There's two sides to the problem. On the one hand, making every contradiction and dare I say lie that the two parties engage in morally equivalent, thus resulting in a political cynicism that either opts out of the process, or deviates over to third parties. On the other hand, the reflexive response that "the other party is (always) worse" (however true that may be) often precludes any examination of where our own party is wrong.

"And why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? "

Or is the idea of the GOP applying such a principle that offensive? I am not talking about doing this in prominent public events, but surely such publications as only read primarily by Republicans can afford to be more comprehensively critical than they often are?

Yes, because condescension constitutes a reply...

No comment on the RNC rigging their own vote, though, huh?

I was among the first to pounce upon the contradictions - apparent, real, or imagined - that were presented by the Ryan record, but despite the spin from both the Left and the paleocons, I would have to agree that my original *intituitive* assessment was correct : that Ryan was a good choice, perhaps the best choice, and that his presence will prove to be an asset to the defeat of Mr. Obama. If the author is going to make that case, though, he needs to give it more space than three paragraphs.

I submitted two comments a little while ago, which may have been of unacceptable length, as they were excerpts from first by two Orthodox priests, and then Yekaterina Samutsevich herself. So I will try to summarize:

While the interruption of the religious services was deeply offensive and immoral to all Orthodox believers, (regardless of whether their intention was to offend or not) their real crime was to protest Putin, who is USING the Church, as many Russian rulers have before him, to consolidate and and aggrandize his political power.

And, furthermore, Shapiro's main point (which doesn't actually need a whole essay, just like many points don't actually need a whole essay here on Front Page) is a simple question which can be tweeted, and which I retweeted for Shapiro:

Would #Hollywood defend #PussyRiot if it had been a #Palestinian women’s band taking over a mosque? bit.ly/SfFYOd

We all already know the answer to that question.

"The fact that Christ the Savior Cathedral had become a significant symbol in the political strategy of our powers that be was already clear to many thinking people when Vladimir Putin’s former [KGB] colleague Kirill Gundyaev took over as head of the Russian Orthodox Church. After this happened, Christ the Savior Cathedral began to be used openly as a flashy setting for the politics of the security services, which are the main source of power [in Russia].

Why did Putin feel the need to exploit the Orthodox religion and its aesthetics? After all, he could have employed his own, far more secular tools of power—for example, national corporations, or his menacing police system, or his own obedient judiciary system. It may be that the tough, failed policies of Putin’s government, the incident with the submarine Kursk, the bombings of civilians in broad daylight, and other unpleasant moments in his political career forced him to ponder the fact that it was high time to resign; otherwise, the citizens of Russia would help him do this. Apparently, it was then that he felt the need for more convincing, transcendental guarantees of his long tenure at the helm. It was here that the need arose to make use of the aesthetics of the Orthodox religion, historically associated with the heyday of Imperial Russia, where power came not from earthly manifestations such as democratic elections and civil society, but from God Himself.

How did he succeed in doing this? After all, we still have a secular state, and shouldn’t any intersection of the religious and political spheres be dealt with severely by our vigilant and critically minded society? Here, apparently, the authorities took advantage of a certain deficit of Orthodox aesthetics in Soviet times, when the Orthodox religion had the aura of a lost history, of something crushed and damaged by the Soviet totalitarian regime, and was thus an opposition culture. The authorities decided to appropriate this historical effect of loss and present their new political project to restore Russia’s lost spiritual values, a project which has little to do with a genuine concern for preservation of Russian Orthodoxy’s history and culture.

It was also fairly logical that the Russian Orthodox Church, which has long had a mystical connection with power, emerged as this project’s principal executor in the media. Moreover, it was also agreed that the Russian Orthodox Church, unlike the Soviet era, when the church opposed, above all, the crudeness of the authorities towards history itself, should also confront all baleful manifestations of contemporary mass culture, with its concept of diversity and tolerance.

Implementing this thoroughly interesting political project has required considerable quantities of professional lighting and video equipment, air time on national TV channels for hours-long live broadcasts, and numerous background shoots for morally and ethically edifying news stories, where in fact the Patriarch’s well-constructed speeches would be pronounced, helping the faithful make the right political choice during the election campaign, a difficult time for Putin. Moreover, all shooting has to take place continuously; the necessary images must sink into the memory and be constantly updated, to create the impression of something natural, constant and compulsory.

Our sudden musical appearance in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior with the song “Mother of God, Drive Putin Out” violated the integrity of this media image, generated and maintained by the authorities for so long, and revealed its falsity. In our performance we dared, without the Patriarch’s blessing, to combine the visual image of Orthodox culture and protest culture, suggesting to smart people that Orthodox culture belongs not only to the Russian Orthodox Church, the Patriarch and Putin, that it might also take the side of civic rebellion and protest in Russia." http://olenskae.tumblr.com/post/29137327674/yekat...

You mean the lack of the "vision thing" that Romney also suffers from, despite the fact that y'all at Commentary have been carrying water for him? Physician, heal thyself. (Another good Scripture quote, though it might be coming from the wrong Testament for Commentary magazine).

Yeah, because getting a plurality in most contests is "soundly" defeating your opponents...

"The Party" is behind him, that is exactly the problem...

Considering the unwillingness of the British to defend their own nation from Islamist correctness, why should it be surprising that they will not defend another?

The GOP is largely under the delusion they need Hispanic votes, also known as "Hispandering".

I have no issue with appealing to Hispanic voters on the basis of the shared values they may have with other GOP subsets, but that would fall under statesmanship (the striving to represent ALL the people) not a campaign necessity.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-sailer-strategy...