It is down right shameful to encourage people not to vote. Patriots have fought and died for our right to vote. So what if your guy doesn't get the nomination?! There would be no Constitution to arge over if not for those who have pledged to defend it. I wish my husband could've spent the first year of our marriage home with me instead of serving in OIF/OEF. But he had this wacky idea that liberty must be defended, even at personal sacrifice. If sitting out a national election is what Conservatives are advocating, I want no part of it. And how does it look those living in oppressive states without the right to free and fair elections? So much for that "shining city on a hill."

This makes perfect sense. The federal government gives out mostly BlackBerrys to employees. My husband has two, one for each agency he works for, which explains our impressive collection of whiskey and bourbon in the liquor cabinet. So, I guess it's not that the gov't is inefficient, it's just inebriated. All the more reason to vote a Mormon into the Oval Office. 

Wikipedia? Really? Try this.

New'ts not disliked for his principles, he's disliked for his character. He doesn't have one. He's a total dirtbag. He sabotaged Bush 41's bid for a second term, ushering in the era of Clinton. So, if there's one thing Newt does well is get Dems elected president. You don't have to be a "Washington insider" to know that he's loathsome and has burned every bridge, not in the defense of a cause or ideology, but for himself and only himself. He feeds off anger. What he is doing now is the same thing he did as Speaker with his public temper tantrums. The very public Gingrich-led rejection of the Bush compromise gave the Democrats significantly more leverage, and the second version granted Dems even more goodies. Newt as the nominee will only affirm what Pat Caddell has been saying: Republicans are the stupid party. Mitt may not see the forest for the trees, but Newt will burn the whole forest down. 

The abortion argument should be about class warfare, not legality or morality. The Right has failed to argue on these terms. You won't convince women to stop having abortions by claiming the moral high ground. Abortion disproportionately impacts the poor and minorities, yet despite their support of abortion the Left has their vote, all while they promote a culture of dependency and victimhood. The fact that this persists reflects a failure on the part of pro-life conservatives. It doesn't matter if pro-lifers feel their beliefs are justified, continuing to make the same arguments, the same way (and shooting the messenger) and expecting a different outcome is, well, crazy. Pro-life conservatives must spend more energy proposing and supporting alternatives to abortion, creating opportunities for people to better themselves, instead of spending a great deal of time condemning those who support abortion. 

But don't you see that "conservatives have contempt for the poor and minorities" is the very message that the left is successfully peddling? Perception is reality in this case.  And they'll continue to successfully market it as such until prolifers address it. The "it's not a choice, it's a child" bumper stickers only preach to the converted. The pro-life movement needs to address the broader ramifications of abortion on demand if they wish to gain traction.

I think folks are misreading my initial post, thinking that I'm an advocate of abortion because in effects more low-income and minority groups. I think if you read my entire post, instead of taking a few sentences out of context that it would be clearer. What I'm asking is for pro-lifers to address why they have such high regard for the unborn, when those unborn, if born, would likely be part of dependent class that conservatives see as a "problem?" 

If that was directed at me, I didn't consider it rough. It was the same argument, and it's one the Left uses today. It's why eugenics was supported by the Left, not the right. However, conservatives won't reconcile how they have a simultaneous contempt for those who chose to bring children into a cycle of dependency and for those who choose not to. Because this is not addressed is why I believe Democrats can still draw minorities and the poor to their side, while simultaneously advocating for the demise of their (minorities and poor) offspring. 

Is that a bad thing? 

Let's say those sixty million people lived. What then? The chances are that the vast majority of them would be living below the poverty and dependent on a welfare state that has plunged us into debt. Sure, there is adoption, but there are issues with that, like finding enough resources for prenatal care and financial support for the mothers. How do people reconcile a simultaneous contempt for those who chose to bring children into a cycle of dependency and for those who choose not to? And how can people wish to deny abortions to women, but also wish to deny them access to contraception to prevent pregnancies in the first place? 

Enjoy it while it lasts. Newt throws grenades and only knows how to throw grenades. If his campaign doesn't implode on its own, the Bush political machine will take him out and here's why. 

I'm always amazed at how two people can look at or read the same thing and draw completely different conclusions. I think your assessment is way off. I don't know why people think it is fashionable to elevate the brutish, tragic painter stereotype. 

And he was one of the greatest portrait painters of his era and belongs among the pantheon of great figurative painters. What's most disappointing is to focus on the more sensational aspects of the man's life and avoid the scope and beauty of his work and its contributions to contemporary painting.

He was a painter's painter. The sophistication of his palette and his sensitivity to skins tones is unparalleled. The textural and gestural characteristics of his marks are simultaneously forceful and restrained, deliberate yet unselfconscious. He was a master and influenced by a great many styles, but allowed the work to speak for itself. He was devoted and authentic, self-aware but not selfish. He wanted his paintings to prompt a dialogue with the viewer. As he said, "What do I ask of a painting? I ask it to astonish, disturb, seduce, convince.'' 

Newt doesn't have a chance in the general election. He has horrible polling numbers when it comes to women voters, and though they aren't represented terribly well on Ricochet, they do vote. I know the zingers he throws out at the debates are red meat for the already converted, but they won't win over independents. And where are all of his former colleagues in Congress? Are they endorsing him, praising him for his leadership as Speaker? And plenty of people still remember how he torpedoed Bush 41. There's a difference between having a big ego and being a megalomaniac. Newt is the latter. 

Ah, but conservatives like you, Prof. Rahe, haven't been able to define public health policy. As my husband says, "problem definition drives policy formulation." Healthcare policy is not and has not been studied or defined in large measure by conservatives, but instead by liberals, particularly is a macro sense. Many grew up in Europe and studied at the Ivy Leagues. Some of Prof. Kerr's colleagues at GW have been at forefront of healthcare policy formation.

In a society where most communicable diseases are controlled through vaccination or education, the primary drivers of healthcare costs are/will be lifestyle diseases: obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc. As healthcare costs continue to rise, lifestyle choices will be subject to government oversight.

Until health policy's redefinition is accepted by voters, legislative intervention is impossible. And that could take decades. That will be one of the great challenges for GOP going forward.

I'd like to know if Brandon and his like-minded Veteran friends either held the foreign policy views of Paul and/or were familiar with "blowback"/CIA's role in the context of American foreign policy and the events associated with it prior to enlisting. I do think service members probably are more familiar with global events, especially involving military intervention, than the average American citizen. However, I'd imagine many, especially those who joined after 9/11, probably feel disillusioned when they realized things aren't black and white, good v. bad. Part of defending our country is protecting our economic interests abroad. That's a messy business. In recent years, our Armed Forces often appear on the international stage more as imperial grunts than liberators.

Let's also remember that those that served in uniform like Brandon may be the only contact some will have with the US. In that way, they are a sort of diplomat, representing us to the world, so I think we should listen to them. They, as should all of us, care about the legacy of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how that impacts our foreign policy going forward.

Good riddance. Newt is a dirtbag. The Woodward piece in WashPo is reminder of how Newt will stop at nothing to feed his ego and alienate friends and foes alike. He's the political equivalent of a "mean girl."