True right wing conservatives want less government involved with their lives, yes? Well, only in THEIR lives. It's funny how they love those double standards of smaller government but LARGER military. They want to keep their guns but keep people from pursuing happiness for themselves if that happiness conflicts with THEIR convictions. My question is, do you think that conservatives are hypocritical in this aspect?

This idea was inspired by OlympiaManet when she was responding to a conserviative in the "Should We Legalize Marijuana" thread:

[QUOTE]
You're liberal streak is apparent in the (Fat Tax) statement above as well as a few postings I have read (posted by you) stating that you are slightly liberal.

You are hopping the fence and trying to play both sides. You either think people are responsible and when they do the wrong thing that will be punished or you treat everyone like children and remove all rights and replace a governing body with a mommy <Queen> and daddy<King>... I am inclined to think that people are responsible.
[QUOTE]


I think you hit the nail on the head!

I love you OlympiaManet

Should we debate a generalization and blanket statement?

I think this thread should be rephrased. I raked a conservative over the coals recently for calling Liberals hypocritical. I have to apply the same standard to myself.

Perhaps the thread could be called, Do Conservatives Contradict their Espoused Value System? (or something shorter)

It's hard to say. In my opinion and observation of the Right wing constituency I see many hypocrisies. Do you agree that the Far Right conservatives have gone beyond beyond the average hypocrisy of politics in general? And if so, what have you come to realized about the GOP?

The GOP is not a united party. One faction of the party is in power.

It's like the Democrats. If you look at the candidates you see many shades, very liberal to nearly George W. Bush (in Lieberman).

Yes, there are inconsistencies with conservatives and Republicans. And maybe this thread could be "Are Conservatives Inconsistent?"

But I don't want to use the word "hypocrisy." It's flammable.

I'm sure a "true conservative" will correct me if I am wrong here, but there is no such thing as a "one size fits all" conservative philosophy.

There are those whom are economic conservatives whom favor lower taxation, government meddling as little as possible with the free market, dislike protectionism, onerous regulations and artificial contrivances such as minimum wage laws. This is just a rough thumbnail sketch and hardly a definitive description.

Social conservatives tend to stake out more ideological positions on issues such as abortion, gay rights, affirmative action and the environment. They don't believe government should favor one side over the other in cultural matters, but fear the government HAS taken sides against religion, marriage, the traditional family and other institutions.

As regards whether conservatives are hypocrites for wishing for smaller government, but a larger military, I'm sure one might tell you that it is a Constitutional responsibility of the federal govenment to provide a military defense system (but not the creation of social programs such as Medicare or welfare).

I don't think conservatives are anymore hypocritical than anyone else. There ARE hypocritical conservatives, but being a conservative doesn't automatically make you a hypocrite.

Okay, I agree with that. That's a very good idea.


This thread is now called:


"Are Conservatives Inconsistent?"




I made a mistake when naming this topic. I in no way think that the entire concervative population is hypocritical, that would be a genrlization and since I do not wish to be generalized...
I'm sorry.

Title changed. -Jaime

Of course conservatives are inconsistent.

Conservatives are just as inconsistent as liberals, who are also inconsistent. For every inconsistency you bring me by a conservative, I'm sure I could find ten by liberals. I'd assume that a liberal could find ten inconsistencies by a conservative for every liberal I brought them.

Everyone wants their cake and eat it too. It's human nature.

Besides, what fun would it be otherwise? I'd want it no other way...

Mike

LOL I can't argue with that! LOL

One big inconsistency I see is continuing the trade embargo against Cuba because it is a repressive Communist regime, while having China, a much bigger repressive Communist regime, enjoy Most Favored Nation Trading Status.

Heh...

You do realize that China was granted PNTR under a non-conservative president, right?

And you do realize that the trade embargo against Cuba was put in place by a non-conservative president, right?

Just checking...

Mike

No, I wasn't aware of that, not knowing as much history as you do.

I just noticed that nobody is willing to change the situation, and that's a shame.

Rather than withdraw Most Favored Nation Trading Status from China, we should lift the embargo from Cuba. They're really not a threat anymore.

Oh, and Mike, nice Zoot Suit avatar!

The largest inconsistancy I see with conservatives is Planned Parenthood, contraception,
sex education, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion and womens issues.

We have a conservative faction and a right wing ideologically christian driven President and conservative legislature which is anti-sex education for our youth, also against contraception or disease control in the form of condoms for youth, a trend of thought which blindly desires to promote abstinence despite its impossibility, especially to the 'uneducated'. A catch 22 at its worst. Combined with a conservative callousness towards paying welfare to unwed single mothers in this country, a radical anti-abortion stance and health insurers who do not consider birth control as a relevant cost. No one considers the ultimate health and human cost, and it seems, they dont think farther than any moral issue, even if one or another contradictes itself. I ask, is this painted into a corner with nowhere to go? If you have the moral issue, you need to give someone a way out or in. Something has to give. (In jest, I can only imagine what this country would become if every woman closed her legs until marriage and only had sex to procreate as our Christian demogouges preach, uh murder, rape and anarchy?) But it gets worse.

In 3rd world countries like India or Nepal, where population is out of control and maternal deaths are rampant due to illegal abortions, we have retracted our funding under G, Bush, on his first day of his presidency, not even to administer condoms and not give funds to any Parenthood organization that counsels abortion, even if it is paid for separately from government funding. In Africa, our new funding will include large sums to go to faith based organizations that do not allow for contraception/condoms but preach abstinence.
One link: http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules...article&sid=432
This is thoughtless, or shall I say, not thinking through logically or effectively. Faulty thinking based on biblical fantasies. Nothing to do with any kind of current reality of the world.

Of course it would be MUCH better if we just gave them condoms and condoned them "screwing like rabbits". That position is just as fallacious.

The FACT of the matter is that organizations like Planned Parenthood consistently use abortion as the PRIMARY method of birth control. While I don't believe in abortion in most cases, I think that if these groups would just moderate their approach to the "universal right to kill your unborn children" they would gain more acceptance from social conservatives.

I think Nighttimer hit the nail of the head (regarding the debate of this thread). Conservatives are not some homogeneous block of voters/candidates. They are all individuals.

OK, so far in this thread conservatives have taken the heat for being "inconsistent" on an issue created by liberals, and even then no inconsistency was actually displayed. We have also been told that we are inconsistent in regards to Planned Parenthood, contraception, sex education, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion and womens issues, but in the post there are again no clear inconsistencies displayed.

So, are we just bashing conservatives here, or does anyone have any concrete examples of conservatives voting one way and then changing their position, hence creating an inconsistency? It sure seems like a topic made of blanket statements and no support to me.

Artemise, let me point out how liberals are inconsistent in regards to abortion. It is quite simple, actually. If abortion is such a great thing, and everyone has a right to have one, then why do liberals ever have children? They preach that it is fine. They preach that it is not immoral. Yet, liberals are still reproducing. Why don't they all just get abortions?

Conservatives are consistent on Planned Parenthood, contraception, sex education, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion and womens issues. We consistently say that planned parenthood is a liberal pro-abortion organization. We consistently say that contraception/sex education issues do not belong in school but belong in the home, where parents can decide what their children learn and at what age. We are against sexually transmitted diseases-- find me a conservative who is for STDs. We are against abortion (as a whole, personally, this is not the big issue for me...I guess that may be an inconsistency). In regards to women's issues, I've read enough spin on the forum to realize that conservatives are the reason that women in Afghanistan and Iraq have more freedom now than in decades (Bush's war, right?). Well, what did the liberals do to help women in Afghanistan and Iraq? NOTHING!

I can't wait to see what other inconsistencies are posted...

Here is my view:

Less Government:
Conservatives SAY they are for less government but seem to be for putting limits on personal freedoms. Always interested in defining morality. Finding ways to introduce Christianity in government where it is better left alone. That seems like pro-government. When they claim they are for less government I always think they must be talking about for corporations being able to profit without rules or regulations.


Fiscally Responsible:
They say they are the ones that are fiscally responsible and help the economy but from Reagan on they don't. They treat budgets and the treasury like special interest piggy banks. Economically, they are good only for the most wealthy and believe that if those people are rich all of society benefits because then they'll be able to give jobs to the little people. Apparently, putting the wealth in the hads of the few is the only way that will happen. (Only it doesn't end up turning out that way.)

Traditional Family Values:
I suspect it's not just about morality for them. There are some sexist and economic veins running through their whole Family Values agenda IMO. Traditional being the key word here they seem to believe women should go back to their proper place; marry, stay at home with the babies, and give men their jobs back. This would lower unemployment rates and also helps keep women dependent on their men. If they are less likely to try to leave they won't end up being a burden to the government when they will eventually have to apply for welfare. Notice it's always the women who are single mothers and the main problem to society and not the men. Deadbeat dads are never the issue but welfare moms are. They promote marriage (and maybe after that curbing divorce otherwise what's the point?)

The very idea of reversing the progress in equality and choice that has carefully been built up is not a problem to the economy. Slavery would be good for the economy too but maybe they have limit's.

Progress:
The one thing I find them consistent in. They can always be counted on to resist anything progressive. Not only on the issues above but Affirmative Action, alternative fuel, medical technology like stem cell research (this doesn't apply to pharmacuetical companies who are revered and can do what they want as long as it has nothing to do with preventing or reversing pregnancy. Viagra is good though)

I think reversing time and living in a carbon copy society of 1950's Middle America is their goal but I haven't been able to prove it yet. But it has to be a conspiracy. (I'm kidding).

This is all really just an over simplification of my observations of their politics and I could be way off, especially about that conspiracy stuff.

edited to add:

That is ridiculous. Planned Parenthood has no control of what anyone uses as their primary method. And obviously if this were true they wouldn't work so hard at pushing birth control now would they? Why would you even say something like this when I know you are more intelligent than that. It can only be meant to smear Planned Parenthood (who are trying to prevent such a thing!) and spread dis-information or propaganda about abortion.

edited again to ask Mike if he is kidding about Afgahnistan? If not I hope he realizes that helping women was simply an added bonus that they played up to help American's feel that they were ultimately doing the people there a favor by dropping all these bombs on them...it helped when they heard stories of accidental civilian deaths for the folks at home to feel they at least sacrificed their lives for a cause.

Liberal womens groups had been trying to get them to pay attention to the problem for years. As they have over the treatment of women by our good friends the Saudi's. You can bet the government will play up that abuses if there ever comes a time we want to bomb their country for some other reason.

IMO, anyone who thinks condoms shouldn't be made more accessible to our teenage youth. We are kidding ourselves when we say absinense works. Teenagers are going to be teenagers, with the same raging hormones they had when our parents and our grandparents were young and full of fire. I also think conservatives use STD's as a scare tactic to dictate morality, "See what happens when you have sex outside of wedlock!".

Let me explain something about conservatism. It is a practice of common sense in social issues, and economic freedom. Conservatives, in general want morality applied by the gov't when applicable, but are small gov't concerning most other things. There is nothing inconsistant about this at all, it makes sense. Danya, conservatives are "putting limits on personal freedoms" because they understand that that will help fight a war against terror, like it or not, it makes sense. As Mike said, are we trying to say that liberals are consistant? I beg to differ if that is the case. And whatever the case about conservatism may be, we have a Republican White House, House of Reps. and Senate, so apparently the voters don't mind our "inconsistancy".

CP

UMMM...You realize Bush never came close to getting the popular vote so it wasn't that the voters didn't mind...it's that they had no choice.

Mike...I added on to my comment above after I saw your post and just wanted to give you a heads up.

Abstinance, when practiced properly, is 100 percent effective. If we said otherwise we'd just be "kidding ourselves".

Go ahead and give condoms to your own kids if you want, and tell them about sex all you want, but make sure that other parents' rights to raise their child under their moral standards is not abridged.

That's one issue about which conservatives are consistent-- we'd rather teach morals to our children than have the government do it.

Mike

So I guess that means that Congress isn't Republican, or did they not receive the popular vote? I'm pretty sure that we have an entirely Republican gov't, based on our system of voting Bush is the winner. The voters have spoken, they like conservatism.

CP

Here's a consistency about liberals: They are dead horse beaters.

Take it over to that thread, Danya.

Mike

It makes sense for conservatives. You want YOUR take on morality applied by the government and label anything that deviates from that as "evil" or "detrimental to family values".

Here's an observation of the inconsistant Conservative: They want the Ten Commandments displayed in government institutions. You want liberals and alternative religions(anything other that Judeo-Christianity) to adhere to your religious standards, but repress and label anyone who disagrees or find offense with your push for Christianized government as "untraditional" or even "un-American". Some Conservatives are firm believers of the Bill of Rights...others only when it suits them.




Right........... and Conservatives don't throw Bill Clintons sexual escapades in our face at every turn?

What? Actually conservatives understand that religion and morality are very closely linked, maybe the fact that the countries moral fiber is disintegrating, that conservatives have a point, when did morals ever hurt someone. Morals are not a bad thing, remember? Again I'll ask, are we honestly saying that liberals are consistant, or are we just sticking to conservatives being inconsistant.

CP

There is a difference between religious morality and institutional(I think that's the word I'm looking for ) morality that's governed and dictated by the people. To enforce ones religious standards on another is un-Constitutional.

Well, you did hit an inconsistency, although it has nothing to do with the ten commandments. Here's the inconsistency: Not all conservatives think that.

Actually, I'd go so far as to say most conservatives don't think that the ten commandments belong in government institutions.

BillyJean, you are talking about one judge in one state.

So, here's another liberal consistency: They like to take one person's views and apply them to the group.

If that's the case, then I think Robert Byrd makes all liberals racist.



Heh. Now who brought this up? It's been over three years since Clinton was in office. Even most conservatives have given up on Clinton. It's been three years since the election. Give it up.

Mike

If conservatives are anti STD they would be promoting condoms and not pretending they can stop disease with some pie in the sky hope of talking everyone on the planet about the joys of abstinence...teens and adults alike. Marriage is not a magic shield and will not protect anyone from disease.

Since you have just as much chance of success and would stop even more STD's I have a better idea. Why not ban sex altogether, even for married couples? Sex is no longer even necessary...let them have invitro. Criminilize both hetero and gay sex and tell everyone the Constitution does not guarantee their rights to privacy or orgasm so this must be constitutional. Jail offenders. In time no more STD's and no claims from the gay community that they are discriminated against so two conservative birds with one stone.

Yeah, you're right Danya, talking to kids about sex is real pie in the sky. The liberals are right Mike, we're inconsistant, can I change my political leaning to inconsistant .

CP

I'm beginning to think this topic should be changed, yet again, to Gross Generalizations About Conservatives.
My father is an atheist and Conservative, where does he fit in?

It's the liberals here that are saying that we shouldn't impose religion, yet they are the first to encourage the discrediting of religion via sex education.

If it is against some religions to use condoms, and our schools teach that using condoms is ok, then our schools are teaching that one particular religion is wrong. Truly consistent liberals would agree that this is unconstitutional-- forcing someone to learn/study something contrary to their religion.



So, Danya, what does this have to do with conservatives being consistent?

Mike

Okay, how about this: The republican party(which is mainly a spectrum of conservatives) believes in smaller government? Then create a whole new department of homeland security? I'm not saying that it's a bad idea, though I'm leary about Tom Ridge.

And what about the Patriot Act? Isn't that just a little too intrusive for true conservatives?

I'll remember that next time I hear a conservative or libertarian start a paragraph with "liberals believe..."

Inconsistency is often in the eye of the beholder. I generally consider myself to have very consistent beliefs; others agree, and there's a "philosophical health check" out there (sorry, don't have the URL handy) that put me in the 99th percentile for consistency. And yet, others often accuse me of being inconsistent - though the word they usually reach for first is "hypocrite" because it has more bite. Occasionally my beliefs really do turn out to be inconsistent, but by far the most common reason behind such accusations is that the other person doesn't understand or accept the distinctions I'm making or the criteria I'm applying. If I divide some conceptual space with a vertical line and they use a horizontal one, each of us will think the other is being inconsistent. The real situation is even more complex than that; most people's lines wobbly all over the place and occasionally turn back on themselves to engulf or avoid little pockets of belief or circumstance. Being consistent doesn't mean being simplistic - a lesson I wish more people would learn.

The point I really wish to make, though, is that it's pointless to accuse someone else of inconsistency according to your own definitions and distinctions. I accuse people of inconsistency sometimes, but I try to do it only when their own statements conflict with one another in a very direct manner. When there's any room for doubt, it's far more productive and less inflammatory to ask about the apparent inconsistency. Not to blow my own horn too much, but my latest response in the Debate Tactics thread illustrates the point somewhat. In the second paragraph I made a deliberate choice to address an apparent inconsistency with a question (actually a series of questions). In the third I might have backslid a little and made some derogatory "people who" statements. Which would people say is more constructive? Which is more effective? I'd be surprised if anyone didn't say that the questioning approach wins on both counts. Having thought about it a little I guess I could go back and "fix" that third paragraph, but then it wouldn't be as useful an illustration. I never claimed to be perfect anyway; maybe I should make that third paragraph even more inflammatory to make my point here even clearer.

No, because true conservatives realize that safety is and should be the #1 priority of the gov't. The Homeland Defense Dept. just keeps us consistant with out belief that safety is the number one priority of the gov't.

CP

DHS = bad
Patriot Act = bad

BillyJean, did you mean to name this topic "Are Republicans Inconsistent?"

It sure seems your problems are more with Republicans than conservatives.

Mike

I'm not saying Bush didn't win legally or fair and square here...just that the post was misleading in order to give credit where it wasn't due. Not that it was necessary to be misleading since he was correct about the other two houses.

Maybe he wasn't trying to lie per say...just stretching the truth. One more thing conservatives can say they are faithfully consistent in.

A Republican who disagrees with Dubaya?!

Now THATS an inconsistancy I like! A Republican who thinks for himself!

LOL! Billy Jean, honestly that isn't as inconsistent as you think

I believe if you stay here long, you'll find that a vast number of the posters are independent thinkers. I'm not a Republican, but I'm very fiscally Conservative, and I think we generally agree on most things.

Fiscal conservatism is one thing, moral or what you could call personal conservatism is another. You can cut taxes untill the cow's come home as far as I'm conserned!

Social conservatism is the practical use of morals, what's wrong with that?

CP

Nothings wrong with that. I'm conservative on certain aspects of my life. I just do not want my personal morals dictated to me. Now, once I cross the line and infringe on someones rights, the moral compass of laws the elected officials of the people have deemed valid, I'll obey or concede too.

It's the "practical use" of one set of morals, and people with different morals might think there's a lot wrong with it. Of particular note would be people who believe in the principle of separating church and state, objecting to the "practical use" of morals specific to one religion.

Conservpat,



I guess then that a typical conservative would be in favor of OSHA, strict food inspections, greater enforcement of traffic laws, stronger regulation of polluting industries, and paying the true costs of fossil fuels.

Somehow I just don't buy it. Statistically, we are more likely to be injured or killed at work, eating tainted food, driving in traffic, or ingesting pollutants than by terrorist attack. The use of fossil fuels actually endangers us by inviting terrorist attacks and pushing us into multiple wars.

So safety isn't the issue, obviously. Preservation of status and wealth--now there's a principle that can considered "conservative," and with that definition, consistency can be discerned in the apparent inconsistency.

Here's another inconsistency that might be understood by changing principles: Welfare is bad, but not if it is in the form of handouts to business. Change the principle from "welfare is bad" to "business is good" and there you have it. But there's more to this if you dig deeper--the actual principle is that money is good, as in fat donations for election and reelection.

I think most liberals would support the idea that money is a necessary evil, but not inherently good. In other words, liberals don't kiss up to people with money, handing them the keys to the kingdom in return for donations.

Liberals will beg and plead cases, such as when PBS or NPR are doing their fundraising schticks, but I don't see the influence of some big contributor like a foundation changing formats or content. In politics, it is obvious that most liberals don't kowtow to big contributors--witness the great amount of business regulatory legislation that liberals have pushed.

Anyway, I don't see a lot of inconsistency in conservative or liberal takes on issues if I can figure out what the real principles are. Ignore the rhetoric--it is designed to hide underlying motivations.

That's true, but to some extent, all of our laws are morals also.

AM, I'm a conservative who doesn't believe in corporate welfare. That theory doesn't apply to me. Liberals don't suck up to people with money, come one AM, all politics do and you know it. The reason why conservatives get the ruthless rich stereotype is that we encourage people to succeed how horrible. Capitalism is at the heart of every conservative, as is the American dream that goes with it.

CP

That's a stretch. When religion and safety clash in a government run institution (which schools are) and even in a work environment safety wins out. By not discussing religion at all and dealing only with clinical and biological body functions how on earth does that have anything to do with ones religion? OTOH, By promoting abstinence without marriage how will you get around the questions like, "what if I don't want to ever get married but still want to have sex someday and I'm an adult? or Why is it wrong without marriage? or Is this my only option? (that's a tough one since the school loses funding if the talk about the other choices in some cases.) Will your answers completely skirt religion? If not your plan loses. Mine is secular.

Let me explain something about what a truly consistent liberal would do:
Liberals do not try to force a single culture, morality, religion, or lifestyle on the masses. We usually believe that the consentual sex between others is private and none of our business. Parenthood is something that should not be taken lightly and practiced only by people who feel prepared to take on such an life altering responsiblity. We do this because we care more about children and babies and women than about tissue and embryo's. Which is why it's perfectly logical to still support abortion and safe sex education. We want children to be well taken care of in good homes with loving families. That is truly a pro family attitude.

***
regarding the consistency you are asking about above. Conservatives claim abstinence is the only form of BC that controls disease and pregnancy 100%. (I'm not sure when it is that clinics or doctors are encouraged to start teaching other BC methods. Is it when they are of legal age or still only if there married or is it never just never promoted?)

Anyway...they also say that gay sex should not be practiced because it's a health risk that spreads AIDS.

With this type of thinking you might as well ban straight and married sex as well. They are still at risk depending on if they ever learn about other bc methods, ever cheat or one partner doesn't wait before the vows to have sex and infects the other. Lot's of things happen in the real world.

This means they too are disease ridden public health threats that should just stop having sex.

No more STD's and a 100% success rate of stopping unplanned pregnancy as well. Conception can just be done in a planned and disease free medical setting. Since sex isn't necessary why promote it for any one group over another when you can go this route and be more consistent and more effective?

I'd say that's a perversion of the first amendment, which I quote:



You see this as government acting against religion; others see it as religion acting against the secular needs of society. To let the religionists have their way would be to respect an establishment of religion, and would itself be a violation of the BoR. If a religion demands human sacrifice, or even animal sacrifice, or smoking pot, do we allow those things because the first amendment says religious belief trumps secular law? Of course not. When in Rome, and all that. Conservatives expecting special treatment for their beliefs about sex while denying special treatment for others' beliefs about covering their faces (for example) would be very inconsistent.

Capitalism is at the heart of liberals too. Hollywood is a HUGE industry of liberals along with the recording industry. fulfilling your dreams is American , which in turn the liberals epitomize.

To answer the question as posed: yes, they are. So is everyone else. If one is looking for some inconsistencies in someone else's philosophies or policies, you can bet some will be found. I dare you to find ANY set of beliefs that will hold up 100% to everyone else's set of standards and questioning.

But to address the point brought up in the original post, I don't see that as quite so inconsistent. Having a strong (big) government in terms of the military is what government is supposed to do. Taking care of national defense, border security, etc, are the duties that the federal government is given by the Constitution.

It is not the federal government's job to interfere in our personal lives as much as they have been, regardless of which side of the spectrum they claim to be on. So being for less regulation on these things while for more on the kind of things I mentioned above doesn't seem inconsistent at all to me.

Conservpat,



So I guess that the liberal Demos running for Prez right now wouldn't be caught dead at a debate about the environment put on by an environmental group.

But they did.

What conservative Prez candidate has ever pushed environmental concerns? Maybe back in the 1970s there were some. Not today--just the opposite--pushing for drilling everywhere and anywhere.

I still maintain that most liberals don't care for people with wealth just because they have wealth. I also maintain that most conservatives elevate such people to levels of royalty. Witness the success of Michael Moore's lampooning of the rich and powerful. Also, the activities of liberal organizations in their fundraising efforts. Then compare to the $5,000/plate affairs that conservatives are so eager to attend, you know, to be near the really big guys. These conservatives also want to eliminate estate taxes so that wealth can be maintained within a few families--which is another nod toward royalty.

The difference I see from my little corner of the world is very strong.

I didn't use the words you have to describe capitalists. In fact, conservatism and capitalism are two different things. It is very possible to be a liberal capitalist, Ted Turner for example.

I've also met a few around here while doing article research recently.

The myth that liberals are against personal success doesn't fly. Liberals and conservatives disagree on just how to encourage personal success, but again, the equation of liberal=keeping people in their places doesn't jibe with the facts.

Liberals are the ones who want free access to public libraries and other opportunities, like higher education. Conservatives want more book stores and macjobs. That's speaking in general terms, of course.

That you are against corporate welfare is admirable and consistent with your underlying principle of less government intrusion and probably less wasteful spending of taxpayer money.

Can you maintain that this is true for most conservatives? If so, why aren't more conservative politicians elected who fight against corporate welfare?

I am not here to demonize conservatives. I'm here to try and understand them.

Here's something that bugged me about conservatives during the whole Jayson Blair mess. A lot of columnists on places like TownHall.com and TV talking heads blamed Blair (and rightfully so) for his crimes against journalism.

But then they took it further. Not only was Blair to blame, but affirmative action was as well.

This remark from Mickey Kaus on Slate.com infuriated me: : “The NYT story’s party line—that the underlying problem appears to have been communications—is a defensive euphemism worthy of Nixon. Everyone at the paper seems to have communicated quite clearly in January 2001. Rather, the Blair disaster appears (in large part) to be a fairly direct consequence of the Times’ misguided race preference policy. Plenty of other factors were involved, but without ‘diversity’ it wouldn’t have happened.”

Okay, that's quite a reach by Kaus. Blair became the poster child for what happens when an unqualifed minority is promoted over more experienced (white?) candidates.

Now isn't it conservatives whom say people need to take personal responsibility for their actions? If so, then how can the bad behavior of one jerk be utilized as the tool to slam of an entire practice?

Additionally, conservatives love to scream about the "liberal bias" of the media. What I NEVER hear conservatives say is "If the media is so liberal and loves racial diversity, why are there so few minorities IN journalism? Liberal journalists love to point out racism in other businesses What about their own?"