Duthie On...: All Comments

RE: Jindal Should Wait

andrew — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:45:00 GMT

I think we're in rabid agreement on most of your points, David. Quite frankly, part of the reason I self-identify as a conservative, rather than as a Republican is the fact that the GOP leadership so brazenly repudiated any pretense at being a conservative party.

That said, there are a few in Congress who are attempting to swim against the tide. Coburn (http://coburn.senate.gov/public/) comes to mind in the Senate, as does Jeb Hensarling in the House (http://www.house.gov/hensarling/). The problem is that the leadership of both parties have united in favor of earmarks and other abuses, so even though some of the newcomers are trying to sort things out, they're mostly fighting a losing battle.

One of the reasons I'd love to see Jindal continue where he is is that if he can be effective in Louisiana, it might make an impression on those who think that the key to success is buying votes through earmarks. I'm not necessarily holding my breath, mind you, but it's possible.

RE: Jindal Should Wait

David L. Penton — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:08:00 GMT

Who else [other than Bobby Jindal] in the GOP would you consider to be a rising star? Or more to the point, some one that firmly believes in "preserving and promoting conservatism"? Someone who believes in "small government" in the ways I seem to remember the original intent:

small gov't

=== fewer people employed by the gov't

=== fewer laws for people/business

=== less taxes

Far too many times is there a cut in taxes but no cut in spending. I can't do that with my personal finances [in a most simplified view of this] and I don't expect our government to do the same. I have seen nothing from the ranking Republicans that indicates to me there is any hope of achieving this particular goal.

RE: Why it's impossible to parody Code Pink

David L. Penton — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:40:00 GMT

I used the word 'absurdities' because that is exactly how Jon Stewart describes it. When there are politicians that are trying to "pull the wool over the people's eyes" or just do things that are just over the top, that is what TDS tries to expose.

Not only that, there does need to be prioritization :) and in the times when there are more conservatives that are 'over the top' (from some perspectives) then the appearance from the casual viewers' perspective might be that he only takes on conservatives.

Believe me, he wasn't nice about Spitzer recently either...

RE: Why it's impossible to parody Code Pink

andrew — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:27:00 GMT

Fair enough, David. I don't watch TDS regularly, so I may have missed some other skewering of libs.

But be honest here...do you think that TDS is balanced in its skewering of political targets? That's not my impression, but I'm open to convincing otherwise.

RE: Why it's impossible to parody Code Pink

David L. Penton — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:22:00 GMT

> Good for The Daily Show for taking on more than just conservative targets

You obviously don't watch The Daily Show on any kind of regular basis. They have "exposed" the absurdities in Senator Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro (in recent time), former President Clinton, Kucinich, Howard Dean and many others.

RE: Sporran wearers may need licence

Andrew — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:17:00 GMT

glengall1,

Thanks for the reference to your article. I'm afraid, however, that given that your article allows that some of the information provided by the BBC is correct, it's a bit misleading to refer to their piece as "absolute rubbish". Apparently it's true that a license will be required for possession of Sporrans made from the skins of certain protected species, even if the item was acquired long before the law was enacted. If that doesn't disturb you, well I suppose you're entitled to your opinion, but I find that yet another example of overly intrusive government.

Why on earth should someone who purchased an item that, at the time of purchase was perfectly legal, have to obtain a license to prove such? If anything, the burden of proof should be on the government, if they wish to impose such restrictions.

Still, looks like you've a nice site...I might stop by the next time I'm in the market for a Sporran. Here in the States, I can still get one without a license. ;-)

RE: Sporran wearers may need licence

glengall1 — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:23:00 GMT

Unfortunately this story was absolute nonsense. If you would like to go to the site at Sporran Licences - The Truth it will give you a full explanation of the circumstances behind this legislation and shows up this BBC article as being absolute rubbish and scaremongering tactics to sell their news.

RE: NRI Conservative Summit - Day 1

Andrew — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 21:44:00 GMT

Test

RE: Condoleeza Rice becomes a target for the left

CARMELO JUNIOR — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:14:00 GMT

SOME PEOPLE SAY THAT CONDI DONT WANT TO RUN FOR PREZ AND SHE WANTS TO RUN THE NFL INSTEAD. THAT RUNNING THE NFL IS HER DREAM JOB. BUT SHE ACCEPTED HER NOMINATION FOR SECRETARY OF STATE. IF SHE WANTED TO GO FOR SPORTS SHE WOULD HAVE NEVER ACCEPTED BEING THE THIRD IN COMMAND IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. I THINK CONDI IS JUST GETTING READY TO GIVE US A SURPRISE ANNOUNCEMENT BY 2007. BYE BYE HILLARY!!

RE: Condoleeza Rice becomes a target for the left

The Penton-izer — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:09:00 GMT

Not *everything* revolves around Hillary. I suppose you don't remember the obnoxious cartoons when Madeleine Albright was in the same situation? Would you have voiced disdain for those cartoons?

Don't get me wrong - I think Dr. Rice is highly qualified and I have no real issues with her appointment.