Seriously, can Long/Steyn/Goldberg come back? Steyn has long been absent from any podcast. Goldberg recently guest hosted the flagship podcast and Rob is almost always on the flagship but I think that the three of them together is something to beholden. Any chance?

Sure, there might be more tactful language employed when describing people. However, the nature of the testimony given by Ms. Fluke should give us pause. She was on Capitol Hill testifying as to the expense of birth control.

I was raised in a household in which the phrase 'birth control' was met with derision and hostility. I often loathed it but as time has passed, I have come to appreciate that there are some things that should be, at best, kept private and at worst, not done. Ms. Fluke giving testimony about her choice to use birth control and then lamenting its cost is beyond ridiculous. 

Society used to provide a valuable service: shame. It kept unscrupulous practices clandestine. Ms. Fluke's decision to use birth control is her decision to make but to either allow herself to be used as a tool or to actively participate in a debate as an agitator brings about consequences.

The argument being made is an attempt to argue that personal choices should be paid for by others. Word choice could have been better but the principal is all the same: Her choices have consequences and they should be hers and hers alone.

Rob,

      This is not surprising. I hail from the great state of Louisiana where politicians do not resign for such things. Senator David Vitter was on a D.C. madam's list of clients. As that was a national scandal, what received less attention was that he was also on a list of a madam in New Orleans. His first election since the scandal was November 2010 and he handily won as he carried 61% of the vote. His challenger, Charlie Melancon was a House member at the time (as it were) and ran his campaign against Vitter not only highlighting the scandal, but using it as his platform. Some of the commercials suggested that Vitter used "your tax dollars" to have sex. Really. I enjoyed it.

     My point is that although Weiner'w behavior is reprehensible and nauseating, he did not do anything illegal. Unethical? Absolutely. Ultimately, it is up to his district to decide whether they reelect him or stiff him at the polls (as it were). 

Protests, marches and other visible signs of demonstration are effective. If the question is whether protests and marches are effective at persuading others, I would answer in the affirmative but with a caviat: They are effective in bringing attention to whatever it is that is the bases for said demonstration.

KC's assertion that demonstrations are unpersuasive in and of themselves may be true. People usually are not changed by the rally themselves. The value of the protest is that the media gives a group attention that it would not otherwise have had access.

Though I am an avid political junkie, just consider that a significant portion of people are apolitical or at least minimally involved. Demonstrations that bring attention to a cause are at least effective in starting the conversation. There was a Tea Party rally in Metairie Louisiana. Several thousand people were rallying and they had speakers, including local and national politicians. Many people driving down the main thoroughfare saw this gather and did what most people do nowadays: went home and searched for the more information on it. What I saw from my car was significant and I know that others who saw this thought the same.

Romney has more than an authenticity problem. His signature legislation was a disaster and his response is to attack its implementation. An admission that this is, indeed, a complete and utter disaster is a step in the right direction to bringing me back into the fold if I were ever a part of it. 

I do not expect my politicians to be perfect. Mistakes are opportunities for great personal growth. In Romney's case, it could have been cathartic. It could have been an opportunity for great political growth. He could have said that Romneycare, though constitutional, was a failure not only in its implementation but due to its failure to live within a framework of limited government. That would be a powerful message. He does not get this and, much like the current president, he never will.

I would agree that he is, at least, a bad Attorney General. There were other Attorney Generals before my time that may have been worse. I remember Janet Reno and, as RW Cook says, she was terrible.

President Obama made decisions that culminated in what and how it happened. I give credit where credit is due. Ordering a physical raid as opposed to bombing is certainly more satisfying and cathartic for this country.

My opinion on his handling of the economy, auto companies, bail-outs, taxes, spending, entitlement reform, etc. has not changed. So, everything has changed and nothing has changed. We get a celebration and he set the table. Everyone who had a hand in it, including our president, a sincere "Thank you". 

As a Catholic, I believe that it is not a violation of Catholic values. Quite the contrary.

One commenter brought up an interesting point which I would like to expound upon. He asked whether there is maybe some advocation to eradicate the safety net. I actually explored such a question my senior year of undergrad at a Catholic University. We were asked to write senior seminar paper based upon this question: "Should we declare another war on poverty?" 

Amongst my findings was the vast charitable network that this country had before that Great Depression. The events leading up to the Great Depression put a strain on the charitable network. The country survived without a vast social safety net.

I am not advocating such a thing but, if the safety net were to evaporate, individuals would step into the role. Catholicism emphasizes the individual and an individual responsibility to uphold Catholic values such as the beatitudes, among other things.

I feel that the Ryan plan responsibly reforms the social safety net without needlessly exploiting the poor and the infirmed while staying true to Catholic principles.  

Thank you Mr. Robinson! I will indeed report back with a post or two on my happiness levels after the children arrive!

I can only speak for myself and by no means am I refuting you Mr. Robinson. It is not responsible to assert something (i.e. that people without children are happier vis-a-vi conducted studies) without citing whatever materials one happens to rely upon in presenting such an assertion. The author of the review should have cited specific studies or at least one. It is also much the same error to cite andedotal evidence to support an opposing position. 

I am neither married nor do I have children but will be taking the plunge in less than 2 months and I look forward to the day that I am a father. I find children to be wondrous therapists as they remind me of the simple joys of life. So, in theory, I would agree that parenthood can and usually is a happy and fulfilling venture though I cannot point to anything else but my own experiences. 

It looks like someone just took his lunch money which is slightly different than his predecessor who just assumed it a free lunch. Smoke a cigarette, get a tan and that should perk you right up Mr. Speaker!