Comments on: Double Standards http://larison.org/2008/01/22/double-standards/ n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:17:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: OldNewEngland http://larison.org/2008/01/22/double-standards/#comment-8680 Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:45:16 +0000 http://larison.org/2008/01/22/double-standards/#comment-8680 Well, there was also the small matter of mass extermination, but . . . Well, there was also the small matter of mass extermination, but . . .

]]> by: bsebse http://larison.org/2008/01/22/double-standards/#comment-8677 Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:26:48 +0000 http://larison.org/2008/01/22/double-standards/#comment-8677 Goldberg's book seems more likely to gain fascism credibility, rather than taint modern liberalism. Your going to get statements like " if you look at Goldberg's analysis, the only problem with German fascism was the territorial expansionist aspect. Other than that, they did a pretty good job." Goldberg’s book seems more likely to gain fascism credibility, rather than taint modern liberalism.

Your going to get statements like ” if you look at Goldberg’s analysis, the only problem with German fascism was the territorial expansionist aspect. Other than that, they did a pretty good job.”

]]> by: OldNewEngland http://larison.org/2008/01/22/double-standards/#comment-8676 Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:58:29 +0000 http://larison.org/2008/01/22/double-standards/#comment-8676 Oh, McCain's fine enough as the Republicans go. He's proved his patriotism with blood, at least, which is more than can be said for the majority of other candidates. Oh, McCain’s fine enough as the Republicans go. He’s proved his patriotism with blood, at least, which is more than can be said for the majority of other candidates.

]]> by: Derek Copold http://larison.org/2008/01/22/double-standards/#comment-8670 Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:25:14 +0000 http://larison.org/2008/01/22/double-standards/#comment-8670 On paper, I can see your point, but in the 3d world, with McCain, it's intensely personal. His opposition hasn't been some polite but firm disagreement in principle, but a nasty name-calling one, complete all sorts of underhanded maneuvers in conjunction with the other side. That's lost him all sorts of friends and made him a number of life-long enemies. On paper, I can see your point, but in the 3d world, with McCain, it’s intensely personal. His opposition hasn’t been some polite but firm disagreement in principle, but a nasty name-calling one, complete all sorts of underhanded maneuvers in conjunction with the other side. That’s lost him all sorts of friends and made him a number of life-long enemies.

]]> by: Daniel Larison http://larison.org/2008/01/22/double-standards/#comment-8669 Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:31:35 +0000 http://larison.org/2008/01/22/double-standards/#comment-8669 Granted, Romney's chameleon performance is like the tribute vice pays to virtue, and I can understand why a conservative could rationalise supporting him ahead of McCain. I have said before that, if presented with the choice between the two of them, I would sooner support Romney, but for me this is like saying I would prefer to be flogged to death rather than hung. For me, McCain is so fantastically wrong on the two most crucial issues, and he is identified with these two principal errors of the modern GOP leadership, that I would rather have Romney, which is a measure of how much I do *not* want McCain. What I don't quite understand is how McCain can be considered so terrible by the people who think that he is absolutely right on Iraq. I could definitely understand an argument that says, "Yes, Romney is a phony, but he's our phony now and we can assume that he will cynically and opportunistically work on behalf of our interests because he has nowhere else to go." But that isn't the argument most Romney backers make. In my view, Romney can't be trusted, and McCain can be trusted to be a madman bent on war, which means that I would rather have neither one but will take the fraud if necessary. Granted, Romney’s chameleon performance is like the tribute vice pays to virtue, and I can understand why a conservative could rationalise supporting him ahead of McCain. I have said before that, if presented with the choice between the two of them, I would sooner support Romney, but for me this is like saying I would prefer to be flogged to death rather than hung. For me, McCain is so fantastically wrong on the two most crucial issues, and he is identified with these two principal errors of the modern GOP leadership, that I would rather have Romney, which is a measure of how much I do *not* want McCain. What I don’t quite understand is how McCain can be considered so terrible by the people who think that he is absolutely right on Iraq.

I could definitely understand an argument that says, “Yes, Romney is a phony, but he’s our phony now and we can assume that he will cynically and opportunistically work on behalf of our interests because he has nowhere else to go.” But that isn’t the argument most Romney backers make. In my view, Romney can’t be trusted, and McCain can be trusted to be a madman bent on war, which means that I would rather have neither one but will take the fraud if necessary.

]]> by: Derek Copold http://larison.org/2008/01/22/double-standards/#comment-8668 Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:05:48 +0000 http://larison.org/2008/01/22/double-standards/#comment-8668 <i>The mind that can accept the turnaround artist who has turned himself 180 degrees on virtually everything as acceptable, but regards flawed but consistent candidates as beyond the pale, is a very confused one.</i> Romney's insincere conversion flatters conservatism. It pays tribute to the principles, if only in form. McCain's treasons have always been at critical moments, and usually accompanied with all sorts of insults. Huckabee's case isn't nearly as bad, but I think people dislike him because he sounds like another Bush. In practice, Romney will be less damaging than McCain. Romney isn't likely to push for Amnesty every other month. McCain will. McCain can command bipartisan support for interventions. It'll be a struggle for Romney. The mind that can accept the turnaround artist who has turned himself 180 degrees on virtually everything as acceptable, but regards flawed but consistent candidates as beyond the pale, is a very confused one.

Romney’s insincere conversion flatters conservatism. It pays tribute to the principles, if only in form. McCain’s treasons have always been at critical moments, and usually accompanied with all sorts of insults. Huckabee’s case isn’t nearly as bad, but I think people dislike him because he sounds like another Bush.

In practice, Romney will be less damaging than McCain. Romney isn’t likely to push for Amnesty every other month. McCain will. McCain can command bipartisan support for interventions. It’ll be a struggle for Romney.

]]> by: bsebse http://larison.org/2008/01/22/double-standards/#comment-8667 Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:57:54 +0000 http://larison.org/2008/01/22/double-standards/#comment-8667 <i>His [Brooks’] position doesn’t stray much from the neo-conservative position, in which foreign policy rules supreme, and limited government is of little concern.</i> Let's face it, that is the Israel factor. His [Brooks’] position doesn’t stray much from the neo-conservative position, in which foreign policy rules supreme, and limited government is of little concern.

Let’s face it, that is the Israel factor.

]]>