Not at all, V. Huckabee has an overarching attribute in my book… he effectively uses humor to deflect the caustic, self-defeating cynicism that occupies the extreme fringes of the conservative movement. I give him points for standing up to all that, laughing at it, playing with it and still finding -at the end of the day- that govt service is worthy and a noble enterprise. The guy I don’t like is RonPaul who sows the seed of resentment and division in the GOP.

You know, about the only guys left who don’t think govt service is noble are the armchair red meat conservatives who foment anger against the elites. Hmmmm.

No problem with Gov Huckabee here -I’ve met him and had about a 20 minute conversation with him in the car on the way to the airport after a speech/fundraiser. He’s no Mitt Romney… but he would be a good choice for GOP Prez nominee or Veep.

I, Thomas Jefferson (or James Madison or all those other “populist”-but-actually-aristocratic slaveholders) know what’s best for everyone else. And how dare you, the individual, upset my applecart by creating a new technology or business! By being free!

I mean, health care is good, right? So government should bring it about, right?

Well, no, actually. As a practical matter, the free market will always do a far superior job of creating desirable goods and services – when it is allowed to. But, as Ayn Rand always used to say, “the moral is the practical” and vice versa. The whole secret to free markets working better than socialism / government on a practical level, is that they are better on a *moral* level to begin with. They let people be free. They rest on people making their own choices. Socialism / big government is *immoral*. Socialism / big government denies people’s freedom and takes away what they earn. Socialism / big government is *socially un-just*.

That’s the argument that has to be made. But, few are willing to make it: Least of all politicians (of either party) who have a vested interest in making their own positions more “powerful” and dispensing government favors, like feudal nobles.

The Libertarian Party will make the argument – but then they get into so much other irresponsible nonsense, they undermine themselves.

If I can’t get smaller government, than I am left with the lesser of two evils. If it comes to choosing between someone who wants to make Health Care a federal entitlement, and someone who doesn’t, it’s pretty clear which side I have to come down on.

The last time Republicans actually reduced the size of government, Eisenhower was president.

No argument here. Except, I would note that Reagan did at least *slow* the growth of government, over what Democrats wanted.

The same is true today – But just barely! For today’s Republicans, growing the size of government is “the answer” about 85% of the time. For Democrats, it’s the answer every time.

If you are really for smaller government, then you are a Libertarian.

Ummm… not quite. If you use a small ‘l’, then I agree. But you went with a capital ‘L’ which I interpret as Libertarian Party. At that point, you’re in bed with a lot of moonbat anarcho-leftists who make Ron Paul look responsible. Trust me, I know. We’re talking about me here, i.e., I am really for smaller government – and really found the LP couldn’t help. (Actually, I don’t have a party. Politically, I am sort of SOL. Registered Independent.)

It makes me laugh when small government is the mantra of so many conservatives when they vote for people who make the government larger and larger.

Did you laugh when conservatives DID NOT vote in 2006? In other words, the very thing you said they did not do… they did.

If you are really for smaller government, then you are a Libertarian. That’s not at all what Republicans stand for. At least not in the last 50 years.

Mark J in #22 I think mostly has it. I think Trent Lott was Republican as a flag-of-convenience, but mostly was just a hack politician. He was part of the problem, part of a political elite that was disconnected from the grassroots and resented it when the people demanded he work for them instead of his lobbyists. (Although there are those that would like to see the GOP back in its glory days of the Gerald Ford era, when it was an impotent minority that differed from the Democrats in name only.) Surely, Haley Barbour can find someone better.

And what did Michigan-Matt say about Lott then, like he did yesterday? I quote:

I’m more interested in seeing Lott fail in his bid in the Senate and Lamar Alexander succeed… but then, I have a soft spot for competent, honest, direct political types and Lott is anything but. Lott is Mr Capitol Hill out of the old Bob Dole mode.

What fun!

Tom in Houston: Congratulations for your finally *NOTICING* GPW calling out a Republican for being anti-gay.

Haley Barbour gets to appoint Lott’s successor – but only until the next Federal election (in this case – November 2008) when an election will be held for the remainder of his term. Mississippi will have two Republican senators up for election in November 2008.

1. Any policy he doesn’t like, is the fault of “conservatives”.

2. Any unethical conduct is the fault, not of that individual’s lack of ethics or moral vision, but of that individual’s perceived or alleged conservative philosophy.

3. The (alleged) path to electoral success for the Republican Party is for it to be more like the Democrats than it has been.

4. The words “conservative” and “conservatism” are to be used as pejoratives… as in, “loyalty isn’t valued or prized by conservatives” or whatever. Notwithstanding that:
- MM simultaneously accuses conservatives of too much focus on loyalty. (Contradictions, anyone?)
- This blog seeks to be “The Internet Home of the Gay Conservative.”
- Conservatism has a great tradition from Burke, to the Founding Fathers, to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

(Note that I don’t count big-government ‘conservatives’ as real conservatives. Big government is destructive, not conservative. But I’ll stop the digression.)

But the following point in #14 is quite new:

5. Lott is good, or at least acceptable and respectable.

It’s new, because in this thread yesterday, MM said things like:

Trent Lott is… emblematic of the deep problems that conservative Congressional leadership has wrought… I’m glad that some conservatives here have finally… see[n] that progress means getting rid of conservatives like Lott…

Most everybody agreed with MM there. Today he pivots to the opposite. Coincidence?

Overall, I do and I don’t care about all this.
- I don’t care, because I am no conservative – I never have been. I have accepted labels like “right-leaning libertarian” only with reluctance.
- But I do care in the sense that I value good writing / accurate language – and as well, I value my potential conservative allies in promoting human freedom.

As for this:

Too bad conservatives can’t say the same thing about real scumbags like conservatives and ex-Congressmen/porkers Duke Cunningham or Tom Delay.

Watch me. Delay and probably Cunningham were pork-sucking scumbags, like Trent Lott.

Again, I don’t count because I’m not a conservative, never have been. But I did introduce “pork-sucking scumbag” up at #1, so I must assume MM’s challenge was aimed in my direction at least in small part. I’ve met it.