Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » PET PEEVE
  • PET PEEVE

    Filed at 10:16 pm under by dcobranchi

    Misuse of the phrase “begs the questions.”

    When the bill was stymied by a procedural vote on June 7, the blogs claimed victory. A straw poll of conservative bloggers conducted by the Web site Right Wing News showed that 96 percent of bloggers surveyed were “pleased that the Senate immigration bill did not pass.”

    Now that the bill is back for a second round in the Senate, Bush could have a difficult time making new friends online beyond a relative handful of the bill’s supporters.

    “It will be very difficult for him to recover with conservative bloggers,” said Robert Bluey, director of the Center for Media & Public Policy at the Heritage Foundation. “When Bush is on to his next issue, I’m not sure if bloggers are going to be there to back him up.”

    Which begs the question — is Bush a lame duck among bloggers?

    That being said, I’m happy to see Bush fall on his sword over this issue. It splits the Republican party and pushes Latinos to the left. A win/win as far as I’m concerned.

    9 Responses to “PET PEEVE”


    Comment by
    Unique
    June 16th, 2007
    at 7:02 am

    *”Which begs the question — is Bush a lame duck among bloggers?”*

    Is that a trick question?

    He’s always been lame. Duck, not so much. Flaming idiot more like……


    Comment by
    Skip Oliva
    June 16th, 2007
    at 9:03 pm

    “It splits the Republican party and pushes Latinos to the left. A win/win as far as I’m concerned.”

    Who does that help, exactly? Empowering the Democrats won’t help immigrants or latinos. I guess it will make you feel better, though.

    You continue to title this blog “A Democratic/Libertarian-leaning edu-blog” despite a complete absence of any content that could be mistaken for libertarian. (Unless you equate libertarian with being anti-Bush or anti-religion, which I would not.)


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    June 16th, 2007
    at 9:15 pm

    Small “L” libertarians and the Democrats share a common purpose in defeating the party of endless wars of aggression and deficit spending. Or are those no longer libertarian principles worth fighting for?


    Comment by
    sam
    June 16th, 2007
    at 9:56 pm

    Seems to me that empowering Democrats would help just about everyone that isn’t more interested in warmongering and greedy acquisition of wealth at the expense of anyone who gets in your way.


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    June 17th, 2007
    at 5:44 am

    And I think the “Metro” series of posts, though exceedingly local, tie into small “L” libertarianism. They’re part of a larger battle against being forcibly annexed into either the city proper or a new Metro government. North Carolina’s annexation laws are described in a brand new John Locke Foundation report as “trampling on civil rights, voting rights, and property rights.”

    Yeah, I’m far from the cutting edge of libertarian thought and my politics have certainly drifted left these last 5 years. But that, I think, is a result of utter frustration with the “see no evil” GOP Congress and with Bush/Cheney’s warmongering. The Libertarian party is hapless and useless. If we are to prevent war with Iran it will be the Democratic Party that leads the opposition. Anything that helps them prevent WWIII is a good thing.


    Comment by
    COD
    June 17th, 2007
    at 3:31 pm

    The problem with trading republicans for democrats is that all we really do is trade deficit spending on war for deficit spending on social programs.

    If we are going to give up on a constitutional govt then I guess spending that doesn’t directly kill people is an improvement. However, as long as Ron Paul continues to get press I will hold out some tiny sliver of hope.


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    June 17th, 2007
    at 5:15 pm

    The problem with trading republicans for democrats is that all we really do is trade deficit spending on war for deficit spending on social programs.

    A decade ago I’d have agreed. But the Dems have been living uder Paygo when they’re in charge. It was the GOP that scrapped it.


    Comment by
    Skip Oliva
    June 18th, 2007
    at 10:26 am

    “Small “L” libertarians and the Democrats share a common purpose in defeating the party of endless wars of aggression and deficit spending. Or are those no longer libertarian principles worth fighting for?”

    Funny, last time I checked, it was the Democrats that started every major American war of the 20th century. History aside, I’m far from convinced that a President Gore would not have started a war with Iraq. Indeed, Bill Clinton had eight years to end the crippling sanctions against Iraq and withdraw U.S. personnel from the Gulf region. He did neither. Nor will a second President Clinton or other Democratic nominee end the underlying U.S. policies that make “endless wars of aggression and deficit spending” necessary. The welfare state and warfare state are on in the same, something you’d recognize if you removed your head from the Democratic Party’s ass.

    And one more thing, Daryl — libertarians don’t support state control of health care and the internet, two things you’ve championed on this website. Unlike you, I consider violence against Americans on par with violence against Iraqis and other individuals. And I sure as hell don’t invoke science when it’s convenient (i.e. evolutionary biology) and ignore it when it’s not (i.e. economics).


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    June 18th, 2007
    at 11:50 am

    FDR bombed Pearl Harbor? I thought it was the Germans. 🙂

    Leaving “Animal House” aside, check out the new masthead.