Why not? We’re so ready to give in to the other “non-extremist” “far-right” principals. What are you guys about? Why are you here?

Anyone whose ever been a parent knows what its like to be thought of as an extremist.

Second: I understand Ann’s thinking. The shorthand is a Jimmy Carter gives rise to a Ronald Reagan. My only problem with Ann’s method is it will abandon the Iraqiis and our interests in the MidEast.

I’m surprised the ACLU-loving types aren’t upset with McCain-Feingold, easily one of the most heinous bills ever passed. For all the ballyhooed loss of free speech the lefties complain about, that one went down without a whimper.

Obviously neither Rush nor Coulter should be immune to criticism, because WE don’t play that way, but most of what I’m reading isn’t criticism, but disdain. Surely we can comment on the stands they’ve taken in a thoughtful, rather than dismissive, way. They each make points in favor of their viewpoints, so how about addressing those points, not their personalities?

There are thoughtful arguments out there, on all sides of this question. Dismissing the ones you don’t like as extremist is counterproductive, because the word conservative has a meaning.

I wish there was a checklist available (I might have to write myself one) of the basic conservative values. No one list would work for everyone, but I think that there are some basic characteristics that most could agree on. Taxes and immigration aren’t values, they’re issues that we take a stance on because of the values that underlie them. The fact that Reagan supported amnesty 20+ years ago has no bearing on whether it is in line with conservatism to support it today, because circumstances change; core values remain constant. We can argue about these issues, but the most important part is that we argue their merits based on the values that we share as conservatives – none of which are “extremist” or “far right” – they are simply values. If you believe that it’s wrong to kill, it’s possible to take this position to an extreme and refuse to defend your family against an attacker, but this is a simplistic and child-like belief. Adults consider circumstances using their experiences and develop values that take those circumstances into effect, i.e. “It’s wrong to kill, except in defense of innocent life.”. Obviously there can still be disagreement, but it must then be argued within the confines of stated values.

The biggest problem that conservatives have in arguing with liberals has been their reluctance to state their values in any definitive way, thereby allowing them to take conflicting stances according to popular opinion or convenience. We don’t have that problem here, so let’s remember to make our points from a position of respect. Respect that those on the other side are, like us, adhering to principles, even if we disagree on their position.

That way, we may actually learn something, even if it doesn’t change our minds, instead of becoming KoS-like villagers with pitchforks.

oh heck, no preview button… hope I didn’t mess up any tags…

Let me just say I don’t think so and here is why:

1) Roberts, Alito, Scalia & Thomas were dissenting votes when his beloved McCain-Feingold went before the court. Dio you really think he would appoint someone that would give the court the 5th vote – against McCain-Feingold?

2) McCain believes that the Geneva convention should apply to terrorists and the same group of justices don’t. Again one must suspend reality to believe he would appoint another enemy to his position to the court.