve the people would be if it were run by moral people. Sounds right to me. More conservatives should choose government service and do their best to limit its scope. In Wisconsin, our state treasurer ran on the platform of trying to eliminate the job if he got elected.
Really no need. Your comments were extremely simplistic and easy to understand.
Unfortunately, they are expressed poorly which is why they are incorrect and why many rightly are taking issue with them.
I’m betting Rush placed Matalin as the guest host to clearly demonstrate the lameness of liberal republicans and what we can look forward to with mittens as the nominee. Pretty ingenious on his part.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.