"NR is the conservative gold standard"

Whatever do you mean, Karol?

When you call the it the "gold standard" do you mean that the NR can be ignored, debased, and deflated?

Or are you saying that a REAL conservative would pay as much attention to the "gold standard" as they already do to the NR?

And if that is the case, are there any of these REAL conservatives in the 2008 race?!?!!?

E

Isn't associating a media outlet with conservatism the same thing all those Fox News haters do?

Yes, but they're wrong. And we know they're wrong because when comparing Fox News and NR, NR is clearly conservative while Fox is clearly not.

When I listen to Huckabee talk, I hear Jimmy Carter's voice. A person should have morality in the White House. However, when you blame mistakes on your "faith", then it makes me start to wonder if you're really ruthless enough to be President. Christian or not, a person should have the common sense to say, "Violent animals on two legs are in prison for a reason." If a person can't do this on the state level, what does that mean when you may have to break out the thermonuclear whooping stick at the national level? Or, for that matter, even launch a large-scale coventional attack?

Sadly enough, I have less doubt that Hillary would be willing to do the necessary killing than I do with any of the front runners besides Giuliani.

Even though Fox News' caters to those of a different perspective than say young hip urbanites who are more likely to read the New York times?

That's not to be a condemnation of Fox, though. I actually find that to be a good marketing strategy.

P.S. And, yeah, I agree with Ace--if a liberal's going to be sitting in the White House, it would behoove Clan Bumbling Elephant to make sure said liberal is at least of the Clan Foaming Donkey. Just a thought.

That being said, I won't go out on a limb and say I'd vote for Billary. Thanks, dynastic succession has been tried and failed several times in Europe--I'd rather not start it here.

NR's point is to advance conservatism. Fox's point is, MAYBE AT BEST, to represent a pro-American perspective not heard on CNN.

"NR is clearly conservative while Fox is clearly not."

You sound like the Greens who say that NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc. aren't "liberal".

Fox News is *generally* more conservative than the average American voter and *generally* favors the Republicans over the Democrats.

Ergo, it's conservative.

Just to clarify: I'm not saying it's *as* conservative as TNR, either in mission statement or in practice.

so here, as elsewhere, a potential discussion on the merits of the gold standard gets overshadowed.

At least on here I don't have to hear Allan Keys complain about getting slighted.

so here, as elsewhere, a potential discussion on the merits of the gold standard gets overshadowed.

I think that kicked the bucket along with Keynesian economics.

E5:

Call me crazy, but maybe that's because the US and world economies have had fantastic growth since 1971, while gold-standard supporters warned that economic collapse was imminent (for 36 years and counting)?

You're speaking only relatively, Joe. Karol is speaking in an absolute sense, i.e. a gold standard. Fox News is more conservative than the average, but not truly conservative when you look at what "conservative" really means.

The expression "gold standard" came about because a true one is a measurement in the absolute sense. A central bank declares the domestic currency as worth x per ounce of gold, regardless of purchasing power parity or other economic factors. Such a measurement can be changed, but only in the sense that its meaning is completely destroyed.

I don't think that anything is necessarily "imminent" when talking finance.

For all I disagree with Keynes (a clear OPPONENT of the gold standard - which leads me to wonder where Shawn's mention comes from) he did have some pearls of wisdom, namely:

"a market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent"

Debasing one's currency is a bad thing... but to forecast that the negative consequences will definitly happen today, next year, or within the next 36 years is simply irresponsible.

"ones", not "one's"?

For all I disagree with Keynes (a clear OPPONENT of the gold standard - which leads me to wonder where Shawn's mention comes from) he did have some pearls of wisdom...

What can I say? My Intro to Macroeconomics teacher was a Marxist. ;)

I'm with Ace. If Huckabee is the nominee I'll vote for Hillary. For all the reasons he cited.

I can't decide which would be worse - that he's a Clinton-style cynical manipulator or that he actually believes the stuff he says.

The problem is that "conservative" has become rather useless. If you're for gun control but also for immigration control, are you conservative? If you're pro-choice but for the war in Iraq, are you conservative? How can a conservative try to sell universal healthcare coverage or deficit spending?

My problem with this crew of Republicans is that they believe in their hearts that government has the solution to the problems we face. They simply disagree with the Democrats as to which problems are important.

A true small government person understands that the problems we are facing in 2008 (a runaway health system, inflation, etc.) have been caused by our current government system, and doing more of the same is NOT enough.

If we have to choose between a statist Republican and a statist Democrat, I'd rather have a statist Democrat. At least they can sell out to me. The statist Republican can only sell out to them...

"My problem with this crew of Republicans is that they believe in their hearts that government has the solution to the problems we face. They simply disagree with the Democrats as to which problems are important."

I like that line.

Can I steal it?

Yeah, that's basically why I don't belong to either party. Sorry, but when I keep hearing GOPers claim they're the part of "small government," I point out that this president is the one who brought us DHS.

Hillary! v. Huckleberry? God help me, but yes, I agree with Ace.

I would be prefer an American Nationalist if I can't have a conservative patriots.

I think that assertion about NR is greatly exaggerated. Some do see it in that light, but I don't think they represent the predominant view.

That being said, I think there is a huge gap between the NR of today and yesteryear.

Reading a posting J.O. Sullivan made to NRO from Poland reminded me of why I miss him as editor-in-chief.

That comment from Kentucky Packrat is fantastic. I agree with E5.

"a market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent"

This is the basis for socialists' belief that government must "tune" the economy, "prime the pump," and all that other claptrap. Because markets sometimes make errors, which is the exception rather than the rule, government must step in -- notwithstanding that it's the rule, not the exception, that government makes errors.

Markets are irrational only if government is skewing them (done by interventionism). Free markets tend to be rational. Note that it's not to say all market decisions are always rational, but that market participants tend to be rational in their decisions.

"Rational" merely means not making systematic errors. You might think someone is irrational for paying $1.50 in the checkout line for a 20-ounce soda, when 2-liters at the same price are available nearby, but it's still a rational decision. Perhaps not the most efficient according to others' standards, but the person buying judged the cold, convenient beverage to be worth the price.

Anybody see the recent article in The Weekly Standard about a voter walking into Huckabee's campaign headquarters in Iowa to ask where Huckabee stood on a certain issue that is important in Iowa, and nobody there knew the answer, including his "issues" guy?

You can't run a campaign without a staff people. QED, Huckabee is not going to win this election. For him to make a stand in singly-targeted Iowa is one thing, for him to leverage that win in other states where he has no campaign infrastructure right now is not credible.

I can just see people on Super Tuesday all over the country walking into newly-established Huckabee campaign headquarters (if there even are any) to ask questions of a staff that has been involved in the campaign for like a week. Good luck with that.

Charlie:

What was the issue in question?

Perry,

I do agree that that quote is the basis for socialism.

I'm not sure if you're saying that simply by believing that markets aren't always efficient, one necessarily believes it's the govt's job to "fix" them.

If so, you are clearly giving me a false choice:
either I believe markets are never irrational or I believe the govt has to fix them

And I wasn't using the Keynes quote in the efficient /inefficient markets debate... merely saying that things can take much longer to happen than people seem to think they are able to predict them.

To say that just because the move off the gold standard hasn't been detrimental in the past 36 years somehow shows that the claim that it still wasn't a bad move would be akin to saying that since an obese man hasn't had a heart attack YET shows that obesity actually doesn't increase the risks of it happening.

E5

E5 said: I like that line. Can I steal it?

It's hardly original, so of course you're welcome to it. :)

I am supporting Ron Paul, and I'm going so far as to register Republican so I can vote in the primaries to do it. He may be a bit of a nutter, but he is a Constitutionalist, and I like that.