I've been busy ...

Well, late last month my ability to log on was functionally disabled, Jambo has since told me a way around that. Also, my significant other had her purse stolen while shopping, with no less than $875 in it ... don't ask me why she was carrying that kind of cash, and undoubtedly this will get an "I told you so" from Badboy with his disdain for this, the only city you can see from space.
At any rate,

Ron Paul ....

We've discussed this. The first 80% of what he says is a fantastical journey in conservatism, then the last 20 is mayor of a little place I like to call "suspended reality." Now, your primary beef is that if we, as so called "conservatives" do not support the Ron Paul then we must find a name other than "conservative", because what he espouses is the text book, historical definition of a "conservative." Okay, fine. And some have labeled our brand as "neo-conservatism." But what you're forgetting is that the definitional goal post for these terms, "conservative", "liberal" etc, has constantly moved throughout the political history of our nation. I could make the same accusation of the term "liberal" in its classical sense. The Democrat presidential hopefuls, and many others on that side, are sounding more like Buchananite isolationists rather than classical interventionist democracy spreading liberals. "A threat to democracy anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere " rings a bell. If we are to suspend the reality of constantly shifting definitions, and insist that classical descriptions be adhered to then I will be forced to demand that Hillary, Franken et al cease from identifying themselves as "democrats", let alone "liberal."

****

The cooking stuff T ... sooooo gay. I'm aware that the best chefs throughout history have been men, but anyone subject to the occasional "Trevor" or "Niles" joke should perhaps rethink being braggadocios with his apron strings.

****
As to "blaming Ryan." I can think of no higher honor within our group then to be repeatedly referred to by name when assigning blame for running people off. This is my territory, my group (ours), and if you, Titus, are going to insist on routinely introducing people that show up for a battle of wits unarmed, then I'm going to slam them. Not to mention, "they" need to understand that when I take time out of my busy day in order to respond to leftist rantings (like that kid), it is a compliment ... to them. There are scores of people I run into that have these rather insane, "Bush & Cheney were in frog suits setting detonations on the leveys" theories, that I don't even bother engaging. There's no fun in that, they're not operating from the same reality playbook and they might as well be speaking to me in Mandarin. So, for all those that have or will venture on to our site that ideologically oppose me (neo-conservatism with a dash of moderation), my advice is to suit up in your steel bloomers, and quit crying like a girl. We've had these fights face to face - no electronic medium as a barrier - how do you outsiders think that went? Tea at high noon? Hardly. Try Miller High Life and horse throats at 2 a.m.

****
On Hannitty's "hypocrisy", or his inability to "fess up" to associating with Coulter's brand of political rhetoric ... you asked how it could help the GOP to engage in the same extremist trype that we so often (and accurately) point out the left is guilty of? I can only say this ... YES Ann Coulter, while cute, is a political shock jock, no question. She's sells a lot of books and gets very wealthy that way. Faldwell, quite frankly, is dead. The difference is that Coulter is not considered the mainstream or primary voice of our movement. The fringe doesn't run our side as it does the left. There is no equivalent to the Code Pink's or "Move ons" that garner presidential hopeful attention. Hillary et al attend rallies of these extreme elements, bend to their will, and are careful;l not to offend them. In contrast has even ONE GOP presidential candidate been on Savage, or appeared jointly with Coulter? No. And there's my only point here - the extreme left runs that party, the extreme right does not run ours.

****

Global warming ...

A Manhattan style project for new sources of energy is fine, and has in fact been advocated by me. The rest of what you wrote is Carteresque nonsense Titus. Price regulations have been tried and met with disastrous results. I no more want to bring that 1970's disaster back then bell bottoms, disco's or bad adult films.
The man-made global warming frenzy, and it is a frenzy, is fueled by a previously established template - in other words if you (I'm talking about people in general) are prone to think that companies are "evil" entities, that capitalism is the lowest form of human behavior, and that rich nations like America are full of greedy, heartless fat cats that get rich on the backs of poorer nations then you will be prone to "believe" in the religion of global warming. It fits the template and guess what, you get to attack from a position of "do-gooderness."
It's fake, it's a farce, and it's widely believed, and that makes it dangerous. The next president (it clearly won't be this one) should push a "moon shot" agenda for alternative fuels and new technologies, absolutely, and he should base it and publicly sell on national security. About half our country believes in this farce, but I would presume around 90% would agree that dependency on energy from the Middle East is dangerous. I'm telling you, this is a gimmie for any politician with presidential aspirations. In the mean time, if you want to ACTUALLY lower the cost of gasoline, forget price controls (I'm having trouble believing you even suggested that "malaise"), and suspend the gas tax for the coming winter - what's that, like an immediate 50 cents a gallon drop? And cut down on the federal purification blend standards, that another roughly 40 cents off the top of my head. THAT is how the government should affect the price, not setting arbitrary price controls just because bashing oil companies is popular, and easy.

****
On Naomi Wolfe ....I spoke to Jambo on the phone earlier, he was averting my breaking the key board by putting the post in a proper context, so my response will be shorter since we talked for about an hour. I understand his point that the book was historically rooted, thus interesting, and this gives him hope that the Dems will drift toward a more civilized, intelligent conversation of the issues. However, if she, whom draws clear comparisons from Bush to Gobbles or Hitler himself, is the best example on the left of a mature and responsible discourse, then that is an indictment of the entire party. And unfortunately for her people like Jambo quickly point out that bonifide American icons (i.e. Lincoln and FDR) fit her description of "despots."

****
Badboy - excellent post on the cyclycal nature of freedom to bondage. I found that quite interesting, and disheartening.
FR