Federalist Paper #11

Interesting concept,a modern day Federalist Paper.One thing to remember,the modern media was not around to provide opposition to these ideas in the day,and the socialists were not around to oppose them as well.In THIS day and age,however,the socialists and modern media are like conjoined twins. So,while not an impossible task,it would be much more difficult to formulate these ideals,and ideas,and to disseminate them to a receptive audience.You REALLY think anyone would pass up "American Idol" to see a program outlining what this country should be about? What with the hallowed halls of academe being what they are,how would these tenets be taught? MOST definitely food for thought. I do like the idea.

Unless you could figure out a way to text message it no one under 40 would even know the new Federalist Papers even existed. There is a total break with reality these days that is startling...

I would be hoping that the papers would be very clear and concise on the undertakings of the day. It would have to be a set of papers that the entire conservative leadership could get behind. If that were to happen, you could have many conservative leaders pushing these papers down their throats. Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, and on into the elected officials that are conservative. Fox news and news radio would be huge in promoting such a reading. The only stopper in my eyes is the schools and universities. They would not promote it in the least. I do believe that enough liberals listen and watch conservative news though and they might take a peek.

Im not saying this would be an easy task by any means, but I do think it is possible. The papers must be completely magnificent though for them to go anywhere.

I love looking back at the Federalist Papers. You should also take a look at the Anti-Federalist Papers, because they outline very well many of the States Rights issues.

First of all, there are outlets for critical and analytical thought on policy based on traditional American principles: Cato Institute, The American Thinker, American Conservative Union, Heritage Foundation, National Center for Public Policy Research, RAND, many others. But they get little attention from Joe Sixpack, because he's not aware of them, and it takes actual WORK to get on top of their writings.

So ole Joe depends on the newspapers and TV, because after all.... they're objective, aren't they?

And that's the crux of the problem: the myth of journalistic "objectivity". That's a concept that didn't even exist in the era of the Founders. The news was published by "broadsheets", which were advocacy publications. That's one of the reasons why large cities would have several newspapers; you could choose the one that conformed to your own political point of view.

The whole idea of "journalistic objectivity" is essentially an invention of the 20th Century. It's one of the greatest boondoggles on the American public extant, because it takes away the motivation for people to actually stay informed on topics. It appeals to laziness. They can simply read whatever one newspaper still exists in their community, having been assured -- BY that newspaper -- that they are "objective". That's like the police policing the police. Who's watching the watchmen? It's lunacy.

In the old days, papers made no bones about their political ideology or preference. Nowdays, they cloak themselves (except talk radio, which joyfully proclaims its conservatism). They're stealth proselytizers and liberal evangelists.

That, unfortunately, is IMO a big part of the problem in why things are going so wrong in this country, the last few years being sterling examples. When a guy like Bush is criticized for being TOO CONSERVATIVE, you know we're in Big Trouble.

When a guy like McCain gets the nod from the GOP with his history of spitting in every conservative's eye, you know we're in Big Trouble.

When the GOP -- the purported Law And Order Party -- backs amnesty TWICE, you know we're in Big Trouble.

Other than that, how'd you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

While there are many different places to find information, I haven't found a set of papers, or writings, like these Federalist Papers.

You are correct about how information is spread though and it might well be nearly impossible.

The only way for it to happen would be for the given subject to be so well explained that every major conservative spokesperson can get behind it 100%. If Rush gets behind it and implores people to read it, there will be millions who read it. It would have to hit home for every conservative. We all have slightly varied beliefs, but if a conservative makes a very compelling argument it would probably bring other conservatives to slightly change their view in favor of the writer. It could become a new platform in effect, if they were done well enough.

Your arguments against a possibility is compelling but Im going to keep up hope that it can be done.

Too add, forgot a single point.

If you can get all conservatives clearly behind it and informed on those subjects, they will start to be able to convert liberals. Right now, even though I believe conservatives are more informed than liberals, many are not informed enough to convince others of our beliefs.

That is where the true damage would be done to liberals.


Anyways...Ill hold out hope for now.

as typified so well by your reference to Limbaugh.

He and so many like him are a part of the problem rather than the solution. In this last election, he lost all credibility with me.

He proclaims himself a guardian of conservative values, but who did he support in the election? Barr? The Constitution Party candidate?

Nope. Juan McLiberal, the stealth Democrat running as the GOP candidate.


And therein lies the problem, in a nutshell.

Very few of the talking heads maintained their creds this time: Malkin, Coulter, Savage, maybe one or two others.

All the rest were nothing more than GOP shills, once the rubber met the road. Did they stand true to their self-proclaimed principles? Nope. They caved in to mere party politics.

Until that changes... you guessed it: we're in Big Trouble.

Screw Limbaugh, Hannity, Medved, Elder, Hewitt, and the rest of the idjits who refused to stand firm on principle. If the Founders acted like them, we'd still be pledging allegiance to the Queen.

While I agree with you, there has to be some give and take here. They did their best against McCain while the Republicans were electing a candidate, but they thought that it was in the countries best interest to have McCain rather than Obama. In the short term I believe that is true. Obama will cause more harm to us than McCain I believe, however in the long run McCain would destroy the Republican party. If we really think about the Republican party, it must be destroyed (in a way) for a conservative grassroot movement to take place. So even though they backed McCain, I do not believe they backed him because they liked him. They backed him because of Obama.

Could have they pushed conservatives to vote third party? Yes, but then they would have to defend as to why they would rather have Obama as president over McCain, because that is the outcome.

I think you should show a bit of mercy there because if the conservative party is to ever arise, I believe people like Hannity and Rush will be there helping us.

not countries...we should be able to edit posts lol

on the problem:

"they thought that it was in the countries best interest to have McCain rather than Obama. In the short term I believe that is true"

You can't base your strategy on short term goals and aim to win the war. Sometimes you have to sacrifice your pawn or rook or bishop to win the game.

Bottom line: they were wrong.

That's what's led the GOP down the path they've taken since Reagan and 1994. That constant compromising on principle. That's why a s-ithead like Schwartzenegger can call himself a Republican, just like an a-hole like McLib does. Because weak people like Limbaugh et al let them get away with it... because of "short-term" compromises that have VERY long-term effects.

As you recall, I campaigned VERY strongly against McAmnesty, even though I knew it meant an Obama win.

The GOP has to pay for being unprincipled, and I think they're starting to get the message.

Further, when the bad policies start coming down the pike, the DEMS are going to own them, NOT conservatives.

It would have been very easy for the Founders (to get back on topic) to have found some "compromise" with King George.


They didn't, did they?

Which is why they're revered. They stuck to their guns, and paid some pretty high prices for doing so.

Im not saying compromising principles.

Here is an example of what they could be thinking:

If Obama becomes president he will do this country lots of harm. The GOP will have to be destroyed to come back conservative as the citizens have shown the republicans they reject RINOs.

If McCain becomes president he will do less harm than Obama. He will destroy the Republicans by pushing the party left. They will become Democrat lites and a new conservative party will begin to arise.

In both cases a new conservative party comes in the future, while in one Obama does not take over.

That is just an example off the top of my head that one could think.

Many of the founding fathers also wanted to get rid of slavery but knew the people would reject it. They compromised when they knew it was better for the country. Im not saying we compromise principles here, but I believe people like Rush or Hannity were looking out for the country's best interest, even though they eventually gave in and backed McCain. I do applaud them for outwardly saying they don't "support" McCain though. Picking and choosing the right battles is important.

"If McCain becomes president he will do less harm than Obama. He will destroy the Republicans by pushing the party left. They will become Democrat lites and a new conservative party will begin to arise."


Hasn't happened in California, has it?

But the Republicans have yet to turn right too. Still we hear talks of how they should be broadening their scope. They MAY come back right, but it is a chance we are taking. Both are possibilities, but neither may be probable. At one point, we will have to stop voting Republican for them to go away, but maybe the best time would be with a more moderate candidate against them? Im just speculating here, since it is all speculation.

I agree that they SHOULD have given the conservative base something to shoot for instead of backing McCain, but I do know we will need them for a conservative movement to take root.

So, I do agree with your belief that they should have not backed McCain, but I am not being as hard on them. That is about the only difference we have.

I will scour the sites for a writing such as Im hoping I can find.

"I am not being as hard on them. That is about the only difference we have."

Yes, I think so, too. It's a matter of degree, as you yourself wrote:

" At one point, we will have to stop voting Republican for them to go away,"


I've simply reached that point before you, probably because I reached my limit first because I'm in California and have simply had a bellyfull already, at the state level.

Well, hey, remember Im up here in MN and if there is a second, its us.

You probably did because I haven't been through many elections. Heck this was my first election I could vote for president.

Yer a yung'un!

Sorry I missed this session. Great debate. Brian,you led me to totally re-think what it meant to be a conservative,and not just for the sake of agreement,but I could see myself in the same position as those we were catching all the flak from during the primary,and general election.I thank you for that. CK,I'll agree with Brian here,the GOP has to get it's head out of their sphincters if they hope to re-gain the upper hand. 2006,2008,both cycles,they tried to run further left,and had their heads handed to them on a platter.If this cycle was not proof enough for them to see,given a choice,the people who were going to vote liberal will take the real thing every time. They are trying to "moderate" themselves out of business.It will happen,unless some of the up and comers,like Jindal,etc,tell the blue-blooders to take a hike.Palin,IMHO,is damaged goods. She may as well stay in Alaska,she is of better use there.

No arguments here with what you said. I totally agree that the Republican party needs to come back right and these past two elections SHOULD do that. I was merely pointing out that for such political analysts as Rush and Hannity, they didn't back McCain until after he secured the nomination. They spout the conservative beliefs where millions can here them. Without public figures such as them, I do not think a conservative grassroots movement can become as motivated as it would be without them.

But it comes down to a cutoff point for people and for example BrianR's is more strict than mine, who is more strict than Rush and Hannity. I do not disagree with you on any moves the Republican party should be making this moment. Jindal is my favorite for 4 years from now. I think Palin would be a supurb VP as it stands. With Jindal running the show and Palin 4 years more experienced, they wouldn't have much to put against her this time around. Plus after 4 years of a failed presidency, we may have a much easier time with the media as they wouldn't have a solid footing to base their accusations anymore.

my blog, I should be able to edit lol

hear me...not here me

Well,Rush wasn't backing any horse,in the primaries,when it REALLY mattered.Then,the closer it got,the more he started leaning to McCain,and finally told us to go vote for him. I plain refused to vote for another candidate based on the premise that our guy ain't as bad as their guy. Had it been McCain v Hitlary! in the general,I still would have voted Barr.Had in been Fred or Hunter,they would have had my full support. Rush has this view that the Republican party can be turned around. Only when someone of his stature takes the leadership to the woodshed,and hammers home that which served us well,and articultes to the honchos just how fed up conservatives are with the way the party has been run,and the reason they need to get back on message. Hannity's nose was up Rudy's arse so far,he could have used it for a belly-button beacon.One thing to remember about these radio guys,their #1 objective is get as large of audience as they can,try to hold it through ratings periods,so as to maximize their ability to charge HUGE rates for advertising.Yes,it is a BUSINESS.Not a movement,nor party.These two especially could be a force IF they decided to leave their business and take charge of the RNC.

Agreed. I can't find anything against what you said. I am not saying I liked what Rush and Hannity did, but we may need them in a few years.

I do admire Malkin and Coulter for not backing down. They stuck to their guns and grilled the GOP for their behavior. We do need more of them and hopefully others can learn from them as well.