The modern republican party is alot more complicated than this discussion as there is more than one facet. I wouldn't say that Goldwater had anything to do with modern republican foreign policy. I was talking more of the privatization and deregulation angle.

from wikipedia

As mentioned above, Strauss is a controversial and much caricatured figure in some academic and journalistic circles. This has been both for his criticisms of various modern movements and thinkers (including many conservatives), and because some of his students, such as Allan Bloom and Harry V. Jaffa, and his students' students, are themselves controversial public figures.

Paul Wolfowitz was a student of Strauss; Wolfowitz attended two courses which Strauss taught on Plato and Montesquieu's spirit of the laws. Indeed James Mann claims that Wolfowitz chose that University because Strauss taught there and believed him to be 'a unique figure, an irreplaceable asset'. Wolfowitz himself has claimed to be more of a student of Albert Wohlstetter. Thomas J. DiLorenzo also claims intellectual links to Allan Bloom.

Not unlike Winston Churchill, William Shakespeare, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Thomas Jefferson, Leo Strauss believed that the vices of democratic regime must be known (and not left unquestioned) so that its virtues might triumph. However, insofar as his teaching suggested that the argument for the pre-eminence of democracy is not an apodeictic principle (i.e. not self evident or beyond contradiction), he has gained the reputation for being an enemy to democracy.
In 2004 the BBC produced a controversial three-part documentary on the threat from organised terrorism called the Power of Nightmares. This documentary attempts to show how Leo Strauss's teachings, among others, played a formative role in current US foreign policy, in particular the later years of the Cold War and the War on Terror. Strauss himself, of course, wrote hardly a word on foreign policy, let alone anything related to current US foreign policy

Which, again, isn't so cut and dry. The Republicans love to regulate certain industries--just ask Howard Stern.

Agreed. I was speaking from a conceived idealogical stand point. But in practical terms, I couldn't agree more.

How many times did Churchill switch parties? He's a bit like Jefferson. Anybody can find something about him to identify with, and not like.

I heard he ate babies.

Exactly. That's funny that the Neocons have grabbed onto him like that. Hmmm...vaulted wartime leader who is seen as a bumbling peacetime lame duck...I can see why they love him.

I know nothing about this guy.

True. Most Democratic Parties' big fundraisers each year are "Jefferson-Jackson" Dinners, which are those known namby-pamby LIBRULS Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

Both parties are a mess of contradiction, Republicans have just been more adept at keeping everyone inside the tent pissing out lately...may change right quick, tho.

What a waste of time. Tell those pasty, fat, old, intern-fucking, booze-swilling, bribe-taking, posturing, pompous, and grand-standing mf's to start working on real problems: Russia and China are meeting with North Korean president to plan on when and how to attack us, Iran's ready to launch nukes at Israel, all of our jobs and technology are going overseas, and Mexico has invaded our land and foreign policy.

4030?

I was thinking Doctor Dee

why type "Intern-fucking" but not "motherfucker"?

oh and you're a fucking idiot.

Prolly so. I discounted the Russo-Sino-Korean (Pinks) conspiracy in my overall evaluation.... And, the Mexican land invasion. Those two should have steered me away from Fox News Radio talker Tom Arico/4030 as my guess and toward one of the absolutely bonkers wingnuts, a la Doctor Dee/Peter Panic*.






*Is he dead yet?

Alito's wife cried during the confirmation hearings because the Democrats aren't giving her husband a handjob.

With all due respect, and in the spirit of the thread, (which seems to want to define "objective" as approving Alito's performance), Alito has hedged and waivered on a number of issues... many of his statements ("well that was speaking as a lawyer, I think differently now that I am a judge..." the whole obfuscation about CAP and ROTC) are very intentionally changed positions. If a liberal democrat "didn't waiver" to this extent, they would be portrayed a Flip Flopper.

Yea, I bet that's it. A handjob. fucking idiot.

She broke down because she's sitting behind the man she loves and hearing all kinds of garbage that doesn't describe him as a person. She has to be stoic and not show emotion, and after all kinds of Kennedy and Schumer bullshit, Lindsey Graham pushes her button by saying "I am sorry that your family has to sit here and listen to this" and the floodgates open and she makes the mistake of showing emotion. It's a credit to her she left, composed herself, and returned.

Taking a cheap shot at her is pathetic.

I won't fault her for crying. Without question it must be a hugely stressful experience. But did you really watch the hearings? Her face as Kennedy and Schumer were questioning Alito was a symphony of disgust, eyes rolling, twitches and fiddlling. Truly, truly she looked like she was tweaking on crank. I'd say it if she were a liberal... creeping me out can occur from people acorss the political spectrum.

If your wife can't stand the heat, get her out of the kitchen.

I love how the main argument seems to be "He doesn't think like O'Connor"

The Dem leadership seems to think that there are "conservative" "liberal" and "swing" slots to be filled. Cos you know, if Hilary is elected and Scalia retires they'll be sure to put up someone as conservative as him

Jesus if these people could argue their way out of a wet paper bag it might help.

You're obviously not married, or at least not for long.

she probably cried because scalito has an angry right hand and it was going to be a long night.

Wow, I hadn't heard any "AAAHHH" accusations, but its nice to know its out there.

not that I think it's worth the attention it's getting, but the whole "I don't remember this creepy organization I used to belong to even though I listed it on a job application 20 years later” thing is utter bullshit.

The Vanguard “computer glitch” thing is also utter bullplop.

Obviously they’re not going to stop him from passing this round, and Dave’s right that it shouldn’t be a comparison to O’Connor, and that it’s pointless to do so, but damned if Bush isn’t nominating the youngest, extremist dudes ever.

I like how Hilary is like the token liberal, though. Shit the liberals I’d prefer over her in office could just about fill the grand canyon.


If we ever got a true liberal in office, he better be nominating an unborn Nader/Arundhati Roy clone or some shit.