Tuesday, November 11, 2008
|
|
Traditionalist v. Reformer? The One True Test Of A Conservative
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
8:50 AM
|
David Brooks' column this morning predicts battles between two camps within the conservative movement.
It is a fine column and sure to get e-mailed around, sparking snarky comments along the way.
But it vastly understates the complexity of the situation within the conservative movement and the GOP today, and largely because most of the names it names are Manhattan-Beltway media or organizational elitists. Many of these folks are my friends and colleagues and they do great work, but they don't and can't drive a movement or a party. Leaders and activists do that, and they do it from outside of New York or D.C.
I am off to Phoenix to address the Center for Arizona Policy tonight, one of the vast network of activist organizations across the country that will play a large part in the renewal of the conservative movment and thus the GOP. That renewal will not be a elites-led effort, but a party-led effort that will draw on the energy and ideas of the folks Brooks names and the state organizations. The key is the levelling effect of the new technologies and the model built by Team Obama and the activist groups on the left. The worst thing would be for anyone to attempt to drive anyone "out" of the conservative movement, or to engage in denunciations of this or that particular camp except for the always necessary effort to guard against extremists eager to nest inside of a larger coalition.
The best rule of politics I have ever heard was the direction to unify our side and divide theirs. The latter is going to take care of itself in short order as the demands of the Democratic coalition cannot all be met, even in significant part. The task for the GOP and conservatives is to make sure the big tent is still standing and that everyone, even media elite pundits, are welcome there if they can agree on the one true test: Ronald Reagan was a great president.
That's a great test for getting into the tent.
|
|
Don't I still love Hillary, though! But Obama will do nicely.
Marystella, please consider, before you go into the wilderness, a change of heart. You could be part of our country's unity. Imagine your contributions, after the disastrous political era now ending. Please join us.
|
|
Burke was not opposed to reform. On the contrary, he thought it was vital. But he also thought it should be approached "with trembling solicitude."
It is revolution that traditionalists oppose, and rightly so.
|
|
Bob Munck: "It seems to me that the right equates "activist" with "legislates from the bench." It's hard to see how UPHOLDING a law, constitutional or not, can be seen as legislating. To legislate, you have to change something."
An example:
My view is that the Legislature changed the 2nd Amendment, which in part reads: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", when they passed the "Firearms Contro Regulation Act of 1975". So did the Federal District Courts.
For some reason, they must have missed English class the day they discussed "shall not". The Federal District Court dismissed the lawsuit against DC by six plaintiffs whose 2nd Amendment rights had been violated. They simply re-wrote the Constitution to suit their own views. They were, and are, an activist court, because the Founders intent was for the government to have no rights to abridge the private ownership and use of firearms. That much is abundantly clear. Since then, SCOTUS has affirmed the Appellate Court decision that Heller et al were correct, and DC was wrong.
Want more? Look up District of Columbia v. Heller. You may be interested to know that four of our SCOTUS Justices actually believe that the 2nd Amendment, contrary to all the other Amendments, does not confer an individual right, regardless of what it actually says.
By the way, there were amicus briefs filed. One was by one Stephen Hallbrook, a scholar on the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, and it was signed by a majority of members of Congress. It held that the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual right, which renders the DC law unconstitutional. John McCain signed it. Barack Obama did not, despite the fact he was offered the opportunity just like every other Senator. I think that says a lot about where the political left stands on support for the US Constitution as written.
|
|
|
|
"What is it about male justices that infuriates you?"
I'm not really infuriated. I'd originally written "... the more conservative the judge, the more often he or she votes ..." but of course the only female Justice is Ruth Ginsberg, a reliable liberal. So the "or she" is awkward, incorrect even.
It seems to me that the right equates "activist" with "legislates from the bench." It's hard to see how UPHOLDING a law, constitutional or not, can be seen as legislating. To legislate, you have to change something. |
|
"I'm glad you are proudly religious, but you are not a constitutional scholar. Christ has nothing to with the Constitution of the USA. We are not a Christian country, sorry to inform you"
where did he say "Christ had anything to with the Constitution of the USA"? |
|
"however, we're going to keep on losing the college educated, moderate suburban voters."
I am one of these and live in a community were we are prominant, a lot of the people in my small community are either employed by Intel or Areojet and yet are very religious and were out in droves against Prop 8. |
|
You ask, “So we should not be willing to help those truly in need under any circumstances?
The issue of who should be helped -- and to what extent -- is a private matter that should be decided by each individual. That's the purpose of charity.
A person that finds himself “in need” has the right to ask for help. He doesn’t have the right to initiate the use of force to steal what he needs -- no one would condone that. Why, then, does he have a right to have the government do the taking for him? I say there can be no "right" to take another man's property, against his will, no matter how badly you may "need" it.
Once you concede the principle that anyone in "true need" is entitled to the taxpayer's money, then you wind up with what we have now -- and what we are moving toward -- because there is no way to draw the line on what constitutes "true need".
That’s why federal spending DOUBLED under Ronald Reagan and has increased by more than 1 trillion dollars a year -- a TRILLION DOLLARS a year -- under Bush.
The fact of the matter is that nothing whatsoever justifies the notion that one man’s “need” entitles him to another man’s money. Nothing. |
|
My own quote: "What is it about male jurors that infuriates you?"
Sorry, that should be: "What is it about male justices that infuriates you?"
I've got "jurors" on the brain today.
|
|
No offense, Bob. But I think your characterization of the conservative perspective has missed the mark. Was it deliberate?
Bob Munck: "I just saw an interesting study of the decisions of the current Supreme Court justices. Turns out there's a VERY STRONG correlation between political outlook and the willingness to overturn existing laws -- that is, be 'activist.' You guessed it; the more conservative the judge, the more often he votes to "legislate from the bench.""
Would you consider a justice that strikes down a law that's directly contradictory to the Constitution as being "activist"? I'd like to see a link to your "study", and who conducted it.
Bob Munck: "The wingnuts use 'activist' as a synonym for 'we don't like it.'"
For those familiar with the US Constitution and its Amendments, "activist" refers to a justice that's willing to uphold a law that directly contradicts the aforementioned founding document, or strike down a law which is directly in support of said document, as well as our Founders' intent. We realize you can't rationally argue with that definition, but simply making up a bogus definition you attribute to us, doesn't make your argument any better. It merely points out that you must twist the facts in order to win an argument.
Bob Munck: "(I used "he" as the pronoun above because, as you might expect, the justices who demonstrate the trait are male.)""
What is it about male jurors that infuriates you?
|
|
|
...in other words, we should not be willing to help those truly in need under any circumstances? |
|
"Yes, Sarah stumbled, only when she tried to hear cocktail waiters and waitresses make an order. When she listened to her own mind she was far and away the very electricity that Franklin endeaveror4ed to harness."
If by this you mean that when she tried to speak she just heard a loud "buzz" in her mind, then I suppose you could be right.
Honestly, do you believe this hogwash? There is SO LITTLE going on upstairs with that woman. And if you make her your Republican Queen, the Dems will be DELIGHTED.
|
|
Hugh thinks that all we need are people who "agree on the one true test: Ronald Reagan was a great president."
But it was Reagan who officially surrendered to the welfare state and committed the Republican Party to supporting it.
Four weeks after he announced his first budget cuts, Reagan made this promise in a speech to the nation:
“ I regret the fear that these unfounded stories (about budget cuts) have caused, and I welcome this opportunity to set things straight.”
“We will continue to fulfill the obligations that spring from our national conscience. Those who, through no fault of their own, must depend on the rest of us -- the poverty stricken, the disabled, the elderly, all those with true need -- can rest assured that the social safety net of programs they depend on are exempt from any cuts.”
He went on to list all the programs that would not be cut: Social Security, Medicare, care for the blind, the aged, the disabled, school breakfasts and lunches for poor children, etc.
Thus, Reagan officially committed Republicans to supporting the welfare state -- and in describing the welfare state as a “social safety net”, he gave the liberals a catch-phrase that nicely expressed their view that an individual’s financial success was not a function of hard work or ability, but rather a function of being lucky enough not to “fall off”.
Once Republicans concede that government must “provide help” to the “truly needy“, there is no practical way to limit the growth of government -- because there is an endless list of “needs” that government can be called upon to fulfill. That’s why government spending DOUBLED under Reagan.
Until and unless Republicans find the courage to challenge the notion that one man's "needs" constitutes a claim on another man's property or money, we are doomed to an endless slide into socialism/fascism. |
|
So a cocktail education, what’s it good for? Quite right, nothing. Unless of course, you’re all exercised about conversing at cocktail parties, which I admit is an astonishingly trivial pursuit. Now surely this is a special sort of cuckold, but not the less…
Bringing to mind this: “The common ploughman, though generally regarded as the pattern of stupidity and ignorance, is seldom defective in this judgment and discretion…His voice and language are more uncouth and difficult to be understood by those who are not used to them. His understanding, however, being accustomed to consider a greater variety of objects, is generally much superior to that of the other, whose attention whole attention from morning to night [the cocktail party] is commonly occupied in performing one or two very simple operations. How…[the] people in the country are really superior to those of the town [cocktail partisans], is well known to every man whom either business or curiosity has led to converse much with both.” And whom am I to disagree with Adam Smith.
Yes the particulars are different, but how pedestrian and boring, we’re talking structure, yes? Or how dull are you?
The way I see it, Sarah is by far, the most intellectually electric, dynamic, intelligent of the four who ran in this past election. No I am not saying that the other three are de facto stupid, rather, they are to one degree or another, pedestrian. They are cocktail intellectuals--tin ears, slow on the mark, easily disoriented. Yes, Sarah stumbled, only when she tried to hear cocktail waiters and waitresses make an order. When she listened to her own mind she was far and away the very electricity that Franklin endeaveror4ed to harness. |
|
|
at the So cons because they know the so-cons will never buy off on flip-flopping Romney. |
|
|
the 'extremists' that are driven out? Can we assume that these are the people at the 'extreme' left side of the party? |
|
Five things conservatives need to do to make the Republican party conservative again:
1) STOP OPEN PRIMARIES in every state that has them (like in Michigan)
2) RUN CONSERVATIVES AGAINST RINO's in primaries when the rino goes to the dark side
3) DON'T SPLIT THE CONSERVATIVE VOTE in open seat primaries or against the dreaded rino
HOW? Local conservative media find out who is the most conservative
4) TARGET SEATS THAT SHOULD BE RED especially senate seats in Montana, North/South Dakota, Nebraska, etc.
Why weren't Baucus, Johnson, Harkin targeted by the rnc?
5) OUTREACH INTO LIBERAL/DEMOCRAT AREAS, go into their neighborhoods, on their radio shows, but you had better know your stuff
There's tons more to do but this is a start. |
|
Brooks is onto something, though it needs adjusting.
Government REFORM should be the centerpiece of the Republican platform. The shades of conservatism should be secondary (as Hugh stated, "unify our side and divide theirs"). Certainly we can unite around a REFORM theme. And who has more credibility in this regard in the Senate than McCain? If McConnell won't jettison Stevens, put McCain in and let him do it.
In effect, we should steal a key page from the Obama playbook. Obama focused like a laser on the theme, "CHANGE" and won. When McCain brought on Palin, Americans suddenly shifted to the GOP ticket because of the REFORM message, which is the "change" that Americans really want (they do not want socialism). Then the REFORM message was overwhelmed (we had the economic crisis, Sarah Palin's image eroded, and we had to contend with the MSM and the desire to make history).
In two years, we can run against a corrupt Democratic party -- absolute power corrupts absolutely, and they will surely bury their dirty deeds regarding the mortgage crisis (Fannie/Freddie). The key is to keep this issue alive, which will be the task of conservative reporters and a few outspoken congressmen (some of whom have tried, but have been silenced). McCain's voice could be heard above the din if he chooses to speak up.
McCain would be perfect to help purge the party of corruption if McConnell is not up to the task.
Americans crave reform, and the Dems will not deliver. |
|
Thanks for your kind wishes.
My day Job?
I put Halos on, and then at times, remove halos from those I disapprove!
Not an easy task!
In all humility!
Again, Congratulations, your beloved candidate won.
I am still surprised, you were first for Hillary, then had a change of heart. How could you?
If I was for Hillary, I would have never, ever changed my vote to Obama.
I really feel very bad for Hillary. |
|
Why all the gloom and doom?
Obama, our new leader,
The One, we have been Waiting for
Our Hope, is in Obama
All our needs will depend on HIM,
Obama, our final Hope,
will provide.
I have no worry at all about the future,
Thankfully, I am very Blessed.
Change shapes the future,
Change hopes to shape the future,
through slow succession,
change shapes the future
Becomes a new direction!
Man, always comes to understand
preserving the Principles of the Declaration,
THAT LIFE, Liberty and persuit of happiness, MAY GO ON........ |
|
"Thank you Helena, for making me looking forward to a very bright future."
My parents, both very frugal people, children of the Depression, tried their hardest to live on Social Security and Medicare when they retired; Dad's pension had been wiped out by the collapse of the iron and steel industry, including looting by corporate management. They couldn't do it, and finally gave in to our pleas to let us kids pay back some of our immense debt to them.
So good luck with that bright future. Leaving lights on is probably one of the first things you'll have to give up. Then heat, health care that Medicare doesn't cover, and even sufficient food. |
|
don't give up your day job.
but keep the poems comin'
princess |
|
"now you're staring to bore me. You and Munck."
So stop reading what we write. |
|
"Rasmussen's latest? ... Seems old barry, took command of the race during the 10 days after the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Before that McCain had held a 3% lead."
Yes, and he'd held that lead for a grand total of FIVE DAYS. Before that, Obama had been consistently in the lead for over TWO MONTHS, going back to when he'd won the nomination, with only a half-dozen polls in which McCain was even or managed a single-point lead. Your idea that somehow the financial crisis turned the election around is absurd. (The full Rasmussen chart is here: http://tinyurl.com/67pgnn ).
"Tax breaks for 95% of the people was the pony that old barry rode right to the oval office."
It was tax breaks for 95% and tax INCREASES for the richest 5%; that was always stated clearly. Hardly a Reagan position.
"59% agreed with the sentiment expressed by REAGAN, that "government is NOT the solution; government is the problem"."
Well, sure. Everybody thinks now that the Bush government is the problem. That's why "CHANGE!" won.
"Also, this same survey found that 43% of voters viewed it as a positive to describe a candidate as being like REAGAN"
And the Republican ticket got 46% of the vote. What's your point? |
|
|
now you're staring to bore me. You and Munck. |
|
Dr_B
No need for apologies, I wasn't offended at all.
But your numbers prove my point. McCain was the leader of Amnesty. Graham spoke to The Racists (la raza) and told all of us to "Just shut up". Did that help McCain with the "Hispanic" vote? No, not at all.
The "Hispanic" vote is like all (insert any category here) vote. Some is liberal, some is conservative, and some is in the mushy middle and haven't picked a side yet. All I'm saying is stand for what is right unapologeticly. Stand for the Constitution always. And the votes will follow. |
|
I apologize if I offended you.
66% of Hispanics voted for Obama this time around, ~12% more than voted for Kerry in 04. That's 2/3 of the Hispanic vote going democrat. That little of a swing cost McCain Florida, Colorado and Nevada this time around.
If that trend continues, the GOP is done as a politically viable option. |
|
Wishing YOU a long life.
Of course, I will extend my good will and wishes to dudley as well, since I am joyously expecting him as well to pay for my soon long awaited retirement and ALL its benefits, since conservatism is dead, and all conservatives will be useless and nothing better do too than retire.
Liberals work, conservatives will reap the fruits of their labor!
Next time Mr. Obama will have my vote too, I am expecting tons of goodies coming my way, and there is no end to it, all free.
Three cheers to our dear fellow Liberal democrats. |
|
Dr_B
The way to "get" Hispanics is not to assume they vote as a block. This might be a surprise to GOP "strategists" who might be reading this: Hispanics are PEOPLE!
Don't pander or assume they are for open borders. Most of them obeyed the law and waited in line a long time to realize their American dream. Then they saw the Republican party say: "Boy were you chumps! Amnesty for everybody." And Obama won their vote decisively, I'm Shocked!
My grandparents brought my 8 year old mom here from Canada in 1952. To get here my grandfather had to have a job already lined up and a sponsor. If he lost his job, his sponsor was responsible for his family, not the American people.
Who changed these policies? You guessed it. Liberal dems and liberal judges. |
|
Indeed, I am so grateful for You dear Helena, you must be so very young. I really wish a long productive life, since you will be working hard contributing to my long awaited retirement in few years down the road.
Just the thought of it, all of your likes, will be contributing so joyfully and willing, to my every needs sounds so deliciously delightful.
Thank you Helena, for making me looking forward to a very bright future.
I live a very healthy life, I run, do weights, eat healthy, my doctor says I will live way over 90's, he is always amazed by my annual chech-ups.
Helena, please do not change your ideology, I hope you have many friends who think just like YOU.
Yes, Conservatism is dead, if dudley says it, then it is true.
Then guess who is going to pay for all this soon lazy retiring conservatives? |
|
|
there you go again. Just go to my "munck the punk" post just a few moments ago, fool. And read em' and weep, fool. Seems Rasmussen does not agree with your notion, littledUd. Since your a real numbers guy, lITledUd, i know know you'll love Rassy's, so go read em' fool, and then say more stupid things that your so famous for. Have you been able to put two coherent sentences together yet, or are you still in that "yellow submarine" existence of yours. Seems that 44% of obambi voters agree with Ronald Reagan's assessment that "government is NOT the solution; government is the problem". 59% overall, now thats what i call, "failed ideology" right, lITtledUd. Go read more about that "failed ideology", you fool, if you can stand it. Go back to what you know, whatever the heck that might be. Have you ever excelled at anything, lITtledUd. No question mark needed. "Failed ideology" you stupid fool. HAHAHAHAHAHA.. |
|
Should be a bit more prevalent in our posts here. I've gotten hot-headed in some of my posts here as well, but we're conservatives, let's not degenerate in the Daily KOS or Huffington or some such rubbish. Keep it civil folks.
Helena, I respectfully disagree with you about this being a christian nation. It was founded with the assumption it would be. Judeo-Christian thought is our heritage, and I feel it's served us better than any other heritage we could have had.
Now - does that mean the religious tone the GOP has slowly adopted over the last 20 years has ALSO served us well? Well, no. I don't think it has. I think particularly at this time in history, it's alienating to college educated, younger suburban professionals (because they're the folks I hang around with, and that's pretty much all I hear).
Does that mean we abandon those social positions?
No. It doesn't. People still hate abortion, and apparently they don't want to grant homosexual relationships the same status as heterosexual marriages.
That DOES NOT however mean that we've framed our positions in those matters in a modern, cogent, and most importantly - palatable fashion.
We've come across too dogmatic about it, and it's alienating younger voters.
I won't comment about immigration, but that's such a hornet's nest - we've got some serious thinking to do about it. It needs solving though if we want to remain even a partially viable party for hispanics.
If we don't start getting more of the hispanic vote, I promise you - our days are numbered. |
|
"Munck the punk" weighing in in our little discussion. Hey Mr. self righteous, did you happen to catch, Rasmussen's latest? You being an astute poll watcher, and all. Seems old barry, took command of the race during the 10 days after the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Before that McCain had held a 3% lead. 10 days later old barry was up, 5%. Down the campaign homestretch, old barry's tax cutting promise became his clearest policy position. Eventually he stole the tax issue from McCain. Seems old barry, adopted Reagan's idea of taking one or two big ideas and repeat them until people identify them with you. Tax breaks for 95% of the people was the pony that old barry rode right to the oval office. Nothing about "redistributing the wealth". Wonder why he didn't talk about that, "munck the punk" or ride that pony, instead. Wonder why? A Rasmussen survey from Oct. 2, found that 59% agreed with the sentiment expressed by REAGAN, that "government is NOT the solution; government is the problem". Just 28% disagreed with it. 59% to 28%! I know that you are a real numbers guy, right, "munck the punk". That survey also found that 44% of obambi voters agreed with Reagan's assessment and 40% did not. Can that be right, "munck the punk", 44% of obambi voters agree with REAGAN, 44% of obambi voters agree with Ronald Reagan that "government is NOT the solution, but that "government is THE problem". Also, this same survey found that 43% of voters viewed it as a positive to describe a candidate as being like REAGAN and 26% considered it a negative. 43% to 26%, because i know that you are a real numbers guy, right, "munck the punk".
"munck the punk" a win for the left, HARDLY. Old barry was able to convince the voters that he was more like Ronald Reagan than was McCain. A victory for the left, HARDLY, right, "munck the punk", just for you, cause your a real numbers guy. |
|
"conservative movement."
That fantasy exists in the minds of those who think they are driving a failed ideology to a successful conclusion (rejected by Obama's election), and their right-wing conservative political representatives, who believe they can come back to power with a white-male dominated movement against the view of most Americans, who believe in a country that embraces all people of any color. |
|
So anyone who has praise for Ronald Reagan should be disqualified from public office in your book, eh? Do you realize that you just disqualified the President-elect?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaoYD7iZG9w |
|
on the nail. Go read my earlier posts concerning Rasmussen's surveys and what the real reason old barry was elected. People believed old barry when he kept repeating that 95% tax cut mantra. 55% of the voters believe that tax cuts help the economy. And Rasmussen also found that 59% of the voters agreed with Reagan, that "government is not the solution; government is the problem". That survey also found that 44% of obambi voters, 44% of obambi voters, 44% of obambi voters, 44% of obambi voters agreed with Reagan's assessment, and 40% did not!!!Yes, 44% of obambi voters agree with Ronald Reagan, that "government is NOT the solution; government is THE problem". A win for the left, HARDLY, right "Ex-Tex". They viewed obambi as being more like Reagan, than they did McCain!! And all we heard during the primaries was that the era of Reagan was over, and that moderation was the only way to win. Rasmussen throws that theory into the thrash heap, of politics. Clearly, enunciated, unashamed, and rejecting completely the notion of "reaching across the aisle", Reagan Conservatism works every, single, solitary time it's tried.
The election of Barack Hussein Obambi, a victory for the left, HARDLY, and Rasmussen proves it. |
|
"'activist court' ... was used often by Southern bigots who did not like the courts telling them they had to let African Americans vote and use drinking fountains."
I just saw an interesting study of the decisions of the current Supreme Court justices. Turns out there's a VERY STRONG correlation between political outlook and the willingness to overturn existing laws -- that is, be 'activist.' You guessed it; the more conservative the judge, the more often he votes to "legislate from the bench."
The wingnuts use 'activist' as a synonym for 'we don't like it.'
(I used "he" as the pronoun above because, as you might expect, the justices who demonstrate the trait are male.) |
|
|
...was great partly because he was a principled man himself, chose his battles carefully, delivered the important stuff to those who wish to see the nation preserved in its roots of liberty, and insisted on dealing only with those opposing politicians who had integrity. Mostly, he effectively communicated his own integrity to most voters. They understood he wasn't intent on destroying their liberty for anyone's agenda. He said what he was going to do and why, he did it, then he told us what he did. We got precisely what we bargained for. |
|
Obama doesn't even know how to spell Conservative!
How dare they even put that man anywhere near conservatives, he is as liberal as Clinton and more!
You People who voted for him will see the true fool you voted in!
When his militia comes to your door and tells you what you will and won't do you will crap your jeans.
But, But, he will make sure you get your own personal Welfare Card with his Picture on it! |
|
|
Hate to bust that barry bubble of yours, but William, "wild bill" Ayers, wrote old barry's first book, that thing about his fathers, don't cha' know. Seems old barry, couldn't write it, and lost his advance, and that's when he started spending all those night's at wild bill's kitchen table, and wild bill got it done. That's what happen, "Boxing Helena" you "scatter brained" fool, you! Sorry seems old barry had a case of writers block, but "wild bill" saved his bacon. |
|
Barack Obama is bought and paid for, just like every other ideologue that is already promising to fulfill the wildest dreams of his supporters, 70 days before he even takes office. The trial lawyers representing Gitmo terrorists and the environmental groups, both of whom are heavy contributors, are already beginning to water at the mouth.
Helena, not only is your understanding of the Bible quite cartoonish, but your ignorance of what Christian conservatives actually advocate is breathtaking. We most certainly ARE a Christian country, as was the case at our founding. We just happen to have a secular government, which is perfectly preferable for the vast majority of us Christian conservatives. It's precisely what our Founders intended and envisioned.
No, I don't hate Mormons. No, I'm not a "fundy". I am a Brigham Young alum, just not LDS.
Activist court means justices who decide to step across the very bold line that separates our branches of government, and legislate from the bench, deriving meaning in laws that was clearly not intended. The antonym? Strict Constitutionalist justices, of course. They rule in reasonable proximity to what our Founders intended when they wrote our Constitution. Nothing more. If you don't want that, then you don't support the Constitution. You support what some demagogue TOLD YOU the Constitution says. Until you've read the works of our Founders, aside from the text of the Constitution, you'll forever be at the behest of people who twist the meaning of that document against itself.
I'd be happy to recommend a reading list. |
|
|
I knew i had heard of "Helena". Weren't you chopped up into little pieces, "Helena", in that movie? That's whats wrong with you, your all scatter brained, and you've been "boxed" up, too! Give this boxed up "Helena" a break, LLR, she's a movie star, don't cha' know!! And we all know that movie stars, are fools, don't we LLR. "Boxing Helena", a real life mooovie star, right here at HH. Wow.... |
|
If Ronald Reagan was a good president, was he good because he "reached across the aisle" and split the principled difference with the opposition?
When he put forth amnesty to an illegal invasion, he regretted it later, and Ed Meese backed up this fact. That's one of the few times Reagan strayed from American principles. (Boy, have we paid for that one!)
He led by having a firm grasp on the basics and not letting go of them, or being deterred by wimpouts and naysayers who always demand that others do the bending and reaching.
I'll speak to those folks: You want a big tent? Love the neighbor next to you as much as you love the one who just lifted the flap--and is headed for the stakes.
|
|
And, it's the liberal media's fault- with help
from Brooks and all the other squishy Gop pundits (noonan, Kathleen Parker, National Review,JMart@Politico, The WSJ, FoxNews, half the bloggers@Townhall etc.).
Where Barack Obama was clearly claiming CONSERVATIVE positions as HIS OWN- NO ONE IN THE MEDIA CALLED HIM OUT!!
Obama's Stated Positions(lies):
1. Border Security
2. Against Gay Marriage
3. Reduce Taxes on 95% of Americans
4. Reduce Abortions
5. Strong Defense
OVER and OVER Obama gave these as his positions- AND the media NEVER CALLED HIM A LIAR!
Instead the MEDIA put our pretend GOP pansy pundits up against the DEM/LIB attack dogs with the result--
Most folks think Barack Obama is a CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRAT!!
|
|
Barack wrote his own books? And writes his own speeches? Can you prove that?
Even it's true, the speeches are horrible. Full of empty promises--as hollow as those styrofoam columns.
He's the POTUS and I truly wish him well. I pray some miracle happens and he gets it--that the nanny state promises he made, that the tax hikes he promised--something will come down from heaven and strike him on the head--and he will wake up and grow up and realize his ASSumptions are the very worse policies for our country right now.
The stock market does not believe Barack is brilliant. It's dropping like a rock.
However, I pray the things you believe about Barack come true: That he is his own man; that he is wonderful and brilliant. Oh, how I want you to be right.
I see absolutely NO evidence, however, that you are. Wah! |
|
People, People, People,
Don't let Helena distract you with her lefty, loony, kook-fringe diatribes. Stay focused on the task at hand: getting conservatives elected.
Helena doen't want us to do that, she wants to take our eyes off the ball. Plus she is a liar.
"I'm glad you are proudly religous...." Does anybody believe that? Don't argue with liars.
Back to my post. Get invoved. Go to your local Republican party. Call them and find out when they meet. Find out what has to be done to change primary rules. If a Republican represents your district hold their feet to the fire. If they're not voting conservative threaten to run a primary challenger against them. We can win this. We did back in '94 remember? |
|
Christian American fundys to fear. Israel's demise is on their agenda, so they can get to the End of Days and the Rapture. Jews are just meant, for fundy Christians, as the catalyst for their rides to heaven.
|
|
Jews, who voted for obambi. Revealed today in London by Ahmad Yousuf, Hamas leader and Ismail Haniyek's political advisor, that secret, high level talks between obambi's advisers, Hamas and other Islamic groups have been ongoing during the Presidential election. Yousuf said that obambi had requested that the talks be kept confidential, as to not give McCain, campaign fodder. The "fired" Robert Malley was obambi's adviser in the talks. The only question left, now, is when will obambi throw Israel under that very big bus, that he inevitably throws, those who he no longer needs to accomplish his objectives. All 78% of you who voted for this anti-semite, i hope you don't mind that buses exhaust, maybe it won't be as bad as that found in the "camps", some 64 years ago. Nothing seems to change, you are always lead, and willing lead to your demise, by those who you give your trust to. Amassing....78% of you voted for this total fraud. Will you ever learn? And when will you quit being your own worst enemy? Amassing...
Buyers remorse, to the extreme.... |
|
Sarah Palin wants raped women who get pregnant to carry the child to term. That's evil.
"What is immature is a non viable adult that is not woman enough to be responsible for their actions. Immature is someone who can't be responsible enough to avoid pregnancy, and I am talking about education (sic) grown women." Oh, that's how you let Bristol Palin off the hook. Bad mother, bad daughter.
"Immature is not being able to distinguish right from wrong!" I do know right from wrong. Roe is the law. That makes it 'right', and you wrong.
Lots of stuff in the Bible you might want to incorporate into our country. Make divorce and adultery illegal. Make slavery legal again. Women should be subjugated to their men.
Keep your 2000 year old book of fables. The rest of us will live lives based on science and logic. There are gays of all species, and the earth isn't flat, no matter what the Bible might say about either of those concepts. |
|
"Which is more important to you...smaller government or stopping abortions and gay marriage?"
And the answer from the paleocon, as opposed to the left/libertarian, is neither.
But it will take secession to resolve the matter:
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/311 /
But don't listen to me. I'm only a "nutter", per Hugh.
Morning Glory. Evening Grace. (No "nuttery" there,I'm telling you!)
|
|
do you? Obama is the most independent person we've elected in some time. Writes his own speeches much of the time. Wrote his own books. Set his own path.
He's wonderful. And those who don't agree are on the wrong side of history and are really, really sad. Your fundy friends pushed most of us left. Not your plan, eh? |
|
Again you are an idiot.
You dont even know a thing about the bible or God or Jesus Christ and you are telling someone they are immature?
What is immature is a non viable adult that is not woman enough to be responsible for their actions.
Immature is someone who can't be responsible enough to avoid pregnancy, and I am talking about education grown women.
Immature is not being able to distinguish right from wrong!
You go to your Idols, Meds, or your Messiah for your way of saying you are viable and you are going to lose every time.
Grow up Helena and accept the fact your party picked a Lying Loser! Your party moral values don't even register!
Your Choice "Obama" will ruin this country You will see , very soon you will see. He can't even keep his mouth shut with a meeting with Bush! He leaked information! For gosh sakes what has he already leaked to our enemies?
Now that is Immature, he can't keep his mouth shut!
|
|
|
means something only to those who don't like a particular decision. It was used often by Southern bigots who did not like the courts telling them they had to let African Americans vote and use drinking fountains. The Courts are there to decide when Constitutional rights are being impaired. You want Roe reversed, right? Activist judges. |
|
..."Barack Obama is a self-made made not controlled by anyone" are the stupidest thing every written on these blogs...
...and that's saying something.
Obama is owned by the unions, by Move-on.org and a bunch of other groups who gave him millions of $$ to do their bidding.
How old are you? 3 months?
Barack Obama is an inexperienced, immature little dweeb with no resume. He is surrounding himself with old Clinton operatives.
Now, we will see if he keeps his stupid campaign promises that he made to get you dunderheads to vote for him. If he is "pragmatic" and moves right. Cool.
If he's he is forced by the unions to be a marxist ideologue and move left, God help us all. |
|
"task for the GOP and conservatives is to make sure the big tent is still standing "
And posting this column is supposed to help HOW? |
|
I would like to know just waht are the principles of a moderate? Moderate conservative?
I know the principles of a conservative. So when speaking of "social issues," the guiding principel should be that the people should decide not an activist court. When given the opportunity to discuss and vote, usually the right thing happens with social issues. They are too important to leave up to politicians to decide and certainly not the courts. Most of the time, we need the debate and when it occurs multiple times at the state level, we usually get it right over time.
Yes, it's messy but that's why we have the rule of law - take a mess and make sense out of it. |
|
I'm glad you are proudly religious, but you are not a constitutional scholar. Christ has nothing to with the Constitution of the USA. We are not a Christian country, sorry to inform you. When you tell me that you support a welfare state for all the babies you want to save, then I will believe that you are really pro-life. Roe is a compromise, like most laws. Just like most gun laws. No one needs an assault weapon to go hunting or protect their family. Our Constitution does not provide for absolute, unchecked 'rights'.
McCain believed in governing the country, not pandering to the far right. Unfortunately, the far right wouldn't let him run for president (I think he secretly hoped he'd save his best maverick impression for the WH, when he could thumb his nose at his far right fundys as he announced he would serve only one term).
Romney was defeated because of Christian fundys like you who don't like Mormons.
Obama is a two-termer, likely to be on Mount Rushmore. He is Mr. Clean. Nothing anyone did stopped him, or hurt him.
And if praying works, how come things are so messed up? Is God telling us that he simply doesn't like the GOP so he tanked the GOP?
A grown person who is so devoted to his 'faith' seems to me to be immature, unsophisticated, uneducated, and rather intolerant. |
|
|
astrology chart reading, and mind reading, too, Helena. Reagan did not, he would have none of it. This stupid notion that since Nancy believed it, Reagan believed it, is nutty. Where do you people come from. |
|
Until we get that attitude, willing to look bad winning, then those holier than thou, Hewitt, Medved, Prager, Bennett, McCain contrite concession speeches will continue. NO THANKS. I am fed up with looking good losing. Our side is right, and it's damn time to act like it, because if we don't, the country's finished!
I'm getting fed up with the number of word, restrictions, too. |
|
I'm a conservative not a Republican. What kind of conservative? I'm a proud "religous", "pro-life",
"constitutionalist", right-wing extremist. My love and devotion to Christ along with my strong Roman Catholic faith are the principles by which I try to live my life. They are also how I decide for whom to vote.
If you won't protect an unborn baby's right to life, then you certainly won't care about my right to property or to bear arms. I refer you to Cristy Whitman, Susan Colins, Richard Nixon, Chris Shays, etc. If you think Roe v Wade was good law and rightly decided you do not respect constitutional principles of federalism. Justice Kennedy comes to mind.
Of the two candidates who had a chance to be president, McCain was closest to these conservative priciples. The problem was he didn't believe in or articulate them. So how did he become the nominee? Because dems and indies could vote in too many primaries this year.
If we want a true believing conservative in 2012 we had better get involved in Republican politics. Only Republicans should vote in Republican primaries. Remember in 2012 Obama will not have a challenger, leaving the dems to wreak havoc in the primaries for cons. If you don't want to see "Presumptive Nominee Rudy Gulliani" in '12, then join me in getting of my butt and get involved rather than just complaining all the time (like I do). And don't forget to pray everyday. |
|
|
continue to post it. Until Conservatives, quit this idea of having to look good, while losing, and instead, be willing to look bad, winning, then we will continue to lose. Hewitt, Medved, Prager, Bennett, McCain and others are the leading proponents of this phenomenon. This must end, and it must end, immediately, if we believe that our worldview is correct, and is best for our families and all the rest of the decent families in this country, well then, by G-D, lets get busy, looking bad winning. Because I for one am sick and tired of our side giving, flowery, contrite, conciliatory concession speeches. To hell with that. We are watching, right in front of our eyes, Franken steal this election. You see whats going on in Californication, those Prop 8, nuts, in the streets, causing chaos, raising hell. Why aren't we in the streets, in Minnesota, raising hell, causing chaos, and demanding that the leftists NOT be allowed to steal that Senate seat. We are right to demand that leftists not be allowed to steal it, and if it means, chaos then so be it. Until we start not caring what it looks like, but demanding, that elections be honest, then the left will continue to steal. How long, must we listen to these "nice guys", who always look so good in losing, gee, aren't they great, so measured, so contrite. No thanks, Hewitt, Medved, Prager, Bennett, McCain and all the rest, i am damn sick of your holier than thou, losing attitude. It's high time to get down and dirty with these leftists. I'm not worried about my position on the social registry, my cocktail party invitations, or my being "liked" by the left. What i want is to stick my thumb in as many leftists eyes, as i can, and to utterly defeat them and to send them to where they belong. |
|
Moshe: "Yes, because as we all know, a radio show going to Harlem and interviewing random people on the street and then handpicking for airplay the people who said the dumbest things counts as a purely scientific sample of the entire electorate."
Of course not. But you could have interviewed 100 conservatives for every one Obamabot Stern's man interviewed, and still not received similarly ignorant responses. Ask 10 people under 30 why they voted for Obama, and you'll hear one song: "change". Then ask them: "change to WHAT"? Eight of them will answer: "Change FROM whatever Bush did". So far, I'm 3 for 3. |
|
|
You've got to be kidding. Do the names Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Khalidi, Axelrod, and Soros mean anything to you? |
|
Ronnie would have as well. Not as a matter of being controlled, but he respected her.
And Barack Obama is a self-made man who is not controlled by anyone. He may be the most impressive man I have ever seen. Brilliant speaker, inquisitive, pragmatic. The FDR for our time. |
|
The office of the president elect, the office of the president elect. Take this office, and then give it, give it 4 quarters, and it can make a phone to someone who cares about the "office of the president elect". Is this a joke, "office of the president elect". This sounds like something, "helena" would think up. The Office of the President Elect. You talk about overreaching, these leftists fools just cannot help, but overreach.
You leftists need to read these Rasmussen surveys. You leftists won, nothing. Obambi won because voters believed him when he said that, "95% of the people will get a tax cut", and that 55% of the voters believe that they are good for the economy and only 19% believe they are not. And that 44% of OBAMBI VOTERS agreed with Ronald Reagan's assessment that "Government is not the solution; government is the problem", and only 40% did not. That's 44% of OBAMBI VOTERS, OBAMBI VOTERS, OBAMBI VOTERS, did i say 44% of OBAMBI VOTERS, agreed with Reagan's assessment that "Government is NOT the solution; government is the PROBLEM". 44% of all the voters who voted for "the one", do not agree with the notion that government is the solution, no no, 44% of all the people who voted for obambi, do not agree with you leftists that government is the be all, end all, they agree with Reagan and they do not agree with you leftists. When he inevitably has to show what his true colors, are, voters will then know that they have put in place a hard and fast, anti-Reagan, socialist. |
|
you are correct.
I want to know this from Hugh and others....if the next presidential candidate for the GOP was more like Goldwater was in his waning years...smaller govt type, ignore the social issues, would anyone on this site support such a person?
Which is more important to you...smaller government or stopping abortions and gay marriage? |
|
Ronald Reagan did exactly what he thought was right.
Did he occassionally ask for Nancy's opinion???
probably, but in the end, Pres. Reagan made the decision.
NOW.......who do you think will be pulling Comrade Puppet Obama's strings???......
Mommie Michelle or Mommie Oprah????? |
|
But you're right Hugh, his classification of "Fundamentalists" is a little simplified.
I consider myself to be a center right voter. Registered Republican, but I think we're losing because of our tenor with social issues, and immigration. I feel like a relative moderate in some of those areas.
However, when it comes to shrinking government - I fall into the catagory he described as a fundamentalist. I want it smaller - yesterday.
If smaller government is the core tenet of the fundamentalists - it's a great base to build on. If we choose to build on it however with somewhat dogmatic, religiously-overtoned platitudes about social issues however, we're going to keep on losing the college educated, moderate suburban voters. |
|
|
|
|
the media, putting forth the notion that, "Camelot" is back, and that obambi is loved by one and all. This will inevitably lead "the one" and the left, to OVERREACH. As i've posted earlier, Rasmussen's surveys clearly show that Reaganism isn't dead, quite the contrary, it is alive and very well, thank you. Voters, perceived that obambi was far more like Reagan than was the moderate McCain. They voted for tax cuts, that was the primary reason for their vote as was Reaganism, but when obambi does not give them those tax cuts and instead gives them confiscatory tax increases, and is reminded that America is NOT really, exceptional. Then with Nancy Reid, and Harry Pelosi, being the face of the left, and with their mugs on the news everyday. Then we shall see, who's who and what's what. A win for the left, HARDLY. |
|
cell research. Ronnie would have done what Nancy supported.
Don't demean President Reagan. He was a man of virtue and strength, meaning he would have stood up to the far right fundys that try to run the party today. |
|
your party wanted amnesty in 2007, and sponsored it in 1986 under Reagan.
Your party wants to kill the American middle class by outsourcing jobs.
Bring the jobs back. Infrastructure needs will create home grown jobs. |
|
FWIW.
http://www.antiwar.com/bandow/?articleid=13731
See, the GOP also has to stop being the (Endless) War Party. |
|
|
i would direct you to my earlier posts, concerning the election past. There can be NO doubt that the candidate who is perceived to be more like Reagan, won. McCain was NOT that guy, Helena. We were told by you McCainites that the era of Reagan was over, and that "moderation" was the ticket, now. Rasmussen's survey's prove the fallacy of that notion. Go back and read, Reagan's address in 1964. It, maybe is a lotta' things, but one thing it ain't, Helena, is a moderate message or a moderate tone. It was pure unadulterated, Conservatism, clearly enunciated and with NO, ambiguity. In other words, Helena, it was the anti-McCain message. Go to Rasmussen's website, Helena, and read for yourself, it's all laid out. When a true Conservative runs, and he clearly enunciates that message, with NO ambiguity, NOT watered down, and with the absolute thought that there will be NO "reaching across the aisle", that Conservative wins and wins big, every single, solitary time. Thems the facts, Helena....take that moderate, McCain message and stick it where the sun don't shine, cause it's a loser every, single, solitary time it's tried. And we ain't gonna' try it again! |
|
running for President after the Primaries were over, I think it's safe to suggest that the GOP not try any more Moderates who spend the first 90% of the campaign dissing other Republicans and the last 10% trying to pretend he's Conservative while dissing his party still more...
There won't ever be another Ronald Reagan; but there are other new faces. Perhaps after our experiences with running GOP Senators like Bob Dole and John McCain, we should stick with GOP Governors who have a more conservative image (while not being worn out by 20+ years of kissing Kennedy's expansive derriere) like Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, etc.?
We have enough time to watch them do their job and help them avoid critical mistakes. We have enough time to create campaign staffs that don't need to make rookie wardrobe mistakes. We have enough time to tell the RNC that they can either move to the right or expect 2010 and 2012 to be less fun than 2006 and 2008... |
|
|
condone stem cell research, is laughable. He did not and would not. It is clear that obambi was able to appear more Reagan like than did, McCain. And that's why he won. A win for the left, HARDLY. |
|
HARDLY. Down the home stretch, obambi's tax-cutting promise became his clearest policy position. Eventually he stole the tax issue from the Republicans. Heading into the election, 31% of voters thought that obambi would cut their taxes and only 11% expected a tax cut from McCain. 43% of voters in that Oct. 2 survey viewed it as a positive that a candidate was like Reagan, while just 26% viewed it as a negative. A win for the left, HARDLY.
Obambi's rhetoric played very deliberately to the idea of American exceptionalism in that he instilled a sense of hope and optimism. A win for the left, HARDLY.
The overarching message from the Rasmussen survey is that obambi was able to fool the electorate into believing that he was more like Reagan than McCain was. A win for the left, HARDLY.
This is why, when obambi shows all who he REALLY is, and believe me, the leftists will make him do it, then the American left will be in deep, deep, do do. Let this message be heard loud and clear. Reagan Conservatism is a live and well, and the first candidate who steps in and clearly enunciates Reagan's principles and runs on those principles, then that candidate will not only win, but win big time. Earlier this year, a Battleground Poll consistently showed over a 6 1/2 year period that people who identified themselves as Conservatives, did so by 60% to those who considered themselves to be liberal, 30%. 2 to 1, that's why the left has to fool em' to win and that's exactly what they did, Nov. 4th.
A win for the left, HARDLY. |
|
|
Would that include the 70% of American citizens that oppose the amnesty that you advised Obama to go for first thing? We know you don't care about illegal aliens, but those of us who do care about the rule of law and national sovereignty are not extremists. We're citizens who care about our country. |
|
HARDLY. Here's the facts, according to Rasmussen. Obambi took command of the race during the 10 days following the collapse of Lehman Brothers. When the Wall Street meltdown hit Main Street. Before that event McCain/Palin were leading by 3%. Ten days later, Obambi was up by 5% and he never lost that lead. He simply copied Reagan's strategy of taking one or two big ideas and repeat them until people identify you with those ideas. Cut taxes for 95% of the people was the pony that obambi rode all the way to the Oval office.
A Rasmussen survey taken Oct. 2 found that 59% agreed with the sentiment expressed by Reagan in his first inaugural address. "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem". Just 28% disagree with this sentiment. That survey also found that 44% of OBAMBI VOTERS agreed with Reagan's assessment and 40% did not. 44% of OBAMBI VOTERS agree with Reagan. 44% of OBAMBI VOTERS agree with Reagan. Is that clear enough for you, you on the left. Does that compute. And McCain voters overwhelmingly agreed with Reagan. A win for the left, HARDLY.
Obambi's tax-cutting message played a key role in this period of economic anxiety. Tax cuts are always well received at such times. 55% of voters believe they are good for the economy. Only 19% disagree. A win for the left, HARDLY. |
|
"In contrast, based on Howard Stern's broadcast in which a number of Obama supporters claimed to agree with his pro-life stance, his intent to remain in Iraq until the job is done, and his choice for VP, Sarah Palin, among other things, I think that says a lot about how much the average Obama supporter thinks about their positions on the issues."
Yes, because as we all know, a radio show going to Harlem and interviewing random people on the street and then handpicking for airplay the people who said the dumbest things counts as a purely scientific sample of the entire electorate. |
|
Limbaugh and Hannity will be joining you on satellite radio soon. |
|
I'm a traditional coservative, for sure. But I always vote for candidates with whom I disagree on some issues. Why? Because not many of us who actually think about the issues end up agreeing with any candidate on everything.
In contrast, based on Howard Stern's broadcast in which a number of Obama supporters claimed to agree with his pro-life stance, his intent to remain in Iraq until the job is done, and his choice for VP, Sarah Palin, among other things, I think that says a lot about how much the average Obama supporter thinks about their positions on the issues. Can you say "Obamabots"? |
|
And even Reagan would support embryonic stem cell research. Mrs. Reagan does, and we know that they were two peas in a pod on issues like that. Reagan also would not have supported Prop 8--he strongly opposed the Briggs amendment in CA that would have banned gay teachers from the schools.
I am so tired of people thinking that the intolerant fundamentalist wing of the GOP IS the GOP. So long as those people call the shots, decent men like McCain, who gave up most of his ideology and 'maverick' nature when he accepted Palin and the mob she preaches to, will lose to inspirational Dems like Obama.
|
|
Just a reminder in case you've become borderline senile: Ronald Reagan won twice. It was a bigger landslide the second time. It appears his ideological collar wasn't too starched for many Democrats and Independents.
We'll be happy to count your vote as being in the extremist minority that formerly identified itself as being against mainstream American values. Unless, of course, you're from Minnesota, in which case I guess we'll be counting your vote many times. Must be something about guys named "Al" that makes them seek endless recounts until they eventually find enough newly discovered votes....somewhere. |
|
Too bad the only choice you have to praise is the Welfare King Obama.
He will have his face on the Foodstamp Cards.
Be glad when you are healed from your illness of lack of knowledge or should I say common sense? |
|
Sorry, but there are more than two camps in the GOP, or at least, there used to be.
There are paleos, libertarians (if any of us are still left), fiscal cons, Paulites, neocons, so-cons, beltway cons, rural cons, and every spectrum in between.
You're not going to make the party bigger by purging it of everyone who thinks Palin was a bad pick, and you're not going to make it bigger by giving Americans a choice between Democrat and halfhearted Democrat.
If you want the party to be bigger, someone is going to have to analyze the years between Reagan and Bush, recognize the failures and successes and focus on a small number of core policy objectives that appeal to voters across all of those various camps.
But whatever... I don't expect that to happen. I expect you'll get the two loudest factions: neo-cons and So-cons jumping on the "McCain wasn't conservative enough" bandwagon and giving us Mitt or Palin or Joe the Plumber in 2012. |
|
"the names it names are Manhattan-Beltway media or organizational elitists. Many of these folks are my friends and colleagues"
Did it even cross your tiny mind that the fact that your friends are NYC/DC elitists might mean that YOU ARE TOO? |
|
My guess (I haven't done extensive research on this or anything) is that most Americans in theory agree with general Republican principals like paying fewer taxes, limited, less intrusive government, free market economy, strong national defense, tough crime policies and to a smaller extent, reasonable rights regarding gun ownership.
What alienates many from the Republican party is the religious/values wing who push a borderline misogynistic "love the fetus, hate the child" abortion policy (no baby should be aborted because life is precious, but once it comes out, don't come running to the government for help if you have trouble affording to pay for the child's healthcare, pre-school, etc.), anti-gay rhetoric, crossing the church/state separation line by promoting prayer in schools and other religious doctrine as American law, alienating Hispanics by focusing virtually all anti-immigration efforts solely on Mexicans, plus this whole "RINO" concept where anyone who dares to veer from any Republican platform position is immediately deemed a traitor. |
|
party, moderates will flee.
"Palin refused to say whether she was planning a run for the White House in 2012, but the devoutly faithful governor said she would wait for a sign from God, and that she is confident God would show the way to the White House.
Faith is a very big part of my life. And putting my life in my creator's hands - this is what I always do. I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is. Even if it's cracked up a little bit, maybe I'll plow right on through that and maybe prematurely plow through it, but don't let me miss an open door. And if there is an open door in (20)12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door."
God is not American. Freedom of Religion does not mean you get to impose your wacky religious beliefs on the rest of us.
|
|
Ronald Reagan was so great.
He was borderline senile and too ideologically starched collar.
But yes feel free to praise him as the totem of your little club.
Because it will help others identify you as people who should not be allowed anywhere near government offices. |
|
what passes for "Traditionalists" in the Brooks article aren't really traditionalists. Limbaugh and the rest of conservative talk radio a Traditionalist phenomenon? I don't think so. And it's not enough to spout the typical conservative bromides about small gov't, less taxes, etc. to qualify as a true traditionalist conservative. It goes much deeper - and further back - than that.
Neoconservatives have already usurped the conservative "movement." Now they want to imply that they are the vanguard for a return to "traditionalism"? Don't make me laugh. Their genesis - not to mention the last 8 years - shows that they aren't traditionalist in the least. |
|
|
Yes, Reagan was a great Governor and President. The Big Tent/GOP/Republicans have ousted the conservative movement. The true test for a Big Tenter should be free markets, liberty and a small central government (cut taxes). Period, not one man or one movement. The big tent needs to get back to basics. No one likes a lite anything when you can have the original, no thanks on liberal-lites and yes on fiscal conservatives. |
|
|
of why the NYT is unfit for wrapping fish or lining birdcages... |
|
Hugh,
Thanks for the therapy.
Brooks drives me mad.
I read Brooks in the NYTimes before I left for work-what drivel.
I feel better....
Ted
|
|
|
|