There is a mix of good and bad in that article. Friedman is desirous of active government, which isn't really conservative. Active "conservatism" is what W gave us with Friedman's full support. I'd rather not see that again. He is right about not being married to hard positions. Those things have won them elections though, so it'll be difficult to shake. My view is that a moderate libertarianism would be workable and good for the country. Don't be afraid to eliminate programs that don't work, don't trash the safety net, and don't create new bureaucracies without very good reason. Do make sure the rules are fair and incentivize savings and work.

Friedman is not the only pundit going down that road.
Paul Krugman discusses each of the candidates in his editorial and concludes with:

NY Times
By PAUL KRUGMAN
February 12, 2012

Severe Conservative Syndrome
And besides all that:

Talking heads are substituting their own cliche for Mitt's
"severely conservative, such as: disabled, depressed, ill, limited and injured.

The one I liked best was "severely mistaken"

This voice from the mid-70's startled me... but it rings true.

The Boston Globe
By Tom Keane
February 25, 2012

A McGovern moment?
And besides all that:
Ibid
2/25/12
Ultrasounds of extremism
One talking head on TV said something like:

I went to the hospital with a pregnant woman, because she was bleeding.
She had already decided on a termination.
She had an emergency appointment, but was kept waiting an extra 50 minutes (meh - NHS).

When we went into the room she was asked if she had recently urinated - she hadn't, so was sent off to do so. I guess the scans where you have to have a full bladder comes much later - she was only three weeks.

Now the lady doing the scan (nurse? technician?) did not seem aware that the person concerned had a termination booked in four days, and so spoke hopefully about seeing the foetus.

I told her of the planned termination and although her demeanour did not change towards the patient, she dropped the positive, excitement level down and talked merely about health.

I had an enormous amount of respect for her for that.
The woman I was there with would not have been swayed in her decision (due to individual circumstances) but would have been too embarrassed and proud to say anything, and instead gone along with the role of prospective mother, and died a bit inside otherwise.

Perhaps seeing a foetal heartbeat would be an excellent means to prevent a termination. But let's face it, if you are evil, selfish and depraved enough to terminate, you might just spawn a child twisted and unloved enough to be a burden on the taxpayer.

Of course every life counts. Goodness me, only a monster would murder an unborn child.
Whereas only a pinko commie would want to educate the damn drain on money once it's been squeezed out. Let the 16 year old harlot rhome school it!
It could end up being President after all.

ETA
Sorry. Crossness.

Heh... interesting choice of phrase, there. [/going to hell]

It does convince a fair few to change their minds. Each person can never predict how they'll feel until they're living it. Long ago I got into a heated argument with a friend, because some doctor had written an editorial at the time saying that all female patients should be given basic education on prenatal health and encouraged to take a prenatal vitamin every day, even if they had no intention of ever having children. Because healthier eggs means less chance of birth defects, just in case one happened to meet a rogue sperm even against its creator's wishes.

She was full of righteous anger about how she "shouldn't be defined by her ability to procreate," and that it was "typical patriarchal condescension to assume that a woman who found herself accidentally pregnant would suddenly be changing her mind," as if we're all "controlled by uterine hormones and aren't capable of rational thought."

I didn't bother telling her that yes, I think all of us are controlled by chemical processes far more than we'd like to believe; I just stuck with the insistence that when 50% of the births in this country are unplanned, obviously someone out there is changing their minds. Three years ago, that same friend got accidentally pregnant, and they decided to keep it. I asked her if she remembered our conversation from back in college, and she laughed and said, "Yeah, but this is different now." Uh huh. Sure it is. (Would have been even more ironic if her kid were born with a birth defect, but he wasn't.)


But I do agree that it's a rather abhorrent position, to claim that it is that important to make sure every gamete grows to term, yet cut off any type of support to those children as soon as they've drawn breath.

Yeah, I was on my high horse last night.
I support the right of every woman to choose for herself.
I'm conflicted over the rights of the father, so best not to go there!

Not having children I can't imagine the immediate bond after a baby is born, and how an unplanned pregnancy can become a source of love and joy. I think in terms of unwanted. This is obviously not always the case. I was unplanned, as was my neice.

A complete aside, but what you wrote reminded me, Clod.
I had a friend at school who had racist parents. Openly, old-school racists who thought the Blacks and the Pakis were ruining this country. My friend said she would never even date a black man, not because she was racist but because it wouldn't be fair. Why? Because if you start dating you might get serious. If you got serious you would get married and then have a child (this was the 80s - we still thought in that order).

As far as she was concerned there was nothing crueller than having a mixed race/ dual heritage child. They would be neither black nor white and could never fit in anywhere. That really shocked me.

Fast forward 15 years and she was in an intense relationship with a music producer. Black. I reminded her of the conversation and she flat out denied it. Puzzled, I pushed a bit and she got extermely defensive. I backed off. Okay. I thought she'd shrug it off like your friend, admit her views had changed.

Remind me never to get you pissed.;) But seriously, you are correct. Santorum is a staunch anti-abortionist, although his wife's life may have been saved by a terminated pregnancy. He is against government involvement in schooling, promoting home-schooling, although he requested 'cyber-schooling' for his children.

There is a bit of hypocrisy in many Conservatives arguments about government scope and cost - more of an 'I got mine, but none for you' mentality.

As far as abortion is concerned, people forget that there is reason the position is stated as 'pro-choice'. Supporters will just a vigorously defend a woman's right to take a baby to term if the government were to ever attempt to force an abortion, as China is alleged to have done.

In personal circumstances, I have always backed a woman's right to choose. I would support some kind of informed consent, but not from any biased source and certainly not the kind I have seen proposed.

The Oscars are up for grabs tonight,
and "The Artist" is a contender.

Here is the Romney entry

I just noticed this ad on FB ...

Think this should be done everywhere. Why/why not?

It could potentially get more people to vote.
It would give each vote more weight. It would certainly be a more accurate reflection of "the people"
It'd be a heck of a lot more fun watching the totals on election night.

I've been telling you guys that for years.

Heck, why congressional districts? Put all the votes in a big pile, count em up. Whoever gets the most votes wins.


We'll talk about transferable preference voting some other time.

(snickers... When you're ready for it.)

Was Florida 2000 fun? A switch from winner takes all to splitting it up will make the elections closer, and more likely to be tied up with legal challenges.

But the will of the people would be more accurately reflected.

I don't know. Maybe the benefits outweigh the problems it would cause. The Republicans, who claim a mandate every time they win an election, would finally have to STFU about the alleged mandates they have.

Win.
Win
Win.

C'mon, its a win win win. You in?

I have a better idea...

On election day, everyone brings a $100 dollar bill,
and puts it into the separate ballot box for the candidate of their choice.

Whoever gets the least $ is the winner.
Everyone else takes their $ and goes home.

Saves lots of time, eliminates the poor from voting, government continues to be run by bureaucrats.

Win, win, win... you in ?

States should adopt laws that would move them to proportional representation if all other states had similar laws. Otherwise, all that would happen when one state went proportional is that the remaining winner-take-all states would become even more important.