<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is Rush Wrong?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://independentsources.com/2009/04/18/is-rush-wrong/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://independentsources.com/2009/04/18/is-rush-wrong/</link>
	<description>Independent thinking about  California Politics, Hot Bikini Clad Teachers (Erica Chevillar), Topless Teachers (Tamara Hoover), Hot French Newscaster Melissa Theuriau, Katie Rees  &#038; the LA Times</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:17:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://independentsources.com/2009/04/18/is-rush-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-75908</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2009 19:43:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://independentsources.com/2009/04/18/is-rush-wrong/#comment-75908</guid>
		<description>I think Rush begins with the basic assumption that &quot;conservatism&quot; is an interconnecting group of values and ideals; that if you accept a couple basic principles, then you would logically also believe these others; x therefore y, therefore z, and so on.    That means it&#039;s not an ideological buffet where you can pick and choose what you like; you take it all.   If you back away from a significant portion of it (like abortion rights), then you&#039;re crippling the whole thing.

Personally I don&#039;t agree with that, and I think it&#039;s true for many people I know.  I don&#039;t like &quot;right&quot; and &quot;left&quot; as a binary choice because I agree with Right on some things and the Left on others.  I know a lot of other people who have a similar dis-similar collection of ideas.  Case in point: gay marriage.  I know a variety of people who are politically liberal, vote democrat, but they don&#039;t like the idea of gay marriage at all.

In California, the GOP continues to be marginalized.  They can elect a governor but almost nobody else.  I don&#039;t think pushing for a hard-line &quot;conversative&quot; agenda will help; those who&#039;ve tried it have failed, and the &quot;moderates&quot; who don&#039;t accept some of the basic tenants (like abortion rights) end up torpedoed by the hard liners at the primary level.  

Rush likes to point to Reagan as the hard-liner who won.  Yes, but there&#039;s a pendulum effect.  Reagan followed Carter, Nixon (a moderate) and Johnson and a decade of great social upheaval and turmoil.  It was a swinging back of the pendulum.   I don&#039;t think Reagan could have been elected in more recent times since he wouldn&#039;t have had something to push against.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Rush begins with the basic assumption that &#8220;conservatism&#8221; is an interconnecting group of values and ideals; that if you accept a couple basic principles, then you would logically also believe these others; x therefore y, therefore z, and so on.    That means it&#8217;s not an ideological buffet where you can pick and choose what you like; you take it all.   If you back away from a significant portion of it (like abortion rights), then you&#8217;re crippling the whole thing.</p>
<p>Personally I don&#8217;t agree with that, and I think it&#8217;s true for many people I know.  I don&#8217;t like &#8220;right&#8221; and &#8220;left&#8221; as a binary choice because I agree with Right on some things and the Left on others.  I know a lot of other people who have a similar dis-similar collection of ideas.  Case in point: gay marriage.  I know a variety of people who are politically liberal, vote democrat, but they don&#8217;t like the idea of gay marriage at all.</p>
<p>In California, the GOP continues to be marginalized.  They can elect a governor but almost nobody else.  I don&#8217;t think pushing for a hard-line &#8220;conversative&#8221; agenda will help; those who&#8217;ve tried it have failed, and the &#8220;moderates&#8221; who don&#8217;t accept some of the basic tenants (like abortion rights) end up torpedoed by the hard liners at the primary level.  </p>
<p>Rush likes to point to Reagan as the hard-liner who won.  Yes, but there&#8217;s a pendulum effect.  Reagan followed Carter, Nixon (a moderate) and Johnson and a decade of great social upheaval and turmoil.  It was a swinging back of the pendulum.   I don&#8217;t think Reagan could have been elected in more recent times since he wouldn&#8217;t have had something to push against.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Posts about Education as of April 18, 2009 &#124; Tatuaj.org</title>
		<link>http://independentsources.com/2009/04/18/is-rush-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-75906</link>
		<dc:creator>Posts about Education as of April 18, 2009 &#124; Tatuaj.org</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:19:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://independentsources.com/2009/04/18/is-rush-wrong/#comment-75906</guid>
		<description>[...] change the way education is now taking place because it is didactic, teacher centred etc   Is Rush Wrong? - independentsources.com 04/18/2009 One of Rush’s main talking points is that the GOP only wins [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] change the way education is now taking place because it is didactic, teacher centred etc   Is Rush Wrong? &#8211; independentsources.com 04/18/2009 One of Rush’s main talking points is that the GOP only wins [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
