BY JOHN, I THINK YOU'VE GOT IT
As any reader of this site must know, we have four bloggers. Brian, Hank, Winston and John. There's also our cartoonist Jeff, who hasn't joined the discussion yet. All would claim the label conservative (or some form of that label), except John. All probably vote Republican the majority of the time, except for John. All probably have a strong libertarian streak, though I'm not sure about Hank.
Rightfully, John doesn't want to be merely the token lefty on a rant-board, and I don't want him to be either. I want John to keep us all honest in our observations -- I don't want this to be like Free Republic or a GOP precinct meeting where people make bald assertions without backing them up. I also hope that John points out where we are wrong and challenges what people on the right say. And if you think its fine for Democrats to block Estrada and Owen, then I love to hear why (and I do take seriously the argument that only 2 are being blocked out of all of the Bush nominees, so what's the problem).
While my brand of conservatism varies from that of Hank, Brian and Jeff, I wanted to discuss more than just internal differences on the right, but to get at some of the assumptions. John, you have done that by discussing my press bias observation by saying that, yes, there is press bias, but so what? If our arguments are tit for tat, arguing without addressing our underlying assumptions, then we accomplish nothing and I don't see how this site would be of any use to our readers.
That's how I want this site to differ from that of other blogs. Look at National Review Online's The Corner. They do have discussions and disagreements, but they are within a very narrow range of Republicans that may be described as "neoconservatives," meaning (to me) that they are not isolationist, protectionist paleocons like Pat Buchanan. That's fine that they have disagreement, but it really doesn't go very far in helping us all find common ground. Look at Democratic Underground and Free Republic, both great places to discuss differences among our own parties, but if you are too far off the party dogma, then you are banned. I tried to get this kind of discussion going on Democratic Underground, but whammo, I got banned.
Anyway, I hope readers of Federal Review get a lively discussion and more than just the same old that they may get from other conservative sites. That's why the links at the right are not just from one side of the aisle. Come on, what "conservative" site links to The Nation without editorializing on the link? Well, that's enough rambling for now...and about the press objectivity, I agree that bias is not bad if everyone gets the spin the want and are aware of it. I just was making the point that the AP, for example, would never call CNN a "liberal" cable news channel. I guess my point was more about what one side might get away with. Your mileage may vary.
Labels: Supreme Court
