Goldwater’s True Heirs

I’d say: Ron Paul’s volunteers. Daniel McCarthy writes a nuanced and graceful essay on similar lines:

If the Republican Party is full of pretenders, where does one look for Goldwater’s true heirs?

To answer that question, one has to look to the sharpest division that split the Goldwater movement of the ’60s. It wasn’t the division between libertarians and traditionalists, it was the division that separated idealistic libertarians and traditionalists alike, the campaign amateurs, from the campaign professionals. The conservative movement still pays lip service to economic liberty, social order, and military strength‹but on all three points, Republicans have become hollow men who have preserved the rites of Goldwaterism but who long ago lost its spirit. That was an amateur spirit – in both the best and worst senses of the word – and it drew together in common cause traditionalists and libertarians as different as Brent Bozell and Goldwater speechwriter Karl Hess.

…Today, nation-building and empire, together with K-Street politics, is about all that animates the Republicans who claim to be following in Goldwater’s footsteps. They’ve lost what the 1960 and 1964 Goldwater movements were really all about, and they won’t rediscover what they’ve lost by furrowing their brows wondering if Goldwaterism was really purely libertarian or fusionist. Goldwater himself was a man of the American West, and his legacy can be claimed by either libertarians or traditionalists – if they can put the principled spirit of the old movement before the emoluments of politics.

Why The Hannity Right Wants Clinton

Time magazine:

A late-October Quinnipiac University survey underscored this point. Nationally, it showed Clinton being edged out by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 45% to 43%, within the margin of error. In red states, however, she ran behind him, 49% to 40%, and she trailed, 47% to 41%, in the purple ones. By comparison, Illinois Senator Barack Obama beat Giuliani by a single percentage point (43% to 42%) nationally but held that same margin in the purple states and came within 6 points (45% to 39%) in the red ones.

Hat tip: Isaac.

Quote For The Day II

"Simply put, voters tell us clearly that Senator Clinton is perceived to have least what they say they want most: honesty. As such, these findings pose a significant hurdle for Senator Clinton to overcome in a general election and are telling to the issue of ‘electability,’" – Hari Sevugan, Communications Director, Chris Dodd for President.

What Happened To The Filibuster?

Greenwald asks an obvious question:

At least 44 Senators claimed to oppose Mukasey’s confirmation — more than enough to prevent it via filibuster. So why didn’t they filibuster, the way Senate Republicans have on virtually every measure this year which they wanted to defeat?

And he offers the obvious answer:

The so-called "60-vote requirement" applies only when it is time to do something to limit the Bush administration. It is merely the excuse Senate Democrats use to explain away their chronic failure/unwillingness to limit the President, and it is what the media uses to depict the GOP filibuster as something normal and benign. There obviously is no "60-vote requirement" when it comes to having the Senate comply with the President’s demands, as the 53-vote confirmation of Michael Mukasey amply demonstrates. But as Mukasey is sworn in as the highest law enforcement officer in America, the Democrats want you to know that they most certainly did stand firm and "registered their displeasure."

My primary feeling with respect to the Democratic party remains contempt.

Abortion and Christianity

A Christianist takes on Garry Wills:

Stating "Aquinas said" is not the same as saying "Christendom said" or even "the Catholic Church said." The church did not accept his arguments wholesale. For instance, the church ultimately rejected Aquinas’ arguments against the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin Mary. Indeed, Wills’ own championing of Aquinas would be a touch more credible if he were equally enthusiastic of Aquinas’ arguments that both contraception and homosexual sex are gravely sinful and that only men can be ordained to the priesthood.

Will’s op-ed can be read here. With typical MSM cluelessness, the LA Times does not provide a link to the article being rebutted on the same page. Money quote:

John Henry Newman, a 19th century Anglican priest who converted to Catholicism, once wrote that "the pope, who comes of revelation, has no jurisdiction over nature." The matter must be decided by individual conscience, not by religious fiat. As Newman said: "I shall drink to the pope, if you please — still, to conscience first, and to the pope afterward."

I think this is what Jonah Goldberg, in dissecting my book, called the "divinization of conscience." No. Just the primacy of conscience. Ponnuru’s take is here. Not Garry Wills’ finest hour, I’d say.