[ouroboros]

There is actually no "e" in Marshall Wittmann's name but other than that a very insightful article.

[Texasforever]

There is actually no "e" in Marshall Wittmann's name but other than that a very insightful article.

Yeah it is totally narly.

[LenS]

Insightful if you're a traitor.

[arielb]

"The Moose croons that 'that old time religion' may have Republicans singing the blues." Aside from the nastiness of Wittemann's explicitly anti-Christian tone, which rivals the Taliban in its vehemence

What the heck? Wittmann used to work for the Christian Coalition. "That old time religion" is a popular expression

[jojonomo55]

All i know is that I am scheduled to fly to Virgina next Sunday and I would feel a lot safer if the military or some other law enforcement agency were handling all the security at the airports, and there are a LOT (and i cant stress this enough) a LOT of others out there just like me.

If no one feels safe to fly, our economy is going to go into the crapper. If it takes federalizing airport security to get people back on planes, so be it, it would be a neccessary evil. If we have to, if we are really do not want to increase the federal payroll any, i would be willing to trade the secret service and the capitol police for the baggage handlers. Give me the same level of protection hillary gets.

Regardless, i believe that the longer this goes on, the more the GOP fights against federalizing, the more it is going to hurt them, via the damage the economy suffers, and the perpetuated fear of the american people. The dems will feed off of that.

I also believe, though, that bush is going to go ahead and fully federalize (like he should) and that the House will then be able to go back to their base and tell them that they didnt support this and that if they have a problem with it, tell it to Bush.

[x]

Justin has taken the volume down a notch and it shows. On the whole a good, thoughtful column. But we've really got to get inside an issue like airline security to figure out what should be done. Libertarians like to stay outside and above all the messy details, and more often than not they lose for that very reason, because it looks like they don't "care". You can refute an argument based on the specific facts of the case, more easily than with a general philosophical argument. You may find cases, though, when you just can't do that, because you don't have the facts on your side. Just what is gained by federalizing airline security? Is there anything it provides that private security doesn't? Can private security be made to provide whatever advantage the proponents of federalized security promise to deliver?

[VoodooEconomist]

BUMP!

In about five years, most conservatives (even the myopic ones, which means most) will eventually come to understand the damage they have wrought by blindly supporting this war.

Many came to regret what they allowed/permitted/tolerated from the FDR years (ex. Reagan) ... but only after the crisis had passed ... and only after it was once again "safe" (and patriotic) to be critical.

I suspect the same thing will happen with regard to Bush and "our" newest undeclared war. America will eventually come around to the foreign policy wisdom of the Founding Fathers ... or America will fall like every Empire before it.

[VoodooEconomist]

The airline security bill is the perfect example of how this war has crippled Republicans ideologically,..

I wish I had the time to dig out my prior posts that said IF Trent Lott and Denny Hastert were spineless weasels with Clinton in the White House, that they wouldn't be any better (spine-full) with a Republican in the White House. That predictions looks to be true. Even in the minority, Trent Lott is still a worthless panty-waste. Twenty years hence, it should be interesting to see who historians blame for the demise of the Republican Revolution of the 1990s.

[VoodooEconomist]

Why? Because in wartime the conservative Republican agenda of privatization, free enterprise, and individual responsibility must inevitably give way to federalization, centralization, and collectivism. "War is the health of the State,"as Randolph Bourne put it, and this is a lesson conservatives always have great difficulty learning.

Indeed. It's amazing how inconsistent so-called conservatives are when it comes to their trust in the federal government. Hell, just look at all the gung-ho PRO-constitution FR posts before 9/11. Now, if you invoke the constitution to oppose certain aspects of this "war," you're called unpatriotic and un-American.

Pre-war:
Openly criticize government - it's patriotic
Distrust bureaucrats
Government can do no right
Restrict the expansion of government

During-war:
Do not criticize government - it's unpatriotic
Trust bureaucrats
Government can do no wrong
Expand government to solve problems it created

Ironically, Republicans will be the victim of their own inconsistency and duplicity. You can't advocate against being a cheerleader for the State ... and then suddenly turn on a dime just because we happen to be engaged in military conflict.

[IronJack]

Can the GOP embrace a patriotic reform agenda which combines middle class economic relief and a populist attack on special interests with a strong national security agenda? Or are the Republicans wedded to the politics of the base?"

While I can't answer such hyperbole, I CAN say that Republicans are weakest where they depart from their "base" and don the Coat of Many Colors. Look at the Schundler debacle in New Jersey. He lost by trying to suck in the soccer moms and ghetto guerillas, two demographics we couldn't win at gunpoint.

It would be nice if the Republicans would consider running a conservative. Someone like, say, Ronald Reagan.