Pajamas Media

185 Comments

1. Just_Saying:

FYI, like Reagan, Palin was also an “outsider” as far as the Republican Party of Alaska was concerned. In Alaska, she got very little support because of her conservative principles. Indeed, the AK GOP website even included many links against Palin.

I believe we must run conservatives under a conservative banner, not the stale Republican banner.
.

Mar 1, 2009 - 12:58 am 2. Ozzie:

Your writing resonates strongly with what I have believed for some time; that we as conservatives are betrayed by the Republican governing circles. Perhaps if we threw our entire weight into the Libertarian party, we could get numbers seperate from Republicans that would identify us as the true third political group. Every time that is mentioned, every conservative “leader” (i.e. entertainer) says it’s a wasted vote. They tell us to stay on the reservation. They tell us “change the party from within.” Well you know what, I’m starting to believe the party is too corrupt to save. That we must save ourselves, and leave the empty shell behind. Maybe we could drag Jindal and Palin with us? Palin has shown a devotion to doing what’s right, party be damned. That’s the kind of leadership we need. I know some people have issues with her, but you cannot deny that she took on corrupt Republicans and won in Alaska.

Mar 1, 2009 - 1:12 am 3. Paul:

There is not a trillion dollars difference between the Democrats and the GOP.

Mar 1, 2009 - 1:50 am 4. Typewriter_King:

For those that don’t know, Wilders is thought of as the successor to Pim Fortuyn, who was assassinated by an animal liberation kook for something or other. From an American’s perspective, Fortuyn’s LPF didn’t seem as extreme as Euros treated it. Fortuyn was openly gay, if that matters.

I noticed what you noticed, just a lot of preoccupation with hoisting the GOP back into power in Washington, rather than ideas or enhancing our lives. Terrorism? The republicans there are too afraid of being labeled fear-mongers yet again to talk much about it. One exception is- I think it was Cantor- played Fitna in some room and Ellison made the inevitable big fuss about it.

But you’re right, the GOP isn’t the home of a philosophical movement. Did anyone meet the American Conservative Party’s outgoing treasurer there? He was at CPAC and one of the 300 at the D.C. Tea Party. He was the one carrying the US Navy Jack. You know, the striped flag with the snake on it. I don’t think he was the only one there.

Mar 1, 2009 - 2:05 am 5. Winston:

I don’t think so…. Obama is a one termer.

Mar 1, 2009 - 2:35 am 6. Phoenix48:

I really enjoyed your insights Patrick. That bloggers got relegated to the peanut gallery was both instructive and dispiriting. However, being a huge Grover Norqist & Rove fan did strike a nerve. Grover and Newt are two patriots who helped re-orient me towards reconciling my own conversion - along with Horowitz. Are you really trying to sell that Norquists an amoral traitor or just an over zealous stooge? Common. If you are old enough to recall ‘76 then you should be old enough to know better. I don’t like Grovers position on immigration - but I know enough about what he has done since his college days to reflect on my opposition rather than take my pen and paper and stomp off. Familys fight - and this is healthy. CPAC is the kind of yearly reunion where such dust-ups are best revealed and resovled.

Besides an inappropriat comparison on the introduction pecking order, you are right about Geert Wilders. But who should he have replaced on the dias? It may seem like such a litte thing - just bump a scheduled speaker - but it isn’t such a little thing. Next to the presidential convention is there a more important conservative gathering yearly?

Ozzi - I can identify a bit with your impulse to splinter. I hated that Jack Kemp couldn’t bump Dole in ‘96, because Clinton was vulnerable. It was just as discouraging that Romney couldn’t fully integrate Mormanism and do the same with McCain, but if he had we would never have got Palin now would we. The Morman Church’s leadership on Prop 8 went a long way toward healing some of the divisive mistrust that unfortunately exists. Also I admire Ron Paul for NOT bolting (Unlike Bucannan years back) and handing OBama a much bigger electoral victory, a decision that would have made Patrick’s obituary more reality than speculation. Just my opinion

Even though I caught serial portions of coverage on CSPAN - unlike Tavis Smiley’s Black State of the Union which was live and continuous - I can’t agree with you Patrick that we are in the wilderness and destined to stay there.

Why? I first voted in ‘76. This past election, as therapy to cope with McCain, who of course got my vote, I picked up a copy of Norman Mailer’s MIAMI AND THE SIEGE OF CHICAGO for 50 cents at my favorite used bookstore here in Phoenix. It was Reagans first run - and the odds on fav prior to ‘68 was Rockefeller. Nixon absolutely rolled Rocky - who spent like a drunken sailor to get embarassed (although it did buy him a VP slot with Ford after Nixon resigned disgraced). Reagan made a respectable early run for a possible convention draft -but Nixon likewise crushed him. It became a blue print for him not in ‘76 but in ‘80.

Norquist, Heritage, the Hoover institute, Cato, Talk Radio, Horowitz’s brave assault - with effect - on academia - none of these institutions let alone CPAC existed, and if they did, there was no internet or CSPAN to democratize their accessiblity.

There was Buckley, his firing line, and National Review. I was ten years old. The country had had three years of racial rioting and 68′ - would be the worst - but those erruptions -along with student unrest - still happened for another three years.

What I saw this year at CPAC, besides Rush’s incredible performance, was a vibrant - mostly young - very alive and exciting opposition. Of course I am middle aged, white, male, and of course I CANT LET GO OF REAGAN. My god, that such a gift would be a birthright - and I lived to enjoy it.

Ain’t no fat lady singing in my red-neck of the woods.

Mar 1, 2009 - 2:50 am 7. Waterman:

Print my post and tape it to your refrigerator or carry it in your wallet for future reference:

The Republican and Democratic parties will go the way of Whig, Tory and Soviet Communist because they cling blindly to outdated ideologies that don’t work in the emerging global dynamic. We are in for big changes, and soon. If I’m lucky, I’ve got maybe another quarter century in my lifetime, and I think by then, the American political infrastructure will bear little resemblance to what it looked like when I started.

Mar 1, 2009 - 4:32 am 8. Sara for America:

It ticks me off when people refer to red-headed stepchildren. My kids have red hair.

Rush told me not to be offended, so I won’t be. So, please give credit to Rush, otherwise I’d be blasting you right now.

Mar 1, 2009 - 4:38 am 9. Waterman:

Sara, Rush is not Jesus, so you don’t have to do what he says. He’s not a political scientist, either. He’s an entertainer and a demagogue, not very good at the former, but outstanding at the latter, just like Hitler. I’m not comparing Rush’s politics to Hitler’s, only saying that both had an uncanny talent for leading the lemming-brained masses down a philosophical blind alley.

Mar 1, 2009 - 5:06 am 10. Bruce:

WATERMAN’s right! Great changes are afoot worldwide as in the early 20th century. The Nelson Rockefeller Country Club Yalie GOP must go, and the Libertarian or whatever-you-wish-to-call-it Party must mature, or we will have another 70-year scourge of collectivism costing another 100+ million lives, most ended by Lenin’s dictum “death by the implements of their own trades” — pitchforks, axes and printing presses.

The nihilists have won since the 60’s, and the Bolsheviks are now in the palace, while the pseudo “conservatives” fiddle.

Mar 1, 2009 - 5:16 am 11. Paul:

I’m afraid the only part of CPAC I watched was the finale when Rush spoke. So reading Mr. Poole’s observations are a little distressing, but unsurprising.

While it often seems very enticing, I don’t think forming a third party is the way to go.

While I looked on in horror as the KOS Kids and other assorted radical left nut jobs took over the Democrat party. I’m beginning to think that is the way we should go. Move in and run over the John McCain’s, and RINO country club Republicans, and take over the GOP.

For my part, I stopped donating to the GOP, years ago. I send donations to individual, conservative candadates.

Mar 1, 2009 - 5:22 am 12. Blackwater:

Cool. Go try to make a third party and become as successful in elections as the Green Party. Whether you like it or not, you’re stuck with the Republicna party. There hasn’t been a successful third party political movement in this country in decades and conservative bloggers won’t change that. I don’t agree with everything the Republican party does either. But they’re a hell of a lot better than the Democrats. This is a two party country and always will be for many decades to come. The small minority of bickering and back stabbing within the right wing community needs a reality check. You’re only damaging the conservative movement and playing right into the lefts hands. There’s nothing wrong with constructive debate and differing views and in fact that should be greatly encouraged. But at the end of the day we all need to get behind Republican candidates and support the Republican party or we’ll be divided and then conquered by the far left.

Mar 1, 2009 - 5:29 am 13. sfernando:

while i agree and don’t object to much of what you say, that bristol palin jab was was uncalled for and frankly disgusting.

Mar 1, 2009 - 5:34 am 14. not a blogger:

Where would you have preferred they place bloggers row? In the penthouse suite?

Please. based on your assement of CPAC, you don’t even belong on blogger row. Wow. talk about a swing and a miss.

First, we don’t need to discuss the threat of radical Islam…Conservatives get it, we understand the threat. Regardless, It was mentioned by many of the speakers I saw.

Second, you must of been too busy bro’ing out with your fellow bloggers to notice that Rush brought more life and energy into the Conservative movement in one hour than all the effort of all bloggers since the dawn of the Internet.

CPAC 2009 Rocked!!!

Mar 1, 2009 - 5:35 am 15. Blackwater:

Oh and let me add that the betrayel of conservative princibles under the Bush administration is easy to explain. 9/11 changed the Bush presidency greatly. It totally changed the path his administration was going down. His administration probably would have been much like his fathers had the that terrorist attack not occured. We had to greatly increase federal spending for defense purposes. And he also wanted to change the image of the Republican party of being cold hearted towards the poor and social programs with his “compassionate conservatism”. That’s why he greatly increased federal spending for education and healthcare. He compromised with the left and greatly increased the size of government programs but tweaked the programs to have a conservative bent to them with rules for accountability and privatization rather than full blown government runned beuracratic socialism.

Mar 1, 2009 - 5:37 am 16. Anonymous:

Grow up. There are two political parties, Democrats and Republicans. Libertarians are a fringe and do not have any political clout. Name the Libertarians in Congress by party label. The libertarians are in the GOP mostly as elected officials.

Now are your seriously saying that the current democratic party is conservative? If so what have you been drinking?

So who has been the political party that has carried the conservative themes, if imperfectly , the last 20 years? The GOP.

The problem is that Bush tried to go with progressive conservatism with his big government is not bad theme and compassionate conservatism. That did not win him any support from the Democrats. They just lied and smeared him. The animus of the liberals was exacerbated by the time they were muzzled after 9/11. Once it appeared that Iraq war was going downhill they appeared with vengeance and attacked incessantly.

So if you are a conservative are you going to join the liberal/ socialist democratic party? If so,go forth with our good wishes.
But do not make the mistake there is a third altenative. There really isn’t.

So the only option for conservatives is to take control of GOP and make it go back the the basic of conservative principles. CPAC is a bastion of conservatives that gather, not all are GOP, but most are.

Mar 1, 2009 - 5:51 am 17. RAH:

More and more I believe that bloggers are becoming the new MSM. All they do is talk and bitch and moan. The do not even go out much and report on news but discuss other blogger and writers.

If the blogger are passionate about policies then they need to do more than talk. Go out and organize, get people to sign up to the party and get them to donate and work to elect candidates that reflect their views.

What candidates did you work for either local or national to get more conservatives elected?

CPAC is the one conservative event that hordes of young conservatives get the support they need to go out in liberal college campuses and try to promote conservative thought. Those young people are the likely new political candidates. They learn speaking skills, how not to skewered in interviews and their words twisted by interviewers with agendas.

GOP is the party that conservatives are elected. Rarely are they elected from the Democratic Party. So it is not surprising the conservatives are mostly also part of the GOP. But they are attempting to correct the trend of the GOP to liberal light that many socially liberal conservatives are promoting.

Sorry, we had that candidate in McCain and that did not work. I rather we had Palin who may be a fundamentalist Christian, but does not impose her faith on others, but rather to her duty to follow the Alaska constitution. She is also a fiscal conservative who understand that the money government has is not theirs. They are stewards and servants, not rulers. Something Democrats and Obama do not understand.

We will not apologize for being conservative and capitalists. The new issues are the socialism that Obama and Pelosi are ramming down our throats. That is why the main thrust at CPAC was not the WOT. Besides Bush won the Iraq war.

So stop your carping that CPAC did not pander to your ego and place blogger row in a better location. The Omni Shoreham is not that big and blogger row takes up a lot of space.

I do not attend CPAC to visit bloggers, I do that to hear and see the speakers. Maybe you would have been happier to actual attend the events and then blog about them.

Mar 1, 2009 - 6:17 am 18. Joe:

After forty years of voting, two purple hearts, bronze stars and a few other awards from Vietnam and of course Randy “Duke” Cunningham, from my district, whom I voted for over and over, I can say with 100% confidence no one elected to congress before 2010 can be trusted.
What I can say with confidence is after fifteen years of listening to talk radio, and I listen to a lot of hosts, even the Airless America when they tried to stay afloat in San Diego,and I was fired for listening to talk radio, I’ve never heard Rush Limbaugh waver from conservative principals and values I know I grew up with in America. Hannity,O’Reilly,Hedgecock and Hugh Hewitt are no match to a Rush conservative belief. Their in it for themselves and nothing more. What ever way the wind blows they tweak their message to get the most out of it for themselves. Ed Schultz and others from that side offer the same for their own side. The ignorance of American people goes well beyond that of just voting. Hannity and Hewitt used their influence to push Arnold Kennedy into the governorship because he was Arnold. The ignorant voters followed the ignorant. They pushed aside a great conservative for the glory of an actor. Oh yeah, we still have the title and now the proof of “what happens in California happens across America” title. Now you see the Arnold two step, supported by the Hannitie ignorance of the radio has destroyed America for the ratings. Hedgecock abandoned his community and state for national radio. Rush gave him a chance and Hedgecock sucked it up for himself leaving behind supposed principles. Oh, and he fired his producer after 20 years. Nice.. After twenty years on the radio fighting for the good of the community he finally achieved status of great respect then abandoned that respect. Now he’s simply saying the same thing I’ve heard all day long. O’Reilly, he really showed he’s for himself while sucking up to Obama’s crowd to get an interview. How lame
But Rush, Here’s a guy who could walk into any election, or any place in the world and respect, truth, honesty and principle will follow.
No one in DC should be allowed to continue. If it vaporized tomorrow I’d not shed a tear. As long as Rush wasn’t in town.

Mar 1, 2009 - 6:41 am 19. Jack:

Totally agree with Waterman (about Rush and about the future of the parties).

Blackwater - No, you are not stuck with the Republican party, at least not as it stands today. You say that you are going to be stuck with it forever, and get used to it, but you need to look back a few decades where there were stronger factions in both parties. It wasn’t one party or the other, it was fiscal conservative republicans reaching out to the blue dog democrats and together they could reach agreement and make things happen (for example). That doesn’t happen anymore (for now).

And this is why - Political discourse became an entertainment industry and every word every politican says is rehashed 24/7. Politicians are more defensive than ever about every little thing they do because they know everyone is watching, and we are all running around like idiots calling each other names and trying to invalidate each others viewpoints. People need to grow up and learn to stop voting party line on single issues and start compromising again. Not blaming Rush and his ilk, but it’s pretty clear that they profit mightily when they can get us all in a frenzy and at each others throats. That just doesn’t seem to be the best thing for our country.

IMHO, “Conservatives” need to separate into fiscal conservative and social conservative factions. By trying to be both, you lose the support of the people on the left that would support you on one topic if not the other. For example, I’m very fiscally conservative, but I happen to think being gay is just fine and don’t see a reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to get married. Without the support of the other side of the aisle, future results will be spotty at best.

Jack

Mar 1, 2009 - 7:00 am 20. syn:

When Grover Norquist and Ron Paul are one the same side of the anti-freedom-pro-Islamdom issue as President Obama then the circle is complete.

The one common denomination between the Progressive Leftist, Libertarians, and Paleo-Conservatives is that they all love doing dirty deeds with dictators, Islamic-tyrants, kleptocrats, plutocrats etc because for them the profit margin is greater. This common denomination is also the reason why all three abhor ‘neo-conservatives’ who believe more in God’s Freedom than they believe in Man’s Greed.

When Conservative freedom-fighters such as Rick Santorum were voted out of office this is when the fight against Islamdom’s global domination came to an end; we are all just biding time until the next attack brings about an awareness that greater profit margins received when doing dirty deeds with evil people just leads to more war and greater destruction.

This is what Grover Norquist, Ron Paul, President Obama, Libertarians, Progressive Leftist and Paleo-Conservatives do not understand, when they play with poisonous snakes they’ll wind up full of poison.

Mar 1, 2009 - 7:15 am 21. katiejane:

I agree that it is short-sighted for conservatives to pout and threaten to run off and form their own party. Haven’t we already seem a group devolve themselves into a joke - i.e. the Green Party? All we would accomplish is to ensure long-term Democratic/liberal success in elections. Better to work within the GOP to regain respect for conservative issues. Personally I’d rather have half a loaf than nothing.

Mar 1, 2009 - 7:34 am 22. Rocky:

The Republican Party doesn’t have to go away simply because conservatives are angry over the Party’s departure from our values. Take a look at the people that claim to be Republican but are failing us. It’s the Beltway Boys, the Bill Kristol’s, et al. Elected officials like the 3 ‘GOP’ senators that set our country down a course of economic disaster that will take generations to recover from should not be supported. Stop contributing to their campaigns and get behind Michael Steele when he says he’ll consider not giving those 3 RNC money for re-election. Flood Fox News with emails and calls that you are no longer watching until they take the RINO’s off the air and replace them with guest commentators from around the country. Average people with average lives that are ignored. Give us a microphone so the GOP can really connect w/ voters. We don’t need a new party or a split from the Republican Party. We simply need to throw out the people that are tarnishing our brand. Don’t watch them on TV and don’t vote for them. We have the power to control this situation. The response Rush got yesterday from a predominantly youthful audience goes to show that the foundations of conservative are just as sellable and alive and well as ever. It’s the McCain/Graham types that have ushered us into the wilderness. All we have to do is organize against those people and take back our party and our country.

Mar 1, 2009 - 7:37 am 23. foRRever:

I agree with these people when they say . . .

3. Paul . . . There is not a trillion dollars difference between the Democrats and the GOP.

4. Typewriter King . . . the GOP isn’t the home of a philosophical movement

6. phoenix 48 . . . Grover and Newt are two patriots who helped re-orient me towards reconciling my own conversion

8. Sara for America . . . Rush told me not to be offended, so I won’t be.

11. Paul . . . I’m afraid the only part of CPAC I watched was the finale when Rush spoke . . . While I looked on in horror as the KOS Kids and other assorted radical left nut jobs took over the Democrat party, I’m beginning to think that is the way we should go.

12. Blackwater . . . we’ll be divided and then conquered by the far left

17. Rah . . . I rather we had Palin who may be a fundamentalist Christian, but does not impose her faith on others

18 Joe . . . But Rush, Here’s a guy who could walk into any election, or any place in the world and respect, truth, honesty and principle will follow.

Uh.

Mar 1, 2009 - 7:40 am 24. Tony:

The “Rush Limbaugh” Republican party had gone so far out in the left field, that they’re actually out in the parking lot. They had demonstrated that they’re only in it for their own and the rich’s agenda. This election shown that the people are tired of their all talk and no action BS. If they think Palin, Jindal and Romney will be their flag carrier for 2012, they’re highly disillusional. It’s pathetic that the Republican party had used Jindal to do a rebutal to Obama’s speech. Is that an attempt to show the Republican party does have an Obama’s version? It’s not the player but the issues, stupid! And Rush Limbaugh? He’s like the joker of the Republican party. The only difference between him and the KKK is he doesn’t wear a hood and bed sheet.

Mar 1, 2009 - 7:41 am 25. budfox:

Good call on the new media issue and leadership. It is the heads of the conservative movement We all know what Republicans are - politicians - so we expect them to go astray. But the conservative leaders were the ones entrusted to carry our water and call the clowns out to keep them in line. They didn’t and now we’re all paying.

The only thing you missed Patrick is Dobson stepping down. It’s the first sign your argument is right. Here was a guy who tried to hijack the ‘08 GOP nomination by battering Mitt and Rudy, which left a wide opening for Huck and McCain. His resignation at the same time as CPAC is not accidental. He’s out of power and knows it. Now, we just have to push the rest of the old guard to the side and adhere to what Rush ended his speech with-

“Just worry about how they vote. And then at the end of the day how they live, but that’s really none of your business once they close the doors”.

Mar 1, 2009 - 7:45 am 26. Steve McCullough:

You can wait forever for a third party. It’s not going to happen. A better solution is to change the Republican Party. It happened before. It can happen again.

Mar 1, 2009 - 7:51 am 27. TexEd:

Pat -
You did not mention the nomination of John McCain, a disaster for both Republicans and Conservatives. He is a doofus, far more interested in appearing to hold the high ground than in doing what is right for America.
It can be argued that Obama’s election does far less damage to America than McCain’s would have. Obama gives us stark contrast, McCain would have given us fake bipartisanship.

Mar 1, 2009 - 7:56 am 28. Eric:

Gang-rushing the GOP by real conservatives is surely the right way to go. Filter out the squishes in the primary process so that only true conservatives are nominated. Third parties are a losing proposition.

Mar 1, 2009 - 8:04 am 29. BC:

This is an excellent article, and precisely what I was saying while watching coverage of CPAC. While entertaining, and largely correct with their discussions, many of the high-profile speakers are rabble-rousing personalities, whose flame of persuasion is long extinguished with fence-sitters and rational liberals (risk of oxymoron noted). Some of the other speakers did little more than perpetuate stereotypes of conservatives as nerdy, socially inept elitists. For better or worse, perception is reality, and the GOP refuses to concede that style points win elections. There was nothing “hip” about CPAC. While conservatives are generally thinkers, and so our events can indulge in more function than form, CPAC isn’t just about existing conservatives. It’s about future conservatives. We get killed on media management, marketing and energy. Until we modernize and accept that dispositive voting numbers really don’t care about thinking too hard, we’ll suffer under democracy. That doesn’t mean dumb it down - but we do need to tier our strategy and do more than cheering on the traditional standard bearers who have all but preached us into mainstream irrelevance.

Mar 1, 2009 - 8:20 am 30. Bender:

What a boob.

It is because of such boobery that large numbers voted for Perot, which did absolutely nothing except elect Clinton and revive a Democratic Party which was, at that time, buried deeper in the grave than is the Republican Party now.

Mar 1, 2009 - 8:22 am 31. Ken:

We have a socialist/Marxist in the White House with FULL support from the 111th Congress and millions of looney netroot activists running interference for them, racing to implement their agenda. An agenda that will transform America into a weak and much less prosperous nation for generations. What are some conservatives STILL doing; whining, complaining and nitpicking those on the same side of the spectrum. For Pete’s sake, we joined with Stalin to defeat the Nazis in WW II. The fact is, we must create some broader coalitions than many of us would prefer in order to win. It’s just too damn important to preserve this country on the freedoms on which it was founded than insist on some people’s concepts of political purity. I would match rather govern with people I have 80% agreement with than be governed by those that I have 20% agreement with. THAT is the issue.

Mar 1, 2009 - 8:33 am 32. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Patrick Poole
RE: Sounds Like….

“I’m afraid conservatives have many more years in the political wilderness ahead of them.” — Patrick Poole

….you’re whistling past the graveyard.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Keep up the denial……we’re all excited…..

Mar 1, 2009 - 8:49 am 33. G Alston:

Poole —

You seem to have conflated a few things. It wasn’t lefty blogging and what was said that carried the day for the left. It was the simple fact that they blogged at all; the image the younger crowd has is that they associate being able to operate somebody’s web software with tech savvy. And they assume tech savvy is common in the younger age brackets. Combine that with the “hope and change” nonsense and you get the snowball rolling down the hill effect.

What the lefty bloggers actually said was pig-ignorant and usually demonstrated a shockingly clueless naievete.

No amount of conservative blogging or demonstrations of being able to follow directions and operate software is going to make much (if any) difference.

You are making the same mistake now that investors made back in the 90’s before the tech bubble (and thus CAUSED the bubble.) They were unable to distinguish between technology creators (e.g. companies who invented the tech) and consumers (e.g. online pet food operations.) Idiotic tech illiterate investors simply assumed that a web enabled pet food operation was high tech and equivalent to IBM merely because the word ‘computer’ was found somewhere in the description. IBM created stuff. The pet food operators put a catalogue online. Ooooh. Real tech savvy, that. No kidding a bubble was created.

There’s a great deal to fix in the GOP, but trying to claim that being able to operate web software is going to be representative of that change is just silly.

Of course I realize that I’m talking to someone who probably assumes that his ability to operate software makes him a tech expert. Sad, that. You may want to reconsider your beliefs and apply just the rational part of your brain.

Mar 1, 2009 - 8:50 am 34. PRCS:

George Bush and his administration perpetuated, year after year, the nonsense that Islam ‘is a religion of peace’.

Couple that with the childish notion that we are engaged in a war on terror–a phrase almost as ridiculous as ‘freedom fries’–and it becomes quite clear that the Republican Party is either completely ignorant of the facts or they are terrified of losing even the votes of those whose core beliefs demand the imposition of Islamic law upon the entire world.

We’re at war with Muslim fundamentalists; literalists for whom Islam’s geopolitical goals are as valid today as they were in the seventh century Arabian peninsula.

The global jihad and creeping sharia pose significant threats to the West; not that one would realize such in listening to most Republican leaders and so-called conservative organizations.

Presbyterian fundamentalists didn’t take down the World Trade Towers, and Islam has not been perverted by those who believe the Qur’an to be God’s literal word.

CPAC failed to adequately address the issue.

Mar 1, 2009 - 9:05 am 35. Joseph "Tex" Dozier:

Felt the same kind of thing as an official blogger at the GOP Convention as well in how the party respects its “red-headed step children”.

Should have gone outside with fellow conservatives and libertarians taking a stand and actually making a difference at the Tea Parties!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_WYGjqSRck

Mar 1, 2009 - 9:06 am 36. Edward Sisson:

Patrick, you say: “That the conservative movement has slid into complete irrelevancy was demonstrated by the absence of any ideas — nay, any discussion whatsoever — of several of the most pressing political issues of our day. … not a single panel on the War on Terror, the growing threats to free speech, or the cultural jihad underway in the West.”

So is your point that there WOULD have been ideas, and panels on ideas, if not for the focus on the Republican Party?

Or is it that there aren’t any ideas, and s a result, the only thing left to do is promote the Republican Party?

It seems to me the thing to do is, if there aren’t any ideas out there, then develop some and put them out there for people to consider.

Mar 1, 2009 - 9:12 am 37. Paul Gross:

Conservatives are to the Republican Party what Blacks are to the Democrat Party. Like the wife in an abusive relationship who feels she has no place to go.

Mar 1, 2009 - 9:15 am 38. colin wilkinson:

We have a two party system. we are going through a major realignment right now. The new division will be: Authoritarian,socialist, environmentalists vs Constitutional, capitalist, ecologists. Make your choice

Mar 1, 2009 - 9:18 am 39. fred:

Grover Norquist has been at the forefront of behind the scenes attacks on critics of Islam. When I learned about that a few years ago I knew instantly what that meant and why this was happening. I left the Democratic Party in 2002 and registered as a Republican, but increasingly find that I more identify with the conservative movement than I do as a Republican. I’m not a strong conservative, but am more of a moderate one. Still, I find I have more in common with strong conservatives than I do with mainstream Democrats today. I once heard Rush Limbaugh say during one of his programs a couple of months ago that he self-identifies as a conservative first and a Republican second. Good for him, I thought at the time. I wish to remind everyone about his declaration, and to strike a more optimistic note about where we are going. While it is discouraging to not that Geert Wilders and PJM were relegated to “let’s not let these people be very visible” roles, the influence they are having is not minor. The very first conservative site I was introduced to back in 2001 was David Horowitz’ frontpagemag.com - a great site that I check daily. There are many, many thousands of people who have been going down the same trail I took. A sibling of mine who at one time self-identified as a liberal Democrat has recently begun talking about himself as, like me, a kind of moderate conservative. He too discovered Horowitz’ site and has also checked out many others I’ve pointed out to him, including PJM and americanthinker.com.

Increasingly there are a large number of people out there who have finally figured out that our nation and our civilization are under a full out offensive from this new, toxic alliance of Marxism and Islam.

I would also like to give praise to Robert Spencer’s site, jihadwatch.org. Check it out. His site, books, and articles are a tremendous education about Islam and the history of jihad conquest. And the best stuff written that is out there is written by Muslim apostates or Christians who used to live under Muslim rule, like Brigitte Gabriel.

Mar 1, 2009 - 9:19 am 40. dark:

You know part of the problem is also of ppl like Bush. Who throw out capitalism with TARP 1 and all those GOP who supported it, like Newt Ginrich and Mitt Romney

Mar 1, 2009 - 9:19 am 41. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Ken
RE: Learning From History

“….we joined with Stalin to defeat the Nazis in WW II. The fact is, we must create some broader coalitions than many of us would prefer in order to win. It’s just too damn important to preserve this country on the freedoms on which it was founded than insist on some people’s concepts of political purity.” — Ken

Yeah. And look where we are TODAY, because of that.

In my military-histarian mind, i.e., 27 years in the US Army infantry and retired as a light colonel, I think Patton was right. And the election of this socialist, illegal alien as President of the United States is evidence indicating that.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[They say that politics makes for strange bedfellows. I say be sure you're ready for a 'rude' awakening. -- CBPelto]

Mar 1, 2009 - 9:23 am 42. Jay:

Great stuff Patrick. I couldn’t agree more. The Republicrats are stuck with both wheels in the mud and are going nowhere. The Obama thing was bound to happen — the right African American candidate along with this disgusting/dishonest mainstream media; instant win. McCain was a joke and I don’t think Romney does any better. Those who agree with Blackwater — that we stick with this tired bunch of Republicans or lose, deserve to lose. I voted for Perot twice because I was so sick of Bush 41 (taxes/Souter) and those tired Republicans. I’ll continue to support Ron Paul, who, while not as entertaining as Rush, said much more.

Mar 1, 2009 - 9:32 am 43. Tony:

I can understand why people are angry with the GOP, but talk of a third party alternative is political immature and unwise. A third party would only guarantee Democrat dominance by splitting the conservative/small government vote. The answer for conservatives is to become more involved in the Republican Party to ensure that it reflects our ideology.

Mar 1, 2009 - 9:32 am 44. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Eric
RE: I Think I Got One!

“Gang-rushing the GOP by real conservatives is surely the right way to go. Filter out the squishes in the primary process so that only true conservatives are nominated. Third parties are a losing proposition.” — Eric

My county party chair.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Based on something that occurred over the last week, i.e., the odd failure on the part of my county party ‘leadership’ to do anything in support of the American Tea Party movement, I think the newly elected staff have ‘issues’ to be dealt with as well……

Mar 1, 2009 - 9:37 am 45. True American Conservative:

Grover Norquist should be treated as an enemy of America. The man is pandering to pan-Islamic movements. Do. NOT. Trust. Grover Norquist.

Mar 1, 2009 - 9:40 am 46. Dorothy:

I don’t think many people realize how far away the Republican party is from the average conservative. The Republican party is for people with money and power. All they want from the little people are donations and their votes. At election time there are glossy flyers with nice pictures. I depend on conservative blogs such as Atlas Shrugs and websites like World Net Daily to keep me informed and, as a result, they have my allegiance. To heck with the Republican hacks.

Mar 1, 2009 - 9:49 am 47. KansasGirl:

I can think of only a couple of elected Republicans who could stand in Rushs’ shadow. His core beliefs and convictions have NEVER waivered.

Mar 1, 2009 - 9:58 am 48. Ken:

Chuck …. you make my point. Where are we today? Well Nazi Germany doesn’t exist. Even the Stalinists are gone, for the most part. BHO is in office because of infighting in the GOP and people being sold a bill of goods called “change” without a coherent alternative.

What did Ross Perot give us? Yup, the Clintonistas. Let’s just split 55% of the country, freedom loving, republican (small ‘r’), capitalists into factions. That will work well. Instead, we should be forcing the Dims into their racial/cultural/gender/class factions.

Mar 1, 2009 - 10:06 am 49. BC:

Alston reads like an angry MS-cert who didn’t get into an accredited program for CompE and likes to condescend others out of insecurity. You did not conflate carrier and substance. There is value in conservative blogging. Conservatives - GOP or unaffiliated - must modernize our handling of media. Viral media plays a large role, and is beginning to gain momentum at actually influencing what MSM pays attention to and thus reports. Certainly blogging is not the answer in and of itself, but it is a signal or indicator of the big-picture answer.

Mar 1, 2009 - 10:15 am 50. SukieTawdry:

Oh, without a doubt, we conservatives should go third party–that should prove enormously successful. I mean, when has it not? Criminy, talk about your political wilderness.

Face it, we have a two-party system and in our two-party system, repugnant as it may seem sometimes, we’re stuck with the Republicans. The hat trick is to become the majority within the party. So, the real question is, how do we turn that trick? In the absence of charismatic national leadership (and stop looking around every corner for a new Reagan–he was a once-in-a-lifetime leader and I doubt quite sincerely I will see even his near equal any time before I shuffle off this mortal coil), it obviously must come from the grass roots up. We need candidates with conservative values in every single primary election across the land. Will it be easy to wrest control from entrenched party loyalists and their interests? Hell no. But, why would you even want it to be easy?

Barack Obama unwittingly has accorded conservatives a great opportunity. I expect his policies to be such abject failures, that a nation mired in Carteresque doldrums and with foreign dogs once more nipping at its heels will be in desperate need of direction and might eagerly turn to an entirely different dogmatic approach. We need to be ready. We need to be able to explain exactly why liberalism has failed us in the past, is failing us now and will continue to fail us in the future (yes, again–repeat as necessary). We need to be able to explain where and why a conservative approach has succeeded in the past and why it can and will succeed in the future. And we need to start yesterday. As for you bloggers, either lead, follow or get out of the way.

And a final note about “new ideas.” If you’re talking about logistics, fine, bring them on. But, I’ve held conservative principles dear my entire life. I don’t need any new ideas. What I need is for those principles to finally be put into practice.

Mar 1, 2009 - 10:17 am 51. Ken:

Dorothy, and your alternative is the Dems, the party of ?????? You tell me. There are two choices. That’s it. Even if I don’t like it. Pick one and work to make it better.

Mar 1, 2009 - 10:23 am 52. fred:

There is nothing wrong with being a conservative and voting for Republican candidates for office. Like it or not, we have a two party system where third parties tend to function as liabilities to the party out of power. Ask the Democrats how they feel about the way Ralph Nader siphoned off voters during Pres. Bush’s two election victories. Our system forces the two parties to be big tents. Purists may not like it, but that’s the reality. Intellectually, it’s important to build in some flexibility to one’s ideological framework. In the real world you cannot always get what you want, but if you know what you definitely do not want you had best forge alliances with those who share common opponents.

We conservatives face formidable hurdles and barriers. Kids come out of high school and college very indoctrinated in cultural Marxism by stealth. They were taught to abhor conservative, traditional American ideas. Thereafter, it usually takes crises of meaning or stored up cognitive dissonance that can no longer be put off in order for them to challenge what they were taught in school. And we can be there to meet them at that crossroad in their lives. And even before that moment arrives for them, we can seed the landscape with well-crafted and sophisticated argumentation for our principles. You never know when the ground those seeds are cast upon will be watered and fertilized at just the right moment. That is what happened to me as I broke with Marxism back in 1987. Even when I was a Marxist I paid attention to writers and thinkers like William Buckley, Jr. and theologian Michael Novak. Among others.

Mar 1, 2009 - 10:28 am 53. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Ken
RE: Au Contraire, Mon Cher

“Chuck …. you make my point. Where are we today.” — Ken

We’ve got a lower-case communist who is, as far as I can tell, an illegal alien, as President of the United States. Put there by a bunch of ignoramooses.

Your ‘case’. Is one of ‘unity’. But not with what is right. Rather with what is expedient. That’s the course of action the bozos who got US here took.

So, in that logic, you blew yourself away……asshat…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Mar 1, 2009 - 10:29 am 54. Amy:

Conservatism has resided in the Republican party because that’s where it found a home. Those Repubs that abhor conservative principles or wish to evolve them in some way are just that…Republicans. As conservatives, maybe the mission is to “change” their minds or boot them to the other side. Either way, because we do currently operate as a 2-party system, conservatism has to be the loudest voice in the room. Bloggers, talk radio and the internet are the wave of the future for our movement…for sure the mainstreams and the public education system won’t help. What is most important now is to look forward. We cannot undo the errors of the past…we can only hope to be heard with a vengeance for the future.

Mar 1, 2009 - 10:51 am 55. Alberto Enriquez:

Hey Patrick, if the last eight years made ANYTHING clear, it’s that the CPAC fat-cats care about one thing. They were dishing the sanctimonious hypocrisy about patriotism to OTHERS, while scooping up the rewards of no-bid profiteering for THEMSELVES.

It sounds like you’re looking for a party that invites dissent and rigorous debate and doesn’t shout “treason” at everyone who disagrees with toeing an extreme ideological line. It may be that you’re the sort of pragmatic conservative who still cherishes the grand promise of a government “of the people, by the people and FOR the people.” If so, welcome to the Democratic Party!

Mar 1, 2009 - 10:54 am 56. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Paul Gross
RE: Interesting Comparison

“Conservatives are to the Republican Party what Blacks are to the Democrat Party. Like the wife in an abusive relationship who feels she has no place to go.” — Paul Gross

Good think that the conservatives can be assured of less abuse from fellow ‘conservatives’ in the Republican Party than black women can expect from their ‘partners’ who likely voted ‘Democrat’.

After all, slavery can be a self-inflicted wound. Witness the Democrats of today.

In the mid-19th Century they enforced slavery with the whip and the chain. That is until a Republican president threw out slavery by means of armed conflict, i.e., the Civil War, which was started by the Democrats at Charleston, SC.

Today, the Democrats enforce slavery by the dole and the ballot. And those on the dole vote for them, knowing that if the dole fails, they’ll ACTUALLY have to {HORROR!} work.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Democrats LOVE passive slaves. They get more of their votes..... -- CBPelto]

Mar 1, 2009 - 11:00 am 57. Jack:

Fiscal conservatives don’t need to leave the republican party, they just need to court the similar minded on the left (and there are plenty). It is the social conservatives that make you the rest of us switch you guys off. We can disagree about fiscal policy and it’s all valid, but when you start telling people how to live, fiscal policy becomes a distant second concern.

Dump the far right religious nut-jobs and us democratic fiscal conservatives will have a much easier time working with you. You don’t need to make a new party, just dump the people that are keeping your support low…this is why politics and religion shouldn’t be together…it confuses WAY too many issues and prevents us from, well, governing. We spent too much time trying to keep gays from exchanging rings, keeping stem cells from being useful, investigating Howard Stern for using naughty words, etc. when we should have been talking housing bubble.

Drives me nuts.

Jack

Mar 1, 2009 - 11:10 am 58. Jeffriesboys:

Totally agree. Personally, I believe the GOP is DEAD. The more I hear about it, from it, the more I want to RUN from it. There are major issues. I am just trying to figure out where we go from here!!! It is part of the reason I listen to Glenn Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity. I believe it was RADICAL when Sean left the Republican party and started calling himself a conservative instead. SERIOUSLY, it is time we make our discontent known. For example when Boehner said we need to start finding more moderate candidates. REALLY???? REALLY??? I am not saying that we aren’t flexible, but we need to be a movement of ideas that are solidly small gov’t, less taxes and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY - no apologies. I think as far as the GOP goes, they are just trying to put lipstick on their pig and make us think they are still beautiful. I think both parties have been hijacked by their extremes. I am watching and ready to be a force for “good”.

Mar 1, 2009 - 11:28 am 59. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Are You ‘Getting This’?

“Dump the far right religious nut-jobs and us democratic fiscal conservatives will have a much easier time working with you.” — Jack

If you get rid of the people who oppose Jack, Jack and his ilk will embrace you into their ‘collective’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[We are the Borg. Drop the 'resistance' and we will assimulate you.]

Mar 1, 2009 - 11:32 am 60. Waterman:

KansasGirl, once again, Rush is an entertainer. Rodney Dangerfield made a good living for a lot of years by saying “I don’t get no respect…” over and over and over. Same deal for Rush: why tamper with success? As long as there are hungry mouths to feed, he’ll keep churning out the intellectual equivalent of mashed potatoes without gravy. When the ratings turn south, he’ll change his mantra. And once again, Rush is a demagogue. His most remarkable talent is not proving that a particular point of view is right, it’s in making people think that it’s right.

All Mr. Limbaugh stands to lose by expressing an unpopular opinion is his current job, and there’s undoubtedly another one waiting in the wings (remember Don Imus and Howard Stern?). Put him in a situation where he’s subject to real-world pressures and consequences for his words and actions that effect millions of people, and let’s see how long he sticks to his guns. Hmm, maybe that’s why he’s never run for office, despite the exhortations of his legions of fans all these years.

Mar 1, 2009 - 11:38 am 61. eburchelli:

This meeting of CPAC might better have been called RPAC. It’s all about Republicans. They have deserted conservatives. Of the few in the bunch of old retreads, only Palin, Jindal, Pawlenty and maybe Sanford, quaifly as conservatives. To bring along Romney, Guilianni, Huckabee and those others, is a slap in the face to real conservatives.

Mar 1, 2009 - 11:46 am 62. Kirly:

#18 Joe said ” Hannity,O’Reilly,Hedgecock and Hugh Hewitt are no match to a Rush conservative belief. Their in it for themselves and nothing more. What ever way the wind blows they tweak their message to get the most out of it for themselves”

a mere six months ago I would have been incensed by that statement. After the giant bailout and hewitt’s constant bleating “well, SOMETHING must be done”, i realized what you say above. and now hugh is interviewing his friends for hours on end just to plug their books… boring! After the election and O started naming who he’d nominate for this or that cabinet post, bill bennet starting saying gee, how moderate and reasonable the appointments were. i stopped listening to that fool and don’t intend to return.

Rush is right. and about the only radio i’m interested in listening to anymore. aw, but that doesn’t follow the Obamessiah’s instruction now does it. backlash.

Mar 1, 2009 - 12:05 pm 63. ccoffer:

“But at the end of the day we all need to get behind Republican candidates and support the Republican party or we’ll be divided and then conquered by the far left.”

Damn right. To withhold support from republicans is to tacitly support the democrats.

“Fiscal conservatives don’t need to leave the republican party, they just need to court the similar minded on the left (and there are plenty).” Nonsensical bullshit. Just a lead in for a bigoted attack on religious belief.

“We spent too much time trying to keep gays from exchanging rings, keeping stem cells from being useful, investigating Howard Stern for using naughty words, etc. when we should have been talking housing bubble.”

Republicans did talk about the housing bubble, dumbass. As far as throwing away the definition of marriage and adopting the made up abberration of “homo marriage” goes, upholding cultural traditions against assault by deviant groups is not a religious issue. And inventing such a logical absurdity and stamping it with government approval doesn’t make it any less perverted than is a man “marrying” his teenage daughter or his pet goat for that matter.

Mar 1, 2009 - 12:12 pm 64. gcblues:

american conservative is not fascist
american conservative is not big government and it is certainly not into foreign democracy building. huge error.
american conservative is not english only
american conservative is not evangelicalism, or watching statues cry catholicism
american conservative is not an end to free trade and instituting “fair” prices and “fair” wages.
american conservative is not building a wall to immigration or emigration.

american conservative is just fine. unfortunately some of it’s supporters have gone insane. if you talk to god, and he responds with instructions, you are certifiable crazy. get help.

Mar 1, 2009 - 12:25 pm 65. Ken:

Chuck Pelto says, “So, in that logic, you blew yourself away……asshat…..”.

You’ll win a lot of supporters and voters with name calling. At least find a position you can defend intelligently. Pathetic.

Mar 1, 2009 - 12:25 pm 66. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Ken
RE: Yes….

“You’ll win a lot of supporters and voters with name calling.” — Ken

….amongst those with more than a couple of synapses to rub together. Not that I care to win your ilk over.

“At least find a position you can defend intelligently. Pathetic.” — Ken

Look whose talking.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S Show me your Mensa membership ID number, buckie, and I’ll call you ‘bro’.

Mar 1, 2009 - 12:30 pm 67. Marc Malone:

I believe that if the conservatives left the Pub Party, the Party would collapse. Look how poorly McCain did with fund-raising until he picked Palin. Conservatives were the ones doing the GOtV efforts. They mind the store. They make the calls. The Pubs would be done without them.

It wouldn’t be a new third-party. It would be a new second-party. Dump the Pubs. The incumbents won’t relinquish power, so we need to walk away from them.

Mar 1, 2009 - 12:31 pm 68. the friendly grizzly:

“Epic fail”? Gads, man! Do you have to use the most overused - and arguably one of the most annoying - cutesy phrases to come along since “my bad”? That sort of junk-writing is two steps above text-speech.

Mar 1, 2009 - 12:31 pm 69. Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. It’s interesting that I made my ‘position’ clear in my reply to you at item #53 (above). But all you could ’see’ was that someone identified you for what you were. And THAT is what you keyed on.

It’s particularly interesting that you failed to address either of the two ‘positions’ I espoused in that item.

Why is that?

Mar 1, 2009 - 12:34 pm 70. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Marc Malone
RE: Indeed

“It wouldn’t be a new third-party. It would be a new second-party. Dump the Pubs. The incumbents won’t relinquish power, so we need to walk away from them.” — Marc Malone

I’m beginning to consider that option.

Witnessing what a disaster my county and state-level organizations did this last round, I’m beginning to consider a ‘third-way’ approach. The biggest problem being that the county chair is in bed with the local newspaper. And THAT, in my candid opinion, was a major factor in his unwillingness to embrace the web as a means of communicating with the community. Therefore, any effort to make it an interactive web-site was ‘vetoed’ by him.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Nothing is as consistent as 'change'. And I think it's time for a MAJOR change.....]

Mar 1, 2009 - 12:40 pm 71. Ken:

Chuck(le)

Funny stuff. You go ‘Joe Biden’ on us and tells us how smart you are. You’re writing already reveals that. People like you will keep Obama and HIS ilk in office for a long time. You must be a Ron Paul supporter. Enjoy.

Mar 1, 2009 - 12:46 pm 72. Sara123:

I could not agree more with the author’s take on CPAC and the conservative movement in general. We are devoid of an agenda to pursue as we are devoid of well thought out and expressed ideas. We have dead weight in the conservative movement and the length of service seems to be the key qualifier for domination in conservative circles. The longer conservatives serve in the GOP, the more out of touch with conservative principals they become. We need some term limits!

When we have no ideas, compiled into a coherent agenda or plan to fight for, we get McCain “leading” us from “the other side” of the socialist isle. His idea of leading is smashing the party into a pup tent of stupidity where he can be the leader of the permanent minority party.

Newt, a former conservative leader, carefully chose an agenda from an array of ideas and focus groups tests and formed a popular conservative agenda of reform and change. He showed us the way forward. It feaked the Rinos and Liberals out and they ridiculed Newt, but we won. We need to do it again. And then after we win we need to do it again… No more sleeping.

Mar 1, 2009 - 12:53 pm 73. Dorothy:

There is only one thing that might work. Just as Dems target specific Republicans at the state level, throwing money and time into their fight, we as conservatives need to target two or three RINOS at the federal level with our money and efforts to send a message that we are to be taken seriously. We scatter our forces only too willingly over many states and contests. We have to focus our money and time in a meaningful way and not let the Republican party use us as money and vote cows. How many years has Limbaugh been on the air? How many years has he just supported the Republican party? Wasn’t it liberal Phil Donahue who put him on the air? Limbaugh with his “I am doing it for you and you don’t need to do anything” message is the stupidist thing I’ve seen happen. Limbaugh tells 1/4 of what is going on, and he fills the air with bravado instead of facts. Until individuals act like responsible mature, adult citizens, we are just going to be used to further the agenda of the combined political parties.

Mar 1, 2009 - 12:55 pm 74. fred:

Look, while you guys strategize how to dismantle the Republican Party (admittedly, I have some sympathies in your direction)and dither with that process, Obama and the Left consolidate power and may even extend it beyond 2012. Given what they intend to do, we may not have a country by then. It is that dire. These people have to be stopped in their tracks and this taking back has to begin in 2010. Normally, I’m a long-term kind of guy who patiently bides his time to set things in place properly. But there are times when you cannot do that, because the damage is too profound and time is of the essence. This is just such a moment.

We have to capitalize NOW on the immense failures about to occur over the next four years. You think the economic brain farts are bad, wait till you see the foreign policy and defense policy ones. Literally, lives are at stake.

Mar 1, 2009 - 12:56 pm 75. Dorothy:

Ken at 10:23 am - you are doing the same song, second verse, a little bit louder and a little bit worse. Go back to whoever is paying your way and tell them the message no longer works.

Mar 1, 2009 - 12:58 pm 76. Hyphenated American:

Weatherman, let me help you your post:

Sara, Rush Hussein Obama is not Jesus, so you don’t have to do what he says. He’s not a political scientist, either. He’s an entertainer and a demagogue, not very good at the former, but outstanding at the latter, just like Hitler. I’m not comparing Rush’s Hussein Obama’s politics to Hitler’s, only saying that both had an uncanny talent for leading the lemming-brained masses down a philosophical blind alley.

That’s much better, isn’t it?

Mar 1, 2009 - 12:59 pm 77. Hyphenated American:

Weatherman, let me help you your post:

Sara, Rush Hussein Obama is not Jesus, so you don’t have to do what he says. He’s not a political scientist, either. He’s an entertainer and a demagogue, not very good at the former, but outstanding at the latter, just like Hitler. I’m not comparing Rush’ Hussein Obama’s politics to Hitler’s, only saying that both had an uncanny talent for leading the lemming-brained masses down a philosophical blind alley.

That’s much better, isn’t it?

Mar 1, 2009 - 1:01 pm 78. cc:

We will not get change until it’s the people against the government.

Mar 1, 2009 - 1:02 pm 79. Buttercup:

I am starting to lean toward Ozzie’s idea (2nd comment). Maybe we need to start a 3rd party of move over to the Libertarian party. Patrick nails it in his article. We are being sheppherded around by a bunch of blow-hard, two timing politicians and our party leadership does not understand new media. Come to think of it, I’m going to go now and look up my local tea party…

Mar 1, 2009 - 1:11 pm 80. Todd Yarling:

How ‘conservative’ can this CPAC be when what, 31% attendees are wanting Romney? The only conservative with a big govt health care plan named after him? Someone utterly not credible on abortion and anti-heterosexual activism?

OTOH, Palin and Ron Paul got 15% each.

On Fox, as they showed this poll, they were showing the 2 mainstream favs, Romney and Jindal, on the left, and Ron Paul and Palin on the right. And I was looking at that, and wondering, could this be the time for the shift from big govt/big corp supporting sham conservatism, into down to earth, real limited govt, pro economic liberty, and real pro family conservatism?

Abortion and anti-heterosexual activism (otherwise mislabeled as gay rights) is going to be THE issues that make or break the GOP, or fingers crossed, what follows it. I think of the GOP being born out of the ashes of the big govt Whig party, along the slavery issue. I wonder could that happen in our time?

Mar 1, 2009 - 1:19 pm 81. ollie:

Perhaps CPAC was prescient in relegating YOU to the basement corner. I did feel tho’ that the good bloggers should have been up in the front lobby!

Mar 1, 2009 - 1:20 pm 82. Waterman:

I’m really surprised that the gay marriage thing made its way into this somewhat fragmented conversation, which seems to have a more articulate representation than what you usually read on CNN. The gay marriage “issue” isn’t an issue at all: it’s crap that’s thrown out once every four years by Karl Rove types to polarize the masses. Think about it…busing, gays in the military, flag burning, the Equal Rights Amendment, that was a good one. Illegal immigration is getting a lot of traction these days. And of course, there’s the old standby, abortion. All just cheap tricks to grab a few mindless votes.

What about stomping kittens? Personally, I think everyone should have a right to stomp a kitten if they feel like it…

Mar 1, 2009 - 1:33 pm 83. ding:

We will always need a loyal opposition to keep the party in power in check. When the minority can’t provide this service there WILL be excesses from the majority. Bank on it.

Mar 1, 2009 - 1:43 pm 84. typos_R_us:

Obama killed the Constitution and the dream of a democratic Republic nestled between two Oceans with a continent of it’s own. Employment will hit European levels (12 to 15%) by mid summer. That will pretty much put paid to the Usurper as a politician. The Media and the left is well aware of his ineligibility to be President. They just don’t say anything because it is seen as a short leash to keep POTUS in line.
So to stay in the Oval office, the Usurper will have to drop the Socialist economic agenda. When he does that the left will turn on him and the fact that he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ will broadcast from every venue.
That will leave Joe as POTUS, which will be OK with the Democrats AND the Republicans.
After all, Joe represents the status quo.
The Problem with that is the status quo. is what got us in this mess. It certainly won’t fix the problems it created.
Remember the first rule of holes?

“The status quo is the only solution that cannot be vetoed,” meaning that the status quo cannot simply be decided against; action must be taken if it is to change.”
-Unkonown, possibly Clark Kerr

The simplest solution to the problems of the Federal government is to make remuneration for lobbying illegal.
Lobbying is protected by the 1st amendment, charging a fee for it isn’t. This would end 90% of the corryption in Congress, which is the root of America’s current problem.
Terrorists can kill Americans but they cannot destroy America. Politicians can and will destroy America if not contained.

Mar 1, 2009 - 1:44 pm 85. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Ken
RE: Biden? Moi??!??!!?

“Funny stuff. You go ‘Joe Biden’ on us and tells us how smart you are. You’re writing already reveals that. People like you will keep Obama and HIS ilk in office for a long time. You must be a Ron Paul supporter. Enjoy.” — Ken

Oddly enough, when you called for positional answers, you’re unwilling to provide anything along such lines yourself. Instead, you—typically illogical ‘progressive’—change the subject….

…to Joe [brainless] Biden. The guy who can’t remember that urls are not ‘numbers’. But yet he is supposed to be so ‘tech-savvy’. One, who has more than two synapses to rub together, has to wonder just WHERE on God’s Green Earth you go ANY education.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I can go on all night and all of tomorrow deconstructing you….if you wish….and you seem to ‘wish’ it.

Mar 1, 2009 - 1:45 pm 86. Ken:

Dorothy, it is amazing to have stuff ascribed to me out of thin air. No one is paying me. In fact, I am self-employed so my existence is not even supported by an employer.

Nevertheless, I deal with reality. The reality is we have a two party system and we have had for generations. But, the left/Dems would love to have the GOP split into as many components as possible. How did that Ross Perot thing work out?

I’m tired of the bickering rather than making real progress. Maybe the political nuclear bomb that Obama and his gang represent will awaken some to productive action at some point. Just not enough pain, yet.

Mar 1, 2009 - 1:48 pm 87. Waterman:

Point taken, Hyphenated American. Now that I think about it, Jesus was viewed as a demagogue in his time, too.

Mar 1, 2009 - 1:49 pm 88. Disappointed Conservative:

CPAC was an epic fail in my book and Panjamas Media was to blame.

I registered and showed up Saturday afternoon (an hour commute on the Metro)for the Conservatism 2.0 meeting. The confirmation e-mail said it began at 2:30. When I arrived at 2:15, the doors were closed and the meeting had already started. There was a crowd of about 15 of us being told the room was full and we would not be getting in. The sign outside of the door said it began at 2:00.

So much for rallying conservatives to using new media for 2012. PM can’t even get their communications correct three days before the event.

This was the first time I have stepped out of my comfort zone and gone to any type of conservative conference. Instead of feeling encouraged or excited, I left feeling like an idiot for believing in the event as a worthy use of my time and feeling even more like someone the conservative elites don’t have room for (literally in this case).

Mar 1, 2009 - 1:54 pm 89. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Sara123

“I could not agree more with the author’s take on CPAC and the conservative movement in general. We are devoid of an agenda to pursue as we are devoid of well thought out and expressed ideas.” — Sara123

I would hope to God that we’ve got more intelligent people amonst US than Sara123 thinks.

Furthermore that those people can express a reason akin to that expressed by the Founding Fathers back when they declared independence from that totalitarian regime of King George III>

Additionally, I would suspect that if enough of US who, long ago, raised our right hand and swore to defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign AND domestic would honor such an oath, we could overcome any assault from any avenue of approach.

This does not mean immediate use of the violence we were trained to apply to the ‘enemies foreign’, let alone ‘domestic’, describe above.

Mar 1, 2009 - 1:58 pm 90. Dave:

Why does Mr. Poole keep saying “bereft of ideas”…?

COnservatism IS an idea. It’s about personal freedom, including freedom from financial depredation by government. IT’s about lower taxes, less regulation, ‘getting out of the way’ of productive people so they are free to be the best they can be.

Conservatism is opposed to ‘tyranny of the majority’, which can include the masses voting themselves a share of the public treasury, and which can also include the masses behaving in a fascistic manner in which freedom of speech is in practical terms limited by fear of public opinion or otherwise.

Conservatism is about recognizing human nature and working along with it, not trying to redefine the entire human experience in alien terms just because some pseudo intellectuals think it SOUNDS better or are embarrassed by traditions that made the country great.

The IDEA of conservatism is to remove barriers, reduce legislation, lower taxes to the point where the average taxpayer does not feel strapped to the machine and bled half to death.

It is pointless to demand specifics of a legislative nature at this point, Mr. Poole. And it is misleading to claim that, without such things, ‘they have no ideas’.

Everything Limbaugh said that night was in the arena of ideas. “I want ingenious hardworking honest decent Americans to succeed” IS AN IDEA. Not on the level of policy wonking, but you begin from principle.

Having trouble recognizing it when you see it, Mr. Poole? You have no such trouble identifying a Norquist as problematic, but why do you have trouble seeing, expressing, believing in the conservative idea?

baffled in Dallas

Mar 1, 2009 - 2:07 pm 91. Chuck Pelto:

P.S….

It’s entirely too easy to make a bomb out of Bisquick.

Will these ‘insane Jackasses’ declare EVERY ‘kitchen’ a bomb-making facility?

Then there’s the idea of fertilizer and diesel fuel…..

Mar 1, 2009 - 2:08 pm 92. Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. It is NOT….

…so much a matter of forbidden knowledge as it is a matter of piss-poor-planning with regards to teaching children well. I.E., teaching when and where it is appropriate to defend the Rights of Man, vis-a-vis the Bill of Rights. This despite the efforts of ‘lawyers’ to abrogate such rights by redefining the ‘text’ of the Bill of Rights.

Some 15 years ago I heard a ‘prof’ of ‘Constitutional Law’ say that there was ‘no such thing as Constitutional Rights’. She [Chris] proclaimed that all such ‘rights’ were ‘textual’ in nature. Change the ‘text’ and you change the ‘right’.

In my personal opinion, this twit doesn’t deserve the ‘chair’ she allegedly sits in.

But that’s my personal opinion. And if you agree with her….less power too you. As you are obvious an enemy of the Constitution of the United States.

Mar 1, 2009 - 2:15 pm 93. phil g:

Fred, per #74, please don’t interrupt these grand fantasies of forming a new party that is perfectly conservative - whatever that might be. This is the same type of pissing and moaning that contributed to 0 being in the White House. For most of these posters, the good IS the enemy of the perfect. Politics at the practical level is pragmatically always winning the lesser of two evils at the minimum. It is about compromise and small steps towards a larger vision. The quickest way to perdition is to make a fetish out of what one believes is the only acceptable perfection. Meanwhile real damage to our country is being done while all the ‘perfect’ conservatives pick up their toys and quit playing the game…hell I’ll bet most of the posters here can’t even agree on the perfect ‘conservative’ platform. I’ll also bet that ‘perfect’ conservatism if it could be defined wouldn’t be very successful.

The first step back to winning is to stop the destructive fratricide that is killing the conservative movement and start leveraging the political infrastructure required for any conservative principle to succeed - the GOP.

Mar 1, 2009 - 2:18 pm 94. as is:

80 todd yarling . . . “Abortion and anti-heterosexual activism (otherwise mislabeled as gay rights) is going to be THE issues that make or break the GOP”

Really? We ‘re fighting two wars amidst a global economic meltdown and the GOP is gonna focus on abortion and gay rights? (Actually, you forgot the 3rd leg of the GOP stool - guns. And the 4th leg - tax cuts.)

That’s he GOP plan? The same plan it’s always had?

Good luck with that.

Mar 1, 2009 - 2:24 pm 95. deguello:

Right on Mr Poole! Third party now!

Mar 1, 2009 - 2:44 pm 96. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Victor Davis Hanson

It’s ‘interesting’ that PJM will nmot allow me to post comments on Victor’s webs site.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Maybe….

….it has something to do with the ‘idea’ that I ‘committed’ my ‘life’ t defending the Constitution of the United States, back in 1970, when I raise my ‘hand’ and swore my life to such an ideal.

Maybe…..just MAYBE….if people laid their lives on the ‘proveribal lines’, we could expect better results.

Mar 1, 2009 - 2:44 pm 97. HotelDelta:

The very fact that Mitt Romney could lead the CPAC poll shows how divorced it is from the grass roots.
And then add in how Eric Cantor said “the Republican Party must change to be more inclusive.
There is no question the Republican Party has to return to be one of inclusion, not exclusion,” Cantor said when I asked him if he was willing to move the party to the middle on issues like the environment and gay rights.
That crap is what got us Obama.

Mar 1, 2009 - 2:58 pm 98. Ken:

Chuck(le)

Obviously, going ‘Biden’ and telling us how smart you are went over your head. Not much altitude needed for that.

Any little clan of yours that believes it can gain traction and win elections based on your claim of the “illegal alien as President of the United States” is living in a fantasy world. Enjoy the self deception in your myopic realm.

Don’t bother with your laughable ‘deconstruction’, I do not suffer fools gladly.

Mar 1, 2009 - 2:58 pm 99. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. Am I drunk?

You betcha. It’s something of an ugly think watching something you dedicated your very life to, going down the proverbial ‘tubes’…..

Mar 1, 2009 - 3:00 pm 100. JHM:

(1) “It was encouraging to see the large herds of students moving throughout the hotel.”

I daresay, but it would be a lot easier for us outside the asylum to keep track if every third lemmin’ in the ‘herd’ was not named Patrick Somethin’.

(2) “Ever since George H.W. Bush violated his no new taxes pledge and announced the appointment of David Souter to the Supreme Court, the conservative movement has been the victim of” [&c. &c.]

Like 1848 for the Old Euros, the apostasy of Poppy seems to be regarded as a Great Turnin’ Point in the annals of Hooverville and Wingnut City, yet when one looks closely it is not easy to make out any part of the Big Management Party apparatus that actually revolved or revolted.

The neocomrades should have seen this betrayal comin’, for was it not the future George XLI himself who coined the slogan “voodoo economics”? Naturally Poppy was bound to try, sooner or latter, to exorcize the Big Party and bring it back to Grant-McKinley-Hardin’-Hoover-Ike-Nixon-Ford Normalcy on the economic front. But “violated his no-new-taxes pledge” is, like 1848, a non-event that falls between two stools, as follows:

(1) The unsoundness of cocktail-napkin economics had been demonstrated long before, say at very latest on the day when Neocomrade D. Stockman resigned from OMB, 1 August 1985. Volcker 43, Stockman 0.

(2) In the other direction, several years after November 1990 were required to make clear that Voodoonomics had come to stay in the Big Party, even though ‘everybody’ ‘knew’ that it wouldn’t work. To pick an emblematic date for that stool is trickier, perhaps the unreported day when George XLIII Bush finally managed to get rid of the very last penny of St. Bill’s budget surpluses would serve — sometime in late 2001 or early 2002, presumably.

Only since then has our holy Homeland™ been living in truly modern economic times. From then down to the Crawford Crash (say 15 September 2008) is ‘modern’, after which we may, for a while yet, speak of postmodernity.

(3) “There was not a single panel on the War on Terror, the growing threats to free speech, or the cultural jihad underway in the West.”

It looks as if Neo-Unit Patrick#### is not much interested in economics. In which case, I don’t see why it has to dump on poor Poppy so severely. I should think Neocomrade Associate Justice C. Thomas ought to make up for a whole lot single-handed. And is it not a bit fantastic to list the Kiddie Krusade and Rio Limbaugh and “the cultural jihad underway in the West” as the sort of ‘conservatism’ that George XLI shoulda been propagatin’, when only the second item so much as existed back before the Big Bang?

Neo-Unit Patrick#### claims to be “old enough to remember the 1976 and 1980 elections,” which is no doubt so, but would never be guessed from the other internal evidence.

(4) “Grassroots discontent might lead to the overthrow of the ‘official’ leadership of the conservative movement, including CPAC. In my humble opinion, that change couldn’t come quickly enough.”

Some kind ideobuddy ought to put Patrick#### in contact with il Granduca di Sanseverino, who is several steps ahead of the neo-unit in the same direction. His Grace proposes to create a third party from which all the odious RINO’s plus all the wrong sort of wingnuts have been expelled, with the result that only thirty-odd percent of Televisionland and the electorate would be required to vote for it, rather than nearly fifty percent.

I think on the whole that Patrick#### and His Grace would agree about the proscription lists, although admittedly it is hard to tell for sure about such a point from outside the monkey house.

Happy days.

Mar 1, 2009 - 3:11 pm 101. GDT:

Here is the challenge for Conservatives in general (and let me preface my remarks by saying I am an arch Conservative). Conservatives do not have an “agenda” because true conservatives do not want an agenda. We do not have a list of things we want the government to do for us. We want the government to leave us alone. We believe in constitutional limited government. It is hard to make bumper stickers that articulate that position.

I can hear the conservative chants “What do we want? NOTHING! When do we want it? NOW!”

Politicians of ALL political stripes seek office to DO something. They have things to get done! I don’t want my representatives to do anything. I want them to first do nothing and then undo the things that others have done. I vote for people who I think will most effectively defend me from other politicians who went to Washington to do something.

Our biggest problem in identifying a leader is that there are very few truly Conservatives politicians. True Conservatives are not interested in politics. They have businesses to run and lives to live. True conservatives are not often interested in regulating the lives of others.

Governments run to the left of the governed because people who want to impose their world view on others are those who are drawn to government. This simple truth is probably the biggest challenge that we Conservatives face.

Mar 1, 2009 - 3:24 pm 102. Kevin:

Conservatives should not rely exclusively on the Republican party.

Well duh!

Here are some interesting facts.
1. More people are registered Democrats than Republicans.
2. More people consider themselves Democrats than liberals.
3. More people consider themselves conservatives than Republicans.

Conclusion:
It is always better for conservatives to identify themselves as being a conservative rather than a member of the GOP.

Mar 1, 2009 - 3:36 pm 103. eburchelli:

Conservatism itself is not in jeopardy but conservatives depending upon Republicans isn’t going to get conservatives very far. The Republicans have turned their back on conservatism.

The problem with generating any support for expanding the conservative base, so that we can make a difference, is that those of us most interested in it are not politicans. It seems that only politicans get to have a say in how our government is run. Is this what our founding fathers expected?

Mar 1, 2009 - 3:42 pm 104. lee:

As much as the GOP has sold out, you have to wonder if conservatives “distancing” themselves from the GOP will achieve anything. The Libertarian party has been fiscally conservative all along, but any dream of them (or Ron Paul) ascending to significant power is a pipe dream.

If a large number of Latinos don’t immediately benefit from the stimulus plan, believe you me, there will be an opening. Obama hasn’t exactly opened the gates to the borders and issues licenses either. Somewhere in the future, at least some minority voters will wonder what they have to gain by supporting the dems.

Mar 1, 2009 - 3:51 pm 105. happy1ga:

Interesting posts. However, they do the exact opposite of their intended purpose. Here’s the deal. I have worked in politics for 20+ years. The author wrote a little pithy, and somewhat pissy pronouncement on CPAC. I was there from Day 1. There were plenty of discussions about the WOT, Immigration, and a couple on radical Islam. I like Gert Wilders and his documentary very much. However, I have spoken with a great many people who were very uninterested, and/or turned off by the idea seeing him speak. The main reason is we are only 12 weeks or so of a major loss for our party. People wanted uplifting and entertaining speech that gave them hope for 2012 and beyond. We are in the middle of a major financial crisis in this country, 2 wars, and people shedding jobs like a dog shedding hair. I can undertand how the author may be in a different mind-set, I find myself getting that way often, since I deal with this stuff everyday, but THESE PEOPLE WHO COME DO NOT!!!! If he wants to make CPAC better, contact the organizers NOW for next year. He should be doing that, instead of whining to us here. The biggest problem with the Republican party right now? The Republicans. Not just the ones in DC, but the ones here and on the net, everywhere. We don’t have to decide to like or dislike, or favor so and so over this personality, or try to denounce them. That is not what being a conservative is all about. Ronald Reagan had an 11th commandment. He believed you didn’t speak ill in regards to another Republican. IOW, you don’t eat your own! This is what people are doing. It serves absolutely no purpose. And not voting because your favorite didn’t get the nomination? This isn’t American Idol. Many people have fought and given their lives in order for us all to have the right to vote, by keeping us a free country. Make sure you show them the respect they deserve, and you owe your country by always voting, regardless who is nominated. Our biggest concern is NOT 2012, and where bloggers sit, and whether you like Rush or not. It is who are we running in 2010. It is only a 1 1/2 away. Please get involved in finding people to run in your state, or support the ones who you have already in. Give them an hour a week. Work phones, start blogs, walk the neighborhoods. That is how Obama got elected. They were determined in 2006 to pick off our weak links in the Congress, and it worked. The blogs like Daily Kos would post someone they wanted rid of, and the Dem. opponent. They would then send them out to work for their candidate by activism, and to vote against their opposition. They would posts hundreds of smear type lies on blogs, they would go around neighborhoods, make calls saying this guy is a monster, and then they most importantly would get out to vote in large numbers. They even did it on a small and local level. IT WORKS. If you want to make a difference, this is how you do it. Thank you for reading, sorry so long.

Mar 1, 2009 - 3:58 pm 106. Jack:

Oh, where to begin?

#59 Chuck - While I appreciate the Star Trek reference, I am trying to assume that you are not one of those people who think that no issue is worth compromising on. You can’t compromise on everything, but I would think that some subset of us could agree on something across the aisle. If you don’t agree (which I’m sensing about you) then you have a lot more misery to look forward to, because either the country will fail, or you’ll be in the minority when things get fixed.

Also to Chuck - I’m noting a theme whereby you keep telling us about how smart you are (i.e. Mensa reference) and how you have dedicated your life to defending the constitution. I would think that in the first case, your words would speak for themselves if warranted, and in the second case, while admirable on your part, plenty of people who disagree with you have done the same so I’m not sure why you think your opinions are more valid than theirs (which you seem to believe). Nonetheless, I’d suggest less name calling, less derision, less self-aggrandizing and perhaps a bit more effort to try to work things out with the other half of the voting public. Unless you are one of those, “never bend, never break, watch everyone suffer and die while it’s discussed in a committee” types.

#63 CCOFFER - Since you used the term “homo marriage” and the like, I’ll assume you don’t want to talk about that part and fall into my “right wing religious nut job” category. You could have just said that gay marriage was against your beliefs and avoided that classification, but you decided instead to propel yourself into “mean-spirited and rude” land. I’m sure you’ll retort by calling me names (none of which will likely apply, btw) but, well, that’s just what you people do.

Separately tho, I will comment on your assertion that the Republicans did “talk about” the housing bubble. Plenty of talk out there from them about how there was no housing bubble, so I guess you are right…they did talk about it (I’ll let you do your own research…I think you’d sincerely benefit from it). Needless to say, however, if they did talk about it, they had the majority while it happened and did nothing about it, so I’m not sure your point does anything other than to prove mine.

#82 WATERMAN - While I don’t condone kitten stomping at all, I do agree with what you said about the diversionary tactics on both side, which was my point in bringing the gay marriage thing up to begin with. “Fiscal” conservatives are less worried about those things, so if we are going to be fiscal conservatives, we have to let that chatter go and deal with the economy. If we decide that social issues are more important, then “Conservatives” need to break up into those two parts and we can then fight it out. I’d like to think that the fiscal conservatives on both sides of the aisle would win, at least for long enough to fix that side of the house. Afterwards, we can go back to talking about the relative merits of spending public funds to teach blind kids to yodle.

Jack

Mar 1, 2009 - 4:02 pm 107. G Alston:

#90 Dave — Why does Mr. Poole keep saying “bereft of ideas”…?

Because what you typed isn’t a list of ideas, but rather your interpretations of vague and nebulous intentions.

An idea is what gets you from point A to point B.

Example: The left is wanting to declare CO2 a pollutant. Their idea is to use this to reshape industrial America: to reshape how energy is delivered, priced, and paid for, to reshape how taxes are assessed so that we can all win this (ahem) “desperate global battle.”

Your idea is: The IDEA of conservatism is to remove barriers, reduce legislation, lower taxes to the point where the average taxpayer does not feel strapped to the machine and bled half to death.

…and so on. Just pathetic. Could you be any more vague?

What’s needed as an IDEA that can stop the left from using global warming as a club to rape the US taxpayer and implement grand social redesign schemata. Quickly now… what is the official party position via a vis global warming? Is it a problem? (If it’s not, don’t worry, the left will make it one for you.) How does CPAC want to address that problem? How do you?

Neither of you have any idea. Maybe we can all remove some barriers and sing songs about personal freedom and lower taxes.

Mar 1, 2009 - 4:02 pm 108. Jack:

#102 Kevin - Exactly. Thank you.

Jack

Mar 1, 2009 - 4:03 pm 109. RAH:

GOP is the party of conservatives. We have no other place to go. The liberal left has captured the Democratic Party. The socialist government control of industries of banking, health care, energy, the class envy, soak the rich rhetoric of Obama, the refusal to allow people and business to fail and succeed to their limits. Instead the government will impose the limits.

The proposed sacrifice of the rich, wily nilly, whether they chose to sacrifice or not for the blessing of being American. How is that different from sacrificing the virgin for the good of society?

So if you value freedom, the ability to take risks and fail or get hurt without the nanny state stating you may not do so because if you fail you will cost us in health care, the ability to work hard or be lucky and succeed beyond your dreams and enjoy your wealth; you have to join the GOP and make that party to maintain its conservative principles. Because you have no chance with the Democratic Party.

That means that you have to make peace that religious right is part of the GOP and will remain so since their faith and culture is actively under attack by democrats. That the religious faithful have a rock solid principle that life begins at conception and that is it morally wrong to murder that life for convenience sake. If you feel it ok to kill, terminate, murder that fetus, then you have to accept that others don’t agree. The religious right makes up more of the GOP electorate than the social liberal, fiscal conservative, and libertarian leaning people. You have to join causes at the basic level of freedom, to let each other have freedom to live life freely without confiscatory taxation, regulatory strangulation, and social redistributions of wealth. Joe the Plumber foresaw the socialism inherent in Obama’s policies and it is coming true.

It is easier to promote tolerance of homosexuality in the GOP than to promote in the Democratic Party, that capitalism and freedom are the engines of prosperity and that government should not have command control of the economy. Democrats want to promote that government can better choose what to do with your health, wealth, property and security than the private person can.

It is not even a choice to sit this out; the stakes for freedom are too large. The Democratic Party and Obama are leading to a major civil disruption when those who refuse to submit fight back. The fast creation of Tea Parties while civil now can lead to major elements of revolt by those who have up this time been the silent majority too busy with working and families to protest.

Mar 1, 2009 - 4:13 pm 110. Jack:

#109 RAH - Because the religious right is overpowering fiscal conservatism in your party, you will continue to lose my vote. You force us to pick between human rights and dollars an cents. For the people actually in the religious right, I expect you to do the same, but for FISCAL conservatives who are not ruled by the social issues, taking up with the religious aspects of the GOP means you can’t get bi-partisan support from the Dems. I’d LOVE to vote for a fiscal conservative, which realistically will come from the Right, but I can’t find the opportunity without him feeling saddled by assuming the religious right values as well. McCain, while not a great fiscal conservative to my mind, lost the election because he felt like he had to satisfy the religious right, which drove the dems away. The Republicans can/should stay as one party, but the fiscal conservatives need to divorce themselves of the religious groups and start to work with the like minded folks on the left. Put up the right candidate over there, and the fiscal folks on both sides can elect the next president.

Jack

Mar 1, 2009 - 4:48 pm 111. Ozzie:

Ok. Lots of people hypocritically suggest leaving the Republican plantation is heresy, and an ill-considered plan for failure. I get that, even without the KOS-style namecalling. But we are the same people chiding blacks to get off the Democrat plantation, for the exact same reasons. Please consider that. Americans should feel free to organize as they see fit. As soon as you propose that you cannot leave your master because it’s too hard to go it alone, you are a slave. Democrat. Republican. Whatever.

I have listened to Rush for many years. I agree his conservative compass on the radio points true north. Unfortunately, he is not a movement leader. His personal life is not conservative; he is a pig. A drug addict, food addict and too coarse for any of three wives to suffer his crap long. He sucks the oxygen out of the room that would sustain a real leader while he cashes in and does nothing that would risk his empire. Running for something, THAT would be a risk, he might fail, so he stays on the sidelines.

So you say reform the Republican party from within? Zerg them, huh? I propose it would be easier to completely suborn the Libertarian party than remove the entreched Republican leadership that has maintained it’s power, albiet as the patsy for Lucy to always pull the ball away from. They are the guaranteed losers, always ready to bend their knee, always ready to take the number two position. I think a conservative zerg on the Libertarian party might be the only way to shed the dead weight bearing us down. Arguments that it cannot work as recent history has no third party fails to take into account exactly how historical the current leftist power grab truly is, and how these are really times where there is no historical road map except what we make.

I respect a lot of the posters here. Many of you have made me reconsider things, research things, and learn more. The hysterical sheep on both sides of the fence, maybe not so much. I think a majority of people here want to save our country.

Mar 1, 2009 - 4:59 pm 112. Laura:

I don’t care how much grover norquist supports free markets, small government and low taxes, his coziness with islamists renders him an enemy of America and he should not be embraced by CPAC. In fact he should be shunned. The stimulus package and other fiscal and economic issues, important as they are, are not the most serious issues facing America. The threat to our freedoms and way of life from the encroachment of islam is the single most serious threat we face and an issue which was met with deafening silence at CPAC.

It is clear that CPAC is not an ally in the struggle against the islamic jihad. I guess I was naive in believing that CPAC would be the very type of organization in which Wilders would receive a hero’s welcome.

Although they disguise themselves as an organization promoting conservative values and patriotism, what they really are is just another wealthy Republican PAC out to serve their own self-enlightened moneyed interests. I would guess many of these members have business interests in the arab world. To hell with them. What’s needed is a grass roots conservative movement which truly is patriotic and stands up for American values and against our jihadist enemies.

Mar 1, 2009 - 5:08 pm 113. Dorothy:

86 Ken
We’ve been hearing the same nonsense from Republican supporters for decades now. If it wasn’t for theme organizations such as the pro-life movement, Jewish groups, pro-family organizations, nothing would change. Again I am suggesting let’s target some major name RINOS as a group even if they aren’t in our state. We need to show we have some power and aren’t just little ditto marks for local Republicans.

Mar 1, 2009 - 5:24 pm 114. Jack:

#112 Laura - I’m not sure how to respond to your post exactly. I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I “feel” like you are fixated on the islamic terrorist thing, not to say that it isn’t a big big thing to worry about. Yes, everything reasonable should be done to stop that and I’m all for it, but I can’t help but think the terrorists won on 9/11. We went into two wars, took our eye off of our economy, still haven’t solved the security problems (because they are REALLY hard to solve) and in the process, we took a much bigger hit on the chin by getting scared by what they did. It was awful, dreadful. The true impact to us was what we did in response to it. We let our economy suffer, and we have lost more soldiers trying to fight it than we lost civilians because of it. The question is did we deserve to lose those brave soldiers lives…did we do everything we could to benefit from the time they’ve bought us…did we shore up our borders, did we lock down our country? Did we do what those soliders fought for by letting our economy (and the soliders families lives) fall to this state of disrepair?

This is certainly not a criticism of anything you said, Laura. I just feel like we reacted…we didn’t think it through, and I think in the process we missed the mark. Terrorism is a major concern, and we CAN’T let it happen again, but I fear we did more harm to ourselves than they did to us. Either side of the aisle, we need to be less reactionary, and more deliberate, and we all need to pick and chose what we really, at our core, believe in so we can do the right things. If we all continue to bicker about “farm subsidies” (or whatever) we’re going to miss the bigger picture.

Jack

Mar 1, 2009 - 5:41 pm 115. RAH:

Jack since you responded to my comment, I am curious. Not to be offensive, but what scares you about religion? Most of this country from the colonial days onward has been religious and primarily Christian. The sensible thing was that the government could not impose a particular religious doctrine. This was to eliminate the wars in Europe between Catholics. Protestants, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. These were all Christian doctrines but bloodshed was in the effort to purify to a single doctrine. So many of our colonies were made up of religious groups who wanted the freedom to worship their religious beliefs their own way without a government prosecuting them.

There has been no governmental attempt to impose a particular doctrine on the populace. You are not forced to go to church or even to say you believe in God. We are free to pick and choose a church and doctrine that we are comfortable with or to eschew any religious observance and declare our disbelief in God.

Most of the resistance to the religious right is their insistence on that abortion is morally wrong. Their position is perfectly logical if you believe as biology teaches us that life does begin at conception. Thus terminating a life deliberately is wrong whether in the womb or outside it. Now abortion is a convenience to get rid of a life long responsibility of a child, but is it right? I don’t think so, but it is not my child or my life that is under discussion. So I will leave that to the person’s conscience. Now I don’t think that promoting individual responsibility means to ignore the consequence of one’s own actions like a pregnancy.

If a person does not want a child either do not indulge in sex or use contraceptives. That is the logical answer. But the abortion decision has been decidedly rightly or wrongly in Roe versus Wade and woman have that ability to terminate a pregnancy up to three months according to the decision. Most states allow up to birth as an option. So in the 40 years that right to life has been a plank of the GOP it has never been instituted by fiat in the federal government. So where is the fear coming from?

Is it the resistance to massive change in social mores to allow same sex marriage? That has been the traditional stance for thousands of years so it is perfectly conservative to not want to change an institution older than this country. More and more young people have no animus against homosexuality or civil unions. I have argued that with legal agreements two people can set up a partnership with all the duties and obligations and inheritance issues are resolved so it is the same as the traditional duties and obligations of marriage. So with time the trend is that this would be more socially acceptable.

So could you give your reasons that the inclusion of the religious right in the GOP prevents you as a fiscal conservative join the GOP? I personally believe the threat of socialism to more dangerous than others believing in God and want the ability to do so in peace without being attacked for their beliefs.

I am not being snarky but am really curious, as this seems to be your line in the sand.

Mar 1, 2009 - 6:08 pm 116. Bob:

GDT @#101 said: “Conservatives do not have an “agenda” because true conservatives do not want an agenda. We do not have a list of things we want the government to do for us. We want the government to leave us alone. We believe in constitutional limited government. It is hard to make bumper stickers that articulate that position.”

Why not articulate adherence to the tenets of the Constitution as our agenda? Limited, decentralized government, fiscal responsibility, and personal liberty sound like a pretty good agenda to me.

Christians use “WWJD” as their touchstone for moral decisions. Why can’t conservatives do the same: “What Does the Constitution Say?”

Mar 1, 2009 - 6:23 pm 117. G Alston:

#109 — The religious right makes up more of the GOP electorate than the social liberal, fiscal conservative, and libertarian leaning people.

Nonsense. The religious right is simply more vocal. They are in fact a minority. They are certainly a minority of the voters who are anti-socialist. You are repeating something you have been told that simply isn’t true and never was. Who asserts that the religious right comprises such large numbers? Why, the religious right, of course.

Mar 1, 2009 - 6:41 pm 118. Edward A:

If this bickering is the best we can voice, perhaps we should consider two Republican parties. One would represent the Southern wing…gun, bible and God. The other would be more central RINO’s, trying to win national elections. Today, too much time is being spent on dividing and name-calling. This is not the way to achieve success.

Mar 1, 2009 - 6:47 pm 119. G Alston:

#113 — Christians use “WWJD” as their touchstone for moral decisions. Why can’t conservatives do the same: “What Does the Constitution Say?”

Because the constitution doesn’t tell you how to address bank failures, global warming, and so on.

Because the christian right minority will try to redefine “the right to life liberty” etc as a purely constitutional support of their anti-personal freedom position, causing the party to continue the argument re support of their minority dogma.

Because the christian right will also then continue to attempt to stop stem cell research resulting in little more than continued equating of the GOP and ignorance and an anti-scientific attitude, which is a death knell in a society becoming increasingly reliant on advanced technology and science.

And so on.

The underlying problem is that the christian right is and has been hijacking the GOP and unless this cancer is excised the problem will relegate the GOP to permanent minority status.

And that’s the simple answer.

Mar 1, 2009 - 6:51 pm 120. Pat:

re: #15

Bush “compromised with the left and greatly increased the size of government programs but tweaked the programs to have a conservative bent …”

This is precisely the problem with compromised principles and misplaced compassion! And it is what led to the current conditions for not just the Republican Party, but conservatism in general.

Mar 1, 2009 - 7:14 pm 121. Jack:

#115 RAH - I actually love (parts) of religion, all religions in fact. In all groupings of people (regardless of the reason for the grouping) good can arise, but also evil can come forth. I am for all people having the freedom and ability to persue their own religions. What concerns me is the groupthink that happens that drives bad behavior. Large groups of people become “power blocks” and that inevitably (as history has shown) those groups will exert their will on the other blocks. Again, I am not anti-religion any more than I am anti-bloggers. I just get concerned when any power block gets so large that they can influence our country (especially when there is a prohibition against that particular kind of group in our nation of freedoms).

It isn’t about “one” religion telling me what to do/believe. It’s about government being the arbiter of the way I live my life. I’m not gay, by the way, but I don’t see why the people who promote family values would let divorces happen at the rate they do, and yet turn a blind eye to the obvoius fact that some gay families have kids (no way to outlaw it) and that they can’t get the same health care as the rest of us. Why make the children of same-sex unions go without? I could go on and on (as could you) and would be happy to delve into specifics (really, I’m trying not to be too verbose) but at my core, I can’t vote for a person who fiscally believes in what I do, but wants certain parts of society to not have the same rights as the rest. I also can’t vote for a person who let my grandfather die with Parkinsons (it was too late for him specifically, but it might not be for me, or my kids) because they didn’t want to investigate stem cells that are already not viable.

Very long argument cut short, but the government has to keep us safe, and in our homes first and foremost. To not do that is abject failure. Beyond that, yes, we have very real issues that we have to work out as a nation socially. I don’t hate religion, I don’t hate unions, I don’t hate any large groups, but when you put them into large groups that are not diverse and are only goverened by a small set of beliefs (as far as the “world” is considered) you run afoul of bad decisions. Religion is fine, but its for how YOU live YOUR life. When it turns into law, its YOU telling ME how I can live MY life. At that point, I think its overstepped it’s bounds.

That said, thank you for your thoughtful response. I hope mine was thoughtful in return, as it was meant that way.

(note that CAPS were used for emphasis..not “yelling”)

Jack

Mar 1, 2009 - 7:35 pm 122. Bilgeman:

#97 HotDelta:
“The very fact that Mitt Romney could lead the CPAC poll shows how divorced it is from the grass roots.
And then add in how Eric Cantor said “the Republican Party must change to be more inclusive.”

Seems to me that CPAC was hijacked by the same old Rockefeller Country Club GOP gang.

Unless of course, C-PAC’s idea of conservatism is Mitt Romney, in which case it’s time to re-evaluate what CPAC really is, huh?

Mar 1, 2009 - 7:45 pm 123. Tex Taylor:

I disagree with the author and a majority of those posting. Contrary to Conservatism being left in the dust, in my circles I’m seeing a flower bursting forth I haven’t witnessed since winter of ‘94.

One man will lead us from wandering in the desert to crossing the Jordan, though that was never his intent.

OBAMA.

The Lord does work in mysterious ways. And sorry to offend the irreligious calling themselves Conservative.

Mar 1, 2009 - 8:08 pm 124. myth buster:

You can’t be a true conservative and support legalized abortion, because conservatism hold life and liberty as cornerstone values worth dying to protect. Legalized abortion, on the other hand, is death and slavery. Legalized abortion states that one person can own another, and thus arbitrarily decide whether that person lives or dies for no reason whatsoever. Under that system, the fetus has no right to life or liberty, but rather, is a slave of its mother. Conservatives can debate over which course of action is best to end legalized abortion, but not that it must be ended. Conservatives do not endorse slavery or tyranny; we believe that government exists for the sole purpose of protecting the innocent from those who would do them harm, both by deterrence and by punishing the guilty.

Mar 1, 2009 - 8:17 pm 125. fred:

Everyone wants to expel Christians from the tent. The Left hates us, for obvious reasons (Antonio Gramsci has them trained well). The Libertarians hate us because we have that pesky pro-life position. The atheists hate us, because we insert our values into the public sphere and its debates.

For the record, I don’t want Roe v. Wade overturned, since it is a fact that it does happen that a choice is forced between a mother and the baby. I know of two instances of this, and even the priest correctly said to save the mother. There is a moral method to it and it’s called saving life even if sometimes it may mean taking one too. And we can make the case among ourselves not to use abortion as a means of birth control, leaving the wider society to go its own way on that one (however we disagree with it).

If you want the Christians expelled from the tent, you are going to lose a lot of people.

Mar 1, 2009 - 8:19 pm 126. Pat J:

I don’t know if CPAC was a joke. But John Bolton ought to take his comedy act on the road. That Chicago comment. Priceless.

Mar 1, 2009 - 8:31 pm 127. Pat J:

“There was not a single panel on the War on Terror, the growing threats to free speech, or the cultural jihad underway in the West.”

And why do you think there wasn’t? Maybe because these three are overexaggerted?

Mar 1, 2009 - 8:44 pm 128. Jim Baker:

I completely disagree with everyone one this. Ronald Reagan was a Republican. He won his election because he was a Republican. Who was the Libertarian that year? I don’t make up the rules for which two parties dominate in a two party system. But I do know that fracturing the Republican party to staytrue to your beliefs is what got Bill Clinton elected in 1992. This has been tried. We just need a great conservative leader to regain control of the party. Right now, we don’t see that person, but we didn’t notice Reagan until 4 years before he got elected. Let the Dems overreach again and the country will throw them out on their collectivist asses again.

Mar 1, 2009 - 9:11 pm 129. trangbang68:

I really hope that G Alston’s wish comes true and the GOP (Greedy Old Poltroons) kicks Christians to the curb. Without social conservatives you have fat Chamber of Commerce lames pimping illegal immigration so they can get cheap labor ,libertarians who are so self centered they can’t organize a cluster foxtrot much less get anyone elected and the standard “we’re liberal too” politically correct thieving eunuchs in Congress. If you think that crew will ever win anything you’re dumber than hell. Be careful what you wish for ,you might get it.

Mar 1, 2009 - 9:30 pm 130. Jack:

Myth Buster and “fred” are the death of conservatism. Social conservatives have no business talking in fiscal conservative forums. I don’t mean anything negative about you folks, but you are in the minority (even in your own party) and are literally preventing fiscal conservatism. I applaud your morals, but you are going to be the financial death of this country in my opinion. Your beliefs are great, but when the country goes bankrupt, your ideals will die. I don’t intend to sound gleeful about it, I think it’s really sad and I think the failure of this country will make your goals take a large step backwards too. Its too bad we couldn’t come to agreement on fiscal things because we are going to be obfuscated by religious tenets.

Jack

Mar 1, 2009 - 9:34 pm 131. Laura:

Jack, it isn’t just terrorism that we need to be concerned about, but also the cultural jihad being waged throughout the west. I believe we were right to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. I do agree with you however that we haven’t done enough about our security situation here at home, sealing our borders and so forth. The economy will recover, but the threat to our freedoms and way of life from islam will continue. So I stand by my assertion that the jihad is the more serious problem. CPAC did nothing to address this issue. I’m sure grover norquist was behind making sure the topic of islamofascism was suppressed.

Mar 1, 2009 - 10:03 pm 132. CapitalistForChange:

The Author’s correct about the endless stream of references to Ronald Wilson Reagan…This is pervasive in EVERYTHING the GOP talks about…I remember Reagan’s GOP. It did NOT emphasize a “pro-life” litmus test…In fact, there was no overt pro-life platform in the GOP, circa 1984…In my view, the GOP made it’s deal with the devil 40 years ago…They recruited the Southern States who were angry about that nasty Civil Rights Amendment…They trumpeted “States Rights” (GOOD!)and slowly capitulated to Southern states “social issues” (NOT good) to appease this loyal base. The Party will once again be a National Party, when it EMBRACES Fiscal Conservatism as the priority focus for the GOP and it welcomes BACK Republicans who don’t have a strong Social Conservative bent. Since the Party’s now a “Southern Based” Party, that won’t happen…It’s the curse of the “yellow dog”!

Mar 1, 2009 - 10:22 pm 133. G Alston:

125 Everyone wants to expel Christians from the tent.

Nope. They simply don’t want the party to be saddled with christian-only positions.

There’s a thing called math. Let’s try using it.

Say we have 130 million voters. 30 million are socialists (left.) 100 million are either centrist or anti-socialist.

The rabid “christians” (I scarequote this because only a minority of christians are rabid) insist that their religious beliefs are to be front and center to the anti-socialist movement. However, this rabid sect comprises a laughably small minority of the anti-socialist vote.

By removing the rabid beliefs from the movement, the anti-socialists now tap 100 million voters.

And yes I can prove the rabid contention easily. From another PJM thread:

“South Dakota (a red state): 2004 and 2008 the anti-abortion groups had state level ballot measures to outlaw abortion. Billboards presenting the pro-life case are all over the state on the road approaches to countless little uber-religious little towns just like the summer town. It’s the very picture of small town white America. The anti-abortion groups not only lost in that red state, but they were outright stomped. And it was the pious residents of the supposed pro-life towns who dunnit.”

As you can see the rabid position doesn’t win in a red state, and it certainly doesn’t play better outside of places like that. The insistence of adopting social policy positions of a rabid minority is not only a cancer, but is completely out of proportion to the actual makeup of the GOP, much less the anti-socialist viewpoint.

The goal here is to gain government so as to keep the republic working as a republic, not to gain government hoping to impose the rabid minority’s social policy position. There is a great deal at stake and the rabid “christians” are willing to play nuclear brinksmanship with the only party that can save the republic.

Mar 1, 2009 - 11:03 pm 134. G Alston:

#125

In fact here’s an example of things…

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/01/european-model-shows-downside-green-jobs-creation/

As you can see here Obama is going to bankrupt a great deal of industry and create a new classification of taxes. A great number of anti-socialists *knew* this was coming. It was predictable and in fact predicted by many.

But we’re also stuck with it. Please accept my personal thanks for being able to pay these taxes because the rabid coalition you represent scared away just enough centrist voters to put this clown into office.

The republicans (the anti-socialists) have a great deal of work to do in undoing this nonsense. Problem is that unless the republicans can be taken seriously by the centrists by ridding itself of the rabid minority’s policy positions, it’s going to get a great deal worse and will likely stay that way. Again, thanks much.

Mar 1, 2009 - 11:15 pm 135. David S:

@46. Dorothy:

The Republican party is for people with money and power. All they want from the little people are donations and their votes. At election time there are glossy flyers with nice pictures… To heck with the Republican hacks.

Glad to see somebody else noticed.

Peace.

DS

Mar 1, 2009 - 11:55 pm 136. myth buster is busted:

Most Gen x and y conservatives are pro-choice…

Mar 2, 2009 - 12:08 am 137. vivo:

17. RAH:

“We will not apologize for being conservative and capitalists.”

You don’t have to. Both can coexist in a free society.

” The new issues are the socialism that Obama and Pelosi are ramming down our throats.”

Nice change after 8 years of destroying the American way.

“Besides Bush won the Iraq war.” What???????
He won billions for his military partners at what expense?

GOP: R.I.P.

The voice of CPAC: Con TV entertainers.

46. Dorothy: The voice of truth

“I don’t think many people realize how far away the Republican party is from the average conservative. The Republican party is for people with money and power. All they want from the little people are donations and their votes. At election time there are glossy flyers with nice pictures.”

64. gcblues:

“american conservative is just fine. unfortunately some of it’s supporters have gone insane. if you talk to god, and he responds with instructions, you are certifiable crazy. get help.”

66. Chuck Pelto:

“P.S Show me your Mensa membership ID number, buckie, and I’ll call you ‘bro’.”

Pelto is Mensa?? Wow! He must have an IQ of 10,000 . . .

115. RAH:
121. Jack:

Nice discussion.

Mar 2, 2009 - 1:07 am 138. RAH:

Thanks for the response Jack. It was a bit general, but this is not the space to hash it all out.

Sorry about your grandfather’s death. However the science on embryonic stems cells has not shown any real progress. It bothers me morally and philosophically to use our own offspring as parts to experiment on. That seems just wrong to give my fertilized proto child to be torn apart for experiments to promote life therapies for those who are already living.

I do recognize that many of these embryos are discarded in reality. The misinformation is that Bush’s decision to restrict experiments only to existing cell lines funded by federal money is actually a principled position. In that it does not take money from those morally opposed to taking life and spending ending potential lives. There is no restriction on private funding on embryonic research and most of the positive news has been from adult stem cells research.

I think the stem cell issue will be a non-issue as adult stem cell therapies take off and the lack of positive therapies from embryonic research shows that as a failed direction. Believe me I am all for stem cell therapies. If wee can adapt the persons own tem cells to make new tissue and rebuild hearts and repair neural networks that has great promise and has been successful in some tests.

Anyway, I doubt that I will be able to persuade you but it is nice to have a discussion with someone who doesn’t share my own ideas because the give and take is interesting. Even though are not a supporter of the GOP you have enough common ideals that we have more in common than different.

I common theme running through these comments is that the libertarian secularist will not tolerate the religious right, but the religious right never seems to talk about kicking the secular libertarian to the curb. I find that interesting and shows a lack of tolerance among libertarians.

I agree will most libertarian idea, though not all but it is ironic that they also attack the religious right. I mean if the FLDS wants to live their strange ways in Texas with inbreeding and multiple wives and the women want it, and then fine. They are not imposing their ways on others or me. The Amish has managed to keep their unusual lifestyle and religious lives and even integrate with selling services and food to the rest of the communities. They can live their lives their way since that is religious freedom and I can live my life differently.

I have never felt threatened by the religious right since mostly they want to be able to raise their children with their values without interference. Doctors want the ability to refuse treatments that are against their conscience and Obama is talking about taking away that exemption. Funny but over 35 years I have seen the religious been attacked in culture, media, print and by the judicial system and I have more sympathy for them even though I have been an agnostic all this time. I agree with a lot of their values since they have been the traditional values that have withstood the test of time.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:10 am 139. chris in Toronto:

I tried to post this last night but my internet was down by the time I hit submit. 109, 110, 112,114 & 115. (I haven’t read beyond that, yet, so please don’t anyone feel disincluded.)

I’m enjoying very much your thoughtful discussion RAH, Jack and Laura. Nice a civil. Thanks. I’m gonna stick my oar in and feel free to take it for what it’s worth. I’m also not intending to attempt to put words in anyone’s mouth.

Issues of government and governance revolve around the legitimate use of force. Societies are formed by people coming together in order to protect themselves from common enemies, external (foreign powers who would enslave the citizens) and internal (criminals in their midst who would harm them).

Individuals cede to the society (in the guise of a government) their individual right to use force to protect themselves where the use of such force is guided by a codified set of rules. Institutions to provide for the common protection arise: police to enforce the rules against the internal enemies; courts to determine when the rules have been broken and framework for punishing the rule breakers; and a militia to provide the force necessary to protect the society from external enemies. These, the so-called “negative functions of government,” are the province of the legitimate use of force, and these functions require funding; hence, taxation.

The place where liberals and conservatives part company is that conservatives would be happy having a government limited to the negative functions whereas liberals, while accepting the need for the negative functions, envision the government’s role as going much beyond those limited functions. It’s like the difference, (sort of), when designing a business project, between the list of “must haves” and “nice to haves”, where the “must haves” are the negative functions.

It’s ironic that the “nice to haves” amount to set of beliefs. Government should provide education? Either you believe that or you don’t. The government should provide health care? Either you believe that or you don’t. The government should pay farmers to not plant their land? Either you believe it or you don’t. The government should tell you what to think? Either you believe it or you don’t. These are beliefs. The problem, though, is that when government gets involved the use of force becomes the issue. And the question becomes “is the use of force legitimate?” This strikes at the very heart of what liberty is all about.

From where I sit, among conservatives the idea everyone appears to agree on is fiscal conservatism: the enumerated tasks of the government (the negative functions) require funding. This sounds like a really good starting place, a place where the religious and the unreligious can agree to work together towards a common goal, namely protecting the free society that is America. In this case, “free” means for the people to have the jack boot of the excessive taxation removed from their throats.

Again from where I sit, it seems where the religious and non-religious part company is around the concept of “belief”. It appears, to me, as though the religious want to use the state to prescribe what are “correct” beliefs. Please, make no mistake, I fully support everyone’s right to his or her own beliefs; my issue is in using the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force to back any particular set of beliefs. If everyone is free to believe as he or she sees fit, then there is no issue. This is the religious liberty the Founders envisioned and was a large part of the genius of the Constitution.

So, I guess it comes down to this: is the conservative movement a social movement (I’m thinking, here, about what is the “right” way to structure a society) or a political movement (the “right” way to structure a government)? Moreover, I posit that everyone agrees that a successful political movement, by definition the winners of an election (ie: the government), should have access to the use of force. But should a social movement have similar access to enforce beliefs?

Mar 2, 2009 - 4:25 am 140. trangbang68:

Thinking Obama won because of repulsion of Christians is stupid and wrong. What pushed Obama over the edge was middle class people who found McCain odious. McCain really represents what the GOP is without social conservatives, vapid,unprincipled,corrupt, compromised,standing for nothing, That will never win anything.
Christians are to the GOP what blacks are to the Dems, taken for granted and disdained. Without either group the party loses.

Mar 2, 2009 - 5:57 am 141. Tex Taylor:

If Christians really were the Republican party’s problem, Obama wouldn’t have been crooning so sweetly for their votes.

Liberal Democrats and the MSM actually understand the makeup of Republican party better than many Republicans.

Mar 2, 2009 - 7:18 am 142. Future member of the Underground Church:

Ideologues, whether they be from the ideologically right or the ideologically wrong (Left,) must come to terms with democracy - it is ALWAYS about choosing the lesser of two evils. That’s just the nature of the horrid, foul beast called politics. Ideals are for the church and for the poets and artists, not for the local precinct, action committee, or voting booth. My brother, active for years in his local Rep. precinct was boycatting his local Tea Party because it was being coopted (he felt,) by the scoundrels of the local Rep. Party. I reminded him that the movement began because of Santinellis spontaneous protest over the mortage bailout fiasco., and that he, my fiscally responsible brother will now be paying for the mortages of irresponsible, ignorant, and very likely Dem. voting slackers and hand-out schemers. He went.

Mar 2, 2009 - 7:53 am 143. G Alston:

#138 — There is no restriction on private funding on embryonic research and most of the positive news has been from adult stem cells research.

The issue isn’t the actual (Bush’s decision) deed, but what it looks like. The left uses it to paint a picture of the republicans being ruled by ignorant, anti-scientific fools. Add to that the various wingnuts who oppose schools teaching evolution, and the left’s claims actually gain some strength.

One can posit that the government ought to not fund stem cell research, but then again one gets there by assuming that the government ought to not be in the medical research business outside of immediate response to (e.g.) the plague or something just as bad. It’s a fiscal position. As such you can be against government involvement in stem cell research for reasons having NOTHING to do with religion, but because of a vocal and rabid religious minority, this view can’t even get a decent airing.

It makes it easy for the left to paint republicans as anti- science, anti-intellectual, which gets billing along with anti-personal choice. Republican positions are not popular in colleges or with the young voters in general.

That’s why it’s a problem.

#138 …the libertarian secularist will not tolerate the religious right, but the religious right never seems to talk about kicking the secular libertarian to the curb.

1. Because being fiscally conservative doesn’t scare away potential votes for a party that’s supposed to be fiscally conservative.

2. Fiscal conservatives are the majority. The religious right (the vocal ones who insist on social planks) is a minority even in the GOP.

These are not equal propositions.

Mar 2, 2009 - 8:03 am 144. RAH:

Chris glad you came in and I have thought the same ideas of force and government. However your presumption that the religious right wants the state to impose their beliefs I think is wrong. I think it is the opposite they want the state and judicial fiats to stop destroying their tradition customs and beliefs.

Examples abound. Obama wants to rescind the conscience exemption that Bush did in a last minute rule change that allowed doctors, nurses to refuse to perform abortion if against their beliefs. Another was that in Massachusetts that private adoption agency, Catholic Charities I believe, were prevented by court to place children in only heterosexual families. Since their religious creed thought homosexuality is a sin they would not place children with homosexual families. So Catholic Charities decide to get out of the business lock, stock and barrel. Thus the state lost a charitable organization that did social good placing children by insisting they go against their beliefs. The court used the state to force and the charity resisted by eliminating the business.

Massachusetts Court imposed on the state that they must conduct homosexual marriages. This was not allowed to be debated or agree by societal consensus or by the legislature. This was a major social change dictated by the courts.

Churches have been forced by courts in California to provide health care that had to provide contraception even though that was against their doctrine. Now contraception is cheap to get and really does not have to be employer provided, but again the state tried to impose that.

The Boy Scouts of America, a voluntary private association, had to win in court that the state could not require them to accept as leaders homosexual men since that violated their free association rights. Again a case where the homosexual activist wanted to impose another private group to accept a change through the use of state control.

Now social attitudes are changing and at CPAC there was a lot of discussion about how to accommodate the desires of homosexuals to have marriage or civil unions. This was at a conservative activist group. So there is progress in changing social structures to accommodate the gay population so they can also marry/ civil arrangement the person they want whether that person is same sex or not. Most religious are worried that their churches would be required to marry homosexuals. Other churches such as many Episcopalian do not have an issue with that.

The problem is once a social benefit is provided by the state it evolves to requirements by private entities.

Now whether you agree or disagree with either positions, but it is evident that the major social changes have consequences for people of traditional faiths and courts are imposing these changes, which is not a democratic process. The idea of referendums and legislatures debating these issues allows people to come to a consensus or decide if the time is not yet. All of these are examples that the freedoms of the faithful are under attack. As a conservative who agrees with freedom I defend against these attacks on religious freedom even though I have not been religious myself.

Long ago I decided what were the reasons for a government to be instituted and what are its primary functions. Not surprising those functions are considerably limited compared to what we have now. Now this presumes a capitalistic economy.

A government is instituted to provide for a:

1) Common defense this is probably the basic reason communities band together against the barbaric attack on towns by raiders.
2) A system of laws and justice to settle disputes (This was the common law)

3) A standard for measurements (needed for trade and commonality of commerce)

4) A systems of roads that cross territorial boundaries (Also for trade)

Now beyond that we private individual can handle police functions ourselves or delegate that to specific people like we currently have. Remember that the notion of police is basically a 20th century concept. England had none for centuries and neither sis the colonies.

Educations, Welfare, Healthcare are all private functions that the state should have no business in. The social contract in America was that we would govern ourselves and not have a Lord to provide for use like serfs.

I did not discuss the inherent rights of the citizens since I was only concerned with the basics for a government. I do not even want the government to secure my rights since that should be our responsibility. But the framers saw other wise. But those given the authority to secure our rights have also the ability to deny rights as has happen over the 200 or so years.

Mar 2, 2009 - 8:17 am 145. RAH:

142 Alston.
You made good points on the distortion of the stem cell debate and how the fear of the “zealots” to impose their faith because of the Creationists vs. Darwinist debates in many states has scared many would be supporters.

However your example of the referendum earlier does not convince me that the religious right does not make up a majority of the GOP. Without the religious right the GOP would not have the support of the Southern and Midwest states. The blues states are the northeast and left coast. Most of the red states are the majority of the states in the Union. But the concentration of population in large cities and college towns has a strong secular and liberal tilt in electors and representation.

The basic premise is that conservatives are fiscal conservatives. That is fine as a large brush, but the divisions among fiscal conservatives are the exceptions what programs one favor or wants cut. Do we agree that deficits are Ok when at war? How about in order to jump-start an economy? If so how much is allowed and does the line just keep changing?

So what are the principles that fiscal conservative will not waver?

Are fiscal conservative seduced by the hope and change rhetoric of a charismatic black candidate like Obama was? I think many were. So how strong are the fiscal conservatives in support of the GOP? Do libertarian leaning folk tend to sit out elections and let the passionate lefty liberal and religious right decide the elections?

So the call from fiscal conservatives is to dump the rock solid support of the religious right who got out and canvassed neighborhoods, which volunteered time and money. Who were the mainstays of the GOTV efforts? Was it the fiscal conservatives?

Seems to me the call to dump the religious right is poor tactics to win elections. This is the same error that the Libertarian Party makes and why most conservatives will not support it. Even Ron Paul, the candidate once of the Libertarian Party is a Republican to get elected as US Congressman.

Mar 2, 2009 - 8:42 am 146. jorge vazquez:

Conservativism is dead because it was never alive. What is conservatism when the institutions that have made America what is for the past century been socalist in nature? What we need to do is to restore Liberalism to it’s dictionary definition, that is a political movement based upon man’s inherant liberty. You know a movement that is based upon mans rights to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.

Mar 2, 2009 - 8:52 am 147. Andrew Ian Dodge:

McCain really represents what the GOP is without social conservatives, vapid,unprincipled,corrupt, compromised,standing for nothing

Are you trying to convince us McCain was in any way a fiscal conservative? How many fiscal conservatives were behind him? Not many I know that is for sure.

There was a definite sense of unease/dislike from some of the more social conservative @ CPAC of the fiscal conservatives. It was as we had invaded their sacred place or something.

Mar 2, 2009 - 8:55 am 148. view from afar:

Helloooo anyone home? I don’t at all agree with this post…if every self defined conservative continues to pull off to his or her way of thinking ONLY…WILDERNESS!!
The American Constitution is perfect as is…if it needs to be changed there is a process to do that, and that is the ONLY way to change it…however between the Declaration of Independance, and the Constitution it protected the rights of all Americans, all of them and their personal belief systems, atheist, or theist, what ever, and it’s all spelled out…so in the two party system you need two parties…and the right needs all of it’s factions, and to keep them, plus convince others(new conservative thinkers, converts if you like, this is what Rush was talking about-I watched, thank you internet!!).
And yes, there are many dinosaurs in the republican party, we politely need to thank them and send them on their way. They all weren’t completely useless, even if you didn’t totally agree with them. Nicholas Sarkozy re-invented Chirac’s party and brought it to re-election (and the right in France is barely conservative) That is what needs to happen in the US Republican party. But if everyone here is going to blame the other part (the theist against the atheist, the ultra conservative against the moderate) then you’ll ruin everything and guarantee the wilderness for years to come. I who usually tolerate Mr Limbaugh (I really find him too abrasive, however, I have noticed that he is changing, and he needs to, he’s joked about it, otherwise the more moderates, who are fiscal conservatives, and believe in a work ethic, (and a Christian God for that matter) will not listen to the abrasive message, they can’t hear that “hey, I think like that!”
Anyway, everyone needs to remember what is it all about? Saving the USA, the base ideas of the country’s founding; freedom to create (whatever)…Come on, work together That One is so SCARY!

Mar 2, 2009 - 9:01 am 149. GlenPecker:

As a former R turned Ind turned D, that is where the GOP is going, going, gone. Every single person I know has made the same transition over the past 8 years.

The GOP is like a circus full of clowns. The more they speak the farther one runs from them. They have no ideas, no wisdom, no insight, nothing but mean spirited blather. America doesn’t need bullies. It needs problem solvers. The new plans may not be perfect, they may or may not work, but at least they have done something more than say no, prmote ilks like Ann and Rush and cry about the media.

Maybe when they lose a boatload more seats in 2010 they’ll shut up, listen to the people and begin to regroup. I doubt it, but it could happen?

Mar 2, 2009 - 9:08 am 150. G Alston:

#145 — But the concentration of population in large cities and college towns has a strong secular and liberal tilt in electors and representation.

You noticed college towns are blue. That’s a good first step.

We’re graduating how many college kids a year? A million? Virtually none are social conservatives. Where are the corresponding increases in the religious right? There are none. They are dying off faster than they are replaced, meaning that their numbers are decreasing.

Demographics/mathematics alone say that by the 2016 voting cycle the likely centrist to left voters will have increased by more than the difference bewteen McCain and Obama. It’s suicidal to pretend that this number isn’t what it represents.

Obviously, one glaring problem with letting the religious right dictate party platform is that this is mathematically a rearguard action. It cannot continue and be successful. Another problem is that it’s the college educated who own/control the newer, more modern means of organisation. And the college educated by and large aren’t social conservatives.

From my vantage point, the issue isn’t whether to put a stop to letting the religious right dictate terms, but rather, when the inevitable will happen. I’m all for doing it now and getting it over with so that by the end of Obama’s first term there is a truly viable, rational alternative.

Mar 2, 2009 - 9:15 am 151. view from afar:

Sorry, I mostly ranted what is in , but I sit here in France watching that one and shiver. Then I come here and see the only hope shredding itself!

Mar 2, 2009 - 9:19 am 152. RAH:

The religous right are having larger families that the liberal left. The real issue is education, we need conservative teachers in k-12 and in the collegs to conteract the indoctrination of the liberal socialist left.
More David Horowitz’s for example. The conservatives all went in private business and the liberals from the 1960 onward went into acadamia. We are reaping that harvest now.

Mar 2, 2009 - 9:29 am 153. RAH:

Afar, We are getting more scared day by day and it has been only a month. We know the lessons of Chavez and though that seems a far stretch, the reach of Obama’s ambition to change this country to a European Socialist country is very scary.

The gun rights people were never convinced and the rest are buying guns and ammo as fast as they can. There are many reasons for this whether these buyers feel they may not get a chance later to buy or they fear an increase in crime from the economic downturn. But the spontanoeus rise of tea parties now show that people are recognizing the dangers and these are the normal workers who never protest but have been the silent majority that Nixon used to talk about. They may have been gulled into voting for Obama but that has been changed.

Obama has shown his hand way too early. Amateur I am sure but still dangerous.

However he is voted in and has 4 years to wreak havoc. I certainly hope this election changes conservatives who like to punish by allowing the democrats to be voted in. That is the most self destructive impulse that both fiscal conservatives and social conservatives have.

The defense of the nation conservatives thankfully have not succumb to that impulse.

Mar 2, 2009 - 9:46 am 154. G Alston:

In an earlier post I’d said this:

As such you can be against government involvement in stem cell research for reasons having NOTHING to do with religion, but because of a vocal and rabid religious minority, this view can’t even get a decent airing.

If the republicans aren’t being dictated to by the religious right, it’s a simple matter for republicans to say they’re against stem cell funding because the government ought to not be in that medical research business. There’s no overt religious agenda, just a position on what the role of government in medical research ought to be.

The religious right can vote alongside for their own reasons; nothing prevents this.

What I don’t understand is why everyone seems to assume that not adopting religious agenda as a party platform results in an anti-religious stance. It’s not. Not adopting an overt religious position allows everyone to vote for their own reasons. There is a great deal of overlap. However, *enforcing* the adoption of a religious viewpoint does little more than turn away would-be voters.

“Throwing the religious right under a bus” would be taking an ANTI religion stance. Nobody but nobody is advocating this, and how anyone can construe such is a mystery. The proper role of a political party is to advocate a position that can be agreed upon even if how the agreement is reached is for varying reasons.

Another example is abortion. If the party adopts a stance that the fed government ought not be involved AT ALL, that the issue is up to the various states, this doesn’t turn away moderates and it still allows the religious right to vote as they wish. It doesn’t equate to an anti-religious stance and it also doesn’t throw the dwindling supply of social conservatives under a bus.

Conversely, allowing the social conservatives to continue to dictate position is suicidal in that there are few ways one can vote as one pleases for altogether different reasons.

A party does not need to adopt exclusionary, overtly religious positions to be sympathetic to what the religious think is important.

Religious right: exclusive.
Should be: inclusive.

Which one of these GAINS voters?

Mar 2, 2009 - 9:56 am 155. Gary Ogletree:

Who do you send money to? I was an early donor to SarahPac, unsolicited, because I wanted to encourage her. John McCain and John Cornyn have both sent lame appeals. They gotta be kidding. Michael Steele? I would at least think about it.

Mar 2, 2009 - 10:02 am 156. Ms. Attitude:

The future of the Republican Party rests with us, the non-politicians. What is at the core of conservatism? Reagan stated, “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”

We want our country back, we don’t want “big daddy” government.

We lost this last presidential election because we didn’t do our work. Yes, there is a whole lot of people out there that would be a conservative if they weren’t reliant on the government in some way. Our government has been giving people “fish” instead of teaching them “to fish”. That’s where we need to step it up, volunteer to teach business, self reliance and how a person can overcome and help them do it! Teach them they are not a victim and they will stop being a liberal!

Instead we’ve been acting like liberals by giving and giving without teaching. Church’s should teach people how to make a living while they feed and clothe the down and out.

Mar 2, 2009 - 10:10 am 157. trangbang68:

Perhaps; but the future, I venture to remind you, is unknowable. Conceivably we may be given a Sign. Yet such an event being in I he hand of God, if it is to occur at all, meanwhile some reflective people declare that our culture must be reanimated, by a great effort of will.

More than forty years ago, that remarkable historian Christopher Dawson, in his book Religion and Culture, expressed this hard truth strongly. “The events of the last few years,” Dawson wrote, “portend either the end of human history or a turning point in it. They have warned us in letters of fire that our civilization has been tried in the balance and found wanting-that there is an absolute limit to the progress than can be achieved by the perfectionment of scientific techniques detached from spiritual aims and moral values…. The recovery of moral control and the return to spiritual order have become the indispensable conditions of human survival. But they can be achieved only by a profound change in the spirit of modern civilization. This does not mean a new religion or a new culture but a movement of spiritual reintegration which would restore that vital relation between religion and culture which has existed at every age and on every level of human development.”

Amen to that. The alternative to such a successful endeavor, a conservative endeavor, to reinvigorate our culture would be a series of catastrophic events, the sort predicted by Pitirim Sorokin and other sociologists, which eventually might efface our present sensate culture and bring about a new ideational culture, the character of which we cannot even imagine. Such an ideational culture doubtless would have its religion: but it might be the worship of what has been called the Savage God.

Such ruin has occurred repeatedly in history. When the classical religion ceased to move hearts and minds, two millennia ago, thus the Graeco Roman civilization went down to Avernus. As my little daughter Cecilia put it unprompted, some years ago looking at a picture book of Roman history, “And then, at the end of a long summer’s day, there came Death, Mud, Crud.”

Great civilizations have ended in slime. Outside the ancient city of York, where York Minster stands upon the site of the Roman praetorium, there lies a racecourse known as the Knavesmire. Here in medieval time were buried the knaves-the felons and paupers. When, a few years ago, the racecourse was being enlarged, the diggers came upon a Roman graveyard beneath, or in part abutting upon, the medieval burial ground. This appeared to have been a cemetery of the poor of Romano-British times. Few valuable artifacts were uncovered, but the bones were of interest. Many of the people there interred, in the closing years of Roman power in Britain, had been severely deformed, apparently suffering from rickets and other afflictions-deformed spines and limbs and skulls. Presumably they had suffered lifelong, and died, from extreme malnutrition. At the end, decadence comes down to that, for nearly everybody.

It was at York that the dying Septimius Severus, after his last campaign (against the Scots), was asked by his brutal sons, Geta and Caracalla, “Father, when you are gone, how shall we govern the empire?” The hard old emperor had his laconic reply ready: “Pay the soldiers. The rest do not matter.” There would come a time when the soldiers could not be paid, and then civilization would fall to pieces. The last Roman army in Italy-it is said to have been composed entirely of cavalry- fought in league with the barbarian general Odoacer against Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths, in the year 491; on Odoacer’s defeat, the Roman soldiers drifted home, nevermore to take arms: the end of an old song Only the earlier stages of social decadence-seem liberating to some people; the last act, as Cecilia Kirk perceived, consists of Death, Mud, Crud.

In short, it appears to me that our culture labors in an advanced state of decadence; that what many people mistake for the triumph of our civilization actually consists of powers that are disintegrating our culture; that the vaunted “democratic freedom” of liberal society in reality is servitude to appetites and illusions which attack religious belief; which destroy community through excessive centralization and urbanization; which efface life-giving tradition and custom.

History has many cunning passages, contrieved corridors
And issues, deceives with whispering ambitions,
Guides us by vanities.

-Russell Kirk on conservatism, civilization and religion

Alston,et al- You may get your society build on the shifting sands of commerce and materialism, but you might find yourself gagging on the dust of the sterile empty place it is. We of faith “look for a city whose builder and maker is God”
Incidentally, college students aren’t liberals because they are all pro- death libertines. Their minds have been twisted by secular Marxist elites in academe. Your secular wonderland is no more appealing than the other cat’s. It’s a lot hipper to wear a Che t-shirt and read “On the Road” that doing a gig at the Junior Chamber of Commerce.

Mar 2, 2009 - 10:13 am 158. view from afar:

Um, there’s a line missing: i hadn’t read far enough to see N°105. I really enjoyed the comments of Jack and RAH, although I really think that Jack throws the baby out with bath water…I live in france, but am an American.
Jack, in france they passed a law in 1905 that mandated separation of church and state. But they did not manadate the separation of state and church. RAH, I agree with your points of freedom from governments obligating a Christian person to go against their beliefs. I find that a major problem here, there is no freedom of religion, only freddom from religion, which means everyone can talk about anything except God. I truly believe that it is our Constitution that should be what the right politically speaking should be defending, then, most of these it’s your fault go out the window, because eveyone has the right to think as would like. You and Jack and to a more limited point Chris have shown in your polite rebuttals, and discussion. Thank you.

Mar 2, 2009 - 10:14 am 159. fred:

chris in toronto,

I have never voted to “impose” my beliefs on anyone. I’m pro-choice, but personally not pro-abortion as a means of birth control. There are circumstances, albeit few, where I would support the mother’s choice to not go forward with the pregnancy. I’m in favor of careful reasoning and decision making.

I would like to know what exactly are those “beliefs” that people like me are alleged to impose on society or would have imposed on society.

And those questions are also directed to those who would second chris’ expressed opinion that Christians are an inconvenience to the conservative movement. There is a LOT more to my thinking than just my religious views, and they extend out towards economics and finance, since I am an investment professional, as well as a former Jesuit.

“chris in toronto” - You need to specify how including Christians in the conservative movement in MY country (not Canada)is dysfunctional.

I just want to say that if we are not somewhat in the orbit of appreciating the sanctity of life, then we have very little to stand on as a people. I’m not saying we have to hew to the most rigid of positions, but if you cheapen the appreciation for life everything else pretty much devolves from that point on. Take a look at the failed societies that were or are socialist experiments in Europe and the former Soviet Union. They are demographically dying and are culturally decrepit because the way they live does not respect life. If you respect life, then you will naturally respect freedom because freedom is given to life by the Creator. We did not give ourselves our rights! The State sure didn’t give them to us. And freedom without moral responsibility is absurd.

Mar 2, 2009 - 11:47 am 160. G Alston:

#157 Incidentally, college students aren’t liberals because they are all pro- death libertines. Their minds have been twisted by secular Marxist elites in academe. Your secular wonderland is no more appealing than the other cat’s. It’s a lot hipper to wear a Che t-shirt and read “On the Road” that doing a gig at the Junior Chamber of Commerce.

Noting that college grads aren’t republicans isn’t endorsement, but acknowlegdement of reality. Too few of you can distinguish between these concepts.

I note your use of the word “secular” which is interesting. Nobody actually uses that word in real life outside of the more rabid religious circles. One rarely runs across it otherwise. As a general rule it’s safe to dismiss any post using that word as dogmatic regurgitation of already ossified concepts.

Mar 2, 2009 - 12:03 pm 161. trangbang68:

“Nobody actually uses that word in real life.” Yeah okay, if you say so,no doubt being privy to all conversations in all circles in all places at all times. Whatever.
Young people by nature tend toward the left as their limited experience tempered by political correctness and class envy and anti-Americanism make fertile ground for demogogues like Obama.
You can dismiss my posts all you want. I won’t lose any sleep over it, but mark it down: a GOP without Christians will repeat the GOP permanent minority when Bob Michel was House Minority Leader , a talentless group of go along to get along hacks . Personally I’m about done with the Republican party after voting straight GOP for the last 30 years. In the words of Quicksilver Messenger Service, “I feel like a stranger in the land where I was born”

Mar 2, 2009 - 12:58 pm 162. deguello:

The purpose of the GOP is to suppress effective conservative opposition to globalization,and the creation of an internationalist corporate state.This involves destroying the constitution by supressing free speech(Rush), remember: the cretin Bush enthusiastically signed a fairness doctrine bill only liberals wanted;de-industrializing the nation,and turning the country over to a”bipartisan”, functionally leftist,and authoritarian, plutocracy.The only way to effectively combat the imminnent destruction of our constitutional freedoms, is to create a militant,third party,fanaticlly committed to the constitution,and not afraid to use every leftist tactic employed since the 60’s,including non violent civil disobedience,disruptive protests, ,tax resistance, etc. Take to the streets people, or live in O hole’s version of Venezuela!Forget the GOP:they are collaborationist scum!

Mar 2, 2009 - 12:59 pm 163. Steve P.:

Yeah, it’s funny that “secular” has become a conservative code word for “heathen”. Of course, these are the same people who believe that 52% of the population are Socialists, so go figure.

Mar 2, 2009 - 1:14 pm 164. spacelawd:

There would be NO Conservatives in government if not for the GOP. We’ll either hang together or hang separately. Enough division. Let’s focus on multiplication.

Mar 2, 2009 - 1:39 pm 165. typos_R_us:

The guy who can’t remember that urls are not ‘numbers’

Actually, an URL IS a number, at least to the computer. A binary number where the rubber meets the road.

Mar 2, 2009 - 2:02 pm 166. chris in Toronto:

RAH #144: Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I agree with almost everything you said. You nailed it: the government is using force against private entities to operate against their beliefs. This is true and I agree that it is wrong.

My quibble is with the notion (if you’ll pardon the expression) of “traditional customs and beliefs”. I have no issue with anyone holding their own beliefs and acting on them to form customs and traditions. Furthermore, I am happy to witness and sometimes join in with peoples’ celebration of their faith, what ever it is. I fully support ANY church in its right to refuse to perform gay marriage, if it goes against its doctrine. I’m a little less sure of BSA excluding gays as leaders, but I’m open to the idea that it goes against doctrine (basically, I don’t know and have no fully thought-out opinion so I’m being non-committal lest Fred jump down my throat). Likewise, I have real issue with government forcing the men’s clubs of a previous generation to admit women. (Ironically, “women’s clubs” are not forced to accept men. Double standard? Just venting.)

I have issue with any beliefs being mandated as the correct beliefs. Even more, I have a problem with people using illogical arguments to support their beliefs and their ideas of what they construe as absolute morals, whatever those beliefs may be. Especially irksome to me is the argument that morality springs from a presumed god figure and that in the absence of the presumed god there can be no morality.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:27 pm 167. trangbang68:

Stevie,
secular definition

secu·lar (sek′yə lər)

adjective

1.
1. of or relating to worldly things as distinguished from things relating to church and religion; not sacred or religious; temporal; worldly secular music, secular schools

It’s not a code word for anything. It is what it is.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:35 pm 168. chris in Toronto:

Fred (#159): For some reason you think I am attacking you. I am not. Neither am I attacking Christian or Jews or Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists or anybody. I frankly don’t understand why you are reacting in such a knee-jerkingly defensive way. I don’t know you and I didn’t address my comment to you. Or to “people like you”. My comments were addressed specifically to RAH, Jack and Laura who were having a rational discussion about ideas, so I thought I’d contribute an idea or two. Apparently you find my ideas offensive in some manner and feel you must vituperate and attack me.

I have never been of the “expressed opinion” that “Christians are an inconvenience” to the conservative movement. Nor have I opined that including Christians is dysfunctional. It is extremely interesting that these are YOUR words, though. And as to YOUR country, just let me say this: I envy you and all Americans for the once-great country you have inherited and appear to be on the brink of losing. I comment on these topics on these sites because I yearn for America’s greatness to return. I do not want America to become like Canada. In fact, I have worked for the reverse in our political system. Maybe, just maybe, the attitude you’re manifesting in my direction is part of the problem?

I’m glad you’re such an open minded Christian that you can go against the tenets of your faith and espouse a “pro-choice” viewpoint. That must have been difficult conclusion to come to given your Jesuit training. It would be enlightening to hear how you arrived at that belief. For the record, I never accused you of not having more to your thinking than your religious views. In fact, I have never addressed any comment to you and that you somehow feel singled out by my argument speaks volumes.

I completely agree with you about respecting life. We are on common ground, there. My respect for life, however, does not come from any belief in an assumed god. It comes from the very fact of our existence. We are alive and must live. I’m not so sure that there is linkage between atheism in the Soviet Union (or the secular humanism in Western Europe) which you falsely claim is a disregard for life and their decrepit societies and declining birth rates. Ask yourself, would you bring children into a world where he or she would become a slave to the state or where there was no hope for your child to have a better life? Finally, your assertion that a respect for life leads to a natural respect for freedom is bogus: look to the Catholic church, that renowned respecter of life and its history of domination. I, obviously, disagree with you on this.

When it comes to rights my position is that we are born with them and they are called “human rights”. I agree that they do not come from the state.

Mar 2, 2009 - 4:08 pm 169. Jack:

Well, since I started some of this, I want to point out that I never said “get rid of Christians” which is where some of the posts are drifting. What I said was that those furthest to the right have a lot of money, have very strong opinions on social changes, and are generally no the majority opinion. That they are so vocal (more so than the fiscal cons’s) puts them in a position where they are viewed as “leading” the party and they drown out the other message.

As a democrat, when I look across the aisle, I see Romney who was probably the best fiscal con running last time, but I have to ask myself…if I vote for him, will he feel beholden to the religious right and end up loading the rest of the Supreme Court with people that don’t share my views (and cause a 20-30 year imbalance on the court)? Americans are largely in the center (socially), and both parties would do well to move in that direction. More gets done and it gets done much faster, as the social issues evoke a very emotional response which grinds the wheels of progress to a halt. And for the right who say they want small government and want them to stay out of our lives, I’d think these goals would be consistent with that.

Jack

Mar 2, 2009 - 4:47 pm 170. chris in Toronto:

Thank you, Jack #169. The emotionalism you cite was, I think, exemplified by fred #159.

Mar 2, 2009 - 4:52 pm 171. RAH:

Nice response Jack, though some of your presumptions I believe are wrong. I do not have the facts but many of the most faithful are not the rich and powerful in GOP or conservative, some are of course. I maybe wrong. But I don’t think you realize how the religious right fears and dislikes Romney’s Mormon religion and his heritage and they fear it. This is the classic religious doctrine fight that has been fought against Catholics by Protestants in past century and has mostly died out.

It was most evident on how Huckabee attacks Romney. Huckabee is a conservative in many issues and a populist on others. Romney is a classic capitalist and a fiscal conservative but like many businessmen will do what works. His conservatism is the conservatism of his traditional upbringing and the Mormon precepts that he is required to do his duty so he has to abide by the constitution rules that he operates under. Decency is his part of that upbringing. He was pro choice and changed his mind, but is not an advocate for rolling back abortion availability, so he will not impose that. Mormons in secular society are very leery of proselytizing. They do that requirement early and do not usually try it again. Mormons are very successful in business and they do not wish to bring the wrath down on their heads as has happened in past history. Similar attitude that Palin has in that she is strong on her faith but will do her duty to the office she occupies and despite her own beliefs will not impose her faith on others. She is very libertarian that way.

Both of them have strong ethos of duty and the idea that they are servants not rulers and they have a fiduciary duty to be prudent with the taxpayer’s money and liberties. That is now considered conservative. Funny how in pre 1960’s that was considered the normal attitude of politicians regardless of party. Many of the liberals who are fiscal conservative are more classically liberal with a strong affinity to promote the freedom and right of the individual not the collective. That was a theme during CPAC and Rush’s address. However they still succumb to the idea that we must do charity with others money. Personally if they feel the duty to be charitable to help the poor and desperate, laudable aims as they are, then spend their own money not mine. I will choose my own charitable giving. Private charities are generally more economically efficient with out the excessive overhead that the government requires. America is the largest charitable giving country from private means to disasters and the world. The Tsunami and Katrina is just a couple of examples.

I though Romney would have been a better candidate, he is incredibly smart has executive ability in government and private business, understand the markets and bank. That is something that Obama does not understand economics or he would not push do hard to spend lavishly on items in his stimulus that will not invigorate the economy or get businesses to start to hire new workers. Rather many are choosing to downsize in response to Obama’s initiatives.

Moderates chose McCain and he was a tired candidate though is fiscally prudent, never understood that his McCain Feingold was a sin against the first amendment. He does not understand economics he just knows that most institutions should be in private hands rather than government bureaucracies. McCain’s message was mostly to support the troops and win in Iraq and he was right about needed a change in 2006- 2007 and increase the numbers. But Bush had had decided to change tactics and Bush was strongly trying to finish the war aims before the election. Bush succeeded in that so McCain’s issues were of the past and not the future.

The presidential election is over and now we most focus on 2010 and get the best candidates to contest House and Senate seats. The GOP should recruit and support good candidate that match their districts and not a single one type fits all.

The current issues are the economic downturn both nationally and globally. Ukraine had a bank run today. Obama’s solution is to spend 4 times what Bush spent in eight years and the money will mostly be wasted and will fail to succeed and our children and grandchildren’s future is mortgaged to this folly.

For those who think government run health care, think again that what the government provides it will decide on whether you need it or whether they will pay or ration it. I want to maintain my control over my wealth, heath and property.

So again the fiscal conservatives should join the GOP to fight against this socialism that is being crammed down our throats and not be diverted that some of you allies are also religious. This is joining a common cause not agreeing with all of your allies’ positions.

We need to stay together or we will all hang separately.

Mar 2, 2009 - 6:22 pm 172. G Alston:

#167 It’s not a code word for anything. It is what it is.

Just a guess, but I’ll bet Steve can read a dictionary. What he’s saying is that the colloquial bandying about of the term by wingnuts at PJM etc. usually comes off as a claim of moral superiority on the part of the wielder.

e.g. the wingnut who mentioned “secular wonderland” certainly intended to convey an image of widespread amorality and adopted a sneering, derisive tone. It’s thus clear that those who are morally superior are also arrogant.

Im sum Steve pretty much nailed it. Your attempt at obfuscation is hence rejected.

Mar 2, 2009 - 6:51 pm 173. Dlanor:

International Commie equals Modern Dem.

Border Surrendering Globalist equals Modern Repub.

Internationalist vs. Globalist — In respect of Bigtime Government, what’s the principled difference?

Commies infiltrate Dems; Bluebloods infiltrate Repubs.

Any way you look at it, its Bigtime Government and Absolute Corruption.

When Conservatives made common cause with Globe-Minded, Border-Erasing, Blueblood-Repubs, they made common cause with the Devil.

Blueblood connivers after corporate welfare are just the other side of the same coin of government dependency.

Bluebloods don’t want to get mean with Obama because they are not necessarily opposed to the notion of using government to leverage abuse.

For small businesses AND ALL WHO DEPEND UPON THEM, politics should be more about freedom from government control than about short term bailouts or salvation by government.

“CNN and the Bluebloods” say Limbaugh’s “meanness” threatens to make Repubs a perpetual minority party.

I doubt it. I suspect many Dems of moderate good sense see the moral hazard from governmental welfare, both of the Lib kind and of the Blueblood kind.

We need to quit playing “coin flip” with Dem-delinquents and Repub-derelicts and instead unite American Conservatives to get mean enough to just take the coin away from the connivers now running government.

If we rout Dems only to install a new round like Team Bush, we will have gained nothing.

Mar 2, 2009 - 7:16 pm 174. John A. Scott:

Patrick, I note your inclusion of Newt in the Rogue’s Gallery, and I concur. Seemingly, a conservative while in the minority, he seemed to fall in love with his own image on network TV after becoming Speaker. Thereafter it was just a question of whether it was $90,000 or $120,00 of income which made your property subject to confiscation by the Looters.

(I heard about you from Hershblogger at The Other Club.)

Mar 2, 2009 - 7:22 pm 175. trangbang68:

Jack if you are referring to Christians as being on the far right and having lots of money, your demographics are way off. If there’s a true grassroots movement in the Republican party ,its made of religious people and other social conservatives. These are vastly lower middle class and working class people with families. They are not only prolife, but also feel government encroachment against homeschooling and parental autonomy vs. state intrusion. They have allies amongst Black middle class Christians who in voting in mass for Democrats are often voting against their own values. Perhaps a coalition of social conservatives including Hispanic families and Asian immigrants can drain enough people from both parties to mount a serious third party challenge.
Your fear of Romney’s potential judicial picks says more about you than him. Roberts and Alioto are far closer to the center than Ginsberg and Breyer who are extra-Constitutional radicals. I shudder to think who Obama will pick and Reid and company will approve.

Mar 2, 2009 - 7:56 pm 176. dealemslim:

for all you idiot liberal and or democrats out there, the can’t remember personal info box is for you. you know, when the sh1t hits the fan and you deny credit.

Mar 2, 2009 - 10:01 pm 177. Bob Campbell:

Are all of you crazy? 176 posts and everyone is just bitching and moaning about the GOP or the Republicans or Rush — this author just stokes the fires and all the pundits come running to tell us “what’s wrong with America” on our side of the fence.

Personally, I agree with Rush. This is America and we are all in this together. There is nothing wrong with the right-wing Christian. There is plenty of room here for the Independent conservative to join the cause. The real ememy is socialism and the Democrats.

We are doing exactly what the liberals want us to do, agrue amongst ourselves. They are a lot smarter than us in that respect. Hell they even let the Communist Party slip in the back door with all their glory.

We on the other hand are too busy pointing fingers — quit it! That is how the Democrats work to create chaos among us. We are better than that! Are we smart enough to quit taking the bait?

Mar 3, 2009 - 2:35 am 178. view from afar:

RAH, again thank you! N°171 is what I was on (and on and on) about…The French run on sentences are rubbing off on me…
176 ???????????????????

173 dlanor…who exactly is a blueblood? I’ve got ancestors that were bluebloods, and now we’re just normal people, although I could argue blueblood (why i would want to? oooh unless I’d inherit something to reinvest in my farm…which needs lots of help) and fiscal conservatives in the truest meaning of the word. Bluebloods to me means socialism, because the only difference between a socialist and a royalist is the the socialist earns the right to superior treatment because of his education, thus “intelligence” and the royalist it’s the blood lines.
I just think that some fiscal conservatives are hiding in conservatism because they are too cheap to spend ANY money( which also gives the conservative movement a bad name). True capitalism requires spending (ie investing) enough money to keep the economy going, and oh I agree that the government is hands off the economy, as they tend to mess things up rather than fix things.

Mar 3, 2009 - 6:52 am 179. eburchelli:

Aren’t the social conservatives (most likely the far right fundamentalists) just as much at fault as liberals in making social problems part of government, in order to have laws passed to further their agendas?

The First Amendment has a purpose beyond freedom. Isn’t it meant to hold individuals accountable for their actions? Where does the government fit into that? The purpose of freedom is to relinquish the chains that bind us to controls that government has always wanted to place on its citizenry.

Yet we’ve allowed the government to dictate our freedoms according to nearly every cockamamie idea that has come along. Government is just one branch on the tree of life. Not the root. Humans are the root and our lives consist of many branches. We’ve allowed those branches to intermingle and overlap.

So now we have government in religion, religion in politics, politics and religion in science and medicine. The list goes on and on. Separation isn’t only for church and state, it’s for the entire spectrum of life. It might be easier to mix it altogether but it blurs into a smeary mess and eventually destroys the roots.

Mar 3, 2009 - 7:54 am 180. JD:

We need to have a simple message adhered to and espoused by all Republicans.

The Democrats destroyed us over the last six years, in large part because nearly every time any one of them was on the radio, tv, internet, etc, they all repeated one or two mantras:

1) Bush’s war is a failure
2) Bush’s economy is a failure

The electorate, being bludgeoned constantly with this message, soon fell into line.

We need to do the same - paint with a broad brush.

http://trackacrat.com/

Mar 3, 2009 - 8:07 am 181. Chuck Pelto:

TO: vivo
RE: Actually…

“Pelto is Mensa?? Wow! He must have an IQ of 10,000″ — vivo

….a bit less than that. But probably more than what you have.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Show me your Mensa membership ID.....]

Mar 3, 2009 - 11:22 am 182. Shef Rogers:

to: Chuck Pelto
re: Boasting

Chuck, if you’re going to boast about your IQ, please don’t write sentences like “Look whose [sic] talking.”

You sure do have plenty of spare time, though, don’t you?

Mar 3, 2009 - 11:52 am 183. Bill Bailey:

To say that CPAC was an ‘epic fail’ because it did not do what you wanted it to do is ridiculous.

I agree that Wilders should have been given a more prominent role at CPAC but just because he wasn’t doesn’t mean the conference was a waste of time.

Grow up.

Mar 3, 2009 - 12:19 pm 184. Blackwell:

Pelto, please go back to your Colorado tomato plants and Patton re-runs. We can’t convert anyone to the New GOP with you here scaring them.

Mar 3, 2009 - 4:17 pm 185. Jack:

#181 Chuck - Read my 106 post….you still have to show a brain, your points haven’t yet (my guess is I’ll have antagonized you enough to look…even if you won’t admit it). I’ll probably miss your response, but since you’ve been called out on it so much (by so many people including myself several times), for the folks that will continue reading will probably want to hear your response (knowing you). Before you scroll around, it’s the whole thing about you saying how smart you are and how much you love the country more than us…well fill in the rest of the blanks smart guy! Oh, and tell me how much more patriotic than I am…not that you know me (I’m sure you’ll call me names and question my manhood/humanity/etc). But you’ll call me out as your inability to label me as part of your “smartitudeness” as you’d likely call it.

Anyway, you’ve done what I just did which was to presume the ultimate knowledge on all issues. The difference is that I know that it isn’t about being smart, it’s about being persuasive. Yes, you’ll want to call me dumb or un-persuasive, but that’s ok. You are just blathering, and some of the rest of us want to fix things…you just want your way. I’m sure you will now want to say that your way is the “right” way or the “only” way, but then you’d be showing how you have lost and how you will continue to lose if you continue to be “my way or the highway.”

The great part, is that you’ll ignore me, or come up with some pedantic non-answer to me, or you’ll write a non-sensical essay. Either way, the root of it will be “you are entirely wrong and I am entirely right” which will prove my point…(here, I’ll help you)…unless you tell me how you want the best for our country even if that means talking to social dems…you have crossed us all out as socialists or communists or worse, but that mentality has continued to us social liberals but fiscal conservatives. So what do you want…so called “communists” or “fiscal conservatives” like me? Pick your response carefully!!

I might not read it tho…you’ve been pretty fixed on one-liners that shows that you don’t care for us, so if you don’t care for our opinion, you might get the same…

Jack

Mar 3, 2009 - 8:54 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: