Conservatives used to care about community. What happened?

[Buford]

If the Washington Post labels you a "Solid Conservative", you can bet your sweet bippy that "Solid Conservative" is a politician who doesn't stand on core convictions.

And are usually confused RINO's...now if they call you raqdical, extreme 'rightwing'? Thos are the people Conservatives should seriously look upon.

Right. Why does the leftist media love Megan McCain? Because she's an airhead who claims to be a republican.

 

[mudwhistle]

If the Washington Post labels you a "Solid Conservative", you can bet your sweet bippy that "Solid Conservative" is a politician who doesn't stand on core convictions.

And are usually confused RINO's...now if they call you raqdical, extreme 'rightwing'? Thos are the people Conservatives should seriously look upon.

Right. Why does the leftist media love Megan McCain? Because she's an airhead who claims to be a republican.

A poor reflection on her father.

Reagan had one like that too.

 

[The T]

If the Washington Post labels you a "Solid Conservative", you can bet your sweet bippy that "Solid Conservative" is a politician who doesn't stand on core convictions.

And are usually confused RINO's...now if they call you raqdical, extreme 'rightwing'? Thos are the people Conservatives should seriously look upon.

Right. Why does the leftist media love Megan McCain? Because she's an airhead who claims to be a republican.

Indeed. Conservative doesn't really mean ANY party..but rather First principles.

 

[The T]

And are usually confused RINO's...now if they call you raqdical, extreme 'rightwing'? Thos are the people Conservatives should seriously look upon.

Right. Why does the leftist media love Megan McCain? Because she's an airhead who claims to be a republican.

A poor reflection on her father.

Reagan had one like that too.

Ron Jr?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Right. Why does the leftist media love Megan McCain? Because she's an airhead who claims to be a republican.

A poor reflection on her father.

Reagan had one like that too.

Ron Jr?

I think he meant Patti Davis... you know, the one that posed nude. Not Prancing Ronny, Jr.

 

[Buford]

And are usually confused RINO's...now if they call you raqdical, extreme 'rightwing'? Thos are the people Conservatives should seriously look upon.

Right. Why does the leftist media love Megan McCain? Because she's an airhead who claims to be a republican.

A poor reflection on her father.

Reagan had one like that too.

There are airheads in every family.

 

[The T]

A poor reflection on her father.

Reagan had one like that too.

Ron Jr?

I think he meant Patti DAvis... you know, the one that posed nude. Not Prancing Ronny, Jr.

Silly me...

 

[Harry Dresden]

I'll stand by what I posted.

Conservativism is part and parcel with "self".

And that's it.

christ Sallow....i used to think you were a few steps up from dipshits like Dean......i guess i am wrong.....you wanna see some selfish Democrats....come to California.....out here its not a problem to them until it affects them personally.....then its a problem......

I use to live in California.

Check the threads..I think people (Liberal or Conservative), voting on whether to tax themselves..or cut services..is a bad idea.

Because they will cut taxes..and lop on services every single time.

yea yea......everyone lived in Ca......for what ?.....a year?.....2-3 years?.....and then everyone thinks they know all about what goes on here......like i said Sallow.....Democrats dont give a shit about anyone's problems until.....it affects them personally....then its a problem....Democratism is also part and parcel with "self"......and thats it.......

 

[idb]

By E.J. Dionne Jr.

To secure his standing as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney has disowned every sliver of moderation in his record. He’s moved to the right on tax cuts and twisted himself into a pretzel over the health-care plan he championed in Massachusetts — because conservatives are no longer allowed to acknowledge that government can improve citizens’ lives.

Romney is simply following the lead of Republicans in Congress who have abandoned American conservatism’s most attractive features: prudence, caution and a sense that change should be gradual. But most important, conservatism used to care passionately about fostering community, and it no longer does. This commitment now lies buried beneath slogans that lift up the heroic and disconnected individual — or the “job creator” — with little concern for the rest.

Today’s conservatism is about low taxes, fewer regulations, less government — and little else. Anyone who dares to define it differently faces political extinction. Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana was considered a solid conservative, until conservatives decided that anyone who seeks bipartisan consensus on anything is a sellout. Even Orrin Hatch of Utah, one of the longest-serving Republican senators, is facing a primary challenge. His flaw? He occasionally collaborated with the late Democratic senator Edward M. Kennedy on providing health insurance coverage for children and encouraging young Americans to join national service programs. In the eyes of Hatch’s onetime allies, these commitments make him an ultra-leftist.

I have long admired the conservative tradition and for years have written about it with great respect. But the new conservatism, for all its claims of representing the values that inspired our founders, breaks with the country’s deepest traditions. The United States rose to power and wealth on the basis of a balance between the public and the private spheres, between government and the marketplace, and between our love of individualism and our quest for community.

Conservatism today places individualism on a pedestal, but it originally arose in revolt against that idea. As the conservative thinker Robert A. Nisbet noted in 1968, conservatism represented a “reaction to the individualistic Enlightenment.” It “stressed the small social groups of society” and regarded such clusters of humanity — not individuals — as society’s “irreducible unit.”

True, conservatives continue to preach the importance of the family as a communal unit. But for Nisbet and many other conservatives of his era, the movement was about something larger. It “insisted upon the primacy of society to the individual — historically, logically and ethically.”

Because of the depth of our commitment to individual liberty, Americans never fully adopted this all-encompassing view of community. But we never fully rejected it, either. And therein lies the genius of the American tradition: We were born with a divided political heart. From the beginning, we have been torn by a deep but healthy tension between individualism and community. We are communitarian individualists or individualistic communitarians, but we have rarely been comfortable with being all one or all the other.

Much More: Conservatives used to care about community. What happened? - The Washington Post

This is the biggest load of laughable crap, I've seen in a long time.

It was written by a liberal (that's OBVIOUS) and AS USUAL, the liberal now tells what what HE THINKS conservatism used to be and SHOULD BE NOW.

But notice what he thinks it so "terrible." INDIVIDUALITY! Can't have that. It should be a "balance" between the collective!

Now Rush talks about this all the time. How liberals see compromise. They never see it as liberals compromising THEIR beliefs with conservatism. Oh no!

No, conservatives MUST compromise THEIR BELIEFS.

This is just more of the same, and as usual, with the paid, er I mean volunteer op, it's just another cut and paste opinion piece that has no facts and no value.

Yawn! Move on people. Nothing to see here. HO HUM!

Pardon?

Lugar said in his Tuesday night concession speech that he hoped Mourdock will win in November, but released a 1,425-word statement criticizing the Tea Party-backed candidate for his "unrelenting partisan mindset."

Speaking on "FOX & Friends" Wednesday, Mourdock addressed Lugar's criticism and said he was not opposed to working with Democrats -- so long as they come around to Republican positions.

"I have a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view," Mourdock said on FOX.

Mourdock fires back at Lugar as many lament loss of long-time senator - New York News | New York Breaking News | NYC Headlines

 

[teapartysamurai]

This is the biggest load of laughable crap, I've seen in a long time.

It was written by a liberal (that's OBVIOUS) and AS USUAL, the liberal now tells what what HE THINKS conservatism used to be and SHOULD BE NOW.

But notice what he thinks it so "terrible." INDIVIDUALITY! Can't have that. It should be a "balance" between the collective!

Now Rush talks about this all the time. How liberals see compromise. They never see it as liberals compromising THEIR beliefs with conservatism. Oh no!

No, conservatives MUST compromise THEIR BELIEFS.

This is just more of the same, and as usual, with the paid, er I mean volunteer op, it's just another cut and paste opinion piece that has no facts and no value.

Yawn! Move on people. Nothing to see here. HO HUM!

I agree with you.
Perfect example is Senator Harry Reid, very liberal.
He is sitting on 30 plus house bills because he says they are all tea party ideas and that the tea party is too radical, and he will not allow the bills to be passed.
There is 23% of the nation who say they are tea party. That means other Americans had to vote for them too, in order to have gotten elected in 2011.
Reid is holding the bills up, because he won't allow compromise or even discussions on the House bills,based on what he thinks is radicals rather the people's votes.
How insane is that? He thinks that only tea party people, voted in the newest 87 House of representatives.

And what is the TEA Party? Citizens from acroos the political spectrum that have had it with Government intrusion and government's spending us poor with no accountability.

In short? Dingy Harry Reid is against the citizens AND responsibility .

And what's hilarious is AS USUAL, the left shot themselves in the foot, AGAIN!

They did their best to try and malign the Tea Party claiming "racism" and "violence."

Then what do they do? THEY SUPPORT OWS, OF COURSE, which really IS racist and violent.

How stupid can the left be?

And then they wonder why Obama is in trouble?

 

[teapartysamurai]

I agree with you.
Perfect example is Senator Harry Reid, very liberal.
He is sitting on 30 plus house bills because he says they are all tea party ideas and that the tea party is too radical, and he will not allow the bills to be passed.
There is 23% of the nation who say they are tea party. That means other Americans had to vote for them too, in order to have gotten elected in 2011.
Reid is holding the bills up, because he won't allow compromise or even discussions on the House bills,based on what he thinks is radicals rather the people's votes.
How insane is that? He thinks that only tea party people, voted in the newest 87 House of representatives.

And what is the TEA Party? Citizens from acroos the political spectrum that have had it with Government intrusion and government's spending us poor with no accountability.

In short? Dingy Harry Reid is against the citizens AND responsibility .

The tea party started because of a mortgage bailout that never happened.

They are just fine and dandy with banks seizing people's homes..as long as it ain't theirs..

Don't you love how the left totally make up their own fantasies to justify their hatred for something?

They never have any evidence to back that up, they just run with it, because it tells them what they want to believe.

Just nod your head and walk off. It's too funny to bother arguing.

 

[teapartysamurai]

And what is the TEA Party? Citizens from acroos the political spectrum that have had it with Government intrusion and government's spending us poor with no accountability.

In short? Dingy Harry Reid is against the citizens AND responsibility .

The tea party started because of a mortgage bailout that never happened.

They are just fine and dandy with banks seizing people's homes..as long as it ain't theirs..

Tea Party started because of the Health Care Bill

That was part of the reason, yes.

 

[The T]

And what is the TEA Party? Citizens from acroos the political spectrum that have had it with Government intrusion and government's spending us poor with no accountability.

In short? Dingy Harry Reid is against the citizens AND responsibility .

The tea party started because of a mortgage bailout that never happened.

They are just fine and dandy with banks seizing people's homes..as long as it ain't theirs..

Don't you love how the left totally make up their own fantasies to justify their hatred for something?

They never have any evidence to back that up, they just run with it, because it tells them what they want to believe.

Just nod your head and walk off. It's too funny to bother arguing.

In his case? He has to justify his existence and raping the unemployment line.

 

[whitehall]

Didn't you read the article coyote? EJ Dionne answered it for you. "The genius of American tradition". There is a big difference between a sleaze bag dope smoking community organizer who waves $20 bills for votes for crooked Chicago politicians and people who care about community.

 

[Stephanie]

People, I'm just as guilty for falling for this thread..but the op of these types of threads is nothing but a stinking troll..

they should be put on IGNORE