Who Owns 'Conservatism'?...

paulitician

Platinum Member
Oct 7, 2011
38,401
4,162
1,130
Good article by Jack Hunter.


“We need more conservative Texans in Washington, D.C., including my friend David Dewhurst,” Texas Governor Rick Perry said during his state’s Republican convention last week. Perry’s comments were met with loud boos from the mostly conservative audience.

Dewhurst, the lieutenant governor of Texas, is running for U.S. Senate. He is being challenged in a run-off by former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz, who many Texans see as the more conservative candidate.

But Perry does have a point. Just a few short years ago, say in 2005 or 2006, a fairly moderate Republican like Dewhurst could’ve successfully passed himself off as a conservative with most Republican voters. During that time, conservatism was not measured by one’s limited-government record or fidelity to the Constitution, but simply by whether someone was on board with George W. Bush’s policies. Some Republicans still consider Bush a conservative, even though Bush was the most big-government president in our history until President Obama.

I belong to that segment of diehard constitutionalists, libertarians and others who’ve been anxious to get rid of these phony big-government conservatives and replace them with bona fide limited-government advocates like Cruz. For some of my more radically libertarian friends, even Cruz isn’t good enough. I strongly disagree, but certainly prefer that sentiment to Republicans trying to convince me that John Boehner is a conservative.

The left’s contention that the Republican Party has been “hijacked” by a bunch of limited-government “extremists” is partly — and thankfully — true. A Daily Caller story in June titled “Obama to portray Romney as a libertarian extremist” quoted the president saying: “We [Democrats] haven’t moved that much. … What’s changed is the Republican Party.” Obama is right. The Democratic Party’s agenda since the New Deal has been to make America as socialist as possible. During the Bush administration, the Republican Party doubled the size of the Department of Education through No Child Left Behind, created the largest new entitlement program since President Lyndon Johnson with Medicare Plan D and increased the debt by trillions of dollars. For most of the last decade, the Republican Party was as socialist as the Democratic Party...

Read more: Who owns conservatism? | The Daily Caller
 
at this point its fools who own it.


take it back to Ikes days and you may deserve some respect......right now you deserve none
 
at this point its fools who own it.


take it back to Ikes days and you may deserve some respect......right now you deserve none

No offense, but i'm pretty sure you're not someone Conservatives would feel comfortable taking advice from. Thanks anyway though. Glad you care.
 
at this point its fools who own it.


take it back to Ikes days and you may deserve some respect......right now you deserve none
At this point it's fools who own the Democrat Party (Along with G.E.) Take it back to the days of JFK you may deserve some respect. Right now you deserve none.
 
No one owns it as long as the people who make mistakes are labeled socialists and cast overboard. I do not know why anyone would attempt to be a conservative leader, you guys turn on your own at the slightest provocation and conveniently forget you ever supported them. Also, if GWB was not a conservative then Reagan was not a conservative for the same reasons. I guess the only real conservatives are ones who have never led or had the opportunity to fuck up.
 
I belong to that segment of diehard constitutionalists, libertarians and others who’ve been anxious to get rid of these phony big-government conservatives and replace them with bona fide limited-government advocates like Cruz.

The problem with these so-called ‘constitutionalists, libertarians’ is their inconsistent application of ‘limited government,’ where such ‘limitations’ apply only to the Federal government yet state governments and local jurisdictions are allowed to violate their citizens’ civil liberties with impunity.
 
I belong to that segment of diehard constitutionalists, libertarians and others who’ve been anxious to get rid of these phony big-government conservatives and replace them with bona fide limited-government advocates like Cruz.

The problem with these so-called ‘constitutionalists, libertarians’ is their inconsistent application of ‘limited government,’ where such ‘limitations’ apply only to the Federal government yet state governments and local jurisdictions are allowed to violate their citizens’ civil liberties with impunity.

Well, you gotta start somewhere...
 
I belong to that segment of diehard constitutionalists, libertarians and others who’ve been anxious to get rid of these phony big-government conservatives and replace them with bona fide limited-government advocates like Cruz.

The problem with these so-called ‘constitutionalists, libertarians’ is their inconsistent application of ‘limited government,’ where such ‘limitations’ apply only to the Federal government yet state governments and local jurisdictions are allowed to violate their citizens’ civil liberties with impunity.

State & Local Totalitarianism is a substantial problem in this country as well. Violating Citizens' civil liberties is not a Federal Government issue exclusively. But that's just how i feel anyway.
 
Good article by Jack Hunter.


“We need more conservative Texans in Washington, D.C., including my friend David Dewhurst,” Texas Governor Rick Perry said during his state’s Republican convention last week. Perry’s comments were met with loud boos from the mostly conservative audience.

Dewhurst, the lieutenant governor of Texas, is running for U.S. Senate. He is being challenged in a run-off by former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz, who many Texans see as the more conservative candidate.

But Perry does have a point. Just a few short years ago, say in 2005 or 2006, a fairly moderate Republican like Dewhurst could’ve successfully passed himself off as a conservative with most Republican voters. During that time, conservatism was not measured by one’s limited-government record or fidelity to the Constitution, but simply by whether someone was on board with George W. Bush’s policies. Some Republicans still consider Bush a conservative, even though Bush was the most big-government president in our history until President Obama.

I belong to that segment of diehard constitutionalists, libertarians and others who’ve been anxious to get rid of these phony big-government conservatives and replace them with bona fide limited-government advocates like Cruz. For some of my more radically libertarian friends, even Cruz isn’t good enough. I strongly disagree, but certainly prefer that sentiment to Republicans trying to convince me that John Boehner is a conservative.

The left’s contention that the Republican Party has been “hijacked” by a bunch of limited-government “extremists” is partly — and thankfully — true. A Daily Caller story in June titled “Obama to portray Romney as a libertarian extremist” quoted the president saying: “We [Democrats] haven’t moved that much. … What’s changed is the Republican Party.” Obama is right. The Democratic Party’s agenda since the New Deal has been to make America as socialist as possible. During the Bush administration, the Republican Party doubled the size of the Department of Education through No Child Left Behind, created the largest new entitlement program since President Lyndon Johnson with Medicare Plan D and increased the debt by trillions of dollars. For most of the last decade, the Republican Party was as socialist as the Democratic Party...

Read more: Who owns conservatism? | The Daily Caller

I don't feel that's entirely the case. I see Republicans that have hijacked the Libertarian-inspired Tea Party and have used it to gain the votes Republicans had lost during the end of the last decade.

44 of the 52 members of the Tea Party Caucus voted to extend the Patriot Act, something any real Libertarian would absolutely despise.
 
heres an idea.

accept sceince and facts for about five years and rebuild your party on the solid ground of reality instead of libertarian myths and CEO bidding.

then you can have enough real solid information to base your ideas on for a change.
 
heres an idea.

accept sceince and facts for about five years and rebuild your party on the solid ground of reality instead of libertarian myths and CEO bidding.

then you can have enough real solid information to base your ideas on for a change.

Yeah, like you base any of your 'ideas' on real solid information. :cuckoo:
 

Forum List

Back
Top