Here's new blog for those of you care about this stuff: Campaign Standard, a thoughtful many-times-a-day briefing by Matt Continetti. (Read my 2006 interview with Continetti here.) Bob Novak's weekly report, with reporting by Timothy P. Carney, remains essential.
A brief rundown of the week...
- Hillary Clinton ran the gauntlet of five Sunday talk shows without breaking a sweat. Ben Smith speculates that her satellite-delayed booming laugh was "probably the week's main contribution to pop culture" and started "the witch meme." When I met Terry MacAuliffe in early 2007 (the weekend Obama entered the race) he told me Hillary had a "great belly laugh" that voters were going to love, for what that's worth.
- On Wednesday the Democrats stared down Tim Russert in one of the less interesting debates so far. Obama was somnalent, Edwards was saurian, Hillary was sthenic. None of the frontrunners committed to pulling "all troops" out of Iraq.
- On Thursday all but four Republicans worked out their racial issues on PBS in a suprisingly substantive debate that you didn't watch.
Larger issues...
- C.R.E.A.M. September 30 is the third quarter deadline for federal campaign fundraising. Everyone expects the newly-public-financed John Edwards to crumple up like a Shrinky Dink in a blast furnace. The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder has been hounding the rest of the field and expects slightly lower numbers than last quarter from the frontrunners. Fred Thompson's expected to raise around $6 million. The Prowler reports that Giuliani, having set a $20 million goal, is going to fall short but beat the other GOP candidates anyway, with something north of $10 million.
Meanwhile, Ron Paul's fundraising machine is chugging along nicely. [UPDATE: In the hurry to get this post up I had the wrong number of days. The following numbers are correct.] A 7-day fundraising goal of $500,000 was met in three days: The new goal, according to Paul, is $1 million by Sunday. The campaign is confident that it will surpass the $2.4 million it raised last quarter. "We are going to beat it," a Paul adviser told me. "By how much is left to be seen."
- Newt Approacheth. Newt Gingrich baited reporters all week with rumors of a presidential run, and on Friday he slyly announced a new website: A prefabricated "Draft Newt" hub. If it was a ploy to win attention for this weekend's American Solutions workshops, it worked and it didn't work. It worked because, well, you're actually hearing about his American Solutions workshops. It didn't work because, as Chris Orr points out, few actual humans are attenting the hundreds of Solutions workshops.
Below the fold...
- As shadowly forces inside the California GOP watch their vote-splitting ballot initiative sputter, John J. Pitney peers into the debate between conservative and liberal wings of the party. Who's the heir to Reagan: Arnold, the hard righters, or both of them?
- John McCain talks to Beliefnet and mulls converting to the Baptist Church. He doesn't say when: I'm going to guess January 13.
- Rolling Stone remembers when Joe Trippi, John Edwards' consultant, said that taking public financing would mean "getting the shit kicked out of him" in the election. He was right!
The Friday Political Thread: Ron Paul's Million-Dollar Edition
Comments to "The Friday Political Thread: Ron Paul's Million-Dollar Edition":
CoveAxe | September 28, 2007, 7:40pm | #
A 10-day fundraising goal of $500,000 was met in five daysCorrect me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this was a 7 day goal, and he achieved it in ~3.5 days.
press release about it
Brandybuck | September 28, 2007, 7:42pm | #
FYI: Shrinky DinkNP | September 28, 2007, 8:09pm | #
...Hillary had a "great belly laugh"...Either MacAuliffe is a moron or he thinks we're freakin' blind.
J sub D | September 28, 2007, 8:11pm | #
From John McCain's talk with Beliefnet -Q. A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?
A. I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.
Golly Gee, I allways thought the United States was founded as a secular nation. As did G. Washington, who was, y'know, there when it happened.
[scritch] As another name gets crossed off my list of possibles. Damn, would you say he's pandering to the Pat Robertson crowd?
Anonymo the O.D.B | September 28, 2007, 8:12pm | #
Get the money, dolla dolla bill y'all.The "debate" | September 28, 2007, 8:14pm | #
The Dem debate could have been interesting if Russert and King were real journalists and had asked follow-up questions. If they'd really pressed they could have knocked at least a couple of them out of the race.So, why didn't they?
And, why am I about the only person pointing that out?
Anonymo the Anonymous | September 28, 2007, 8:17pm | #
And, why am I about the only person pointing that out?We're all out hiring Mexicans to point it out for us.
thoreau | September 28, 2007, 8:39pm | #
IdidntwatchtheDemocraticDebatesoididntknowthatnofollowupquestionsonillegalimmigrationwereasked.IllhavetowatchthenextonetoseetheMECHA
puppetmasterscontrollingrussertandking.
SIV | September 28, 2007, 8:46pm | #
Obama was somnalent, Edwards was saurian, Hillary was sthenic.David,
Hey! Some of us went to public school.
I got the first two adjectives OK but I had to look up sthenic to be sure it meant what I though it did. Interestingly, Google and online dictionaries don't like your spelling of
somnalent and prefer somnolent. We amateurs don't have easy access to your vast pro journalist linguistic resources.
crimethink | September 28, 2007, 8:48pm | #
As a Christian myself, I hate this silly debate about whether the US was founded as a "Christian nation", whatever that means. Obviously, at the time of its founding, the vast majority of its citizens were Christians and the culture was heavily Christianized; I don't think many atheists could deny that.At the same time, its legal structure was set up to explicitly give no advantage to any particular religion or lack thereof; and I don't think many fundies could deny that, either.
So, it seems to me that both sides are taking an indisputable fact and trying to use it to disprove the other side's indisputable fact.
crimethink | September 28, 2007, 8:51pm | #
SIV, what Dave lacks in spelling proficiency he makes up for with vocabulary expansiveness.And we know he's not using a thesaurus, because you have to be able to spell the words to find synonyms for them... ;-)
Will Masur | September 28, 2007, 8:54pm | #
Ron Paul did raise 500k in 3.5 days. He's currently at 770k. Check the live meter www.ronpaul2008.com.SIV | September 28, 2007, 9:03pm | #
They got the geek thing goin' on over at NRO withStar Trek day or weekend or something.
vsync | September 28, 2007, 9:08pm | #
J sub D, yes the United States was founded as a largely secular nation (although keep in mind that they appointed a Congressional chaplain for example). But were the states bound to this? If so, how come several prominent founding fathers went home and either advocated for or established state funding for churches?You want to close the loophole, (1) pass secularizing state laws or constitutional amendments (2) [optional] pass a federally secularizing constitutional amendment. Keep in mind that Ron Paul advocates following the law even when he disagrees with it, unlike every other candidate, so I think that would solve your problem.
SIV | September 28, 2007, 9:11pm | #
I still challenge all you bitches to take the American Civic Literacy testAnonymo the Anonymous | September 28, 2007, 9:36pm | #
I still challenge all you bitches to take the American Civic Literacy test58/60 here. Missed the ones near the end about the Fed and biggest federal expenditure. Interesting quiz.
AC | September 28, 2007, 9:50pm | #
You want to close the loophole, (1) pass secularizing state laws or constitutional amendments (2) [optional] pass a federally secularizing constitutional amendment.Loophole? What are you referring to? Except for a few asides from Clarence the T, there seems to be no doubt at this point that the 14th amendment incorporated the 1st amendment against the states. And while the 1st amendment doesn't require a secular nation per se, it does require a neutral attitude towards religion. How is that a loophole?
Henry Miller | September 28, 2007, 9:51pm | #
"...Obviously, at the time of its founding, the vast majority of its citizens were Christians and the culture was heavily Christianized; I don't think many atheists could deny that.At the same time, its legal structure was set up to explicitly give no advantage to any particular religion or lack thereof; and I don't think many fundies could deny that, either...."
At the time of the American Revolution and the subsequent years when the constitution was written, religious bigotry, still including literally burning "heretics" alive, was rampant in Europe. In addition, a group of highly influential French philosophers, including Voltaire, were very vocally condemning both religion itself (for its often lethal intolerance) and the use of religion by governments as a means of political oppression. The authors of the Constitution were very much aware of this and in some cases were personally acquainted with the French philosophers.
/That's/ why distrust of religion is so strongly reflected in the Constitution, and rightly so.
Brandybuck | September 28, 2007, 10:46pm | #
/That's/ why distrust of religion is so strongly reflected in the Constitution, and rightly so.My copy of the US Constitution, which I have on good authority to be an accurate copy, does not include any distrust of any particular religion or of religion in general. It does take a neutral stance, in that the Federal government can't promote or deny religion, or there's nothing at about distrust. I would go back to whatever store you bought your counterfeit constitution at and demand your money back.
Eric Dondero | September 28, 2007, 11:17pm | #
Ron Paul won't make it past Iowa. Hes toast. The only hope to beat Hillary is to nominate American's Mayor or old cowlips herself becomes President. How would the cynics are reason like her to become President?prolefeed | September 28, 2007, 11:22pm | #
I still challenge all you bitches to take the American Civic Literacy testGot 55/60. Tough quiz. How'd you do, SIV? Curious how our resident trolls / leftist shills would do (though they'd likely lie and say they got 100% right).
Can someone explain to me the answer to Question #58? Thought I had a decent grasp of how our fiat money system works, but apparently some gaps.
Eric Dondero | September 28, 2007, 11:33pm | #
And by the way, the Democrat candidates have confirmed their nanny stater status. They have endorsed smoking bans in all public places. Better vote for Rudi Giuliani, the only one that can defeat both them and the radical jihadists.SIV | September 28, 2007, 11:35pm | #
prolefeed,I got 57 out of 60.
I missed #58 as well- the correct answer rate is only slightly better than %20.
I'm an idiot I missed the first question.I got confused by John Smith and John White in VA and put it in the 16th century rather than the 17th.
My other wrong one was miss id-ing part of the Declaration as the pre-amble to the Constitution or vice/versa.
I took it pretty casually,very quickly(10 minutes), and didn't second guess any answers.
Dig around on their site , they have a lot of statistical data on results.
Jackson | September 28, 2007, 11:41pm | #
And by the way, the Democrat candidates have confirmed their nanny stater status.How long have you been in a coma, exactly?
They have endorsed smoking bans in all public places.
Wait for it...
Though a similar law was passed by Bloomberg's predecessor, Rudolph Giuliani, which banned smoking in restaurants with more than 35 seats...
Whoops!
better vote for Rudi Giuliani
...says the guy that can't even spell the name correctly, much less keep an ounce of consistency. The Mark of Excellence, indeed.
iih | September 28, 2007, 11:50pm | #
Since this is the Friday political thread:Hypocritical Freedom of Speech.
Talking of church and state, I was just listening on satellite radio to Fox, and it seems that there is an uproar about that "F--k Bush" article in Colorado. Hannity was mad at them for disrespecting Bush and was essentially advocating self-censorship by the student paper so that we have a "civilized" debate.
Same with O'Rielly on the San Francisco ad, also asking for a "civilized" discourse since this kind of thing is offensive to Christians. Same with Michelle Malkin on the same "fiasco". Remind me again of their position regarding the offensive-to-Muslims Danish cartoons?
And of course there is the whole offensive "Betray Us" Moveone.org ad. All those who were offended by the ad, strangely, were the same ones who were all over Muslims for their feeling offended by the Danish cartoons.
I just can't help but note the hypocrisy. As I mentioned several times on previous H&R threads, as a Muslim I found the Danish cartoons stupid (and somewhat offensive to my religious sensibilities as a civilized individual, but found the violent response by some Muslims also very stupid. I am good with the non-violent objections.
While I found the SF ad clever, I thought that it was provocative to Christian sensibilities. Still, I am all for freedom of expression -- bet I prefer smart freedom of speech even better.
Mad Max | September 28, 2007, 11:55pm | #
Eric Wormtongue, I mean Rittberg, I mean Dondero,Let me see if I can paraphrase your remarks:
"Oh, no, don't support Paul, he's going to lose! Stop supporting him, please stop! Why not support Rudy Giulani, who repeatedly and publicly avowed his support for abortion on demand, which kills more human beings than jihadists ever did!"
Eric Dondero | September 28, 2007, 11:58pm | #
Mad Max, you know I believe being pro-Choice is key to being a libertarian. Theres no way you can be pro-life and believe in freedom.Richard Brodie | September 29, 2007, 12:01am | #
How would I like Hillary to become President?Well if Ron Paul is not her opponent, then I'd rather have her than Rudy, for two reasons:
1. She would be less likely to start WWIII by nuking Iran.
2. She would be more likely to suffocate the nation with her Marxist + CFRfascist agendas, to the point where the American people will be gasping sufficiently desperately for a breath of fresh Constitutional air, so that Ron Paul or someone like him might be electable in 2012.
CFR | September 29, 2007, 12:07am | #
Ooooooohhhh the CFR!BURGER BUILDERS!
The IMF!
BOHEMIAN GROVE!
RENAISSANCE WEEKEND!
THE MASONS!
Richard Brodie | September 29, 2007, 12:08am | #
As Ayn Rand might ask: pro-freedom - for whom?You can't be anti-life and believe in freedom - for the aborted.
DenisL | September 29, 2007, 12:09am | #
Eric,"Ron Paul won't make it past Iowa. He's toast."
If Ron Paul or Kucinich do not make it past Iowa, then I think we are ALL toast. In some ways I am not sure which is worse Hillary or Rudy. Hillary just said that she can not guarantee that we will be out of Iraq by the end of her term. Just like Rudy. Both will likely get us into a heck of a war in the middle east and in other Moslem countries (Iran then Pakistan then Syria then... more as they get worried that they are next), that will inflame a billion people against us AND then bankrupt us in a guerilla war on a much larger scale than Iraq and Afghanistan. If it does not get one of our cities nuked, and then we nuke a few of theirs AND then...... everyone's toast.
Pray for America AND Paul and Kucinich, the only honest men running who still remember what America is all about AND it ain't nation building and pre-emptive wars.
Mad Max | September 29, 2007, 12:12am | #
"Mad Max, you know I believe . . ."How should I know what you believe? Even if I cared, how would I find out? By looking at your own statements about your latest belief-of-the-week?
"Theres no way you can be pro-life and believe in freedom."
Libertarians for Life hasn't gotten this piece of news:
http://l4l.org/
DenisL | September 29, 2007, 12:18am | #
By the way I was 55 of 60.Missing Plato's Republic was embarrassing as was "public good"
The other 3 were "just war", #27 and #58.
josh brueggen | September 29, 2007, 12:49am | #
you know I believe being pro-Choice is key to being a libertarian. Theres no way you can be pro-life and believe in freedom.go back and read the preamble to the declaration of independence. If you don't have the right to life what else matters? If you don't want children then use birth control. In the slight chance that a slip up occurs with that method then put the kid up for adoption, If you ask the baby they'd probably choose adoption over having their brain sucked out...just a guess though.
The Wine Commonsewer | September 29, 2007, 1:11am | #
- C.R.E.A.M.Cream was a great band and I had a relatively fun little rejoinder put together but my ISP sucks so I am currently relegated to dial up which is too slow to post a link to any great Cream tune.
Secondly, let's all vote for St Hill because, hell, Ron Paul, well, we only agree with 90% of what he stands for. [shakes head and spits]
Thirdly, just watched Pale Rider with my boy. can't believe it's been twenty some years already. Deevine retribution courtesy of Sam Colt just works for me. Works for That Boy too.
sixstring | September 29, 2007, 1:23am | #
"Paul's meter has almost broached $800k now."C'mon people, keep drinking!
Newt, lol. Another promoter of the Big Lie. By all means, keep splitting up that warmonger vote.
tejón | September 29, 2007, 2:49am | #
"Ron Paul won't make it past Iowa."Not with THAT attitude he won't! Jeez.
teh | September 29, 2007, 3:05am | #
56/60...Re 58:
Are there any other people out there who just never fully understand monetary economics no matter how much they read about it?
Joseph the Libertarian | September 29, 2007, 4:09am | #
Hey, Eric Dondero:You're not a libertarian, you're a fascist, stop polluting my philosophy, you piece of shit. If I ever see you, I'm going to stomp a mud hole in your ugly face, you stupid cunt bag!
Ron Paul is actually ABORTION NEUTRAL, he will leave it to states to decide, you douche bag.
Bradford C. | September 29, 2007, 4:43am | #
Being neutral on abortion at the Federal level isn't actually being abortion neutral, because states can then implement de jure bans, like Rep. Paul's state, which is very much a pro-life one.Also, if you asked a baby whether it prefers to be adopted or had its brains sucked out, it could not answer you because it is incapable of reasoning the question. Nevermind that in many cases we aren't actually talking about the abortion of a baby, and instead the aborting of a fetus.
The partial birth controversy I thought was important because it highlighted the necessity to define legal protection for infants, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that a fetus is a person entitled to life.
prolefeed | September 29, 2007, 5:13am | #
Nevermind that in many cases we aren't actually talking about the abortion of a baby, and instead the aborting of a fetus.The partial birth controversy I thought was important because it highlighted the necessity to define legal protection for infants, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that a fetus is a person entitled to life.
Bradford -- your comment assumes that there is an unambiguous definition of the difference between a "person/infant/baby" and a "fetus". Care to enlighten us about this definition that everyone agrees with? Because you seem to believe, based on your other comments above, that some unborn tissues are human, and some aren't. At what point between conception and delivery does this sharp and unambiguous transition occur, and why do you consider your opinion definitive, and everyone else's obviously wrong?
pilby | September 29, 2007, 5:26am | #
Also, if you asked a baby whether it prefers to be adopted or had its brains sucked out, it could not answer you because it is incapable of reasoning the question.so... it's ok to suck its brains out until it's what, 4 years old? (when it can articulate that it prefers not to experience that)
Edward Keithly | September 29, 2007, 7:20am | #
That's 58/60 for me. Missed the 1812 War question, and the Monroe Doctrine question. Got all the economic questions right.Re: Q58, as Fed buys back bonds, it pumps money into the system. That money supply bump has to be put into system somehow, which the banks are glad to handle.
kwais | September 29, 2007, 8:25am | #
45 out of 60,Damn, everybody here scored higher than me.
I gonna have to hit the books some more. Well when I took the test it was late at night, and I took it quickly, and how many of you bitches speak 3 languages?
Max | September 29, 2007, 8:28am | #
I still challenge all you bitches to take the American Civic Literacy test59/60, but to be honest, a lot of my answers were guesses. Missed #60.
Syloson of Samos | September 29, 2007, 8:37am | #
It is reasonable to assume that we'll have significant numbers of troops in Iraq come the 2012 election.Chris W | September 29, 2007, 8:41am | #
Hmm. Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the pro-war libertarian doesn't like the pro-life libertarian?Oh well...
M | September 29, 2007, 8:45am | #
Obviously, at the time of its founding, the vast majority of its citizens were Christians and the culture was heavily Christianized; I don't think many atheists could deny that.But many asthenists could. Although only weakly.
I got a 55 out of 60.. Did very good on the history questions, but I missed #60, the one on the fed buying back bonds, and 3 of the "who said what" philosphy ones.
Syloson of Samos | September 29, 2007, 9:07am | #
I got 59 out of 60. I disagreed with a few of the "right" answers. I missed question 58.My biggest disagreement with a "right answer" that I got correct was that the Constitution set up an "indirect Democracy".... It was closer than any of the other answers, but last time I checked it had actually set up a "Constitutional Republic".
Chris W. | September 29, 2007, 9:21am | #
The difference being, IMO, that in a truely "Indirect Democracy" elected officials would be able to do whatever the hell they wanted "for the good of the people".In a "Constitutional Republic", however, these elected officials are limited in power to a very narrow set of defined perogotives, with all other decisions residing in the hands of the member states. (If I recall correctly, the US Senate wasn't even chosen by popular vote until the 17th amendment, which did not occur until the early 20th century.)
At least that's the way I see it.
tom davis | September 29, 2007, 9:41am | #
America's Mayor?????Did Rudy not openly and unashamedly state in a debate that our MILITARY should be specifically trained in NATION BUILDING?
Can there be a bigger idiot, even named Clinton???
J sub D | September 29, 2007, 9:56am | #
Obviously, at the time of its founding, the vast majority of its citizens were Christians and the culture was heavily Christianized; I don't think many atheists could deny that.At the same time, its legal structure was set up to explicitly give no advantage to any particular religion or lack thereof; and I don't think many fundies could deny that, either.
CRimethink, if wr want an argument, we're going to have to change the subject.
Chris W. | September 29, 2007, 10:05am | #
"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."Rudy G., 1994.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A962958260
iih | September 29, 2007, 10:10am | #
kwais:I took it quickly, and how many of you bitches speak 3 languages?
I do!
I scored 45, and I am not an American. Those of you who scored around 45 or less should feel ashamed.
Regarding the latest from Rudy, check this out. Pathetic!
robc | September 29, 2007, 10:14am | #
56/60Of the 4 I missed, I dont get the "just war" one. I didnt think any of the answers were right, but the one they claim is right doesnt make any sense. Wouldnt all wars be just by that definition?
Or none, maybe?
How the hell do you define a "legitimate" sovereign?
SIV | September 29, 2007, 10:23am | #
The worst reported scores by H&R commenters on the American Civic Literacy test are still better than the mean score for Harvard Seniors.J sub D | September 29, 2007, 10:33am | #
I still challenge all you bitches to take the American Civic Literacy testOnly missed two of 'em. Most were pretty easy though.
J sub D | September 29, 2007, 10:36am | #
:Re 58:Are there any other people out there who just never fully understand monetary economics no matter how much they read about it?
Yes. I'm proof.
J sub D | September 29, 2007, 10:46am | #
Same with O'Rielly on the San Francisco ad, also asking for a "civilized" discourse since this kind of thing is offensive to Christians. Same with Michelle Malkin on the same "fiasco". Remind me again of their position regarding the offensive-to-Muslims Danish cartoons?iih, I think we'll find most self professed libertarians consistent on this. e.g. Don't get too ipset when insulted. It may be rude, but dammit, get over it! Sticks and stones etc.
iih | September 29, 2007, 10:52am | #
iih, I think we'll find most self professed libertarians consistent on this. e.g. Don't get too ipset when insulted. It may be rude, but dammit, get over it! Sticks and stones etc.Yeah, I know about the libertarian position. I got used to it already and think I am better off this way (not that I would not get over it in the past -- I would just be "upset"). I was just highlighting the double standard of some of these maniacs.
59/60. I missed the last one about which has been the greatest expenditure over the past 20 years. Good quiz.
Asharak | September 29, 2007, 10:55am | #
You know, I think Ron Paul is pretty out there myself, but why the hostility when Reason praises Paul on the instances where he's absolutely right, like on the drug war, for instance?Besides, the other Republican candidates are proposing things that are no less insane than some of Paul's positions, but they're not right on anything.
iih | September 29, 2007, 10:56am | #
But I do still believe that responsible (and informed) free speech is smarter than reckless free speech.Mr. F. Le Mur | September 29, 2007, 10:57am | #
iih: Same with O'Rielly on the San Francisco ad, also asking for a "civilized" discourse since this kind of thing is offensive to Christians. Same with Michelle Malkin on the same "fiasco". Remind me again of their position regarding the offensive-to-Muslims Danish cartoons?Unless O'Rielly and Malkin are advocating childish riots and silly lawsuits, the hypocrisy is in your own mind - which is only to be expected from someone who takes seriously the rantings of a medieval epileptic lunatic.
And of course there is the whole offensive "Betray Us" Moveone.org ad. All those who were offended by the ad, strangely, were the same ones who were all over Muslims for their feeling offended by the Danish cartoons.
That's not true. Besides, accusing a general of betrayal is akin to accusing him of treason, which happens to be a capital criminal offense.
Dr. Paul raised the $500,000 in 3.5 days...It has now been raised to $1,000,000. It stands at +/- $830,000........
J sub D | September 29, 2007, 11:07am | #
Hmm. Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the pro-war libertarian doesn't like the pro-life libertarian?Ironic? I don't know if that's the right term. Inconsistent might be a better description. Principled people can disagree on this issue without turning into flaming a-holes but they rarely do. My take is more of a constitutional one. IMHO, Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision by the supremes. I'm pro choice with reservations, but believe this should be fought out in those laboratories of democracy known as the states. Also IMHO, if Roe v. Wade were overturned the republicans wouldn't like how the results play out in state elections.
Mr. Nice Guy | September 29, 2007, 11:12am | #
Uhh, you guys do know that the ISI, which came out with the Civic Literacy Test, is a paleoconservative neoCatholic ogranization? I'm not knocking it, Modern Age and Intercollegiate Review are, by conservative standards, well done "academic" (not peer reviewed though I suspect) journals. But it's all romanticization of orthodoxy and agrarian traditional values which I suspect would make most libertarians here a bit less than in full agreement.The whole test is rigged so that conservative undergrads will score better than folks at schools which teach a critical view on the conservative narrative of US history. This can be percieved right at the beginning with such questions as this:
George Washington’s role in America’s founding is best characterized as:
A. prudent general and statesman.
B. influential writer on constitutional principles.
C. leader of the Massachusetts delegation to the Constitutional congress.
D. strong advocate for states rights.
E. social compact theorist.
Prudent general and statesman? No editorializing there!
Or how about this:
The phrase that in America there should be a “wall of separation” between church and state appears in:
A. George Washington's Farewell Address.
B. The Mayflower Compact.
C. the Constitution.
D. the Declaration of Independence.
E. Thomas Jefferson's letters.
Every conservative religious professor likes to drill this into their students because they want them to remember that seperation of church and state (the exact phrase that is) is not in the Constitution itself.
There are lots more examples.
Asharak | September 29, 2007, 11:12am | #
Mad Max, you know I believe being pro-Choice is key to being a libertarian. Theres no way you can be pro-life and believe in freedom.There's no way you can support the War on Drugs and the surveillance state and believe in freedom either, yet you endorse Giuliani.
And as I've told someone else here, do you actually think the Republicans you carry water for will ever see you as anything other than a pothead liberal who just happens to want a tax cut?
Also, Roe v. Wade isn't going to be overturned any time soon, so stop whining.
J sub D | September 29, 2007, 11:15am | #
I scored 45, and I am not an American. Those of you who scored around 45 or less should feel ashamed.No, if I remember correctly, you're a Canuck. But I love ya anyway. BTW I scored well, but (humbly boasting) that has as much to do with my test taking skills as my knowledge of civics. ;-)
iih | September 29, 2007, 11:15am | #
Mr. F. Le Mur:It is my experience that whenever I respond to you, I end up getting nothing back from you. That is either because you are arrogant (I am somehow not worthy of your time) or because you are weak of mind. When you respond to my previous attempts at having a rational discourse, let me know. In the meantime, I have more important things to attend to, including a rational discourse with others on this thread.
P.S. I have my responses ready to be fired. But I won't until you decide to respectfully respond to me! In the meantime, enjoy your time in oblivion.
J sub D | September 29, 2007, 11:17am | #
I was just highlighting the double standard of some of these maniacs.Hey, they provide comic relief sometimes.
chancelikely | September 29, 2007, 11:18am | #
56/60. And I missed some really odd ones (Gulf of Tonkin?)iih | September 29, 2007, 11:18am | #
J sub D, I am not the Canuck (unless by Canuck you mean Canadian). That was Aresen I think. I am on the other side of the country (actually roaming between both countries -- and no I am not a truck driver). If I would be a fan of any team, it would be the Canadiens, the Patriots and the Red Sox!Mr. Nice Guy | September 29, 2007, 11:22am | #
The many questions on the Declaration is also a staple of conservative education (see, they like it better than the Constitution because it has the "creator" talk). And then there is this handy little gem of American civics:Which statement is a common argument against the claim that “man cannot know things”?
A. Professors teach opinion not knowledge.
B. Appellate judges do not comprehend social justice.
C. Consensus belief in a democracy always contains error.
D. Man trusts his ability to know in order to reject his ability to know.
E. Social scientists cannot objectively rank cultures.
WTF?
And this one:
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas would concur that:
A. all moral and political truth is relative to one’s time and place.
B. moral ideas are best explained as material accidents or byproducts of evolution.
C. values originating in one’s conscience cannot be judged by others.
D. Christianity is the only true religion and should rule the state.
E. certain permanent moral and political truths are accessible to human reason.
Who knew that this philosophical view of the veracity of man's reasoning power (a staple of conservative natural law theory) was so central to American Civics? The test is much worse than I would have guessed when I heard on the radio that ISI sponsored it. I would say the ones who really "fail" it are any who think this is a honest test of American civics...(I got 59 out of 60 btw, I just guessed "what would a conservative say is true on this question").
Asharak | September 29, 2007, 11:23am | #
And the thing about Giuliani is that I don't hate him like some people do. In fact, I have a grudging respect for him and I even think he was one of New York City's most able mayors. I'm also appalled by the level of hatred directed at him from sites like "Free" Republic (where Giuliani supporters have also been banned) because he thinks gays are human.I just despise his (nanny) statism and his Orwellian contempt for civil liberties.
J sub D | September 29, 2007, 11:25am | #
iih | September 29, 2007, 11:15am | #Mr. F. Le Mur: ...
Touche, iih. Well (civilly) put.
iih | September 29, 2007, 11:28am | #
J sub D: I am heeding your advice by exercising my right to "rude" freedom of speech ;-)BTWW, I'm an atheist who thinks all theists are deluded. There's no need to intentionally insult somebody over it. Atheists and theists alike should try to remember that. Yeah, I cam rip up a religion as well as the next guy, but it just pisses people off to no avail.
Mr. Nice Guy | September 29, 2007, 11:32am | #
I'm unsure why th hate on Guliani by libertarians myself. Is it the gun control thing? That kind of comes with being an urban mayor these days (sadly). But the man has had some pro-immigrant, pro-gay, pro-choice moments (unlike most GOP frontrunners) and he's certainly no prudish Christian Coalition type. He's pretty free market. And he did a great job of making NYC a very vibrant place again (though I guess libertarians would have to frown on his very aggressive targeting of porno shops in the city and other "Broken Windows" type strategies).iih | September 29, 2007, 11:38am | #
There's no need to intentionally insult somebody over it. Atheists and theists alike should try to remember that. Yeah, I cam rip up a religion as well as the next guy, but it just pisses people off to no avail.Exactly my philosophy. My belief in the existence of God is fundamentally reason-based than anything else. Plus, religion does provide some sense of security and warmth. But that's just me.
My "reasons" are summerized in a discussion I had with someone on a previous thread. It starts here and continues down the thread.
Mr. Nice Guy | September 29, 2007, 11:39am | #
Has there been any attempt by a libertarian org like Cato or the LP to take a host of libertarian positions and then rank the Presidential candidates on them? A lot of libertarian thinkers and pundits have weighed in on who the best or worst is, but I'd like to see such a quantitative approach. Anybody know of one?iih | September 29, 2007, 11:40am | #
MNG: But his foreign policy and Orwellian rhetoric is very scary. I hate to use the word "hate" ;-), but I really really really absolutely dislikes the guy. On the other hand, his current rhetoric is just a means to winning the nomination, and when he actually becomes president, he'll fall back to his good old self. I dunno.J sub D | September 29, 2007, 11:44am | #
Open weekend thread claim!4 hours ago
YANGON, Myanmar (AP) — U.N. envoy Ibrahim Gambari arrived in Myanmar Saturday, looking to convince the military junta to end its brutal crackdown on demonstrators that has virtually strangled a people's movement to end 45 years of military rule.
Yeah, that'll make the thugs sit up and take notice! /sarcasm
SIV | September 29, 2007, 11:45am | #
Mr Nice Guy,Fixed it for ya
George Washington’s role in America’s founding is best characterized as:
A. White male oppressor
B. Hetero-sexist slave-holder
C. Patriarchal militatistic mass-murderer
D. Genocidal capitalist
E. Nothing,history is a process of mass movements
Mr. Nice Guy | September 29, 2007, 11:50am | #
SIVOf course that would be a more extreme version of an opposite ideological test, but are you arguing that the test doesn't have some clear ideological leanings of its own? Why would a American Civics test have so many questions on the objectivity of human knowledge for example? I suspect you know what's going on, you just approve.
Mr. Nice Guy | September 29, 2007, 11:52am | #
SIVOf course I should think it would be hard for you to see conservative bias, like it's hard for fish to notice water.
J sub D | September 29, 2007, 12:00pm | #
4) George Washington’s role in America’s founding is best characterized as:A. prudent general and statesman.
I've got no problem with that description. None whatsoever. Hell, V. I. Lenin would likely have agreed.
Mr. Nice Guy | September 29, 2007, 12:02pm | #
The American Civics Literacy test strikes me as being as fair as this one:http://www.blackconsciousness.com/
Or this one:
http://wilderdom.com/personality/intelligenceChitlingTestShort.html
I did OK on the first, but terrible on the second...
J sub D | September 29, 2007, 12:15pm | #
The American Civics Literacy test strikes me as being as fair as this one:http://www.blackconsciousness.com/
Or this one:
http://wilderdom.com/personality/intelligenceChitlingTestShort.html
I did OK on the first, but terrible on the second..
Oh, bullshit. I tried to think of a better description for that post, I really did. I couldn't..
Mad Max | September 29, 2007, 12:17pm | #
Concerning Dr. Paul:He's not "neutral" on abortion, he simply won't violate the Constitution for any purpose, not even to protect the unborn. There's plenty he can do *within* the Constitution to fight for the unborn, primarily by getting the federal government (courts included) out of the abortion-promoting business. Of course, after *Roe* goes, the main battle will be in the states.
Concerning Giuliani:
"I even think he was one of New York City's most able mayors . . ."
I can acknowledge this, but it only means that Giuliani is more patriotic than Fernando Wood, more honest than Jimmy Walker, more competent than David Dinkins, and less annoying than Ed Koch. Those aren't exactly high bars to clear.
Stu | September 29, 2007, 12:24pm | #
Ron Paul with his obsolete 19th century ideas about government and economics would turn this country into a huge corpratist plantation for the benefit of the exploiting classes. Child labour, anyone? Get eight years of Ron Paul, it would happen.J sub D | September 29, 2007, 12:28pm | #
I can acknowledge this, but it only means that Giuliani is more patriotic than Fernando Wood, more honest than Jimmy Walker, more competent than David Dinkins, and less annoying than Ed Koch. Those aren't exactly high bars to clear.Ouch!
SIV | September 29, 2007, 12:41pm | #
Ron Paul with his obsolete 19th century ideas about government and economics would turn this country into a huge corpratist plantation for the benefit of the exploiting classes. Child labour, anyone? Get eight years of Ron Paul, it would happen.You are behind the curve Stu
On election day where I sometimes live they run radio ads on "Urban" radio stations saying if you don't vote the Republicans will reinstate Slavery.
Stu | September 29, 2007, 12:43pm | #
SIV I bet if this was 1850 or so Ron Paul would tell us all how he cant do something about slavery because that would be against the contsitution.Libertylover | September 29, 2007, 12:56pm | #
The sad thing is that Hilary looks like a lock in the Dem primary and anybody other than Paul in the Repub primary. If Hilary wins the general, we can look forward to some squabbles over abortion or healthcare. If Rudy-McRomney wins we can look forward to some squabbles over guns or flag burning. But WHICHEVER ONE WINS we can look forward to a president so desperate to prove their credentials on national security or defense that they won't hesitate to continue the reach of big brother into our lives.Asharak | September 29, 2007, 1:13pm | #
I'm unsure why th hate on Guliani by libertarians myself. Is it the gun control thing? That kind of comes with being an urban mayor these days (sadly). But the man has had some pro-immigrant, pro-gay, pro-choice moments (unlike most GOP frontrunners) and he's certainly no prudish Christian Coalition type. He's pretty free market. And he did a great job of making NYC a very vibrant place again (though I guess libertarians would have to frown on his very aggressive targeting of porno shops in the city and other "Broken Windows" type strategies).True, Rudy isn't a Bible-thumper, but his "law and order" policies were/are just as bad. He won't jail you for being gay, but he'll jail you for rolling doobies. Besides, courting the gay vote in New York City is a matter of not shitting where you eat.
And he didn't seem to include adult theatres, grindhouses, street vendors and even many mom-and-pop establishments in his support of the free market.
I also question whether his "broken windows" strategies really reduced crime in New York considering that the crime rate in the U.S. in general dropped during the 1990's.
crimethink | September 29, 2007, 1:14pm | #
Mr Nice Guy,In regard to the George Washington question, it's asking for the BEST description of the given choices. An avowed ultra-left feminist Marxist who knows US history should recognize that the other choices are clearly false, and the "prudent general and statesman" choice is the best of the given choices, however much they may disagree with the connotation.
As for the "wall of separation" thing, you're really grasping at straws.
crimethink | September 29, 2007, 1:16pm | #
Of course I should think it would be hard for you to see conservative bias, like it's hard for fish to notice water.Ah yes, the irrefutable "if you don't see bias it's because you're biased" argument. Haven't seen that one in a while (not)...
crimethink | September 29, 2007, 1:18pm | #
Asharak,Don't forget Mr Giuliani's foreign policy views. Mr Nice Guy is veering dangerously close to the Donderoesque view that libertarians are just free marketers who want abortion on demand.
Joshua Holmes | September 29, 2007, 1:26pm | #
Edwards was sauriansaurian (SAW-ree-in, adj.) - of or pertaining to Sauron
Personally, I think that's more Hillary than Edwards. YMMV
crimethink | September 29, 2007, 1:26pm | #
Stu,Maintaining slavery as an institution required a lot of govt assistance. Keep in mind, slaves only remained slaves because state and local govts would force escaped slaves back to their masters. At the Federal level, propping up slavery required a national fugitive slave law that an 1850s Ron Paul would certainly have opposed.
So, yes, I think Ron Paul would have opposed going to war over slavery, but I think his philosophy would have made slavery very difficult to perpetuate for as long as it survived. Of course, the Civil War wasn't really about slavery anyway -- four slave states fought on the side of the Union! -- but that's a discussion for another day...
crimethink | September 29, 2007, 1:28pm | #
Saurian? Lizards don't get $400 haircuts!Jim Rongstad | September 29, 2007, 1:28pm | #
I shun Eric Dondero.Mr. Nice Guy | September 29, 2007, 1:34pm | #
Crimethink and J sub D-I feel sorry for you if know so little about the conservative movement in general or ISI in particular that you don't know that this test obviously reflects their take on American civics, history, and the subject of philosophy in general (hence the bizarrely placed epistemological questions).The test is not blatantly false of course, in fact little in it is false. But if you can't see that the kinds of questions asked are more likely to be stressed in a conservative environment or classroom, I really feel for you. I guess you think Fox is fair and balanced as well.
It's a common point and rhetorical device among religious conservative thinkers to point out that the wall of seperation language is not in the text of the 1st Amendment. A liberal version of the test would have asked a question about how the Founders were Deist or that the Constitution does not mention God in the text (except to say "in the year of our Lord").
Everything a conservative would teach his or her kid that can be found in the quiz: an abortion question, a Ronald Reagan great moment question, an establishment clause not equalling banning prayer in school question, a couple of "great Books" questions (Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas), a Edmund Burke (!) question, a Catholic just war question, a "free markets are better because" question...It's not blatant of course (Ronald Reagan was _____ President ever.
A. Great
b. Greatest") but it's certainly stressing points a conservative looking at US history would...
Chris S. | September 29, 2007, 1:35pm | #
57, and I found many of the questions annoying, although the test was good overall. First of all, although I got the question right, I don't think knowledge of Edmund Burke is necessary for American civics (the same is true of the Plato-Aquinas question). The test obviously over emphasizes conservative Catholic philosophers (why might that be?).Second, the Constitutional questions are clearly politically biased. Question 30 is technically ok, but it implies that a political opinion is a constitutional fact inasmuch as it implies that "school prayer" is not forbidden by the Bill of Rights (no matter your opinion on this, it's not a matter of historical fact as to whether the 1st amendment prohibits school prayer). Question 23 suffers from a similar bias, as many people (including the Supreme Court) would argue that judicial review was implicitly established by the Bill of Rights and then only affirmed by Marbury. Thus both (a) and (b) could be considered correct answers. But of course, we know where ISI stands on that question.
Mr. Nice Guy | September 29, 2007, 1:36pm | #
"Maintaining slavery as an institution required a lot of govt assistance." No more so than to secure the rights of private property in general crimethink, which is exactly how slaveholders saw the institution. Remember Dred Scott featured the argument of unconstitutional deprivation of property rather prominently, an argument an 18th century Libertarian would have probably liked...Argg, I meant to say "Constitution," not "Bill of Rights" when I was discussing the Marbury question.
Mr. Nice Guy | September 29, 2007, 1:37pm | #
Chris S. can actually see. Now J sub D, SIV, crimethink et al., can hopefully open their eyes. I know Foxnews is 24 hours, but you can change the channel you know :).Mr. Nice Guy | September 29, 2007, 1:40pm | #
"But of course, we know where ISI stands on that question." Of course some of the (strangely) highly opinionated commentators here do not know this, or much about ISI obviously. And yet they pontificate on the subject...BTW-I don't think the test is useless. College students should know the conservative-Catholic take on things as it is very influential (look at National Review). But they should know the liberal-secularist and the libertarian, and the anarchist, etc., take as well. And no one of them should hold out they are a fair measure of "American civics."
Brandybuck | September 29, 2007, 1:43pm | #
Having perused Mr. Dondero's site, it becomes apparent that his definition of libertarian is: 1) a conservative who is socially liberal to a moderate degree; or 2) a liberal who is fiscally conservative to a moderate degree. He is redefining centrism as libertarianism! Add to that his insistance that libertarians should be ardent interventionists.J sub D | September 29, 2007, 1:48pm | #
Crimethink and J sub D-I feel sorry for youIf so, send checks or money order to:
J sub D Relief Fund
PO Box 3.14159...
Rational City, MI
12345-6789
I dunno about Crimethink, but I'm friggin' devastated. I'll cry on a strippers shoulder now. That vulnability thing always works with Monique.
Stu | September 29, 2007, 1:48pm | #
Regardless of what Ron Paul may think the Constitution is out of date for todays society. It was written when this nation was still agricultural, slave-holding, and racist. Only those in the libertarian fantasy world would seriously think of following that outdated document to the letter. It was not made for our modern, advanced society which requires more government intervention than the post office and the army.tarran | September 29, 2007, 1:52pm | #
Mr Nice Guy,I hate Giuliani for a multitude of reasons.
Let's first start with the prosecution of Milken. The "crimes" that Giuliani charged Milken with were for accounting and reporting actions that had not been considered crimes before. In fact, throughout the securities industry, Milkens systems were thought to conform with SEC regulations. Milken's crime, however, was that he was a pioneer in "junk bonds" which permitted investors and entrepeneurs to bypass the established investment houses. These investment houses, aghast at the competition, started a propaganda campaign falsely accusing Milken was damaging the U.S. economy, whipped up public fear and uncertainty. Giuliani, being a demogogic little prick, jumped on the bandwagon, and the rest is history.
Incidentally, there was an article in soem economics journal that made a convincing case that the 1991 recession was deepened and lengthened by the financial industry's reaction to criminalizing heretofore non-criminal activity.
Government officials making up new crimes on the fly and applying them retroactively is a prime feature of despotism.
Then you have his lifelong associations with/promotion of/partnerships with corrupt people like Bernie Kerick and that child-molesting pries, his belief that "Freedom is about submission to authority," his penchant for unjustified character assasination, and populist demagogery.
I am convinced that if Rudolf Giuliani thought that raping alittle girl inpublic would help his chances of being elected, he would do it in a heartbeat. He wants power, and is absolutely lacking any system of ethics that tempers his appetities.
I've always been amazed that people who think the "war on islamofascism" is the most important thing in the world support Giuliani; Giuliani promoted Bernie Kerik to a critical post in the Iraqi occupation, setting up the Iraqi equicalent of the Gestapo. While there, Kerik wiled away his days kicking down doors in Baghdad with South African mercenaries. When he did bother showing up for work, his major accomplishment was to insult the Iraqi's he was xsupposed to be training to the point where they wanted nothing to do with him. I am convinced that Bernie Kerik played a critical part in the inability of the U.S. puppet regime to establish cotnrol of the governemnt.
This doesn't bother me, but if I were a supporter of the Iraq war, I would be very angry at Giuliani who has basically profited off of the war while helping establish the conditions for thea defeat of the U.S. military.
Fluffy | September 29, 2007, 1:53pm | #
Mr. Nice Guy -I don't think the epistemological question reflects a conservative bias.
The correct answer is basically Bertrand Russell's answer, and it's not like he was some sort of conservative.
That particular question may not belong on a civics test, but it's not biased. OK, maybe it's biased a little against dumbasses who can't read the question and figure out the answer, but aren't ALL tests biased against such people?
Mr. Nice Guy | September 29, 2007, 2:08pm | #
Fluffy, well there are two epistemological questions I qouted (the second one about Plato et al is the kind that would give a Straussian a wet dream).I've also read quite a bit of Russell and am not sure that the answer reflects his answer. His was a lot more nuanced (I remember Russell arguing that we could know relative things, like that something has twice as much mass as another). But the answer is VERY close to what conservative natural law theorists say, right? Whatcha think? And do you think that is why such an odd question is on a civics test put out by a conservative natural law organization?
tarran-I see your point, making up laws and selective enforcement is the road to tyranny. But the association with the corrupt fellows strikes me as par for the course for any long time political candidate...
Mr. Nice Guy | September 29, 2007, 2:15pm | #
To say that our claims to knowledge are unsupported is itself a clam to knowledge which would be unsupported. That's a common argument that conservative scholars make against their percieved horrors of "relativists." I think you would admit that it's much more popular among conservative scholars to weigh in against relativism than it is in liberal circles. Hence the inclusion of the two questions.Russell's answer was much more nuanced because ever since Kant philosophy has had a very difficult time arguing that our knowledge truly represents reality (the thing-in-itself) rather than the thing as perceived. Of course people like Hume or Russell knew that this does not mean we all collapse into relativist chaos, rape and plunder, but many conservatives feel very threatened by such thins since they draw on appeals to certain immutable truths.
SIV | September 29, 2007, 2:16pm | #
Regardless of what Ron Paul may think the Constitution is out of date for todays society. It was written when this nation was still agricultural, slave-holding, and racist.Stu,
In case you missed it.......
George Washington’s role in America’s founding is best characterized as:
A. White male oppressor
B. Hetero-sexist slave-holder
C. Patriarchal militatistic mass-murderer
D. Genocidal capitalist
E. Nothing,history is a process of mass movements
I found the link to the civics test at AnarchoCatholic
however the ISI press release was mainstream news the week before.
J sub D | September 29, 2007, 2:22pm | #
Only those in the libertarian fantasy world would seriously think of following that outdated document to the letter.Yep, I support the government following the law of the land. I'm kinda funny that way. Certainly, there are places on this planet where the rulers feel otherwise. Zimbabwe, Myanmar, North Korea, People's Republic of China, Sudan ...
I'm what is known around here as a "small l libertarian". How would you describe your political philosophy? Just wondering.
Stu | September 29, 2007, 2:26pm | #
J sub D I'm a liberal Democrat supporting Dennis Kucinich for President. Unlike you I believe in child labor laws, safety regulations, safe regulated food and drugs, anti-trust laws, federal funding for roads, 8-hour workdays, labour unions, a high minimum wage, social security medicare and medicade. Without government control we will have corpratist control.Stu | September 29, 2007, 2:27pm | #
And all those countries you listed are not democracies, I favor democracy and civil rights for all, including the right to a decent living.Mr. Nice Guy | September 29, 2007, 2:29pm | #
Gotta disagree with you Stu. Our Constitution is a great thing. And incorporated into it is the ability to change things (Amendments). The people who wrote it probably had racist ideas when compared to how we see things today, but they incorporated principles (guarantees of republican government, due process, freedom of speech, association, etc) which would ultimately be used to undermine racism and protect all kinds of minorities. I think it is a marvel. And I agree with J sub D, of course we have to follow it. It's the law, what else should we follow?Stu | September 29, 2007, 2:32pm | #
MNG sure I think the Constitution is outdated and I wish we would have a new convention and make a new one. Things like the Senate, electoral college, the Presidency, and 'states rights' are relics and need to be abolished. Instead we should have a unicameral, parliamentary system with proportional representation, and abolish the archiach federal system for a modern unitary one.Our constitution was great in 1787 not so much now. I mean, not even the right to vote is gaurunteed!
Mr. Nice Guy | September 29, 2007, 2:35pm | #
States rights allow for little labs of expermination that often lead to wonderful innovations (including many liberal ones I bet you like). And it can protect from centralized tyranny. The Senate allows for statesmanship (I bet you liked the Senate when it blocked some of Bush's stuff that the GOP house passed quickly). I'm no fan of the elctoral college, but it is hardly an awful thing.Chris S. | September 29, 2007, 2:36pm | #
SIV, you don't need to think that George Washington was a "Hetero-sexist slave holder" to recognize that a test mentioning Burke and Aquinus but neither Madison nor Montesquieu might reflect a certain world view.A more accurate analogy to a test with opposing biases wouldn't be one that calls G.W. a "Hetero-sexist slave holder" (straw, anyone?), but one that focuses on J.S. Mill, Voltaire, and John Dewey as critical figures in American civics (anyway, at least Dewey is actually American, which is more than I can say of Burke).
I'm not sure I've ever read a non-biased test or poll, so I wouldn't get so upset that some us find the test politically charged. That's just the nature of things.
By the way, I’ll explain why I think they avoided Madison and Montesquieu another day (I should be working rather than commenting on a blog right now), but that’s pretty much par for the course in Catholic Constitutional scholarship.
Stu | September 29, 2007, 2:37pm | #
MNG just