RoR: Forum

Congratulations!

What a wonderful outcome for TAS. And thank you for including pictures.

Erica

Post 1

Sunday, March 4, 2007 - 3:47pm

By the way, the panel Robert chaired on global warming really kicked butt. In his intro remarks Robert contrasted real science with the "faith-based" approach of those who are trying to shut down debate and criticism on the subject.

Post 2

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 4:15am

How hot is the Altas Shrugs chick?! These photos are as good as the ones on her blog whereas Michelle Malkin looks years older.

And Great call re Coulter! I hope you don't mind my reposting it here in it's entirety since you haven't posted news that you'd commented on it:
http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=509

UPDATE -- I suppose I have to say something about Ann Coulter, in light of her high-profile antics at CPAC. It underscores the intellectual bankruptcy of today's conservatives -- and does no credit to their taste in women -- that Coulter has managed to forge a lucrative career among them by means of nothing but insults and ad hominems. On Friday, CPAC attendees mobbed the Regency Ballroom to applaud her latest lofty contribution to American political discourse: her insinuation that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is a "faggot."

Since insults have become the currency of political discussion, I suppose I can play, too. You will notice that I placed Coulter's name at the very bottom of those listed on the tombstone image above. In retrospect, however, I owe a profound apology to the others named on it. It was a gross presumption to include Coulter, since, after all, the tombstone is supposed to memorialize the ideas of those listed. And Ann Coulter is nothing but a right-wing attention slut whose arguments fall shorter than her hemlines, and are even less interesting.

Post 3

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 5:06am

... a right-wing attention slut whose arguments fall shorter than her hemlines, and are even less interesting.

ROTFL! Dayamm!

;-)

Ed

Post 4

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 8:11am

Robert,
To you, and to Ed:
Job well done. Standing ovation.
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 5

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 10:37am

Wow, sounds like you guys did an excellent job reaching out! The magazine cover looks great. Thank you.

Post 6

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 1:03pm

Thanks one and all.

Couldn't resist the shot at Coulter. After all, what goes around... It's disgusting to hear people like Limbaugh (today) defending her on the grounds that since liberals insult conservatives, therefore that justifies a conservative who builds her career on doing nothing but the same thing.

As if political debates ought to be nothing but a competition of insults and ad hominems rather than of ideas.

Well, I guess that conservatives feel resigned to using the only weapons in their arsenal.

Post 7

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 2:06pm

Oh, one last thing. Upon listening to the audio clip of my appearance, it became clearer to me that Air America's Thom Hartmann began with a monologue, then stepped on my comments constantly and didn�t really allow me to get more than a couple of sentences in a row before interrupting me to switch topics, then monologuing some more.

While I got in the basic individualist premise of individuals being ends, not means, and challenged his "tribal" ethic, the experience was less than satisfying. Still, that's a lot more than his 3 million listeners typically hear, so I guess that's something.

Post 8

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 4:13pm

Robert & Ed:
Very good news; I hope you're playing a part in moving the Republican Party back in the right direction.

This was the conference Giuliani addressed the other day, wasn't it?

Post 9

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 4:58pm

Laure,

Yes, that's where Giuliani spoke -- also Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, and all the rest of the GOP candidates except John McCain, whose absence has, I believe, sunk his candidacy.

As far as moving the GOP anywhere: Well, that depends on our making persistent challenges of this sort, and also the willingess of our target audiences to think. I can tell you that we made our presence felt at this event, and we put our arguments in front of the eyes of thousands of hardcore GOP activists and leaders. But we can't do their thinking for them. I do know that some were given pause by our ideas; but the long-term impact on their own thinking is not up to us.

Post 10

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 5:47pm

Robert, Laure,

I don't think the Republican party CAN be moved - It is broken. (Same with Democratic party)

Those party structures won't tolerate candidates that aren't sufficiently compliant - it won't allow much power or funding to anyone that tries to buck the system and way too many of its existing candidates and office holders are too dishonest. They've gone the full distance in placing power above principle and they never had a very firm grip on principles to start with.

If there were such a thing as a measure of the ratio of lies-told to things-said-publicly, many office-holders would now be approaching the point where "lips are moving" is synonomous with "lies are being told".

-------------------
But individuals can be moved. I applaud Robert for all of his excellent work there.
-------------------

One method of get reasonably honest government (I'm not even talking Libertarian - just fairly honest) is for the American people to be convinced to NOT vote for anyone that runs on the Democratic or Republican tickets. Vote third party, vote independent - cut the major parties out of the loop. Otherwise the lesser of two evils always wins and we always end up with evil. I see that stategy as the easiest way to eliminate much of the corruption and special interest influence. And it can be done while we continue to advocate a rational philosophy that advocates limited government based upon individual rights.

I don't mean to be pessimistic, but it is important to see that there are two problems. We are mostly focused on the proper set of principles, their applications and promotion. But there is also a practical problem of the corruption and dishonesty built into the existing political structures. There has always been a lag time between when the majority of the public acquires a political principle and when the government implements it - with the massively powerful parties, their willingness to do nearly anything not to give up power and with no qualms about telling lies, that lag time can stretch beyond our life-times.

Hence, two related game plans: Promote Objectivism and repair broken structures (in this case by cutting them out of the loop).
---------------------
I got carried away and hijacked the thread.... sorry about that. Robert, I would have loved to been at the conference and felt the excitement.

Post 11

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 5:51pm

Giuliani gave a good speech at CPAC. He was quite articulate, engaging and genuine. He stressed the importance of Reagan, both his revolution and integrity. He observed that before he was elected mayor of New York, it was considered an ungovernable city. He observed that in the most shocking murder in the 1920s, the St. Valentine�s Day massacre, seven people were killed, which used to be a daily occurrence in New York.

On the domestic front, Giuliani stressed his massive cuts in the welfare roles � forcing people to get jobs � and the need for choice in education. He also said that we made a mistake to call it a war on terror; it�s actually the Islamists� war on us and will end when they stop. But since we�re in a war we need to be on the offensive.

Unlike Mitt Romney, Giuliani did not reject his pro-choice stand, though he said he wants strick constructionist judges. He said he was for domestic partnerships for gays.

While none of the Republicans are great from the Objectivist perspective, Giuliani was pretty impressive as a candidate. Some of his campaign people who I know say that he�s running like a kind of libertarian -- though nowhere near as consistant by objective standards. It�s interesting that his pro-choice, pro-gay stand has not turned off as many conservatives as one would think.

(Edited by Ed Hudgins on 3/05, 6:02pm)

Post 12

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 6:48pm

The head of the American Petroleum Institute waved a copy of Atlas Shrugged which he suggested people should read. Also on that energy panel was Rob Bradley, who was interviewed in the April 2006 issue of The New Individualist.

Former Rep. Bob Barr (see photo below) also spoke and cited philosopher Ayn Rand for her understanding of the importance of privacy to civilization.

And naturally I cited Rand, specifically her notion of the sanction of the victim.

Post 13

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 10:51pm

Giuliani (Both my current favorite, and my prediction for winner in '08) is currently beginning to come under merciless media attack. There was a vicious attack on him in New York Magazine (I should have borrowed that issue from the Doctor's office, I'll have to ask...) and he was attacked on the news last night by his son by his second wife. I assume that Giuliani's divorces will be the weapons of choice of the hypocrite left. I found the man autocratic in how he ran the police, assuming that all civilians were guilty and all cops innocent until proven otherwise. His policies with them would have been much better suited for the military! If he thinks we should have no mercy on pot-smokers, then I hope that carries over to IED smugglers. I abstained in both his mayoral elections. My only current complaint is his lack of support for rebuilding the Twin Towers. But at this rate, that site will be vacant til well past 2020.

Ted

Post 14

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 10:54pm

How did I ever get the impression that Barr was an evangelical pork-pusher? His the meaning of "is" was wonderful. I wonder if he was misportrayed in the media...

Post 15

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 9:49am

Robert: "Yes, that's where Giuliani spoke -- also Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, and all the rest of the GOP candidates except John McCain, whose absence has, I believe, sunk his candidacy."

Isn't it way early to say McCain's candidacy is sunk, Robert? It's still a year and a half before the election! I wouldn't count him out so soon just because he failed to show at CPAC 2007 (he might be there next year).

Also, of the three Republicans widely considered the frontrunners for the nomination--McCain, Giuliani, and Romney--he's the only one who's anti-abortion. Sadly, I don't believe any Republican today can win the presidential nomination WITHOUT being anti-abortion. The religious faction of the GOP is far too strong, in my view, to let anyone who publicly supports legal abortion to win.

Post 16

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 10:59am

As I mentioned at the end of my long blog post on CPAC, you are mistaken if you think that the religious right still dominates the GOP.

Go here to the CPAC home page; in the left margin, click on the link about the 2007 CPAC "straw poll"; then go to pages 8 and 14 of the poll results.

You will discover (page 8) that at CPAC -- the annual event of hardcore Republican conservative activists -- 50% of the people polled believe that big, intrusive government is the most worrisome problem; only 30% believe the biggest concerns involve religiously-based moral values, such as abortion; and 18% believe the biggest worry is national security. That means a 68% to 30% margin ranked concerns that are more important to them than those that preoccupy the religious right.

Moreover, in the straw poll presidential preferences, Rudy Giulani -- the most "liberal" on social issues -- came in second, and actually (page 14) won the vote that combined first-and-second preferences. That combination tally is significant because it means that if many in this crowd couldn't have their preferred candidate, Rudy would be their second choice.

This is hardly evidence that "the religious faction of the GOP is far too strong...to let anyone who publicly supports abortion to win." Quite the contrary: it suggests that the religious right is weakening within the party -- something that its key supporters lamented themselves in a recent meeting I read about in the NYT.

Post 17

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 11:28am

Is there anything remotely resembling a noticeable Atheist faction within the Republican Party?

Post 18

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 12:06pm

Thank you for responding to my post, Robert (though you didn't say anything about it being far too early to count McCain out).

Robert: "As I mentioned at the end of my long blog post on CPAC, you are mistaken if you think that the religious right still dominates the GOP."

I didn't say "the religious right still dominates the GOP." I don't think hardcore Christians *dominate* the party. I said I think the religious faction of the GOP is too strong to allow a pro-choice candidate to win the party's presidential nomination.

You then pointed to the results of a straw poll taken at CPAC in Washington, DC. Even if we assume the sample surveyed was representative of those who will determine the Republican nominee, I don't believe your argument is sound.

You say, "...only 30% believe the biggest concerns involve religiously-based moral values, such as abortion..." ONLY 30 percent, Robert? That's ONE of THREE, which I believe is enough to thwart a candidate who doesn't toe the line when it comes to their favorite issue (even Rudy Giuliani). You don't need a *majority* of Republicans to achieve that--only a *sizable minority* that's wealthy and zealous.

As for the claim the religous faction of the party is weakening (somehow), I don't see any conclusive evidence of that. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Post 19

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 1:09pm