If I am a great father, it's because I have a great son.

"I know not what course others may take.  But as for me, give me an absence of evidence of systematic invasions of privacy for private gain, or give me a cessation of indfference!"

Magnificent.

The claim that the programs defended by Epstein, et al resulted in the discovery of certain terrorist plots debunked:

http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/13/zazi-headley-feinstein-nsa 

This.

I blame social conservatives.

Monty forgot to mention that Epstein has an immaculate pants crease.

I'm saying that the NSA is in fact taking a "gander" at the records of communications of non-suspects through the Verizon order.

Should read:

"Judicial approval to gander at the record of communications of a suspect, and yet more judicial approval to take a look at the content of those communications: That's not what the NSA is doing.  Claiming it is - that's Orwellian. They do it China and Russia."

If parental involvement is relevant, any factor that reduces that involvement is relevant as well.  It's unlikely that, on average, having both parents employed outside of the home doesn't reduce their ability to be involved.

The "saying things like this will lose the votes of X group" gambit  - which far too many commenters here are willing to resort to - proves nothing about the correctness of the statement in question.

Is a limited constitutional government like a human life?  That is - it's born, develops and flourishes for a time, declines in its later years, then  eventually and inevitably perishes?

And, if so, shouldn't we treat it accordingly - nourish it, keep it in the best shape possible for as long as we can, take preventive measures to avoid its demise as long as possible?  Or at some point, allow a particular form to die (or be killed) and start anew? 

The problem with this strategy is that the organ procurement system has saved and improved many millions of lives.  Most people understand that it achieves wonderful results in many cases and when it fails to do so, it's because a hard choice had to be made because of a lack of resources. The Administration would love to have Obamacare compared to the organ transplantation regime.

And I'm never throwing him a vote.

Is there a single Democrat governor who would do this if the situation were reversed?

If you think Christie is only talking like a progressive and can be counted on to advance a conservative agenda when it really matters - you know, like a few days before a presidentail election - you haven't been paying  attention.

If you believe that "when democrat donors are giving money to a Republican it's a sign of political success," you must define "success" as winning electons by imitating progressives.

The GOP should take notes only if it wishes to continue its "evolution" to Democrat Lite, which seems to be OK with you.

So it doesn't bother you if he keeps supporting Obama and elements of the Progressive agenda, givng them the cover of alleged "bi-partisanship," as long as he isn't running for president? 

It proves that the phrase "in a race against another conservative" has no application to any race involving Christie.

Some of us find the possibility that the 2016 presidential election will involve choosing between a Progressive Democrat and the man who has a 70% approval rating in deep blue NJ to be "a bit much."